For todays Saturday list, I thought I'd compile a list of my ten least favourite bits of road in Barnet. These are the bits that I always groan when I approach in a car. |Most of them I like them even less on a bike.
1. Apex Corner, Mill Hill, approaching from A41 from Edgware.
2. Henleys Corner approaching from A406 from the East
3. North Circular between Brent Cross and Staples Corner
4. Edgware Road between West Hendon and Colindale
5. A41 Southbound approaching the Boroughs in Hendon
6. Partingdale Lane
7. Tally Ho Corner
8. Edgware Road at Burnt Oak
9. Mill Hill Circus Roundabout
10. Stretch of road by Jack Straws Castle Hampstead
Do you have a stretch of road in Barnet that you don't like?
Saturday, 25 January 2014
Friday, 24 January 2014
The Friday Joke - 24/1/2014
As it's the weekend, here are a few on the subject of inebriation !
Sometimes when I reflect back on all the wine I drink I feel shame. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the vineyards and all of their hopes and dreams. If I didn't drink this wine, they might be out of work and their dreams would be shattered. Then I say to myself, "It is better that I drink this wine and let their dreams come true than be selfish and worry about my liver."
~ Jack Handy
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may leave you wondering what the hell happened to your bra and panties.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they Wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day."
~Frank Sinatra
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher, smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading."
~ Henny Youngman
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may lead you to think people are laughing WITH you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case . Coincidence? I think not."
~ Stephen Wright
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may cause you to think you can sing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"When we drink, we get drunk. When we get drunk, we fall asleep. When we fall asleep, we commit no sin. When we commit no sin, we go to heaven. So, let's all get drunk and go to heaven!"
~ Brian O'Rourke
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may cause pregnancy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
~ Benjamin Franklin
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol is a major factor in dancing like a retard.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Without question, the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza."
~ Dave Barry
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell your friends over and over again that you love them!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To some it's a six-pack, to me it's a Support Group. Salvation in a can!
~Dave Howell
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may make you think you can logically converse with members of the opposite sex without spitting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And saving the best for last, as explained by Red Phlegm , of Merrylands. One afternoon at The Melton, Redfer was explaining theBuffalo Theory to his buddy Jim Campbell.
Here's how it went:
"Well ya see, Jim, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers."
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may make you think you are whispering when you are not.
BAPS Election meeting - The fallout
On Wednesday night, BAPS held an election meeting at the Larches Trust. Representatives from Labour, Lib Dems & The Greens attended, along with Mrs Angry. About 50 people turned up to see what they had to say. One person who wasn't on the panel was local UKIP candidate Adrian Murray-Leonard. Mr Murray Leonard was incensed because UKIP were excluded. The official reason for the exclusion, according to Tirza Waisel was because UKIP have not published any policies for Barnet, hence they clearly had nothing to say. Mr Murray Leonard turned up to complain about the exclusion and was promptly turfed out, allegedly for being disruptive.
The Barnet Eye spoke to Mr Murray Leonard yesterday. He said "BAPS are just a bunch of champagne socialist, middle class housewifes, who plot revolution then return home to their million pound houses in Totteridge". Mr Murray Leonard then went on "They are not working class and are out of touch with middle class people". He continued "One guy even blamed me for the death of disabled people, claiming it was all my fault". Mr Murray Leonard was referring to an incident where disabled rights campaigner, John Sullivan confronted him as he left. Mr Sullivan is not a housewife and does not live in a million pound mansion. The Barnet Eye spoke to Mr Sullivan who said "A member of UKIP stated that disabled people like my daughter Susan should be guillotined at birth. No member of UKIP has ever rejected this policy" Mr Sullivan was referring to this story in the Daily Mirror http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-deputy-mayor-owen-lister-558677#.UnpB-P0YiHM.twitter He said "People like Murray-Leonard make me sick, my daughter Susan is 50 years old. What right have UKIP to say she should have been guillotined. He had no answer to my question and didn't reject the comments of UKIP on the subject. As far as I am concerned, he is the scum of the earth". (updated 18:21 - Mr Lister, who made these comments, joined UKIP after this story received National coverage. See this story http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/2096074.Conservatives_sack_councillor_for_joining_UKIP/ - Mr Sullivan has explained that the fact UKIP accepted Mr Lister knowing his record implies approval of his views. A UKIP Hendon spokesman told me that Mr Murray Leonard was unaware of the story and did not know what Mr Sullivan was referring to. They have promised to comment when they are fully aware of the story).
The Barnet Eye also noticed a stream of rather biased tweets from the Chris Hewitt, a reporter on the Barnet Times, calling the meeting a "Lefty Love in" (despite the fact that it was open invite, the Tories refused to come) conveniently ignoring the fact that the Lib Dems who are a Centre Right party in a right wing government were on the panel. When challenged, the Times Editor Martin Buhgaria (no relation of Uncle Bulgaria the Womble) pointed out on twitter that the paper had once published a story about sprinklers that upset the local Tories.
What more can I say !
The Barnet Eye spoke to Mr Murray Leonard yesterday. He said "BAPS are just a bunch of champagne socialist, middle class housewifes, who plot revolution then return home to their million pound houses in Totteridge". Mr Murray Leonard then went on "They are not working class and are out of touch with middle class people". He continued "One guy even blamed me for the death of disabled people, claiming it was all my fault". Mr Murray Leonard was referring to an incident where disabled rights campaigner, John Sullivan confronted him as he left. Mr Sullivan is not a housewife and does not live in a million pound mansion. The Barnet Eye spoke to Mr Sullivan who said "A member of UKIP stated that disabled people like my daughter Susan should be guillotined at birth. No member of UKIP has ever rejected this policy" Mr Sullivan was referring to this story in the Daily Mirror http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-deputy-mayor-owen-lister-558677#.UnpB-P0YiHM.twitter He said "People like Murray-Leonard make me sick, my daughter Susan is 50 years old. What right have UKIP to say she should have been guillotined. He had no answer to my question and didn't reject the comments of UKIP on the subject. As far as I am concerned, he is the scum of the earth". (updated 18:21 - Mr Lister, who made these comments, joined UKIP after this story received National coverage. See this story http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/2096074.Conservatives_sack_councillor_for_joining_UKIP/ - Mr Sullivan has explained that the fact UKIP accepted Mr Lister knowing his record implies approval of his views. A UKIP Hendon spokesman told me that Mr Murray Leonard was unaware of the story and did not know what Mr Sullivan was referring to. They have promised to comment when they are fully aware of the story).
