newsjunction.co.uk

There’s been a lot of talk recently about former Chancellor Ken Clarke returning to the front bench, with opinion fairly split. Right-leaning members of the PHI100 say No, but the liberal and leftist members say Yes. Lord Kalms - a former party treasurer and the founder of the Dixons retail empire - says No and brands him “[one of] yesterday’s men”, yet Louise Bagshawe says a solid Yes and calls him ” a superstar”. Jackie Ashley in the Guardian calls him “the Boris of the Saga generation”, but party donor Stuart Wheeler brands him “disruptive”. Members split narrowly in favour of him returning 50% to 41% against.

But there are in my view several reasons why Clarke cannot return.

1. The return of a big name Major era politician ruins the ‘change agenda’.
The party has worked hard to look, feel, sound and be fresh. Recruiting someone as well known from the ‘old days’ ruins this work and opens the door to the “same old Tories” charge. As Lord Kalms said: “We should not be looking for yesterday’s men. I would find a better choice who represents modern Conservatism to stick up against [Lord] Mandelson than old buffer Ken Clarke, who’s had better days.”

2. Ken Clarke is lazy
Tebbit points out Clarke’s laziness. He even failed to read Maastrict, a major constitutional document that he himself forcefully campaigned for. He is an obsessive Europhile but only speaks English. He’s whole aire is couldn’t care less. A party in opposition cannot have laziness on its front bench, every column inch and news bulletin second is hard fought over, media is 24/7 even more so than pre-1997, and spin is on a whole new level.

3. Ken Clarke rebels
Guess who tops the league of rebels, Ken Clarke. There has to be some sort of loyalty before an MP is invited to join the front bench, and Clarke has none.

4. Clarke loves to cause disruption
Ken Clarke not only rebels, he can’t keep his mouth closed and seems to enjoy causing disruption, putting his own party on the wrong foot, blunting attacks on Labour, inviting the charge of disunity, and often distracting attention from party policies. He branded Eurosceptics as “head bangers” and called the Bill of Rights idea “xenophobic”, he undermined William Hague’s leadership and is regularly giving high-profile interviews deliberately off party line. Giving him a place in the shadow cabinet simply gives him a platform from which to shout from, and almost inevitably resign (or threaten to resign) dramatically from (do a Hesseltine).

5. British American Tobacco
As a backbencher Clarke has been Deputy Chairman of British American Tobacco (1998-2007), which has been lobbying the developing world to reject stronger health warnings on cigarette packets. There is also evidence that his corporation has been involved in smuggling.

6. Image problem
Jazz music, real ale, sloppy looking, lazy manner, over-bearing, rather patronising voice…

7. Judgement
Clarke proposed the utterly stupid VAT cut, is obsessively pro-EU and pro-Euro, opposes much welfare reform and current Conservative thinking. His judgement cannot be trusted.

8. Past office
Although he was Chancellor during the economic recovery of the 92-97 government and deserves some credit for that, he was not entirely responsible and largely followed through earlier work and reaped its benefits. He did however damage the party by raising VAT on fuel, breaking a manifesto promise.

A group sloppily labelled as ‘bosses’ by the BBC has called for the government to support the expansion of Heathrow Airport, involving as it does the compulsory purchase and demolition by the state of over 700 homes - including the entire village of Sipson - and the blighting of many thousands more.

The idea is wrong in so many ways.

Environmentally, we know it will produce a huge increase in pollution from both flights as well as road traffic. There is also the impact of noise over much of London, and the safety hazard of having such a busy flight path over such a crowded city.

Morally, it is undeniably wrong for the state to force people from their homes whether with or without compensation. Property rights are a core element of a free capitalist society, whereas state powers of expropriation are based in a rather different system of government. Airport owner BAA, via the state, have no right to force the sale of other people’s property. An Englishman’s home is his castle?

And infrastructure wise, expanding Heathrow is like Brunel deciding to widen the canals rather than build the Great Western Railway. Heathrow is a crowded site with limited scope for expansion and in the wrong place. The only long term option is the Thames Estuary Airport - aka Boris Island - which would have no constraints and an entirely sea based flight path.

Whatever way you look at it, Heathrow’s days are numbered. It’s time for Boris Island.

Question: Why does money have a value? Answer: Because we accept it as a means of exchange as it’s fairly limited, a kind of scarcity value. Print loads more and it becomes worth ever less, just like a Rembrandt would be worthless if we were wading around knee deep in them. Simple isn’t it. That’s why notes signed by the BOE Governor are worth more than paper but Monopoly money isn’t.

Well, would someone please tell the government.

Despite the promise of the Chancellor that the government is not planning to print money - called “quantitative easing” in much the same way as bin men are “waste removal engineers” dinner ladies are “education centre nourishment production assistants” - it has already started!

“The Bank of England Weekly statements show that quantitative easing is well underway. The Bank’s balance sheet has ballooned from well under £100 billion last September, to nearly £240 billion by the year end. Actual printing of bank notes…are up over the year by more than 10%” - John Redwood’s Blog

The decision to print money won’t help the economy, but will leave us with a nasty legacy of inflation. It wasn’t right for Germany, Argentina, Japan or Zimbabwe, and it won’t be right here.

