Saturday, 22 April 2017

The Conservatives do increase debt more than Labour

Do the Conservatives increase debt more than Labour

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


Year Public Net Debt-total £ billion
1970        33.08 Heath
1971        33.44
1972        35.84
1973        36.88
1974        40.46
1975        52.10                                 increase of 19.02 Billion 57.4%
1976        64.70 Callaghan
1977        73.60
1978        79.50                                 Increase of 14.8 Billion 22%.8
1979        88.60 Thatcher
1980        98.20
1981        113.80
1982        125.20
1983        132.50
1984        143.60
1985        157.00
1986        162.50
1987        167.80
1987 167.80
1988 167.40
1989 153.70                               Increase of 65.1 Billion 73.4%
1990 151.90 Major
1991 151.10
1992 165.80
1993 201.90
1994 249.80
1995 290.00
1996 322.10                               Increase of 170 Billion 111.9%
1997 347.00 Blair
1998 358.60
1999 357.80
2000 345.40
2001 316.70
2002 323.10
2003 356.20
2004 391.00
2005 446.50
2006 487.20                                 Increase of 140.2 Billion 40.4%
2007 523.60 Brown
2008 557.20
2009 767.10                                 Increase of 243.5 billion 46.5%
2010 1010.60 Cameron
2011 1156.00
2012 1251.40
2013 1362.70        
2014 1465.60
2015 1554.00                                Increase of 544billion 53.8%
2016 1605.90 May
2017 1730.00                                Increase of 125billion 7.7%
2018 1829.70 e



LINKS

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

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

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

Wednesday, 29 March 2017

A Historic Day - "Remains" To Be Seen




I’m a neutral on Brexit… admittedly I voted remain after doing  a lot of research and seeing through the misinformation of the Brexit campaign. But I always wanted to leave,  just didn’t think it was going to improve things. To be honest if the Brexit campaign hadn’t employed misinformation I may have voted to leave.  However the vote is out…. albeit by a tiny majority, so let’s get on with it.   

My problem is still that I don’t trust the Tories to get a good deal for the majority of people. The way they ran the referendum was a shambles and has split the country, not brought it together. 

 I was bemused by what I was hearing on the radio today, so called “Brexiters” claiming that so called “Remainers” would be the cause of Britain not getting a good deal on leaving the EU ……. Really …come on REALLY!  Let not start trying to put the blame off on others before we even start or is the confident bravado waning now?

This has to stop we are going into no man’s land, we may end up better off, we may end up worse off. No one knows because it’s not been done before. It’s a coin flip and anyone who tells you different is just guessing. The more those that voted to leave keep name calling with “Remainer’s” “Remoaner’s” Etc the more the country will be divided.  

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. People who vote Tory don’t suddenly become labour supporters when Labour gets voted in, no they still have their ideal's and opinion’s and carry on arguing their point of view.

The beauty of this country is its still one of the most democratic countries in the world, regardless what we think of our politicians.  The only thing both camps should be doing now is scrutinising what deal this government is going to get for the Majority ….. I aint holding my breath.

One thing im sure of this wont just take 2 years.  We may leave the EU in 2 years but we will be sorting this out for 10 years plus.

Thursday, 16 March 2017

You can trust the Tories, I Think Not!


and on top of all that they are willing to trust someone who says stand on stage with your legs apart itll make you look good....... What chance have we got?



Lets break the meme down

Note: We could expand all of these topics there's plenty of evidence available but in the interests of keeping things a reasonable size....

Lies
David Cameron rebuked by statistics watchdog over national debt claims – The PM said the government was ‘paying down Britain’s debts’ in a political broadcast, even though the debt is actually rising.


OBR head rebukes Osborne: the UK was never at risk of bankruptcy. Office for Budget Responsibility chief Robert Chote dismisses the Conservative “danger of insolvency” claim.
In the weeks after he took office, George Osborne justified his austerity programme by claiming that Britain was on “the brink of bankruptcy”. He told the Conservative conference in October 2010: “The good news is that we are in government after 13 years of a disastrous Labour administration that brought our country to the brink of bankruptcy.”