The Barnet Eye also noticed a stream of rather biased tweets from the Chris Hewitt, a reporter on the Barnet Times, calling the meeting a "Lefty Love in" (despite the fact that it was open invite, the Tories refused to come) conveniently ignoring the fact that the Lib Dems who are a Centre Right party in a right wing government were on the panel. When challenged, the Times Editor Martin Buhgaria (no relation of Uncle Bulgaria the Womble) pointed out on twitter that the paper had once published a story about sprinklers that upset the local Tories.
It's nonsense @Barneteye all boring nonsense. Tories were furious with the sprinkler story. Do we care? Not one bit. @TimesChewit1987
— Martin Buhagiar (@TimesIndyEditor) January 23, 2014
What more can I say !
Wednesday, 22 January 2014
Labour Councillor defects to Tories
Congratulations to Cllr Sodha on becoming Barnets newest Tory Councillor following her defecton from the Barnet Labour Party. The Barnet Eye believes this to be a very positive move for the London Borough of Barnet as in our opinion, this has raised the average IQ of both the Barnet Labour and Conservative groups.
Rather amusingly, when I tweeted this earlier, Ex Tory Councillor Dan Hope posted the following tweet.
Luckily for Dopey Dan, Mr Mustard rode in to his rescue and gave him a lesson in elementary maths ! If Dan needs a good maths tutor, we can recommend a very good one, who helped our son pass his SATS when he was at primary school.
To be fair to the Tories ( I am in a very good mood), they probably have the two Councillors with the highest IQ's in the council. John Hart and Sury Khatri are extremely intelligent and well qualified gentlemen and always good value for a private conversation. I suppose you can conclude from this, that one or two of the others, haven't impressed me, to draw my conclusion about the average. (Dan if you require an explanation of this statement, I suggest you ask Mr Mustard privately and spare yourself the embarrassment of another daft public tweet).
Sadly I couldn't make the BAPS meeting tonight. A guest blog would be most welcome if anyone did attend.
Rather amusingly, when I tweeted this earlier, Ex Tory Councillor Dan Hope posted the following tweet.
@Barneteye @_MrMustard @yankel42 Only you could write a logic defying tweet like that!
— Barnet Bugle (@barnetbugle) January 22, 2014
Luckily for Dopey Dan, Mr Mustard rode in to his rescue and gave him a lesson in elementary maths ! If Dan needs a good maths tutor, we can recommend a very good one, who helped our son pass his SATS when he was at primary school.
To be fair to the Tories ( I am in a very good mood), they probably have the two Councillors with the highest IQ's in the council. John Hart and Sury Khatri are extremely intelligent and well qualified gentlemen and always good value for a private conversation. I suppose you can conclude from this, that one or two of the others, haven't impressed me, to draw my conclusion about the average. (Dan if you require an explanation of this statement, I suggest you ask Mr Mustard privately and spare yourself the embarrassment of another daft public tweet).
Sadly I couldn't make the BAPS meeting tonight. A guest blog would be most welcome if anyone did attend.
The Women problem. Equality in 2014 from a bloggers perspective
It's quite interesting that in 2014 we are still discussing the issue of equality. There are two big political issues centering on blatant sexism at the moment. We have the Lord Rennard issue for the Lib Dems, where Rennard has been accused (and apparently cleared) of behaving innappropriately with female staff within the Lib Dem organisation. We also have the issue of UKIP's Nigel Farage making disparaging comments about women in the workplace.
Given that women make up over 50% of the electorate, I find it truly bizarre that they are so often referred to in a way that implies they are a minority. Are political parties really unaware that women are the majority? I have to congratulate men on somehow managing to conceal this issue to such an extent that in a thousand years we've only had one woman Prime Minister. Given the rather bizarre we chose the actual head of State, we've faired a bit better with monarchs. Is it truly any coincidence that the Queens of England have usually done a better job than their male counterparts. Both Elizabeths have been very successful in the terms of their times. Our current Monarch has somehow managed to cement the role of a totally undemocratic head of state, who is subject to repressive religious discrimination, into our hearts. The first one ruled over some of our greatest military conquests. Then there was Victoria, who reigned over a huge expansion of British power and Empire. You could make the case that women have done a far better job than their male counterparts. Given the long list of men who have been Prime Ministers, it is perhaps odd that only Winston Churchill would displace Thatcher as the most popular for the Tory part of the nation. Labour have yet to dip their toe in that pond, which is shameful. As for the LibDems, they haven't even bothered to give any a serious job.
In Barnet, we have a female leader of the Labour Group, who has not exactly shone. The Tories had a female leader at the last election, who secured their best election result in recent times. Sadly she passed away soon after.
In business, few women make it to the top. The hackneyed old excuse is that they don't get quite so far because of time taken out to bring up children. I believe this to be a lame excuse. If this was true, once women had stopped breeding, the field should again be level, but it clearly isn''t. I suspect that it is because women network in different ways. You don't get anywhere near as much stitching up deals in golf clubs with women. If you believe that business decisions should be made in smokey back rooms amongst the boys, it is clear you will expect women to do badly. If however you are judging candidates on their ability to do a job, then surely "clubbability" should not matter. If you run a firm or a department and you are passing over the best candidate, you are letting yourself and your company down.
