Exclusive: Harlow Labour PPC Falsely Claims Thatcher's Legacy On Apartheid Was 'Shocking'

The Labour PPC for Harlow has falsely claimed on Twitter that Thatcher's legacy on 'Apartide [sic] was shocking'.

Suzy Stride, who Ed Miliband wants in the House of Commons in 2015, has said this despite a great deal of evidence that Thatcher was very much against Apartheid. Nelson Mandela and Thatcher had a very good relationship on the world stage, for example. There are documents that show Thatcher lobbied for the release of Mandela in the 1980s. Furthermore, Mandela went on the record and said of Margaret Thatcher “She is an enemy of apartheid… We have much to thank her for.”

I wonder what the rest of Labour think of Suzy's false accusations of Margaret Thatcher.

It is surprising and shocking that a Labour PPC holds such 'shocking' and false views on Margaret Thatcher. It is even more disturbing to find that Suzy is a major player in Labour as she gave a speech at their conference this year. How much further will the Left's hatred of Thatcher continue into the land of nonsense? Even the Guardian believes that Thatcher was anti-apartheid.

Suzy Stride's statement has been challenged on Twitter:

@suzy4harlow @LabourList Don't know about apartide, but I love the time when Mandela thanked her for her help in ending apartheid ...
— James Price (@jameseprice1) September 22, 2014

@suzy4harlow 1) Apartide? I dont think thats a word 2) Even the Guardian credit Thatcher for helping to end apartheid http://t.co/nZ6ShD4Vcl
— Louisa Townson (@LDTownson) September 22, 2014

Perhaps Suzy Stride should publicly apologise on Twitter for her shameful and incorrect comments.

A public apology is needed.

Tabism

#ThingsElliottSays has written another article for the Tab on Nottingham Unis Left Soc wanting Putin to invade Ukraine. These people are jolly nice arn't they. Reaction was overheard in Hallward to the article from other members of Left Soc. They said "Who the F*&k is Elliott Johnson". Looks like I'm on some socialist black list now.

As a little added bonus here is what Left Soc had to say about Venezuela and the terrible dictatorial regime of that socialist state.

But they do tell funny jokes.

ha ha ha ha ha.

The Tab article can be viewed here.

Lazy Lefties

The leftwing have gotten rather lazy at Nottingham University. The last few days saw strikes across the country because lecturers want more than a 1% rise in wages. One of my lecturers said to me last year that this demand is rather unfair because people across the country are a lot worse off and seeing less rises in wages than university lecturers. I agree with that sentiment.

Not many people come to the strikes at Nottingham Uni.

I'm rather tired of all these strikes when all we want to do is attend lectures and seminars. Yes lecturers have to work and often they do over time as well, but that is like most jobs. It would seem that Young Green President Duncan Davis, who till now has always been with the handful of lecturers who bother to show up at the picket lines, is tired of these strikes as well. He slept in on Monday during a 2 hour strike and so did some of his socialist friends. The lefties are becoming very lazy.

I did rather like his reply to me however.

@thingsEJsays @NUCA_79 Workers of the world, relax!
— Duncan Davis (@duncanjdavis) February 10, 2014

Kent SU Back Stalin For Elections

Do you find your SU elections exciting? No, well nobody usually does. However, Kent Union are feeling the heat today after they launched their election season with a poster of Marshall Stalin.

What possessed them to do that? It seems that its ok to a glorify a tyrannical dictator who killed 62 million people, over 40,000 every single week on average. I'm not sure about you but I wouldn't want to celebrate that. Indeed Stalin was the most brutal dictator in all of human history committing mass genocide against Jews, Tartars and many other races. This is the man who without any mercy willingly sacrificed 20 million people to collectivise Russian agriculture. Stalin held captive 4-6 million people in Gulags, most of whom had done nothing wrong except come into the cross hairs of the Soviet state. Stalin destroyed Russia and helped make many people's lives a misery throughout the 20th century.

This begs the question of why Kent Union wished to celebrate such an awful man? Are they trying on that inappropriate left-wing 'coolness' of backing 'revolutionaries'? Perhaps they are sending a propaganda signal to Kent Uni students to follow their dear elitist leaders and vote for the same old left-wing unionists who do nothing but moan about government cuts whilst drinking champagne? Or maybe there are some closet Communists as officers and this is a signal for the revolution?

On another point about this poster why is it telling you to be ready for the 'campus takeover'? The Kent Union elections are not going to be more important than the October Revolution of 1917. I'm not apathetic to voting, I always do take part. But the choice of candidates at any SU elections are poor to say the least. They are all left wing, all wanting to keep the status quo and all just standing to get a well paid sabbatical. Perhaps the SU officers will one day become civil servants who put road blocks to any change and don't care about anyone in the country apart from themselves. Revolution, ha.

