LETTER TO A FILM STUDENT: Why is every single British programme now shot in the style of a 3-min happy hardcore video? --- New Labour moments: lies, gaffes and u-turns PART ONE and PART TWO.

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Littlejohn: US health system beats NHS

"Thank heavens my sick mum wasn't at the mercy of the NHS", writes the Daily Mail commentator from his Florida mansion.

"In Britain - Littlejohn (expat) says- [i]f you are unfortunate enough to get admitted to hospital, there's a good chance of contracting a fatal disease once you're in there, as a result of the criminally negligent standards of hygiene".

Ask your mates, family, colleagues. If you haven't heard off them in a while, it's because they were admitted to hospital where they soon caught an NHS-generated 'fatal disease' and died.

Why else do you think ZaNu Labour keep ushering in tens of millions of immigrants (which you can't say the Daily Mail didn't warn you about)? It's to cover up the mass deaths on the NHS.

Medical treatment is undoubtedly expensive in the U.S., but the majority of people are happy with what their money buys. Look at me on 800K a year. Surely it's what most people earn, (unless they're the kind who happily scrounge the high sums as offered by our ZaNu Labour government), but I've got the insurance, and I'm happy with it, so what's the bleedin problem?

Like, mum's medical bills this time are being picked up by her car insurance policy, which covers up to $1 million in hospital expenses, as you do. We all have to pay motor insurance, so why not insure our health, too? They're clearly the same thing. Like, clearly. Car insurance is not there to cover my ass in case I cripple some pedestrian loser who may get runover while I ride around my 4x4. No. It's there to protect meeeeeee. So it should be the same with health.

Surely from all that money you get from ZaNu Labour you can find a penny or two for medical insurance, just like all Americans do without any problem.

What you're on about millions get rejected on a technicality when they're diagnosed with cancer? I don't know anyone who got that? Do you?

What? Losing their insurance when they lose their job? It never happened to meeeeee, so surely you're just making it up because you're yet another loony lefty.

And it's not as if the NHS is 'free' anyway. You couldn't make it up, but it costs billions, which is a disgrace when there are only 60 million people to look after. I mean, how expensive can the NHS be really? Do away with waste and unnecessary expenditure, sack the bureaucrats (especially those who've got a 20-stone lover) and, pronto, it'll cost a fraction of that.

I am not seeking to denigrate the British doctors and nurses, but I am haunted by the thought of what might have happened to my 81-year-mum if she had still been living in Essex, at the mercy of the NHS, and not in America.

Because, in Britain, 81-year-old mums never, ever, EVER, get treated on the NHS. Unheard of.

Monday, November 30, 2009

A week in Dubai? No, thanks.

Some pillock called peaceinmylifetime commenting on this story in the Guardian:
"Consider this: you are offered you a week's stay in the Burj Al Arab Hotel (6/7/8/910 stars - delete as apprpriate) along with your partner (or one can be provided if you so desire), along with as much booze as you could hold, would you definitely refuse it, no regrets???"
Yes! Of course I'd refuse - and ten times over too. And so would you, if you had anything remotely resembling:

a) taste;

b) aversion to slave labour, which in tacky Dubai is available in its most vintage incarnation. In fact if there's anything they managed to duplicate well in Fantasy Island Dubai, aside from artificial islands in the shape of an arse, that's their giant mass-scale replica of early 19th century working conditions. Take a look here and here.

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Cowell Dollar, plastic breasts and old fogeys

Two semi-forgotten legends, Paul Heaton and Brett Anderson, on the current state of music.

It says something when Spandau Ballet getting back together is the most exciting thing the musical press can write about that isn't the X-Factor or Cheryl Cole's eyelashes.

If you recently thought your music sensibility is starting to resemble that of a hut-dwelling hermit in the Outer Hebrides, just remember you're not alone. Simon Cowell's toxic circus and its side effects actually get on a lot of people's nerves.

This is what former Housemartins and Beautiful South singer Paul Heaton had to say on the current state of songwriting and the music business:

"Obviously in these current climes of X Factor domination and Jordan and Andre getting back together for a Christmas single [don't bet against it], we have to be patient. These indeed are low times for a high brow singer and it would be tragic for us to lose home grown artists such as Hawley, Cocker and Heaton, to the passing storm of The Cowell Dollar and the plastic breast. We must cling to the rocks together, safe in the knowledge that this storm, like all those before it, will pass or burn itself out, battering the very rocks we cling to".

And this what Brett Anderson (remember him?) said last month about the way music is increasingly being approached, with the dictatorship of downloads, leaks and torrents:

"Yeah and I think that's bad, I do really sort of regret that without wanting to sound like a luddite or an old fogey, I think it's a shame because there is some beautiful music that is meditative and that requires that you sit down with it and don't just flick through it like channel surfing, and I think it's a shame because people aren't getting as much out of music. I mean there are certain albums that you have to invest time in like you have to invest time in a novel, you have to sit down and give it your attention, it doesn't just leap out at you like an advert or something like that".