In Barnet, we have nurtured five excellent bloggers. Two of these are female and three male (for once I count myself in this list). We all have different skills and bring different things to the table. I do not believe that the Barnet blogging scene would have created anything like the impact without Vicki & Mrs A. I think Vicki's defection to Nottingham is a huge blow. When I started to blog, it was viewed as a "male" passtime. Vicki & Mrs A destroyed that myth. It is interesting just how often I speak to people who have only heard of Mrs Angrys blog out of the Barnet bloggers. Generally these readers (although not always) are women. It is quite clear that Mrs A connect with different people to the Barnet Eye, when I speak to readers of the Barnet blogs. I find that as with the Sun and the Guardian, people prefer one particular blog and one particular style. The point I am making is that in blogging, any success is built purely on hard work. No one forces people to read blogs, it is an entirely qualatitive decision to follow a blogger. As such it is clear to me that Mrs A can compete on an equal footing and has done exceptionally well. It is perhaps one sphere of life, where you are totally judged on your talents alone. When you take all the bullshit away, it shows that talent is what matters. Sadly in most spheres of life, talent is the least of your worries if you want to get on. Your sex, your parents, your school and your bank balance matter far more. Until we, as a country, choose to address that, we are simply wasting so much of our natural talent.
Given that women make up over 50% of the electorate, I find it truly bizarre that they are so often referred to in a way that implies they are a minority. Are political parties really unaware that women are the majority? I have to congratulate men on somehow managing to conceal this issue to such an extent that in a thousand years we've only had one woman Prime Minister. Given the rather bizarre we chose the actual head of State, we've faired a bit better with monarchs. Is it truly any coincidence that the Queens of England have usually done a better job than their male counterparts. Both Elizabeths have been very successful in the terms of their times. Our current Monarch has somehow managed to cement the role of a totally undemocratic head of state, who is subject to repressive religious discrimination, into our hearts. The first one ruled over some of our greatest military conquests. Then there was Victoria, who reigned over a huge expansion of British power and Empire. You could make the case that women have done a far better job than their male counterparts. Given the long list of men who have been Prime Ministers, it is perhaps odd that only Winston Churchill would displace Thatcher as the most popular for the Tory part of the nation. Labour have yet to dip their toe in that pond, which is shameful. As for the LibDems, they haven't even bothered to give any a serious job.
In Barnet, we have a female leader of the Labour Group, who has not exactly shone. The Tories had a female leader at the last election, who secured their best election result in recent times. Sadly she passed away soon after.
In business, few women make it to the top. The hackneyed old excuse is that they don't get quite so far because of time taken out to bring up children. I believe this to be a lame excuse. If this was true, once women had stopped breeding, the field should again be level, but it clearly isn''t. I suspect that it is because women network in different ways. You don't get anywhere near as much stitching up deals in golf clubs with women. If you believe that business decisions should be made in smokey back rooms amongst the boys, it is clear you will expect women to do badly. If however you are judging candidates on their ability to do a job, then surely "clubbability" should not matter. If you run a firm or a department and you are passing over the best candidate, you are letting yourself and your company down.
In Barnet, we have nurtured five excellent bloggers. Two of these are female and three male (for once I count myself in this list). We all have different skills and bring different things to the table. I do not believe that the Barnet blogging scene would have created anything like the impact without Vicki & Mrs A. I think Vicki's defection to Nottingham is a huge blow. When I started to blog, it was viewed as a "male" passtime. Vicki & Mrs A destroyed that myth. It is interesting just how often I speak to people who have only heard of Mrs Angrys blog out of the Barnet bloggers. Generally these readers (although not always) are women. It is quite clear that Mrs A connect with different people to the Barnet Eye, when I speak to readers of the Barnet blogs. I find that as with the Sun and the Guardian, people prefer one particular blog and one particular style. The point I am making is that in blogging, any success is built purely on hard work. No one forces people to read blogs, it is an entirely qualatitive decision to follow a blogger. As such it is clear to me that Mrs A can compete on an equal footing and has done exceptionally well. It is perhaps one sphere of life, where you are totally judged on your talents alone. When you take all the bullshit away, it shows that talent is what matters. Sadly in most spheres of life, talent is the least of your worries if you want to get on. Your sex, your parents, your school and your bank balance matter far more. Until we, as a country, choose to address that, we are simply wasting so much of our natural talent.
Tuesday, 21 January 2014
Cricklewood regeneration - The new city on our doorstep approved by Barnet Council
The papers detailing the approval of the Cricklewood "regeneration" scheme are on the Council website. You can view them here.
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s12505/Brent%20Cross%20Cricklewood%20Regeneration%20-%20Public%20Report.pdf
Interesting highlights -
A new Brent Cross Thameslink station. oddly this is not actually guaranteed as part of the scheme. It seems that the Barnet Taxpayer, rather than the developers are bearing the financial risk. The report says "A bid for capital funding is being considered by Cabinet on 25 February 2014 to fund this work. Should the station go ahead, this funding will form part of the overall project cost and will be recouped by the Council as a development cost. However, this funding will not be recouped should the station not go ahead as proposed.
Consequently, the budget and programme will be managed throughout 2014 to ensure that only the necessary work is undertaken in advance of securing a funding strategy. " Seems to me that yet again, the taxpayers is being taken for a ride.
Council to subsidise developers by bearing risk for funding land. The report says "It is currently envisaged that the Council will need to bear the CPO costs for land required for the Brent Cross Cricklewood South proposals. It is also envisaged that these acquisition costs will be recoverable from the Brent Cross Cricklewood South development in due course."
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s12505/Brent%20Cross%20Cricklewood%20Regeneration%20-%20Public%20Report.pdf
Interesting highlights -
A new Brent Cross Thameslink station. oddly this is not actually guaranteed as part of the scheme. It seems that the Barnet Taxpayer, rather than the developers are bearing the financial risk. The report says "A bid for capital funding is being considered by Cabinet on 25 February 2014 to fund this work. Should the station go ahead, this funding will form part of the overall project cost and will be recouped by the Council as a development cost. However, this funding will not be recouped should the station not go ahead as proposed.
Consequently, the budget and programme will be managed throughout 2014 to ensure that only the necessary work is undertaken in advance of securing a funding strategy. " Seems to me that yet again, the taxpayers is being taken for a ride.
Council to subsidise developers by bearing risk for funding land. The report says "It is currently envisaged that the Council will need to bear the CPO costs for land required for the Brent Cross Cricklewood South proposals. It is also envisaged that these acquisition costs will be recoverable from the Brent Cross Cricklewood South development in due course."
Why is it that in Barnet, it is always the taxpayer that takes the hit?
