GOP = Gonads Outta Play?

What is it with the US Republican Party, otherwise known as the GOP?

Does GOP stand for Gonads Outta Play?  It certainly seems that many GOP members in the Senate display an amazing lack of courage and they are joined by their spineless colleagues in the House of Representatives.

Of course these folks will be looking at the mid-term elections but is that it?  A potential threat to job security means that principle and integrity is cast aside?

Surely there are some Senators and Representatives (you listening Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan?) who will filibuster any attempt at a deal that doesn't include a reduction in US debt  and the US budget deficit. 

The October 17th deadline is bogus.  The key date is November 1st because that's when big payments become due and maybe the US won't have the money, at that time so there is not the urgency that the White House have concocted.

So why are the GOP playing into Obama's hand?  

Linking the budget approval with Obamacare was surely short-sighted.  All indications are that this programme already contains the seeds of its own destruction (see the numerous stories on the multiplying of premiums that people are encountering and the failing, and failed, online registration system).  However, now things have moved on.

My advice to GOP members is don't get tied-up with Obamacare.  The real, indeed the only, issue, is America's addiction.  The drug of choice is debt or other people's money (taxes to you and me!)

When Obamacare is long-dead and buried the American people will still be suffering  from the spending splurge and debt-overdosing that is occurring day after day.  We are not talking about going 'cold turkey', of completely stopping government spending, but rather of weaning the government of their over-indulgence in spending money that they don't have. 

That should be the whole focus of the GOP and it's activities around the budget impasse and the debt ceiling.  Giving any addict greater and greater access to their drug of choice is never a good idea. 

Einstein said that insanity is  doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

 So this time, do something different - don't pass the budget, make cuts, don't increase the debt ceiling, stop feeding the beast!

Banking patterns, debt junkies and Fiscal diarrhoea

Have you noticed how financial institutions are starting to get worried about the possibility of a US default, if the US borrowing limit isn't raised?

First we had the head of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, expressing 'concern'.  Now we have Christine Lagarde, who took over as head of the International Monetary Fund, from Dominque Strauss Kahn after he was implicated in a sex scandal, saying her piece.

Ms Lagarde, the former finance minister of France, has warned that a default by the US could tip the world into recession and massive disruption.   Leave aside for a moment any thoughts or doubts about any former minister from a country such as France, opining on debt.  Forget that France's debt represents >90% of GDP!

Ms Lagarde and Mr Kim are joined by Jamie Dimon from JP Morgan (yes the same JP Morgan that has got $23Bn stashed away to cover expected legal charges for allegedly inappropriate banking behaviour, yes the same JPM that paid a fine of more than $900M just last month for bad behaviour)

I find it worrisome that these 'mega bankers' seem to have learned nothing from events in 2007 and 2008.

Here we have a US Government that continues to spend money far, far in excess of what it takes in.  The debt junkies that are running the US government (Democrats and Republicans) know that the US' economic model is unsustainable.  They know!  However, these 'patriots' fiddle and prattle about Obamacare (they can do this because Congress is exempt from the Affordable Care Act!) while the US burns!

Think about going to see a banker, let's call him Jamie-Kim Lagarde.  You have been called in because once again you are maxed-out on your credit cards and overdrafts.  You have been told to bring along with you a budget for the next year.

JKL:  Well when I look at this budget, I see that you want to spend more money next year than you are earning.

You:  Yes that's right.  I have all of these things and people that I need to pay because they think they are entitled to this, plus I have a couple of things that I like to do and, hey, these toys ain't cheap!

JKL:  I understand, consider yourself lucky that you don't have to spend a fortune on lawyers.  Anyway, what is it you want to do?  I keep thinking that giving you extra credit maybe isn't the best solution because you just keep coming back for more.

You:  But I need this, people will starve, chaos, in our household, will ensue...

JKL:  Wait!  I didn't say we wouldn't give you more money but, you know, I just want to avoid you getting into the same situation as some Europeans that we lent money to.  These guys got into a pickle and kept promising they would repay but then they couldn't.  They even 'stole' money from other people's bank accounts but my bank still lost money!

You:  I hear you and I have spoken to some of my neighbors about their over-spending.  I mean some of these folks think they have a god-given right to spend other people's money and that the government or someone else will just print and keep on printing the extra money they need.

