Please can someone explain to me the point of the Lib Dems: so loony left they make Labour look like Thatcherites; so eco-bonkers they make the Green party look like the Tea Party; yet bizarrely currently engaged in pervy, masochistic coition with a Conservative-dominated Coalition.
Something’s got to give hasn’t it? And whoops, it just has!
From the Barnsley Central by-election come tidings so joyous it’s like winning the Lottery on the same day that Al Qaeda renounces violence, England win the World Cup simultaneously in every sport ever invented, and in your home laboratory you finally discover the elixir of eternal youth: the Lib Dems the totally useless, impossible-to-justify-on-any-grounds-whatsoever Lib Dems have been beaten by virtually everyone except the raving Loony party.
I know certain political savants are going to disagree with me. Nick Boles, for example: he’d like his party’s bizarro love-in with the Lib Dems to go on till the end of time. But I can’t help thinking this is a win-win situation for anyone who still likes to delude himself that Britain has a smidgen of a future.
Important sign number 1: UKIP came second. Ed West rightly sees the significance of this. It’s a shot across the bows of all those Tory leftist appeasers and fellow travellers such as Ken Clarke and, er, Nick Boles who have been getting far, far too cocky of late.
Important sign number 2: it came a day after Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg’s grotesquely irresponsible speech defending multiculturalism. In Luton, of all places. Obviously one can see what he was trying to do: find some clear orange water (horrible thought) between himself and Dave. Problem is, until such time as demographics bring us permanent status as the UK branch of the Umma, pretending that the massive social division, grievance-mongering, taxpayer-waste, ghetto-building and terrorism-fostering which have been brought about by the suicidal philosophy of multiculturalism is not duh! going to prove a massive vote-winner.
- Who gives a monkeys what the Lib Dems say or do at their pointless seaside conference?
- Sun Causes Climate Change Shock
- In praise of patrons – particularly mine
- A little light Islamist propaganda to liven up your Sunday
6 thoughts on “Lib Dems: now even less popular than the BNP”
Comments are closed.
Previous Previous post: I’ve always made a noise at my noisome TVNext Next post: There is nothing ‘smart’ about rationing electricity
The Chinese couldn’t even employ you in one of their factories because you are no good at anything but writing drivel.
Communism brought 70 years of undemocratic militarist cruelty, and created a minority rule by a dedicated, passionate “elite” of true believers who would not accept they were wrong until they bankrupt themselves. Having lived through one socialist dictatorship, Václav Klaus, the second President of the Czech Republic, and former Czech Prime Minister and Finance Minister, warned of another in the December 2003 European Journal:
“The creeping unification of Europe … since the time of Jacques Delors [has been] managed by the bureaucrats from Brussels behind the back of the continent’s population, behind the back of the citizens of individual member states.”
The European Union is undemocratic in its basic construction: in Britain, all mainstream parties have been pro-European Union. Therefore, the electorate has not given any democratic referendum or effective choice on the issue of EC membership. Like the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, it is effectively a one party shambles masquerading as democracy. The question of the existence of the EU is not on the agenda, so if even if you are elected a Member of the European Parliament, you are just in the position of the greasy pole climbers of the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact elite. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the European Union was formed on 1 January 1995, but its roots go back to the European Coal and Steel Community formed on 23 July 1952. The analogy to the Soviet Union may sound absurd because of the lack of a military threat, but its dictatorial controls and money-squandering inefficiency are both precisely analogous to the Soviet Union’s bureaucratic officialdom.
Since the European court in Strasbourg was created in 1959, it has passed 418 judgements that have reduced British parliamentary control, of which over 100 have been outright overturning of U. K. court rulings and these have mostly resulted from the passing of the 1998 signing of the European Convention on Human Rights. Its latest injustice, masquerading as a human right, is the “right” of convicted prisoners to vote; allowing criminal politicians get the votes they need from felons!
Why should Nick Clegg emulate them, if he wants to win the next election?
The Lib Dems have no future trying to be yet another clone of the anti-democratic pro-EUSSR liars. Britain is not just paying interest on its debts, it’s also paying out £48,000,000 a day to the European Union. Compliance with European Union regulations (some 75% of Britain’s laws are now made in Brussels by the European Union) is also expensive for all U. K. businesses, the legal system, prisons, and other Government departments.
Other European Union member states generally hate Britain politically (with good reason in some respects, seeing Britain’s political system and its recent history) and try to vote against Britain whenever possible. Germany pays 22,200 million Euroes (MEs) into the EU budget, and takes out only 12,200 MEs. However, it is still worthwhile for Germany to be in the EU, because Germany has a 70,800 ME trade surplus with the EU. The same goes for France and Italy.
Britain, however, is in the opposite situation, with a 49,400 ME trade deficit with the EU (all of these data are for 2010, annualized from the October 2010 monthly figures). Britain doesn’t therefore benefit from trading with other EU countries: it loses out by doing so. If the interdependence of trade with the EU was helping Britain, it would have a trade surplus with the EU like Germany does, not a trade deficit with the EU. We import more from Europe than we sell to Europe.
Quite apart from this financial, legal, and trade drawback to the European Union for Britain, we have the problem of unemployment, with the Government in 2004 falsely forecasting an influx of 13,000 migrants from new European Union members, when the figure was actually about a million. This is great when there are a shortage of workers, but it is bad news when unemployment is high and taxes for those employed has to rise still higher to provide for the increased benefits payouts.
Finally, we have the extravagance of the European Union’s 137 new embassies worldwide costing £5.8 billion and employing an army of 7,000 people, including 46 lucky staff who will be located in Barbados (don’t worry, there will be lots of inspections of the Barbados EU embassy by happy officials flying over from Brussels to keep up the efficiency).
The new London EU embassy at 32 Smith Square cost £20,000,000 to buy and £5,600,000 to renovate with a wood-decked roof terrace, and with all 68 staff provided with an £800 Herman Miller Mirra office chair accompanied by an Italian £400 Artemide designer lamp. The EU is so inefficient financially that its accounts were last signed off by auditors 16 years ago. Prime Minister Blair’s “spin-doctor”, Lord Mandelson, was paid a basic salary (excluding the generous expenses) of £182,500 in his final year as European Commissioner for Trade. Because of this EU wastage and the public’s perceived cover-up over the Iraq War, the increasing financial cutbacks will return us to a 1930s Great Depression where the flexible deterrent security needed for emerging threats from countries like Iran will both economically and politically incorrect. The Soviet Union was crushed by economic failure, inefficiency, and manipulated oil prices. The same fate awaits backers of the European Union.
“Immigration is already completely out of control in this country with more than 500,000 people arriving here every year. The new EU law will wreck the coalition’s plans to reform the bloated, unsustainable welfare system. In the teeth of vociferous opposition from the Left and sentimental protests from pressure groups Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is trying to push through changes that will restrict entitlements to social security, encourage more people into work and reduce the mammoth £200billion annual cost of welfare, by far the biggest single item of Government expenditure. But all his efforts will be shot to pieces by an EU measure that will drastically drive up the claimant count, promote idleness and further undermine social cohesion.
“The same mandarins told us, when the eight former Soviet nations joined the EU, that just 13,000 migrants from Eastern Europe would come here. The total has been well over one million. Moreover the political elite has presented mass immigration as a vehicle for prosperity. In truth it has just brought higher taxes, economic decline, falling wages and social breakdown.”
then please recognise that you’re the one abusing science with your self-aggrandising pomp. Maybe that explains why you just spend your time as a troll, instead of engaging in genuine scientific discussions? If you don’t want to discuss science, please don’t attack those who do. Cheers!