Monday, 20 January 2014
UKIP and the long range weather forecast
We hear that a UKIP Councillor has decreed that the recent flooding was the direct responsibility of MP's passing legislation allowing Gay marriage. I must admit I found myself laughing. So it seems that UKIP believe that you can predict weather patterns by the legislation passed in Parliament, whilst at the same time disbelieving the sound scientific evidence for climate change. This idea quite appeals to me. What seems rather odd though is how UKIP seem to think that God, who is all seeing, all knowing and all powerful reacts to such legislation with seemingly random flooding in areas not especially associated with Gay Marriage. Now if areas such as Hampstead Heath had found themselves under nine foot of water, one could perhaps see a pattern, but to the best of my knowledge God has arranged the flood to be in more rural areas and on flood plains (strange place to build houses?). Being raised in a God fearing house, I am very familiar with the bible stories, however usually it was people who upset God who attracted his wrath, not random people who had little to do with the decision. So perhaps UKIP have got it wrong? Maybe God is more upset with attempts to repeal the Foxhunting ban? Or maybe he's fed up with the number of people in the countryside who drive gas guzzlers.
One of our local MP's Mike Freer, was a keen advocate of Gay marriage. According to UKIP, surely Finchley and Golders Green should be under 20' of water now, especially given the large population well versed in the old testament of his constituency. Surely if God really was angry about the Gay marriage legilsation, he would have laid waste to Mr Freer's constituency. Which has to make us conclude that perhaps God isn't too bothered. Perhaps God has better things to worry about.
Personally I would quite like it if God's retribution came down occasionally on evil do'ers. In my book though, evildoers are not people who shut the curtains and don't hurt other people. I would like to see a few arms factories flooded. I would like to see a few mass murderers and tyrants struck by lightening. I'd even like to see a few greedy property developers see the horrible schemes washed away in a deluge. Sadly though, we live in a time when humanity seems to have to take responsibility for dealing with its own problems. I suspect God thinks we've grown up and should deal with the problems we've made for ourselves.
And before I am deluged with disgruntled UKIP supporters claiming that this particular nutcase is a rogue individual, may I suggest that they take some responsibility. Nigel Farage claimed that the bloke was really a Tory who had somehow slipped through the vetting process (see this story in the Evening Standard http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ukip-councillor-who-said-floods-were-punishment-from-god-for-gay-marriage-is-a-tory-extremist-says-nigel-farage-9071828.html?origin=internalSearch ). If this is how Farage will deal with such a crass and idiotic man, then it is clear UKIP are doomed. Oddly Farage claims that the bloke always held these views but they have only been reported now he's joined UKIP. Why on earth did Farage accept him if he disagrees?
He should have instigated a full review of their selection criteria and should be working to ensure that his party maintains discipline and doesn't give a platform to people who are clearly not the full shilling. As a party Leader, Farage has to take responsibility for the people in his party. It seems like we live in a society where no one will ever step up and say "We got this wrong". It is always someone elses fault. If you thought UKIP were different, think again. Every party has nutcases in its ranks. It is how they deal with them which defines the party. I think Farage has displayed a complete lack of leadership in this issue.
One of our local MP's Mike Freer, was a keen advocate of Gay marriage. According to UKIP, surely Finchley and Golders Green should be under 20' of water now, especially given the large population well versed in the old testament of his constituency. Surely if God really was angry about the Gay marriage legilsation, he would have laid waste to Mr Freer's constituency. Which has to make us conclude that perhaps God isn't too bothered. Perhaps God has better things to worry about.
Personally I would quite like it if God's retribution came down occasionally on evil do'ers. In my book though, evildoers are not people who shut the curtains and don't hurt other people. I would like to see a few arms factories flooded. I would like to see a few mass murderers and tyrants struck by lightening. I'd even like to see a few greedy property developers see the horrible schemes washed away in a deluge. Sadly though, we live in a time when humanity seems to have to take responsibility for dealing with its own problems. I suspect God thinks we've grown up and should deal with the problems we've made for ourselves.
And before I am deluged with disgruntled UKIP supporters claiming that this particular nutcase is a rogue individual, may I suggest that they take some responsibility. Nigel Farage claimed that the bloke was really a Tory who had somehow slipped through the vetting process (see this story in the Evening Standard http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ukip-councillor-who-said-floods-were-punishment-from-god-for-gay-marriage-is-a-tory-extremist-says-nigel-farage-9071828.html?origin=internalSearch ). If this is how Farage will deal with such a crass and idiotic man, then it is clear UKIP are doomed. Oddly Farage claims that the bloke always held these views but they have only been reported now he's joined UKIP. Why on earth did Farage accept him if he disagrees?
He should have instigated a full review of their selection criteria and should be working to ensure that his party maintains discipline and doesn't give a platform to people who are clearly not the full shilling. As a party Leader, Farage has to take responsibility for the people in his party. It seems like we live in a society where no one will ever step up and say "We got this wrong". It is always someone elses fault. If you thought UKIP were different, think again. Every party has nutcases in its ranks. It is how they deal with them which defines the party. I think Farage has displayed a complete lack of leadership in this issue.
Election meeting on Wednesday at Larches Trust Edgware 7pm
There is an election meeting at The Larches Trust Edgware on Weds where you have the opportunity to grill members of the Green Party, Labour party & Lib Dems on their election manifesto. Blogger Mr Reasonable will also be on the panel. The Barnet Conservatives will not be attending, apparently because they see nothing in it for them. We think that this is a shame. Can you imagine Margaret Thatcher backing down from the daunting challenge of a debate with Alison Moore?
Sunday, 19 January 2014
Theatre Review - Once a Catholic - Tricycle Theatre, Kilburn
Due to work commitments, I have been very behind on the blogging of late. The Saturday before last I went to see "Once a Catholic" at the Tricycle Theatre in Kilburn. This was an interesting experience for me, as it became the first production I've ever seen twice. I saw the play in its original form in the West End back in the 1970's. The play is set in Willesden in the 1950's at a Catholic Convent Girls School. Kathy Burke is the director of the reprised version and as you would expect, it was gritty and funny.