It was, of course, nonsense.

Misinformation
Iain Duncan Smith Rebuked Over Immigration Statistics – Iain Duncan Smith and the Department of Work and Pensions have been accused of publishing misleading immigration figures that were “highly vulnerable to misinterpretation”. Figures showing 371,000 immigrants were on benefits were rushed out by ministers with insufficient regard for “weaknesses” in the data, according to the UK Statistics Authority.


Grant Shapps rebuked by UK Statistics Authority for misrepresenting benefit figures – Yet another Conservative politician is caught making it up. Grant Shapps has joined his fellow Conservatives in the data hall of shame. In March, the Tory chairman claimed that “nearly a million people” (878,300) on incapacity benefit had dropped their claims, rather than face a new medical assessment for its successor, the employment and support allowance.
The figures, he said, “demonstrate how the welfare system was broken under Labour and why our reforms are so important”. The claim was faithfully reported by the Sunday Telegraph  but as the UK Statistics Authority has now confirmed in its response to Labour MP Sheila Gilmore (see below), it was entirely fabricated.

Insulting
Mrs May replied: "In relation to the figures on council houses, he's wrong. We have delivered on the one for one replacement on the Right to Buy."

Mrs May failed to back up her claim with any evidence.

Figures by her own government in March showed 49,573 homes had been sold off since 2012 but just 4,594 new ones had been started or bought on site.

The Prime Minister then mocked Mr Corbyn for his long-held tactic of asking Twitter followers for questions - so she read out one from 'Lewis'.

"Lewis writes: 'Does she know in a recent poll on who would make a better Prime Minister, 'don't know' scored higher than Jeremy Corbyn ?'".
Note: Interesting that Theresa May has the dubious accolade of answering less questions than Cameron now that's quite something. But always willing to throw insults to get away from answering a question.

94 Billion to big Corporations
Taxpayers are handing businesses £93bn a year – a transfer of more than £3,500 from each household in the UK.


The total emerges from the first comprehensive account of what Britons give away to companies in grants, subsidies and tax breaks, published exclusively in the Guardian.
Many of the companies receiving the largest public grants over the past few years previously paid little or zero corporation tax, the analysis shows. They include some of the best-known names in Britain, such as Amazon, Ford and Nissan.

Failed economic targets
The Tory failure on the economy is increasingly clear for all to see. Osborne promised in 2010 to eliminate the structural deficit in five years and to preserve our AAA credit rating. He failed on both promises. His budget earlier this year revealed huge downgrades in estimates for future growth, wages, productivity and levels of investment. It also showed he was failing on two of the three targets he had set himself on welfare spending and debt. As the economy stalls, he looks increasingly likely to fail on his third target – the economically illiterate promise to run a surplus by 2020.


Fined a record £70,000
The Conservative Party has been fined a record £70,000 for breaking election expenses rules.
The party insists its failure to report six figure sums it spent on trying to win three by-elections and the general election was an "administrative error".
The Electoral Commission said there was a "realistic prospect" the money had given the party an advantage.
The Metropolitan Police is now looking at the evidence to see if the reporting omissions were deliberate.
"She (The Commission's chief executive Claire Bassett) added that having had to get a court order to get information was "very disappointing"."
BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg said that if prosecutions go ahead "we could be looking at by-elections".
NOTE: That the fine could have been higher but they are restricted to £2,000 per offence. Which they are aiming to try and increase in the future.