JKL:  Yeah, well let's not go there.   OK, we will give you some extra credit but before you start jumping up and down, this is going to cost you.  As well as extra interest, I need you to get together with a few of your buddies and kick-up a ruckus somewhere.  I have interests in some businesses that would benefit from coming in after you have done your bit and fixing things up!

You:  You got a deal, buddy.  See you next year!

Of course, on the personal level it wouldn't happen that way.  JKL would simply take all that you have, to the world declare you bankrupt and a deadbeat, and then ask his shareholders to stump up money to fill the losses.  All the time, ensuring that his fat pay checks and bonuses continue to roll in and pushing governments to continue so called 'quantitative easing' as no one can now afford to turn-off this cheap source of finance.

Only in the USA!

Actually that's untrue, same applies in Japan, Europe and elsewhere.  Though, the USA does kind of excel at fiscal diarrhoea

Labour's dilemma - Welfare and Energy

Readers of previous blogs will have gathered that I am not particularly fond of the UK Labour Party.  Indeed, I have mentally re-christened them the Welfare Party.

However, I feel compelled to offer them advice on where they are going wrong and what they might do to turn things around.  Of course, this blog being open to all, it is just possible that the Conservatives will consider and then implement these.

Welfare - Labour is seen as the Welfare party - the party that values providing excessive welfare to a minority of people more than valuing the efforts of people who actually work for a living.  They opposed the Welfare Cap, even though it still provided an over-generous level.  They have opposed the idea, even the mention, of benefits that are regionally set.  They have constantly placed themselves on the side of the claimant rather than the taxpayer.

Labour's own private polling shows that support for welfare reform is a major vote winner and yet  the left-wing cabal that controls the party, sticks to it's failed and unpopular policies.

So, my advice to the two Eds is  be bold - 'out-Tory' the Conservatives - set the welfare cap below the UK national average wage - let's say at 80% - so £20,000 - show that you have heard the people and understand that it is important to recognize that in order to get people into work, they need an incentive.  Similarly, grasp the nettle of regional benefits.  If people are on benefits and genuinely in need of help, why should those living in a low cost areas get the same level of benefits as those in London, say?  Of course, this still requires the national 'cap' of £20,000!

Energy is much more problematic.  Ed Miliband's conference pledge to freeze energy prices is unraveling.  People see it as a cheap and essentially meaningless offer.  That this harks back to Labour's soviet-style obsession with control, doesn't help either.  Nowadays it isn't just people that have long memories, so do social media sites and blogs.  People dredge-up and post all those comments made by  Miliband when he was part of Gordon Brown's disastrous administration, when he insisted that energy prices had to rise for a decade.  When he initiated so called green taxes that do far more to push-up energy costs for families and businesses, than do the profits of energy companies.

So,

• Abandon the green taxes - wins votes across the country from grateful voters who see this as a real and sustainable cost of living reduction.
• Remove VAT from energy bills - see above
• End the subsidies for wind farms  - as well as taking money from 'rich' landowners (core labour policy) also garners rural votes from people who oppose the despoilation of the countryside.

Of course the Conservatives just might beat you to the punch on these - after all, they finally did on the EU Referendum (though Labour still have time to jump on this popular bandwagon) but you still have time!


  

US Shutdown - Questions for Goldman Sachs et al

Goldman Sachs are reported to be claiming that the 'shutdown' of the US Federal Government is costing the US Economy more than $300M a day!  Yes, a day!

As with many news stories, no supporting data is offered - just a self-serving soundbite.  Here's a tip for lazy journalists - ask the questions - how is that number supported and from where do the numbers come?
 
So let's try to think about it on a simple level.

The US Government is not spending money (money that it doesn't anyway have!) and it is doing this by putting employees on unpaid leave.  Is this the >$300M that is hitting the US economy?  If so, how?

What is the saving to the US economy by not having to borrow money to pay these furloughed employees?  Is that shown as a negative in the calculation?

The US military, Homeland Security and the FBI are not sending drones into the skies, to spy on the American people - so that means that they aren't spending money on foreign oil - presuming that the cost is predominantly for the product and not for the US middle-man's profit element,  how does that affect the US economy?