As someone of Irish ancestory who went to Catholic Schools (St Vincents and Finchley Catholic High School) at a time when the North London Catholic population was predominantly Irish, the production was at times a bit uncomfortable and close to the bone. I got the feeling that there were two distinct groups of people at the theatre. Those with my sort of background and those who had a different experience. It seemed to me that the non Irish/Catholics laughed at different times. I suspect they found the portrayal of nuns and priests hilarious and probably thought it stylised and humourous. In my experience, it was actually pretty accurate. As that was like some of my own school experiences, it wasn't really that funny at all. We had it drummed into us that missing mass was a Cardinal sin. I can't remember if any Nun/Priest ever actually said it was worse than "murdering your wife", but the reason I can't remember is because we were told so many things of that ilk. We were told about babies dying without baptism and going to Limbo. We were told not to let ourselves be alone with girls, because "bad things can happen".
One big difference from the new production and the old one, is that in the old version, the dynamic between the girls was different. It was the Sassy Troublemaker who decided she wanted to be a nun, to the astonishment of her classmates. In the new version, she is portrayed as a bit dim and a bit unworldly. Maybe Kathy Burke felt that in todays climate that would simply not be credible.
One thing that also struck me is the fact that women don't seem t become nuns anymore. In Mill Hill we have the Daughters of Charity, but the ones I've seen are all relatively elderly. In the 1970's women were expected to accept the fact that if they wanted a religious life, they'd become nuns. I expect that in todays world, accepting what is to many a "lower" form of religious order is not acceptable and is offputting.
When I first saw the play, I'd turned my back on the Church and was quite happy to see it lampooned mercilessly. I can remember taking delight in laughing at my own cultural roots. Second time around, I find it a completely different experience. I think Kathy Burke has done a great job. The play is funny and such things are necessary. I think we'll only truly be able to understand Islam, when Muslims can produce such plays without running the risk of Fatwa. What some see as blasphemy is actually a way of saying "we are comfortable with our religion". Ultimately the reason that the Church in the 1950's was so prone to being lampooned was because it had many things wrong. Only by exposing such things to debate, can we move on. If you are a North London Catholic and raised in the Catholic education system before the 1980's you will find the play a guilty pleasure. If you are not (like my wife), you'll just find it funny. If you find yourself laughing at different times to half the audience, that is probably down to this divide.
I would heartily recommend the play. I would also recommend the Tricycle theatre as a venue. From Mill Hill it is convenient and a comfortable and relaxed venue.
As someone of Irish ancestory who went to Catholic Schools (St Vincents and Finchley Catholic High School) at a time when the North London Catholic population was predominantly Irish, the production was at times a bit uncomfortable and close to the bone. I got the feeling that there were two distinct groups of people at the theatre. Those with my sort of background and those who had a different experience. It seemed to me that the non Irish/Catholics laughed at different times. I suspect they found the portrayal of nuns and priests hilarious and probably thought it stylised and humourous. In my experience, it was actually pretty accurate. As that was like some of my own school experiences, it wasn't really that funny at all. We had it drummed into us that missing mass was a Cardinal sin. I can't remember if any Nun/Priest ever actually said it was worse than "murdering your wife", but the reason I can't remember is because we were told so many things of that ilk. We were told about babies dying without baptism and going to Limbo. We were told not to let ourselves be alone with girls, because "bad things can happen".
One big difference from the new production and the old one, is that in the old version, the dynamic between the girls was different. It was the Sassy Troublemaker who decided she wanted to be a nun, to the astonishment of her classmates. In the new version, she is portrayed as a bit dim and a bit unworldly. Maybe Kathy Burke felt that in todays climate that would simply not be credible.
One thing that also struck me is the fact that women don't seem t become nuns anymore. In Mill Hill we have the Daughters of Charity, but the ones I've seen are all relatively elderly. In the 1970's women were expected to accept the fact that if they wanted a religious life, they'd become nuns. I expect that in todays world, accepting what is to many a "lower" form of religious order is not acceptable and is offputting.
When I first saw the play, I'd turned my back on the Church and was quite happy to see it lampooned mercilessly. I can remember taking delight in laughing at my own cultural roots. Second time around, I find it a completely different experience. I think Kathy Burke has done a great job. The play is funny and such things are necessary. I think we'll only truly be able to understand Islam, when Muslims can produce such plays without running the risk of Fatwa. What some see as blasphemy is actually a way of saying "we are comfortable with our religion". Ultimately the reason that the Church in the 1950's was so prone to being lampooned was because it had many things wrong. Only by exposing such things to debate, can we move on. If you are a North London Catholic and raised in the Catholic education system before the 1980's you will find the play a guilty pleasure. If you are not (like my wife), you'll just find it funny. If you find yourself laughing at different times to half the audience, that is probably down to this divide.
I would heartily recommend the play. I would also recommend the Tricycle theatre as a venue. From Mill Hill it is convenient and a comfortable and relaxed venue.
Thatcher vs Cameron - No comparison?
Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979 and after 4 years sought re-election. David Cameron was elected in 2010 and so on the Thatcher timetable would be up for election this year. I thought it may be interesting to compare and contrast their records.
Wars
Thatcher presided over two major military conflicts in her first four years. The Falklands and Northern Ireland. The Falklands war was a major victory and will perhaps always be viewed as the defining moment of her career. At the time of the war, the USSR did not consider that the UK had the capability to mount such a campaign. The Argentinian generals did not even consider such an option, thinking Britain would roll over and say "kick me". At the time the USA had an aversion to foreign adventurism, having its fingers burned. Thatchers war changed all that. Reagan realised that a successful military excursion is good for votes. I believe the Iraq and Afghan adventures are a direct result of Thatchers PR victory. What is never discussed in such glowing terms is the Northern Ireland situation. Under Thatcher there was a terrible military stalemate, where the ordinary people suffered under a repressive state and terrorism. Thatcher never really had a clue where to start with Ulster. In my opinion her period was one of unmitigated failure, but due to the Falklands success, the airbrush has been applied. Nevertheless, with her leadership during the Falklands conflict, no one could argue that Thatcher wasn't a proven leader in a time of war.