Parody of the Kent Union logo may be more like fact, made by @Strawb3rryShort on http://accentofevil.co.uk/.

Anyway I think that Kent Union should take down these offensive posters. Stalin is not cool he's an oppressive dictator and he will never be funny even if you put some googly eyes over him.

We'll keep you updated on what Kent Union has to say.

Update

Well Kent Union have come back with a very weak excuse to put a mass murderer on a poster. They say that the posters were designed 'to promote and spark discussion' about their campus takeover. So essentially they were going out their to spark controversy which sort of shows they have a poor moral compass. Kent Union have admitted however that 'The material is not aimed at aligning the organisation with any particular political campaign or party'.

The poster itself is apparently a mix of  'a Film poster for Red Monarch, depicting an image of Stalin with a tomato squashed against his nose; and also the “New Labour, New Danger” advertising campaign created by M&C Saatchi'.

With the design I can see how these two are mixed together but the reasoning to do that, other than to spark controversy seems rather flimsy. Kent Union says that want 'to set out to profile one of the “Campus Takeover” events – to show the power of cartoons in politics, as the open lecture about The Power of Cartoons relates to (PK008 Medway Campus 1pm-2pm).' Personally I think we can call bullshit on that last part.

Nottingham Uni is Sound(ish)

Out of all of the country's universities Nottingham is probably the most Tory, or rather the least blindly left-wing. The walls of Nottingham SU are a far cry from those of Manchester which has socialist and communist propaganda cover the building like wall paper. In comparison to Manchester #ThingsElliottSays has been sent by one of his sources two pictures that show how socialist propaganda and graffiti is 'respected' at UoN.

Rightly the Leftie who wrote this is described as an 'idiot' in the top left.

Seems like the revolution is going well when the comment rated 9/10 believes abolishing the Private Sector is a 's#*t' idea .

It seems that the students at Nottingham University are not keen on this sort of Leftie claptrap. This has been show in the past when they refused to allow striking miners to do collections on campus in the 1980s and last year rejected a motion to force all students on campus to have one view on abortion.

The only question left to answer is this. Was it Duncan or Archie who wrote this graffiti?

Miliband Goes Mad

Welcome to the Opposition Mad House, where logic is tortured till it cries out. This twisted, warped and rather insane logic has yet again been shown by Red (and mad) Ed.

So what has Red Ed done? He has claimed that pay day lenders should be banned from advertising on children's TV channels or in children's TV slots. Why is this Ed? It's because in his own words "I know how influenced they [children] can be by what they see and I don't want pay day lenders taking advantage of the cost of living crisis and targeting children in this country." So in other words Ed thinks Wonga is trying to get children to borrow from them through their advertising campaigns.

Apparently, the old people of Wonga are wanting to lend to people they specifically bar from being leant money.

Is this man having a laugh or what? People under the age of 18 cannot take out pay day loans. Go onto Wonga.com, or any of the other pay day lenders website's, and you'll see that one of the main conditions is a person has to be over the age of 18 to get money. There are no 7 year olds calling up Wonga; or if there are they're being denied loans because the companies will not lend to people that young. This means that whether or not they find the funny old puppets amusing or not is meaningless because they can't borrow money. So why ban them?

Well there are two reasons why Red Ed could have said this. Firstly he has gone logically mad; this is not unsurprising considering the people he has to work with in the Shadow Cabinet and Unite. I'm surprised we didn't notice his madness when he tried to make out the spare room subsidy was a tax.

Despite the obvious symptoms, Ed Miliband refuses to see a Doctor. 

The Second, and in my view the least likely idea, is that children are being wrongly used as a way to pull upon the emotional heart strings. Ed realises the children can't borrow money, but adults can. As many of the Loony Left have cried out for recently he wants to, in some way, ban adults from getting credit from 'evil' Wonga. As one of my Leftie friends pointed out to me adults often watch children's TV with their kids and thus the ban is not to protect children but to stop adults getting loans.

I do not buy into the idea of stopping adults from seeing advertising campaigns. As a nation we have decided that once someone turns 18 they have the freedom to make their own decisions, and sure this means facing consequences, but most importantly it means people can go out and better themselves. It's an adults choice to take out loans if they want to and they know all the risks but also the benefits. We should stop patronising adults as if they are children unable to make reasoned decisions because once we start doing that we start going around restricting people in other more meaningful ways. We could ban alcohol advertising because adults are in no way able to make good decisions on them. We could ban junk food advertising because it makes you fat.