The EPA and other federal agencies are not issuing their usual reams of regulations that impose cost burdens on US business - is that cost benefit included in the $300M number? 

Surely the $300M can't be the daily cost for putting up barriers at places like the WWII memorial to stop veteran's visits? 

I can't believe that the GS number includes taxes and fines and penalties that are not collected, during the shutdown - surely these are simply deferred so no net impact (and they are zero sum anyway!

Here's another question for GS and Wall Street readers - We have heard all sorts of anecdotal evidence from companies across the US, citing by how much their health care costs will rise (and so profits and shareholder returns fall) as a result of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) but how much do you think this will take out of the US economy?  Is it a zero sum game?  So every $ of additional premiums that companies must pay is considered to remain sloshing around in the economy but just being transferred from other parts to the health care and insurance sectors?  Or is this wealth extraction from business seen as destructive to America's ability to invest?


If the GS numbers are correct, think about what that says about the US and its economy.  That the government is such an integral part of the economy that it starts to resemble and mirror the effects that the Soviet and it's satellites had on their economies - they become a or the key component in economic activity and so important that they feed their own destruction.

Of course, maybe GS are right and the number is correct but what would be the actual impact on the economy?  We all know that past shutdowns have led to real measured improvements in GDP so maybe the longer the shutdown, the better the benefit.  Since though this kind of positive data feeds into the 'smaller government is good' narrative, I can kind of understand why GS emphasizes the opposite.

Miliband's numbers

Charitably speaking, it must have been the fear. 

There was Ed Miliband sitting in his suite in Brighton, preparing his 'leader's' speech.  He knew he had successfully overcome the Neil Kinnock moment.  He had managed to successfully walk on the beach, while being photographed and hadn't fallen over!  But............

He also knew that Damian McBride, was publishing and promoting his memoirs.  If these were to be full and candid, what tales of complicity might they tell?   How might Rasputin's henchman implicate him.  Ed knows it doesn't have to be true, just said or whispered.  What a worry.

How is the Leader to plan for the post-2015 election turnip harvest, which will be a record, he already knows, if he is being bothered about these kind of things?

So, in pops a speechwriter with the latest draft.  The speech-writing aide is also worried.  Putting the knife into brother David's back, seemed the best thing at the time and certainly Len and the other big money-guys all supported it but look at the polls!  It's not as if becoming a writer for the Guardian is an option.  They are suffering losses, especially now that all that government jobs advertising revenue has dried-up!

So between them, they come up with a wheeze.  Let's promise to freeze energy prices!  At a stroke, Labour's ratings will soar and with them, Ed's.  For how long will we freeze them, someone asks.  4Ever, aide Owen, stridently says.  "This is just the start, food prices have been rising as well, so let's freeze them, too!  And let's be balanced, so abandon the fascist Tory freeze on council tax rises, after all, we don't want to frighten the vicar!"

In a resurgence of fratricidal-like vigor, Ed says No!  We will freeze for 22 months!  I have it on good authority that within 22 months of the establishment of our Socialist utopia, we will be able to produce sufficient quantities of both left and right foot clogs for the masses to wear.  This will keep them happy, when the freeze ends!

Perhaps it didn't happen quite like this but ...............

Miliband knows better than most that the more significant part of average energy bills is represented by environmental taxes - more than 10% of the cost.  Then there is VAT at around 6%.  The profit element comes in at less than 5% (and don't forget that this profit has also been taxed and any subsequent dividends paid, will be taxed!).

Miliband knows because it was he, as the minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, during the last Labour mis-government, that brought in the legislation that imposes such punitive (and futile) green taxes. 

I guess you can take the minister out of power but you can't take the spin and mendacity out of the minister?

Oh, and related to the above and before anyone bothers to question the futility of these green taxes.  Tell me, how can scientists be 95% certain that global warming is man-made? 

Firstly, their own evidence (embarrassingly) doesn't actually show any sustained warming unless they slice-up the data to fit the required answer - so from June 22nd 2013 through July 5th 2013, temperatures rose at an alarming rate and the freezer at Blackpool's Iceland store was unable to cope and the internal ice-caps started to melt - ergo man-made global warming!