Cameron has presided over the Afghan debacle in much the same way. It is clear that Cameron doesn't know what to do, hasn't got a plan and is simply a passenger in the process. British servicemen die without a sense of what the mission really is. When the British and americans go, everyone knows things will soon degenerate. When the UK leaves Afghanistan, will it be a better place than when Cameron took over? I doubt it. The problem is that, unlike Thatchers Falklands war, there is no plan, no objective and no idea what we are really trying to achieve. In four years, I've yet to hear a single coherent sentence from Cameron on the subject. Whilst I believe history proved Thatchers non engagement with the IRA wrong, at least she was consistent and could elucidate why whe was persuing this course. Cameron simply comes across as vacuous.
Economy.
When Thatcher took over, Great Britain was in terminal decline. We were the "sick man of Europe". Whatever you may think of the UK when Cameron took over, we have maintained a high degree of economic prosperity and the problems with our country have not resulted in others viewing us as a complete basket case. In 1979, the UK was viewed as a spent force which had nothing left to offer. Thatcher believed that the key to fixing the economy was to cut the balls off the Trades Unions. She believed in "moneterism" (a phrase which seems to have disappeared). The first two years of her rule were met with a huge fiscal squeeze and spiralling unemployment. Thatcher despised socialism and sought about taking an axe to the low hanging branches on the tree of social government. What people don't appreciate about Thatcher was that she was firstly a pragmatist (most successful Tories are). She kept well away from the NHS and when she was looking to privatise, she picked off easy targets and by doing mass share offers that made the ordinary man a few quid, she made herself popular. The targets for privatisation were carefully picked. They were not picked for ideological value, but for the likelyhood of success. BT was the first. It was clear to all that Telecomunnincations needed deregulation. I don't think anyone can argue that privatising BT was successful. In this day and age, the concept of waiting three months for a telephone line is uniimaginable. However harsh, Thatchers medicine for the economy eventually worked. The economy was booming within ten years, Harry Enfield parodying Thatchers children with his Loadsamoney character.
Unlike Thatcher, Cameron doesn't seem to have a coherent plan or too many answers. The British economy has many structural issues to address, government debt, welfare dependency and a money supply crisis for small business. The economy has returned to strong growth in the last year, but oddly this even confounded George Osborne's own predictions from this time last year. There have been huge cuts to the benefits system, but so far this has had no effect on government debt. Unlike the Thatcher "Loadsamoney" boom, this recovery shows no signs of ending up in the pockets of anyone apart from rich bankers who started the problems. Like Thatcher, Cameron seems to like the idea of privatisation, however unlike Thatchers BT privatisation, he didn't see the Post Office privatisation as an opportunity to make the ordinary working man a bit better off. There was no TV campaign to persuade us all to buy shares and pocket a few quid. Wheras Thatcher always knew what she was doing, Cameron gives off the air of bending with the wind. I was talking to an economist, who was explaining that the most successful economic policy of the coalition was raising the income tax threshold to £10,000. He pointed out that this was actually one of the policies the Lib Dems brought to the table. No one seems to know what the basis for Camerons economic vision is. Least of all David Cameron. Unlike Thatcher, we suspect that Cameronism is a byword for bending with the wind.
Europe.
Perhaps the biggest misconception of people who haven't studied Thatcher is the concept that she was "anti European". This is complete baloney. She never advocated withdrawal. She signed every treaty put before her, most notably the single European act. This is the single most important pro euro piece of legislation. She never advocated a referendum. Thatcher recognised that the UK had to be "in the club" or our vital interests would have no protection from our European neighbours. She was a total pragmatist. She realised that the European commission was democracy free zone, dedicated only to making itself ever more powerful. Her strategy was to limit the power of the commission in the UK as far as possible and to get the best deal possible for the UK in fiscal terms. She had no interest at all in the smooth running of Europe, she couldn't care less. She wanted free access to trade markets and as little European interference in UK affairs as she could manage. She also wanted the UK to keep as much of our cash as possible. That was her method for dealing with our EU partners. She was single minded and once they got over the initial shock, they found that they simply had to horse trade with Thatcher. To give her her dues, she was probably the most effective UK Prime minister in protecting our interests.
Cameron suffers from a complete lack of authority in his party. Whatever he says on the Europe issue, no one believes him. He has made himself a hostage to the right wing of his party with his pronouncements, without actually buying himself any bargaining power. As with many issues, Cameron needs the Lib Dems to keep him afloat so he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. As a result he has no policy on Europe. Who knows what Camerons true position of UK membership of the EU is. Does he see any benefit? He is too scared to actually say so. Does he want to pull out? He is again too scared to say so. We expect some sort of Leadership from Cameron, but we get none at all. Our EU partners see Cameron as a man of straw, because they know he has no authority.
Social Responsibility.
Thatcher famously stated that "there is no such thing as society". She passionately believed that the UK was simply a group of millions of individuals and that we only cooperated with each other because it suited us to do so. She despised anything "co-operative". She saw no value in community and her response to the miners strike, which completely polarised the country exemplified this. Thatcher once commented that any man in his thirties on a bus was a failure. For her, the concept of having to share your personal space with a bunch of other bus passengers was an anathma. She believed that social care should simply be an act of personal charity. She despised other Tories who viewed the weaker members of society as people and people who required care. She referred to such Tories as "Wets". She despised them more than she despised Socialists and viewed them as the real enemy.
Again with Cameron, no one knows what his policy on social responsibility really is. Following the death of his disabled son, he gave interviews praising the NHS. I for one felt that given his experiences, there is no way he'd let the NHS come to harm as Prime Minister. I thought he'd see the value in what it offers. Being fair to Cameron, the NHS has had its budget ring fernced. Given the cuts elsewhere, it has to be conceded that he has shown a degree more care than may have been expected. This is perhaps the only area where Cameron has shown any social concern. The changes to the Benefit system have been cruel. The "bedroom tax" has caused real unhappinees and hardship for many. I cannot see how penalising families when a child goes to college can possibly be seen as socially fair. The rise in food banks is the most tangible sign that Cameron doesn't care. It is odd that even with Thatcher despising social responsibility, we never saw a mushrooming of food banks in the way we see today.
The working class.