Electoral Commission's findings...
  • The Conservative Party’s 2015 UK Parliamentary general election spending return was missing payments worth at least £104,765.
  • Separately, payments worth up to £118,124 were either not reported to the Commission or were incorrectly reported by the party.
  • A portion of this amount should have been included in the Party’s return but wasn’t. 
  • Another portion was put into the Party’s return when it was candidate spending in a number of constituencies where the Party spent money promoting individual candidates.
  • In addition, the Party did not include the required invoices or receipts for 81 payments to the value of £52,924.
  • Finally, the Party failed to maintain records explaining the amounts it invoiced to candidates in three 2014 by-elections, for work on their campaigns.
  • Therefore the accuracy of the amounts could not be verified.


Possible Criminal Charges

Twelve police forces have asked the Crown Prosecution Service to consider charges over election expenses.




Links
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39289195
https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/a-list-of-official-rebukes-for-tory-lies
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfare-a-93bn-handshake
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2016/05/tories-dismal-economic-record-exposes-their-hollow-rhetoric
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/16/conservatives-fined-70000-mp-reported-police-following-investigation/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/14/conservative-mp-craig-mackinlay-interviewed-under-caution-over-election-spending
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/what-happens-when-the-tories-are-certain-theyll-win-well-find-out/

Monday, 20 February 2017

Paul Nuttall UKIP a road crash waiting to happen....

Paul Nuttall UKIP road crash waiting to happen .... Oh wait

Not the best picture, sorry Paul but ....

He is just a liability for UKIP, Nuttall's first grand shoot myself in the foot statement was that he thought the NHS was unsustainable and Privatisation should be looked at.
That didn't go down well with the assembled crowd, so some weeks later and careful thought and probably advise from someone, he changed his view to that of UKIP. Support the NHS free at point of use.

Myself I'm not convinced that his personal view has changed though, hes just saying what he thinks will get him votes.

Congruency is important in politics and Nuttal is anything but Congruent.  All I can say is bring back Nigel Farrage, love him or hate him he was a good speaker.

So his next, lets blunder into this one episode, was his lets try and make some votes off the Hillsbourough disaster. Really not a good idea Paul even if you were there, maybe you should have shown a little concern a few years earlier.

"As if enduring nearly three decades of lies and cover-ups wasn’t enough, the families of the victims of Hillsborough now have in their midst a would-be MP who in my opinion is using the disaster for political gain."
"Paul Nuttall’s admission that he did not actually lose “close personal friends” in the tragedy, despite these words being on his website for six years, comes after he signed nomination forms at an address in Stoke he’d apparently never been to."
Come on Paul sorry, but its been on your website for years and you didn't know, really? Either way that's inexcusable.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/paul-nuttall-ukip-hillsborough-stoke-central-election-truth-matters-a7581376.html


Well I did say he was a liability......

Now we have party officials resigning while Nuttall and Banks go to ground and try to figure out how they get themselves out of the mess they have created.
"Two UKIP branch officials have resigned from the party, claiming leader Paul Nuttall and donor Arron Banks showed "crass insensitivity" about the Hillsborough disaster."
"Mr Nuttall said last week he was "sorry" over false claims that he had lost close friends in the 1989 tragedy."
"Mr Banks later tweeted he was "sick to death" of hearing about Hillsborough."
"Mr Monkham added that he "felt that supporting a libertarian party was the right thing to do in order to effect change within the political system in this country".
"Unfortunately that dream has been shattered and the potential of UKIP has been squandered by people who have demonstrated they are not fit to lead at present."
"Mr Nuttall, who is an MEP for northwest England, is a candidate in the Stoke Central by-election, which is being held on Thursday."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39025522


Tipped by the bookies as in a position to win the byelection I think you may have blown it Paul but we shall wait and see, theres nowt stranger than voters.




LINKS
https://www.ft.com/content/ff654ace-f517-11e6-8758-6876151821a6
http://uk.businessinsider.com/stoke-by-election-paul-nuttalls-false-hillsborough-claim-could-cost-ukips-victory-2017-2
http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/17/stoke-by-election-odds-suggest-ukip-are-not-too-far-behind-labour-6454818/