Lefties (altogether): Ban Everything!!!

People have the right to make choices and we should not pester and annoy people by restricting their choices in an attempt to be paternalistic. People know the facts about pay day lenders. Its not like nobody knows that Wonga charges massive rates off interest, especially after all the Leftie's have been banging on about it.

Not So Sweet Caroline (Weekly Poll Lowdown)

You may have noticed the new poll yesterday. I asked the question whether we should arrest Caroline Lucas MP because she said she was 'prepared to be arrested' at the fracking protests near Balcombe. I thought at the time of posting it that she would chicken out at the last minute and leave the protests before getting arrested and thus for the rest of the week there would be a question as to whether she should be arrested or not. However, she stupidly did get herself arrested so the question is a little bit pointless and it is better to discuss this juicy story now.

Should we arrest Caroline Lucas MP (she was at the fracking protests and said she was 'prepared to be arrested')?

Yes	42%
No	58%
Unsure	0%

Total votes: 12

Weirdly most of you think that Caroline Lucas shouldn't have been arrested despite the fact she was clearly breaching the provision the police imposed on the protest as it caused 'serious disruption to the life of the community'. People were being terrorised in their place of work by the protest and had their freedoms restricted. Arguably also she was blocking a public highway and so is restricting people's freedom of movement as well. Her protest may not have been violent but definitely restricted the freedoms of all the people in the area and the ability for Cuadrilla to carry out its business. Hopefully she faces a court of law for her criminal actions. 

 See you in court Ms Lucas.

There is no reason for anyone to siege proposed sites of fracking, especially Caroline Lucas. As an MP the appropriate way to raise issues is to do it through Parliament. Considering being an MP gives you more voice than every other person you'd think she would be there all the time. Yet she chooses to squander that voice and commit crimes. If people want to protest about something they should do so where it doesn't restrict anybody else's freedom. There are plenty of areas to organise protests nearby the site where nobody is effected and people have their say. Clearly then protest was not the objective of this demonstration instead it was eco-terrorist militancy using seemingly old style flying pickets to close down businesses. The protesters recently had success at Caudrilla's HQ which they successfully shut down and essentially yesterdays protests was an attempt to shut down another site.  

 Fracking protesters yesterday were stopping people from carrying out or leaving work.

The justification for this protest from the protesters was that it is democratic considering 85% of locals do not want fracking. However that particular poll is very dodgy as it takes only a small slice of people who replied back, those who answered on the whole had a clear interest in wanting it to be stopped. The people of YouGov would frown on the green campaigners. Also a majority of people support fracking in the country. It has been allowed by a government which has the support of 60% of the British population and the actual planning permission for Cuadrilla (who is actually looking for oil at this moment) was approved by a democratically elected local government. 

I won't even begin to majorly explore the arguments that the anti-frackers are using because it is essentially bonkers. The water table doesn't get poisoned by fracking and even if it did the UK water table is below the fracking seam so there would be no risk of it happening. More gas on the market with less transport costs means lower prices so how on earth can prices not fall with shale gas, it fell by 1/3 in the USA where it is harder to extract shale gas. Also wildlife nearby fracking sites are not damaged. In Nottinghamshire for example a RSPB reserve is campaigning against the nearby turbines not the existing fracking wells, which take up less than a 50th of an acre and power 20,000 homes.

 Fracking protesters are just a desperate mob of left-wingers who don't have any argument that stands up to facts about fracking. The protest in part yesterday was to vent off their political radicalism, thus the Iran placards and Unite banners.

So go away Lucas and your eco-terrorist gang and let people lead better lives by not committing crimes and allowing fracking.

Vote in the New Poll.

Weekly Poll Lowdown

Well it seems after calls last week from the UK opposition, only before they found out that councils controlled by Labour employ people on 'zero contract hours', you agree that zero contract hours should be abolished. Just over half of think this should be the case and this is pretty much dead on what the public thought when polled about it last week. So well done for being highly representative.

Should 'zero hour contracts' be abolished?

Yes.	53%
No.	38%
Unsure.	9%

Total votes: 34

I think getting rid of zero contact hours is a stupid idea because it gets rid of economic freedom of both employers and also of employees. 

 Its not just Sports Direct that uses zero hour contracts, the NHS, caring businesses, Charities and most government departments use them too.

Firstly, just so everyone is clear about this, a zero hour contract is where a person is employed but there isn't an amount of set hours they do. The business would call up a person and say 'can you do X amount of hours at this time' and the employee can accept or decline to do it. Zero contract hour workers are subject to other employment legislations because the law sees them as employees and not just workers. Also as another side point, it's not just big business who use zero contract hours. 24% of those who are on a zero hour contract work in the public sector and 34% work for charities. 