Thatcher believed that the working class by and large wanted to become middle class. She believed that there were large numbers of votes to be had on council estates. She believed that the British working man was aspirational. She designed policies to try and tap into this belief. The two keynote policies were selling council houses to their owners, with the right to buy and the popularist share issues, with attendent advertisng campaigns. Millions took advantage of these policies and they voted Tory to show their appreciation. Labour never really got to grips with this assault on their core vote. This failure kept them in opposition for 17 years. Thatcher created a whole new subgenre of Tory voters.
Cameron just doesn't get the working class at all. I think it is probably fair to say they don't get him either. Wheras Thatcher always kept this group in the corner of her eye, to Cameron they are invisible. Thatcher ensured every budget in her raign always threw this group a bone of some sort, even if that was taken away elsewhere. Cameron and his buddies from the poshest public schools don't see this, so they don't know where to start. Cameron was widely expected to sweep the board at the last election. I believe the reason he failed so miserably was because he had no policy that talked to this group. Thatcher always recognised that there were working people who wanted to own their own homes, run a car and go on a holiday abroad. Cameron doesn't talk to these people. It is there children who have borne the brunt of the hike in student fees. It is them who have been fleeced by utility companies. It is them whos parents are hardest hit by cuts to Council Social care budgets.
Summary.
Whilst researching this blog, the Barnet Eye was struck by the fact that when you compare Thatcher to Cameron, the differences are huge. What is perhaps the most difficult thing to quantify is how the influence of the Lib Dems has tempered the policies of Cameron. We have to conclude that without the input from his coalition partners, Cameron would without doubt have been more harsh and more right wing. The Barnet eye believes that the Lib Dems have given Camerons uber right machine a small figleaf of social responsibility. We also believe that the influence of Vince Cable, an economist by trade, has managed to inject some sanity into the regime's economic agenda. It is impossible to be sure, but we believe that the economy would not be in recovery without this injection of sanity. The one thing we must give Cameron credit for, which I doubt Thatcher could ever have achieved is that he has managed to hold together a coalition for nearly four years of two very different parties. Whatever his faults, the UK is now experiencing strong growth, bucking the trend of the rest of Europe. I believe that Cameron is actually lucky that he has the Lib Dems as his partners. It gives him an excuse for all his errors and it gives him a safety catch on his most right wing nutcases. If Cameron loses the next election and a Milliband regime takes over, I suspect that this will be seen as a massive achievement. If the Tories win a majority, I would not be in the least surprised to see Cameron dumped in a palace coup, and replaced. Lets face it, if they could stab Lady Margaret in the back, having delivered three stunning election victories and an economic boom, why on earth would they persist with "Dave", who the vast majority of them despise.
Wars
Thatcher presided over two major military conflicts in her first four years. The Falklands and Northern Ireland. The Falklands war was a major victory and will perhaps always be viewed as the defining moment of her career. At the time of the war, the USSR did not consider that the UK had the capability to mount such a campaign. The Argentinian generals did not even consider such an option, thinking Britain would roll over and say "kick me". At the time the USA had an aversion to foreign adventurism, having its fingers burned. Thatchers war changed all that. Reagan realised that a successful military excursion is good for votes. I believe the Iraq and Afghan adventures are a direct result of Thatchers PR victory. What is never discussed in such glowing terms is the Northern Ireland situation. Under Thatcher there was a terrible military stalemate, where the ordinary people suffered under a repressive state and terrorism. Thatcher never really had a clue where to start with Ulster. In my opinion her period was one of unmitigated failure, but due to the Falklands success, the airbrush has been applied. Nevertheless, with her leadership during the Falklands conflict, no one could argue that Thatcher wasn't a proven leader in a time of war.
Cameron has presided over the Afghan debacle in much the same way. It is clear that Cameron doesn't know what to do, hasn't got a plan and is simply a passenger in the process. British servicemen die without a sense of what the mission really is. When the British and americans go, everyone knows things will soon degenerate. When the UK leaves Afghanistan, will it be a better place than when Cameron took over? I doubt it. The problem is that, unlike Thatchers Falklands war, there is no plan, no objective and no idea what we are really trying to achieve. In four years, I've yet to hear a single coherent sentence from Cameron on the subject. Whilst I believe history proved Thatchers non engagement with the IRA wrong, at least she was consistent and could elucidate why whe was persuing this course. Cameron simply comes across as vacuous.
Economy.
When Thatcher took over, Great Britain was in terminal decline. We were the "sick man of Europe". Whatever you may think of the UK when Cameron took over, we have maintained a high degree of economic prosperity and the problems with our country have not resulted in others viewing us as a complete basket case. In 1979, the UK was viewed as a spent force which had nothing left to offer. Thatcher believed that the key to fixing the economy was to cut the balls off the Trades Unions. She believed in "moneterism" (a phrase which seems to have disappeared). The first two years of her rule were met with a huge fiscal squeeze and spiralling unemployment. Thatcher despised socialism and sought about taking an axe to the low hanging branches on the tree of social government. What people don't appreciate about Thatcher was that she was firstly a pragmatist (most successful Tories are). She kept well away from the NHS and when she was looking to privatise, she picked off easy targets and by doing mass share offers that made the ordinary man a few quid, she made herself popular. The targets for privatisation were carefully picked. They were not picked for ideological value, but for the likelyhood of success. BT was the first. It was clear to all that Telecomunnincations needed deregulation. I don't think anyone can argue that privatising BT was successful. In this day and age, the concept of waiting three months for a telephone line is uniimaginable. However harsh, Thatchers medicine for the economy eventually worked. The economy was booming within ten years, Harry Enfield parodying Thatchers children with his Loadsamoney character.
Unlike Thatcher, Cameron doesn't seem to have a coherent plan or too many answers. The British economy has many structural issues to address, government debt, welfare dependency and a money supply crisis for small business. The economy has returned to strong growth in the last year, but oddly this even confounded George Osborne's own predictions from this time last year. There have been huge cuts to the benefits system, but so far this has had no effect on government debt. Unlike the Thatcher "Loadsamoney" boom, this recovery shows no signs of ending up in the pockets of anyone apart from rich bankers who started the problems. Like Thatcher, Cameron seems to like the idea of privatisation, however unlike Thatchers BT privatisation, he didn't see the Post Office privatisation as an opportunity to make the ordinary working man a bit better off. There was no TV campaign to persuade us all to buy shares and pocket a few quid. Wheras Thatcher always knew what she was doing, Cameron gives off the air of bending with the wind. I was talking to an economist, who was explaining that the most successful economic policy of the coalition was raising the income tax threshold to £10,000. He pointed out that this was actually one of the policies the Lib Dems brought to the table. No one seems to know what the basis for Camerons economic vision is. Least of all David Cameron. Unlike Thatcher, we suspect that Cameronism is a byword for bending with the wind.