Secondly, what kind of science is it that is 95% certain?  Can you be 95% dead?  95% pregnant?  Can we be 95% certain that the tensile strength of an object is X?  How was this 95% figure derived?  Using some kind of probability analysis, maybe?  Given that the data used by the IPCC and their fellow green-gravy-train travelers, has been found to be almost completely flawed, wrong and sometimes just plain manufactured, one would have to take any such analysis with mountains of salt!

I am not a scientist but recall from my schooldays that scientific experimentation was about proving something with a 100% degree of certainty.  Simply put, if I construct a compound of X% of this chemical and Y% of that one, I can expect to always see the same results and can prove and replicate my experiment.  Has science changed?  If I put a little bit less than X% or Y% into the compound and got different results would it be okay so long as they were 95% right?







 

  

Cameron's Conference speech leaked - Exclusive!

What follows is a copy of the speech (including notes)  that David Cameron will give to the Conservative Party conference, next week.  How it was obtained, only Snowden knows!

Conference, thank you for that rousing welcome!  It is always good to visit Manchester (note to self, ask Grant why we are meeting in Manchester, other than Gid's do we have any seats up here?)

Well what a year it has been, since we last met.  Andy Murray won Wimbledon (pause for applause) and in spite of Alex Salmond's buffoonish behaviour with the Saltire,  didn't come out in favour of Independence for Scotland, the British Lions, the epitome of the Union at its best, plus the Irish , of course, beat the Aussies, down under and England won the Ashes - Hope that doesn't sound like Aussie bashing!  After all Australia has just elected a solidly Conservative party, led by Tony Abbot.

Sporting triumphs aside, we have also seen progress on the home front.

Our Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne has managed to get the economy stoked-up enough so that we are seeing a growing economy (not to self, don't ad lib about green shoots, in fact don't mention horticulture, at all!).  He has managed to do this without making the so called 'savage cuts' that our opponents in the Welfare Party accused us of.   Make no mistake though, we have turned a corner but there is still a long way to go. 

We do need to do a lot more to roll back the state;

Iain Duncan-Smith is pushing forwards with reforms to Welfare which will mean that those in work are better-off than those out of work.  Also, as recently announced, that those out of work, will now have to work for their welfare handouts (pause for applause) - I know, many of you and much of the country think - about time!  But you know we now have to contend not just with the opposition Welfare Party, but also with our Coalition partners and now the United Nations. 

Yes, Conference it seems that the United Nations, the organisation that did such a great job in Rwanda and Srebrencia feels compelled to lecture the UK government on our welfare policies.  The same organisation that appointed Gaddafi as a member of the UN Human Rights Council, now thinks it knows enough about the UK to pronounce on our democratically approved policies!  (Pause for applause).  Well, Grant Shapps told them where to get off, didn't he!  (Pause for applause)

 We haven't been inactive on the home front either. 

Theresa May persevered and succeeded where countless Labour ministers failed and finally got Abu Qatada extradited to Jordan.  (Pause for applause).  We need to ensure that people like him are never allowed to abuse our judicial systems in the future.  So, our next election manifesto will include a commitment to repeal all of the Human Rights legislation that has so hampered our country.  Our people have said Enough is Enough! 

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

A former Prime Minister once talked of being 'tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime'.  Well we know where that led.  Decent, honest people afraid to walk the streets because of anti-social yobs, our town centres made no-go areas and overrun with drunken mobs on weekends and killers and rapists getting light sentences and being let out to re-offend.  Well Conference, this must and will stop! Our election manifesto will include policies designed to appropriately punish these people and protect you and the millions of others who are fed-up to the back teeth with a softly softly approach. 

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

Thinking of that former Prime Minister and  his successor, I must say that I now understand why we inherited such an economic shambles!  Reading all of the various diaries and memoirs, it was clear that these tribunes of the Welfare Party were much more concerned about stabbing each other in the back and smearing and leaking against themselves, than in running the country!   (Pause for applause). 

And they had the cheek to call us the nasty party! (Pause for applause).  Well no more!  The great people of Britain, know that it is the  Conservative Party and its economic policies that have pulled the country back from the brink of economic ruin - a minister in the last Labour government thought it a joke to leave us a note saying 'there's no money left'.

How can it ever be funny that you have fairy-tale policies and unsustainable economics that bring your country to the edge of the precipice?   The British people didn't see it as a joke!  We have all had to 'tighten our belts' over the last few years and let's not pretend it was easy.  It wasn't!  Many good, decent, hardworking people have had to scrimp and save and stretch the family budget just to get by. 

