Liz Jones Shopping Bill

We've mentioned Liz Jones financial troubles before on here, and not content to give this dead horse one more flog of the whip; I learned that someone at the Guardian had ran a short, highlighting; from her previous chronicles on her mission to blow zillions on shite, why she may have landed herself in the position she is now. I won't link the article as it is worth listing them in the post itself. To paraphrase Richard Littlejohn, you really couldn't make this shit up.
So here we go. The Liz Jones guide to worshiping on the alter of overpriced, bullshit tat.

1.) BAT SANCTUARY. £26 000 (How?! Why?! What on? A fucking Batmobile, and camp rubber suit?)

2.) MARKS AND SPARKS ORGANIC PRAWNS FOR THE CATS. £400 PER MONTH.


3.) DRESS. £4000. (She figures she spends more on this type of crap than one of the members of Girls Aloud.)


4.) WHEELBARROW REPAIRS. £95 (Its a metal box with a wheel attached? FFS!)



5.) WATER BILL £270 per quarter. (At first not too eccentric. But not when she has a well, and doesn't drink tap water at all, but some bottled water with a stupid name.)


6.) SPECIAL STEEL FRIDGE. £3000 (It should be able to re-animate meat products back to life, and double up as a stasis device to sit out fall out in the event of a nuclear war for that cost)


7.) SHOES £450 (Nuff said.)


8.) SPECIAL TOOTHPASTE £8.95 (Special Toothpaste. Are you fucking kidding me?)


9.) HOLIDAY IN MOZAMBIQUE. £26,000 (Includes private jet and business class.)


10.) SHED PRESENT. £530 (A present for her god son. I'm not even going to figure that one.)



GRAND TOTAL OF.-



£60 753.95p



Now I hope that her less well off readers haven't been sending her money after her SOS column. They would be better off telling her to flog the three grand fridge for a start, to pay off her debts. But if these accounts are true, I think I can see that little issue of why she might be in the mess she is in. Ho hum...

More Tabloid Immigrant Horde Figures. More Statistics pulled out of the Metaphorical Rectal Areas.

As today's post concerns numbers and statistics, I ended up remembering the memorable equation that an old genius of arithmetic (i.e just me attempting a lame attempt at ironic humour) taught me on "Tabloid headline statistics" that:

Numbers of Migrants headlines + Jobs + Tenuously Assigned Percentage + Jobs (subset: stealing our) = Utter bollocks + Ruddy faced tabloid reader choking on breakfast cereal x Incoherent badly spelt comments about immigrants taking over on websites / 300 odd comments in the green.

Yes whenever we see a Daily Express headline with some scary looking figures lifting the lid on the true extent of the "barbarian hordes" foothold on "our jobs", it is a good idea to follow the "proof" back to the source, in order to see how accurate (or better still how inaccurate) these figures are. Now I'm no big fan on digging through statistics, so if you want a meatier analysis of the stats try Left Foot Forward, Hagley Road or for a full breakdown of the actual statistics, try office of National Statistics which were the genesis for the Spectator article that spawned the Express headline above.

Now this article basically came about by the following two partially related sets of statistics. Just shy of 1.67 million new jobs (thought the Express has been shy on what classifies as a job for the purpose of this article.) have been created since 1997. However the number of workers not UK born has increased by 1.64 million. Therefore they've come to the conclusion that foreigners have nicked all the new jobs. However they neglected to mention that they've been working on selective data. The following groups are excluded or conflated, from the Spectator article.

• Excludes UK workers over state pension age – a method that excludes 1,419,000 workers. (5 % of workforce.)

• Conflates “non-UK born” with “nationality” – there are many (around 1,432,000) non-UK born (5% of the workforce now falls of the radar.)

Excludes public sector jobs – meaning that around 20 per cent of the jobs (public sector jobs excluding those in financial corporations) in the entire UK economy are discounted.

The researchers for the article in the Express have no excuse for "missing" the last point, as it's splashed across the graph at the top of the Spectator article, as bright as a summers day. Call me old fashioned, but "forgetting" to mention that large swathes of the working population don't even register on these figures, does seem to indicate that this number was shoehorned to appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment, not to highlight the true state of the jobs situation. Not even taking into account any of these factors; which would alter the true number of UK / non UK born employment figures:

* An increasingly aging population.

* More Working age Britons working / living in the EU, and elsewhere

* Student and Temporary Workers.

* No attempt to factor in correlations between incomers, and emigres.

* An increased public sector (not factored) that the press are at pains to highlight.

* The Express is sub edited by burks.