Europe.
Perhaps the biggest misconception of people who haven't studied Thatcher is the concept that she was "anti European". This is complete baloney. She never advocated withdrawal. She signed every treaty put before her, most notably the single European act. This is the single most important pro euro piece of legislation. She never advocated a referendum. Thatcher recognised that the UK had to be "in the club" or our vital interests would have no protection from our European neighbours. She was a total pragmatist. She realised that the European commission was democracy free zone, dedicated only to making itself ever more powerful. Her strategy was to limit the power of the commission in the UK as far as possible and to get the best deal possible for the UK in fiscal terms. She had no interest at all in the smooth running of Europe, she couldn't care less. She wanted free access to trade markets and as little European interference in UK affairs as she could manage. She also wanted the UK to keep as much of our cash as possible. That was her method for dealing with our EU partners. She was single minded and once they got over the initial shock, they found that they simply had to horse trade with Thatcher. To give her her dues, she was probably the most effective UK Prime minister in protecting our interests.
Cameron suffers from a complete lack of authority in his party. Whatever he says on the Europe issue, no one believes him. He has made himself a hostage to the right wing of his party with his pronouncements, without actually buying himself any bargaining power. As with many issues, Cameron needs the Lib Dems to keep him afloat so he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. As a result he has no policy on Europe. Who knows what Camerons true position of UK membership of the EU is. Does he see any benefit? He is too scared to actually say so. Does he want to pull out? He is again too scared to say so. We expect some sort of Leadership from Cameron, but we get none at all. Our EU partners see Cameron as a man of straw, because they know he has no authority.
Social Responsibility.
Thatcher famously stated that "there is no such thing as society". She passionately believed that the UK was simply a group of millions of individuals and that we only cooperated with each other because it suited us to do so. She despised anything "co-operative". She saw no value in community and her response to the miners strike, which completely polarised the country exemplified this. Thatcher once commented that any man in his thirties on a bus was a failure. For her, the concept of having to share your personal space with a bunch of other bus passengers was an anathma. She believed that social care should simply be an act of personal charity. She despised other Tories who viewed the weaker members of society as people and people who required care. She referred to such Tories as "Wets". She despised them more than she despised Socialists and viewed them as the real enemy.
Again with Cameron, no one knows what his policy on social responsibility really is. Following the death of his disabled son, he gave interviews praising the NHS. I for one felt that given his experiences, there is no way he'd let the NHS come to harm as Prime Minister. I thought he'd see the value in what it offers. Being fair to Cameron, the NHS has had its budget ring fernced. Given the cuts elsewhere, it has to be conceded that he has shown a degree more care than may have been expected. This is perhaps the only area where Cameron has shown any social concern. The changes to the Benefit system have been cruel. The "bedroom tax" has caused real unhappinees and hardship for many. I cannot see how penalising families when a child goes to college can possibly be seen as socially fair. The rise in food banks is the most tangible sign that Cameron doesn't care. It is odd that even with Thatcher despising social responsibility, we never saw a mushrooming of food banks in the way we see today.
The working class.
Thatcher believed that the working class by and large wanted to become middle class. She believed that there were large numbers of votes to be had on council estates. She believed that the British working man was aspirational. She designed policies to try and tap into this belief. The two keynote policies were selling council houses to their owners, with the right to buy and the popularist share issues, with attendent advertisng campaigns. Millions took advantage of these policies and they voted Tory to show their appreciation. Labour never really got to grips with this assault on their core vote. This failure kept them in opposition for 17 years. Thatcher created a whole new subgenre of Tory voters.
Cameron just doesn't get the working class at all. I think it is probably fair to say they don't get him either. Wheras Thatcher always kept this group in the corner of her eye, to Cameron they are invisible. Thatcher ensured every budget in her raign always threw this group a bone of some sort, even if that was taken away elsewhere. Cameron and his buddies from the poshest public schools don't see this, so they don't know where to start. Cameron was widely expected to sweep the board at the last election. I believe the reason he failed so miserably was because he had no policy that talked to this group. Thatcher always recognised that there were working people who wanted to own their own homes, run a car and go on a holiday abroad. Cameron doesn't talk to these people. It is there children who have borne the brunt of the hike in student fees. It is them who have been fleeced by utility companies. It is them whos parents are hardest hit by cuts to Council Social care budgets.
Summary.
Whilst researching this blog, the Barnet Eye was struck by the fact that when you compare Thatcher to Cameron, the differences are huge. What is perhaps the most difficult thing to quantify is how the influence of the Lib Dems has tempered the policies of Cameron. We have to conclude that without the input from his coalition partners, Cameron would without doubt have been more harsh and more right wing. The Barnet eye believes that the Lib Dems have given Camerons uber right machine a small figleaf of social responsibility. We also believe that the influence of Vince Cable, an economist by trade, has managed to inject some sanity into the regime's economic agenda. It is impossible to be sure, but we believe that the economy would not be in recovery without this injection of sanity. The one thing we must give Cameron credit for, which I doubt Thatcher could ever have achieved is that he has managed to hold together a coalition for nearly four years of two very different parties. Whatever his faults, the UK is now experiencing strong growth, bucking the trend of the rest of Europe. I believe that Cameron is actually lucky that he has the Lib Dems as his partners. It gives him an excuse for all his errors and it gives him a safety catch on his most right wing nutcases. If Cameron loses the next election and a Milliband regime takes over, I suspect that this will be seen as a massive achievement. If the Tories win a majority, I would not be in the least surprised to see Cameron dumped in a palace coup, and replaced. Lets face it, if they could stab Lady Margaret in the back, having delivered three stunning election victories and an economic boom, why on earth would they persist with "Dave", who the vast majority of them despise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)