The idea behind zero hour contracts have been around for a very a very long time. It's essentially to give flexibility for businesses and staff. People are able to work for as much as they want because they individually want to be flexible. For example those who can only physically work short hours or want the potential of more money than a 9-5 job often use Zero hour contracts.

Employers too have the bonus of being able to have more staff when needed without having to spend lots of money on longer contracts. Indeed if zero contract hour jobs did not exist it is debatable that they would be replaced by full time jobs as the cost would be too great, especially true in small a medium size business because they have less money.

  

 Vince Cable wants tighter regulation of the zero hour contracts because people are willingly working on them and its up to him to decide what people should do.

So what is the cumulative effect for employers and employees, let's forget the obvious benefits to the consumer at this time? Well people who would otherwise be unemployed have a job because it's cheap enough for employers to provide positions for labour. Therefore employees have more choice about what job they can do, and that's on top of the flexibility they get in accepting the work when asked to do it. Employers too get a benefit of potentially saving costs and gaining productivity. This in turns creates more money for them and then leads to an expansion with more jobs and so there are even more people employed, which is what people want at the moment.

 People on the left don't actually realise that people just want to work to have more control over their lives. Employees are winners from their trade of labour too.

So what is all this nonsense about? It comes from two ideas espoused by the loony left of the UK. Firstly that somehow everyone is entitled to full employment. These are the sort of Marxist ideas that Owen Jones espouses which ends up with the country being bankrupt and no one in employment. This hasn't been peddled in the media because it doesn't make sense, but be sure that many of the hard core lefties who bring these to light believe in this. 

A much more used argument then is that people are not getting enough hours to work and therefore can't afford to live, a classic case of oppression of the working population by the 'evil' capitalists. However, only 16% of zero contract workers in research done by the CPID 'felt they did not have an opportunity to work enough hours', which is pretty low and also highly subjective on 'enough'. But even if it were the case that people on zero contract hours were struggling to get by as the norm they would not be getting by at all if they did not have any jobs. Then again we could always have these people on benefits, perhaps that's what the lefties want? They're not interested in jobs for people only to have voters stuck in a situation where they have little freedom and rely on the state letting them live. We already know that the lefties in the Guardian just want to control people's lives, this may just be another way about it.

 The lefties just don't want people choosing to improve their lives by earning money.

Vote in the new poll on the sidebar.

What is Labour Up to?

Does anyone actually know what is going on in the Labour Party at this moment? I don't, someone must do? Have you heard from Ed Miliband at all since the summer recess? No, neither have I. But what of the recent left wing media offensive? Oh yes, it has been on the Labour Party for not being left wing enough. Which kind of sets the tone really for what a Labour Government would be like. Its going to add nothing to the country except debt by carrying out leftie crack pot initiatives.

Labour should be on the attack at the moment if it wants to win the General Election. But its not. There aren't any policy announcements. Before the recess of Parliament it was already going pretty badly as Labour seemed to announce policies, then change them, then edit them again, then finally remove them altogether all in a week. No wonder that Red Ed is lying low at the moment when usually the opposition will be on the offensive. 

Red Ed has also probably learnt a lesson from the only policy he has come up with since July. Ed recently announced he wanted the 'scandal' of the existence of zero contact hours to be ended. Then somebody pointed out to him that these people have chosen to work under these conditions, that they often choose to because of flexibility, and thus this is not a case of employers brutally oppressing the masses like you will see in all socialist handbooks. Most importantly however is that the Labour Party in councils it controls use zero contact hours. So way to go, if you don't want zero contact hours don't vote Labour, they use them.

This is all you need to know about Ed Miliband. 

It's almost no surprise now that Labour Shadow Cabinet Ministers are having a go at Red Ed. Instead of doing nothing over the summer recess, Andy Burnham, you know the Shadow Health Secretary who when in government under Brown covered up 13,000 deaths in the NHS, has said "Labour needs to put its cards on the table" otherwise it could end in electoral defeat if people are not convinced by Labour "not much beyond spring." So there we are a party not happy with its leader and a maximum time scale set for Ed Miliband to try and get into a winning position, can they do it?

  No wonder Andy Burnham is sad, he has just seen the cliff Labour are about to drive over.

To make a change however all the leftie newspapers are on the attack. But they're are attacking Red Ed from not doing a good enough job, like Andy Burnham. Take a recent Polly Toynbee article on the care system 'Labour promises the total integration of health and social care budgets locally. But that can't be done when one system is free and the other paid for ... can Labour devise a universal care system?'. This doesn't look like great support from the left's media over Labour's plans of trying to stay as close as possible to coalition policy without the Unions dropping their funding.