Way to go aliens!

The little not so green men obviously know they’re useless and unsightly, but how will they explain it to the insurance company?

Read more here.

Atheist adverts declaring that “there’s probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life” have been placed on 800 buses around Britain after an unprecedented fundraising campaign.

They have spent £140,000 on this message.

I believe you should be able to spend your money largely how you like, and advertise largely what you like, so am glad that there hasn’t been any violent protests against this or laws against it.

But I do ask what good can come of this?

I can think of a lot better use to put £140,000 to start with, and then you have the time and effort contributed. I’m sure atheists would get a much better reputation if they had utilised this more charitably.

Now I’m not hugely religious, but I know that religion has lead many people to do good things. The Salvation Army, Red Cross, Samaritans and countless other charities owe their creation, volunteers and funding to - in part at least - people motivated by religion. Locally to me a church group helps people home safely at night, another provides scholarships, another runs a hospice. In many places religious groups run projects for the young that keep them off the streets and teach right from wrong, in fact within many inner cities church groups are at the front of stopping youth gang crime. At Beachy Head a church group talks people out of suicide where the Police won’t go due to “health & safety”.

Not all of this needs religion (though some does) but sensible religion (and I am first to denounce the non-sensible) encourages charity and thinking of others at its core, certainly more than the message “now stop worrying and enjoy your life” - which has its emphasis on being thoughtless and self-centred.

Then we hit a big issue. Whatever you think of religion, you have to admit it helps a lot of people come to terms with grief and loss. Is the message “there’s probably no God” what you want to see in giant pink letters after a loved ones funeral? How insensitive and callous to these people it is. They don’t want a debate with Richard Dawkins, they want support, a friendly ear and hope.

Richard Dawkins leads a kind of fundamentalist army of atheists, what is his problem and does he really think he is doing a good thing? I don’t.

Gordon Brown has announced plans to magic up 100,000 new jobs to help stem unemployment, in much the same way Paul Daniels might pull a rabbit from a hat - illusion.

According to The Times, Gordon Brown plans to;
“Pay firms to take on more apprentices than they need” - i.e. create some illusionary jobs.
“Pour taxpayers’ money into creating green industry to employ people” - i.e. create illusionary jobs at illusionary companies funded by real ones.
“Inject huge sums of infrastructure spending into the transport system” - i.e. build bridges and roads to nowhere.
And “Offer emergency loans on a case by case basis to car firms facing collapse” i.e. give a blank cheque to any car firm near a marginal seat.

The man is crazy. And he’s being crazy with our money.

Why has it taken until now for politicians to realise the utterly obvious - cutting the VAT rate by 2.5p was a pointless waste of money!

Did they really think this minute saving would encourage us to spend more? Or did they not do the maths to realise that a 2.5% cut in VAT doesn’t even reduce the price by 2.5% - as the VAT is a percentage of the pre-tax cost and not the listed cost - so prices are actually only cut by 2.1%.

How often do you see adverts for 2.1% Off sales? Never, because they wouldn’t work. That £100 dishwasher NOW £97.90, saving of £2.10! It’s rather like having an offer where you get a packet of dishwasher tablets free, hardly sale of the century.

And what no one has yet pointed out is this - the VAT cut disproportionately favours those with money why are spending, rather than those actually struggling, and favours those buying big ticket items rather than essentials. Yet it will be paid for by a hike in National Insurance paid by all.

If I was buying a £250,000 car (now £246700 - so much more affordable) I’d be rather ashamed that it was £3300 cheaper at the expense of the people building it, selling it, cleaning it, maintaining roads for it etc.

Gordon Brown visited a primary school today.

The children were discussing the meanings of words with the teacher in their English class by giving examples, the words being randomly selected by a high tech government issue devise formerly known as a hat. The teacher invited Gordon Brown to have a go, and he pulls out the word “tragedy”.

“Can anyone give me an example of a tragedy,” he asked.

Hands go up across the room.

“Other than that,” the teacher interupts. All but three hands go down.

Gordon Brpwn picks the first child. “A tragedy would be if I ran my brother over with a tractor on the farm,” he said.

“No,” Brown responded, “that would be an accident.”

Then he asked the second child. “A tragedy would be if a plane full of children got shot down.”

“Nope, wrong again I’m affeaid,” Brown replied smugly, “that would be a great loss.”

The third child now gets picked. “A tragedy would be if you and your advisors were on a plane that got shot down.”

“Correct, said Gordon, “how did you know that?”

“Well it was easy,” the boy said, “‘Cos it wouldn’t be a great loss and is hardly likely to be an accident.”

A bit long I know but still good. I think it’s been doing the rounds on the Internet a few weeks now.

A school in Yorkshire has decided to rename itself. But instead of simply changing its name, they’ve decided to rebrand what they are.

Yes Waterciffe Meadow Primary School shall henceforth be the Watercliffe Meadow Centre for Learning, I guess just in case anyone forgot what schools are meant to be for.
Whatever next?
Her Majesties Place for Containing Criminals, Wandsworth

The Community Book Borrowing Place?
The Centre for Getting Well or Catching MRSA?
The Department of Moving People from One Place to Another Place?
The