It actually transpires (see Left Foot Forward link provided) that the real number of new jobs since '97 that are done by non - UK nationals is the slightly lower 49.7%. If this discrepancy of figures is, as the press are keen to point out; "contributing to the debate." Then perhaps that debate has been derailed. The press will always complain that they are being called "racist" for questioning the benefits of immigration, and that debates are being stifled in the name of political correctness. Like anything else, there are problems with immigration as well as benefits. Housing and accommodating, in a time of diminishing is one area that comes to mind (even general population increase from anyone, not exclusively immigrants will increase this.) We have issues of immigrants being exploited in the work place. Incentives to big corporations to encouraging investing in local employment in deprived and unemployed areas. Communication and language gaps etc. They are all issues that should be highlighted. As well as the many benefits of immigrant workers, (and increased mobility.) and the frequently overlooked fact that all over the world, and in all 5 continents people are moving more freely than ever. People are more able to uproot from their birthplace, and do so. Almost all countries are subject to a more fluid demographic shifting. But articles like these just derail any of this. It seems that the press themselves are guilty of obfuscating the immigration question, and actively giving aid and comfort to the xenophobes and other unsavoury base prejudices. That isn't an open debate, it's just pandering to peoples worst instincts.

Slightly Loopy "Antichrist Poll" about Barack Obama

If this Harris poll is to be believed a quarter of U.S Republicans think the president of their nation is the Antichrist (14% of the general population). Over half [of Republicans] also think he's a Muslim, 38% think he's quite a bit like Hitler, and oh yes he's a socialist too (about 70%). I repeat 1 in 4 (if the poll of 2000+ is a microcosmic representative of the whole of course.) think Barry has come straight from hell, and is comparable to history's biggest mass murderer. Now I'm not saying that this poll is proof of crackers democracy, but what I am saying is that the results of this poll has proven that some elements of US democracy are a bit mad. This really does bring up serious questions about the kind of ideological paradigms that are making up popular Republican thoughts these days. The sheer visceral stirring up of base prejudices towards the new president is a worrying affair for the overall state of the worlds most powerful nation. I mean for God sake, Obama hasn't crushed the skulls of his enemies in the oval office, or purged Wisconsin, or broken into Sarah Palins house to drank the blood of virgins whilst worshiping a Baal idol in her bathroom, but what he has done has passed his Health Bill through congress this Sunday. The USA should have 95 percent health coverage if it all goes to plan, but opponents of it are going into meltdown, saying it is "Socialised Medicine" and Socialism, in part because the bill means people are obliged to obtain insurance (like car insurance) and the very wealthy will see an (around 1%) increase in their insurance costs, but mostly because calling something that they don't like "socialist" is a nice easy catch all smear, and a good way to scare the shit out of American society. This inevitably results in organisations like the tea party activist group playing the "big government is evil, erosion of god given liberty" card. Now like many in the UK, I see the sheer outwelling of hostility to a relatively modest extension of healthcare provision as pretty baffling stuff, a bizarre glimpse into another societies cultural workings. I also think that these kinds of people are twisting the greater publics genuinely legitimate fear of the risks to liberty by heavy handed government, to their own selfish ends, and observer comments like this don't alleviate this feeling

"They claim that the bank bailout, new taxes on the rich, the trillion dollar cost of health reform over the next decade, threaten the prosperity and even solvency of every family in their land."

I don't think that governments providing healthcare assistance for the poorest citizens is by any means "Evil Socialism" or "Stalinism" It ignores two issues to allow this theory to have any credence. The first being it is just taxing the "hard working" against the "layabouts", not everyone is poor due to idleness, and loaded due to merit and effort. Bad circumstances, luck, prejudice, mental state, outward conformism - can all affect your earning power. Just as inherited wealth and family connections can lubricate the gears of success (the Bush, Clinton and Kennedy dynasties in Washington society.) Secondly does the assumption that all government "interference" is bad always apply to all situations? Shouldn't democratically elected officials be obliged to shield the most vulnerable from the worst aspects of raw market forces, and external threats (strange they never seem to moan about socialised military, who pays for those badass battleships and fighter jets after all?? The scary ass battle corporation) I wonder how you would explain precisely to someone hemorrhaging away their savings to pay for the chemo and drugs they need, that they were "free."

I actually think when the scheme goes active, and when the dividends are reaped by the Americans at large; the lofty protests will end up blowing in the wind. Obama has possibly seen that he will get flack whatever he does and has decided to ride the storm and let the rest of his bill hopefully fight off the hurricane. I don't think he's out of the woods yet, and I leave with this analysis of how polarised the U.S is becoming. Take this example of when we hear of death threats, from this analysis from commentator Max Hastings, I just end up thinking, is this what liberal democracy has come too? And where will it lead too?

"A political scientist friend said to me in Chicago last week: 'I have never felt as apprehensive about the physical safety of a president as I do about this one.'

He perceives a climate in which frightening passions are in play. At the extreme end of the rancour which the health care debate has provoked, more than a few Republicans who own guns hate their president. Pity the Secret Service, who must protect the White House.

Chilling as it seems to Europeans, there are those in this nation with a tradition of attempted and successful assassinations, who believe it would be a patriotic act to shoot Barack Obama."