They know, as do we, that the country is now on the path to recovery.  I have no doubt that some of our people have been hurt in this period and for now, they may blame the Coalition but the overwhelming majority of people understand that the Conservatives had to do what needed doing, hard as that was.  The great British people know that truth and hard facts, however unpalatable are always better than spin and lies and taking money from A to give to B and then giving A tax credits and such. 

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

One of the people helping me put this speech together said ' Well Prime Minister, I suppose you can't get away without mentioning Europe'  (Pause for laughter?)

Of course I want to talk about Europe.  The Conservative Party is the ONLY party, yes the ONLY party to offer a referendum to the great British people.  I have said, and I do stand by my commitments, that if re-elected, the Conservative Party will engage with the EU and seek a re-negotiation of our terms of membership and then we will put the results of the deal, to a vote by the people of Great Britain.  People tell my ministers, MPs and I of their concerns about the EU, so I think I have a good idea of what it is we need to get from these talks - I suppose the over-arching theme is for Britain to regain control over many areas of our lives and to act like the sovereign nation which we are.

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).  And we are the ONLY ones who will do so!

The Welfare Party met in Brighton last week.  I am not sure who to feel sorry for.  The smearers and back-stabbers that nominally lead the party?  How can all of this loathing of supposed colleagues be good for you?  It certainly wasn't good for Britain. 

Or should we all  feel sorry for Unite Union members?  They are led by Len McCluskey and he, having elected a leader that he chose - of course then the back-stabbing was even more brutal - your own brother, imagine -  had to take  all sorts of threats from this jumped-up party leader who had the temerity to question vote-rigging and such.  Fortunately Len was able to remind his party - well he does pay for so much of it, it is only fare to call it his party - that he holds the purse strings and is quite prepared to sit on his money if needed!  If he doesn't get his own way! 

To coin a phrase.  The Welfare Party has heard Len McCluskey and their other Union masters, and will act accordingly.

The big idea from the Welfare Party, other than spending money we don't have - and spending the same money multiple times, if their tax and spend policies are to be believed - well the big idea was a freeze on energy prices.

Now consider what that means.  We have already heard from the energy companies that this would stifle much needed investment (and the jobs that go with it) and could lead to black-outs and so on.

But leave that aside, for now.  Consider just how much profit is made by the energy companies.  The average home energy bill is around £1,200 a year.  Of this, around £50 is the company's profit, which is used to fund investments and dividends to shareholders - including pension funds!  Of the rest of the cost, more than £110 is so called Green Taxes.

These Green Taxes are a DIRECT result of the last Labour Government's legislation on Climate Change.  They put in place taxes that cause far more hardship for people than the profit that is made by energy companies.  AND, the policy doesn't work - these taxes penalise the British people and British companies by giving us higher energy costs and then make an infinitesimally  small contribution to reducing so called greenhouse gases, which is more than wiped out by the emissions from the economically emerging countries!

And so Conference, I can today announce that, as part of our next manifesto, we will include a commitment, to immediately repeal the punitive and tax affecting parts of the Climate Change Act.  This will have the immediate effect of PERMANENTLY abolishing the Green Taxes - not for twenty months - PERMANENTLY.

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

Staying with the environment and industry, we will scrap the HS2 and we will use the money saved to fund a tax cut for married people and to promote more and more Free Schools. 

The tax cut will be two fold - firstly to allow the sharing of unused tax allowances, between married couples and then to provide a specific deduction for married couples.  We, in the Conservative Party, recognise marriage as the bedrock of a stable society.

Free Schools?  Michael Gove has quietly led a revolution and people are seeing that we can have an education system that delivers quality teaching without the constraints of local control - local control that more often than not pays more attention to political correctness and the teaching unions than it does to parents.

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

Remember all those ads about the NHS isn't safe under the Conservatives?  History will judge whether they were right.  What we do know is that the PEOPLE using the NHS weren't safe under Labour.  People died, unnecessarily because the layer upon layer of management fostered a culture of hiding from the truth.  They were so focused on statistics and charts and status and their own compensation, that they forgot about the people they were hired to serve.  People died in appalling and shaming conditions.  That can never happen again, never!