Friday, November 27, 2009

The most difficult job in the world

The newspapers don't seem interested in this, but one job is sticking up two fingers at the word 'crisis', and the little people are paying for it.

Imagine you land a job where you get paid £161-50 a day for each day you turn up (even if you stay for, like, 20 minutes) plus £86.50 a day for food, drink and taxis, and an additional £75 for office costs, without producing a single receipt. And you can't resign even if you wanted to. What sort of workplace would let you do that?

Some people would tell you that your boss is either a saint or an idiot of the highest degree. Everyone at work takes the piss and the whole shop functions like a joke, with average attendance rates standing at just over 50%.

Until one day, under pressure from auditors, the board, or sheer financial hardship, your gaffer decides to see sense and announces he's going to tighten the belt.

'Course you'd expect the "reforms" to bring in more scrutiny on costs and expenses (i.e. producing receipts) as well as a wage freeze or even a pay cut.

But no. You turn up to work (it's not even compulsory, there's no attendance levels, you see) and, much to your delight, you find out that the dreaded toughened up rules are so tough that you wage is actually higher - from £161-50 a day to £200!

More, you also get £140 a night for accomodation expenses and you'll still be spared from submitting receipts, as long as you declare you've performed "appropriate duties", whatever that means. Sure, now you'll be required to clock in, but a couple of hours will do, so no worries if you get bored or your colleague's annoying voice is getting on your nerves.

Dream job, right?

Well, welcome to the world of Unelected Peers in the House of Lords. And you know what the Senior Salaries Review Board people said (those who drafted the reforms)? “We are sending a strong signal: if you’re swinging the lead, don’t do it.”

Keep your heads down, little people.

Also see: "Scrap the House of Lords".

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Fascists just LOVE the Daily Mail

The love affair between the far-right and the Daily Fail continues.

Same old crap in today's Daily Mail:

"Record number of people leave Britain as Poles head home- but new arrivals increase to half a million". Amongst the best rated comments:

"Only the BNP has ANY intention of sorting this shambles out
- john, france, 26/11/2009 17:59

"roll on elections - BNP your time is coming!!!!!!"
- ymmot, england, 26/11/2009 22:01

"the workers leave, the shirkers arrive"
- rob, an irate taxpayer, chesham, bucks, 26/11/2009 16:46

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Countdown begins for Central Library

The government turned down the application to turn John Madin's library into a listed building.

After a long deliberation, Culture and Tourism Minister Margaret Hodge decided against granting Birmingham Central Library listed status.

This means that the demolition squad are one step away from being given the go-ahead, paving the way for the £600m redevelopment of Paradise Circus, which so far has been fiercely opposed by both the Friends of the Central Library and English Heritage.

It's not yet know what is going to happen at the site. According to the Birmingham Post, "bulldozers won’t be able to move in until the summer of 2013, when the Central Library will be replaced by a £193 million library in Centenary Square", right next door to the REP theatre.

The most likely outcome is that Paradise Forum will be converted into an outdoor mixed development of shops, offices and apartments to link together Chamberlain Square and Centenary Square.

Immigration myths (4): "EU=net migration"

The perception is that it's a one-way issue. It's not a problem if the Brits do the same in reverse. Because they're not migrants. They're EXPATS.

Labour aside, the daily negative bombardment about immigration is also centred around the European Union. Widely frowned upon for its unaccountability, the EU is also routinely slammed for allegedly contributing to wild migration patterns into Britain.

Indeed, it is undisputable that being part of Europe has made it remarkably easier for migrants from the continent to seek work and live in the UK. Since a number of Eastern European countries joined in 2004, hundreds of thousands of workers came in from Poland, the Czech Republic and so on.

But as always, the perception is that it's a one-way issue. It's not a problem if the Brits do the same in reverse. Because they're not migrants. They're EXPATS.

When you read that Britain should put up barriers at the Channel, or indeed leave the EU altogether, as often advocated by tabloids and at least one political party (the UKIP), no-one bothers to explain the repercussions it would have for millions of Brits in Europe.

In 2001 around 771,000 citizens from other EU countries (excluding Republic of Ireland) lived in the UK. No doubt the figures went up significantly since Eastern European countries joined. Sadly there aren't any reliable numbers, especially as most are here temporarily. We know that 56,000 people from eight key Eastern and Central European countries went back in the year to September 2008 and the trend continues in that direction.

According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, "a total of around 1 million people had moved from the new EU member states to the UK by April 2008, but that half this number have since returned home or moved on to a third country".