Is Polly Toynbee going to even vote Labour in 2015? The Green Party is always a viable alternative Polly.

But where do they think Labour should be heading, well Polly answers that too. She says in the same article 'The nervous in Labour's ranks remember Tory gravestone posters at the last election, warning of Labour's "death tax" over a similar plan for a levy for a national care service. But doorstep evidence suggests it was a popular policy.' This is very interesting because it essentially says that Labour should return to the policies of tax everything, a lot. So Labour have two groups of people now moving them towards the Left. The leftwing media who convince a lot of their voters to vote for Labour and the Trade Unions. All of them are pushing them to the position of borrow even more than Labour actually want to and start running the UKs economy into the ground. 

 Labour policies are currently being pulled leftwards by the leftie media and Len McCluskey, head of Unite.

So what is Labour up to, except for the obvious over going to add almost £3000 of debt to every person in the UK? the short answer is who knows. The long answer is that all its supporters and even some of its MPs are attacking Ed Miliband and he can't even string a decent policy together. All we know is that under Labour the debt will be going up much more on all the stupid stuff they'd spend it on. 

Want to know what is going on in the Labour Party atm? Don't bother asking its leader.

Greek Liberalism Part 1

I've wrote an article for the new Pan-Liberals blog set up by myself, a few others but mostly Dean Hyatt (a.k.a DASHPolitiek). My first article on it is about how the Lib Dems are in no way a liberal party. All the liberalism has been gone and has been replaced by left wing ideology, not good. So here it is and enjoy.

Moral Crusade

Hasn't everyone got a bit obsessed with tax avoidance at the moment. For some reason there is a moral crusade being launched by the Left and now David Cameron to crack down on people who are not doing anything wrong.

Moral Crusade being launched by the Left.

What's illegal about tax avoidance, absolutely nothing. People want to keep more of their money and stop the government taking it. It could be argued it is more moral to avoid tax than giving money to the government considering they waste so much and cause a lot of damage with it. But what is more important is that we let people make their own decisions in life, so long as they are not breaking any laws. To not do so is interference that deeply annoys people and leads to a less cohesive society. Imagine if we were doing this on whether people should buying and reading the Daily Mail, an activity involving money and one that a large proportion of people criticise. There would be great upset and that is wrong.

So why do we have this moral warfare? The rhetoric doesn't seem to be about reform of the tax law. Apart from George Osborne saying occasionally how the Treasury is trying to close some loopholes there isn't much said by the Left about rewriting tax law. Instead it is more immediate demands of cough up to lots of major companies and well known and important figures from comedians to politicians.

Nigel Farage has been accused of avoiding Tax through the Isle of Mann.

Maybe it's an attempt to punish those people who 'caused' the economic crisis. This idea is a ridiculous one though because of course the economic crisis was caused by a lack of taxation of businessmen and Nigel Farage. More tax causes a worse economy and its is government, which includes civil servants and ministers, getting involved rather than individuals and wealth creators that cause our economic woes. The fact is tax avoidance is done by a very large proportion of the population to some scale through accountants and tips from search engines. I don't see many people blaming the 99%, as the occupy movement always stresses, for the Great Recession.

Guardian tax diagram showing the 'sinners' who owe us money.

Perhaps then it's about actually paying off the debt. According to the Guardian who are experts on tax law (see video below) if we collected all the tax that was 'owed' to us by companies it would meet the amount the Government has cut in the country. The problem is, they forget where this money saved from the taxman is going, it funds peoples jobs and actually helps the economy. What would this money do in state hands? Well the state is a spender, it creates no money. Administration is loss making even on the basis of paying wages and the less said about Keynesian spending the better. The argument here, although sounder than others, is still full of holes that cannot be plugged.

So why is this really happening? It's just the Left hating those that create money and those who stand up for capitalism again. If we look at the Left view optimistically the wealth creators of this country can lose sight of the moral mission they must have to look after people and thus should focus on welfare and not jobs. If we look at it negatively the Left believe that anyone who makes any money is oppressing someone else and that everyone should give almost everything to the saintly state, seemingly the most common view of those most angry crusaders. Thus they will attack anyone they perceive to be doing something to make a profit and tax avoidance is the new way of showing this up whether it be by business or people who defend capitalism.

Capitalism Rocks! The Left will never understand money and the economy. 

I do worry about this idea of moral law, because it is no law at all. I wish Conservatives would show this up more, although recently David Cameron has pointed out Labour's own tax avoidance schemes to show hypocrisy.

Dave is not wearing a tie for tax purposes as it technically resides in the Bahamas.