But let's ignore all that and assume that 1 million Eastern Europeans arrived since the 2001 census and never left. That would mean 1.771 million EU citizens currently live in the UK.

Still, that just begins to resemble the number of British migrants to other EU countries.

The figures speak for themselves.

A survey published by the BBC in December 2006 revealed that between 1.7 and 2m Brits live and work permanently in the EU. Spain alone is home to a staggering 761,000 British citizens, and the figures doubled in the last decade. The Brits are "outnumbered as an immigrant population only by Moroccans, Romanians and Ecuadorians", and bear in mind many don't register with the local town halls but still peruse local public services.

The irony is that the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun and the Express all have "printed in Spain" editions available. They are the most popular papers amongst expats, so that many can read about the UK being swamped and taken over by migrants while they themselves can swamp and take over (literally) entire areas in Spain with very little levels of integration.

Many are doing exactly what they believe migrants to Britain are guilty of: living together, owning shops and not learning the language.

About 291,000 Britons live in the Republic of Ireland, 200,000 in France, while 115,000 live in Germany. Many more permanently live and reside in Italy, Greece, Cyprus, the Netherlands and so on. The figures are available here.

So what would happen if the tabloids or the anti-immigration lobby had it their way and the UK decided to erect immigration barriers with the EU? Do you ever hear about it? Would 1.7 to 2m Brits suddenly have to rush to embassies or local councils to apply for work permits, visas and various papers in the hope of being spared illegal status?

And, realistically, would the new British regime back home provide for such massive numbers to return home and place a strain on services, the housing system and the job market?

Monday, November 23, 2009

Immigration myths (3): "Overcrowding behind BNP rise"

Part three of our analysis of tabloid-led misconceptions about immigration. Apparently, the far-right is growing because Britain...oops, I mean England, is packed.

When anti-immigration campaigners are presented with comparative figures showing that other EU countries are host to a much higher number of migrants than the UK, they then often resort to the "density factor".

Interestingly, suddenly the focus switches from Britain to England. "We're only a small country", we hear, and the headlines are often accompanied by a picture of a crammed street, better if in Central London. Aside from very small states like Malta, and also the Netherlands, England has the highest density rate in the EU. If you consider the UK, however, Belgium's also more densely populated, while both Germany and Italy are just a little behind.

Yet a man from DΓΌsseldorf will point out that North Rhine, his hugely overcrowded state, is twice more densely populated than Germany and way more than England.

An Italian could say that if you consider Northern Italy only, then the country's density is higher than that of Bahrein. And that if you discount the Alps, which are objectively quite difficult to inhabit en-masse, population density will reach Singapore-levels.

Similarly, a Catalan will tell you that their density is six times higher than Spain's, and so forth. Yorkshire counts more people than Cumbria. Where do you draw the line?

But I'm diverging. The argument you hear is that, while France and Germany have more room, England is overcrowded. Therefore, the rise of the BNP can be explained by this alarming, simple, visible fact.

So let's have a look. Are far-right anti-immigration parties a direct product of high population density? If tomorrow England woke up the size of Russia, would Nick Griffin retire from politics and the BNP die a sudden death?

France, a nation four times the size of England, has long boasted one of the most successful far-right parties in Europe. In 2007, the Front National tallied 11% of the national vote. Its leader Jean Marie Le Pen notoriously qualified for the second round of the French Presidential elections in 2002, netting over 17 per cent of the votes.

Their figures are similar to those of Vlaams Blok, the far-right Flemish nationalists in super overcrowded Belgium.

Italy, the cradle of fascism, is also home to a thriving far-right anti-immigration movement. The country may be getting increasingly densely populated now, but Mussolini's political heirs have regularly won a fair share of MPs since WWII, averaging 6% of the vote at each national election- and that's before, during and after inward migration began in Italy.

Sweden has an incredibly low population density, but with 7.2% according to the latest polls, its far-right party, Sverigedemokraterna, can currently piss all over their German colleagues of the National Democratic Party who scored a rickety 1.8% at last September's general elections.

Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom may have netted 5.9% at the 2006 Dutch national elections protesting that Holland is packed, but Vladimir Zhirinovsky's far-right party in humongous, sparsely-inhabited Russia managed 9.3% at the Presidential elections in 2008.

And back to England (or Britain, depending on the data you're expected to swallow), the BNP gained 192,000 votes at the 2005 general elections, the same as the National Front in 1979, when there were less people and less immigrants around, the EU didn't exist and builders from Eastern Europe were kept in by the iron curtain.

The picture emerging, therefore, is one where overcrowding, population density, centre-right or centre-left governments, the EU and the Muslims all matter very little when it comes to justifying the far-right racist vote.

Read "Immigration myths": PART ONE and PART TWO.