Safe in their hands?  I don't think so and neither do the British people!

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

Finally Conference,  three things.

Firstly, I want to congratulate all of the Conservative members of the Coalition.  Listening to our Coalition Partner's recent conference, you might get the idea that THEY did everything either pushing this or that policy through parliament or stopping the Conservatives pushing a policy through but the fact is, that we have got on with doing the job.  Coalition isn't easy.  I won't pretend it isn't frustrating when changes to electoral boundaries are sacrificed in a petulant fit of pique but the great British people want us to get the country right, so we just have to suck it up and do the bigger job!

We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

Secondly, I want to address the voters in Scotland.  You need to know that all of the people of Britain and at this  Conference passionately hope that you will vote No in next year's referendum.  Together we are better - better-off, better placed in the world and better able to enjoy our shared history and a prosperous future.

Thirdly, I want to talk about something that everyone says I shouldn't discuss - UKIP.  More specifically I want to talk to people that are considering supporting UKIP.  Simply put, I want you to think about which party can really give you a voice on Europe?  Which party can really address welfare abuse and has already introduced a benefits cap?  Which party can continue the curbs that the Conservatives have introduced on immigration?   Which party is most concerned about repatriating powers from Brussels?

Ask yourselves these questions and you will know that it is only the Conservative Party that can and will deliver what you want.

Conference,
The great British people have made sacrifices and together we have turned back from the edge of economic ruin.  We have started to address welfare and make the great British tradition of honest and hard work pay again.  We make no apology for not wanting to reward fecklessness.  We will, just as the great British people have always done, continue to help those in need.  We will continue to put Britain's interests at the forefront of our international dealings and in the EU.

Why?

Because that is what we are about and that is what the great British people want us to be about.


We have heard the people and we will act accordingly! (Pause for applause).

Syria again

Following on from my recent post.

The British media seems dumbfounded that the House of Commons voted against British participation in any military intervention in Syria.

Let me help them understand.

Firstly, there are all those memories of Iraq and the sexed-up dossier.  Sadly, the UN weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly, wasn't the only person to lose his life over this.  100,000's of Iraqis lost their lives too.  As did UK, US and troops from other nations.  And still the heartache continues for the Iraqi people.

Linked to the above, the most oft-cited criticism of the 2003 invasion was the lack of any coherent plan for the next stage.  Everyone wanted rid of Saddam Hussein but no one gave thought to what or who would replace him.  The Iraqi people are still suffering the effects.

Ordinary people in the UK and US (overwhelmingly opposed to intervention, polls suggest) know, that without some kind of plan for the post-Assad era, then the current regional instability will only increase.  The business author/guru has one of his Seven Habits of Successful People as 'start with the end in mind'.  I can't believe that the aim here is just to remove Assad.

I suspect that the people of the UK also have two over-riding thoughts on Syria.

Yes the pictures and events are truly horrible but what is it to do with us?  Why should the UK get involved?  The US sets itself as the 'world's policeman' so let them stick their nose in, keep ours out!

Secondly, why should the UK spend money it doesn't have, interfering in another country? Such interference will only lead to negative consequences for the UK economy.  The UK simply cannot afford to intervene - financially so.  How can we spend millions on bombs and jet fuel while preaching the need for austerity at home?  If there are millions of £ to spare, how about putting that by and giving it back to taxpayers?  Or, since government simply chokes on the idea of reducing taxes, how about paying out to people suffering from fuel poverty as a result of idiotic green policies?

I think that it comes down to that.  I don't think that most people look to the regional instability that is now in play and the tremendous uncertainty that we all face, as a consequence.  Perhaps they do see Syria as the proxy war battleground between Saudi Arabia and Iran but the questions remain - what is this to do with the UK? 

There are of course humanitarian reasons to intervene but these reasons have prevailed in many other places and the West has closed its eyes.  I think though, that this time the scales have fallen from the eyes of the UK people and, fortunately from the eyes of UK parliamentarians.  

Oh and I won't be misled (and I suspect neither will the British public) by so called American intelligence reports.  These presumably come from the CIA?  The same CIA that couldn't protect the US Ambassador and three fellow Americans at Benghazi, Libya, last September 11? 

Ask yourself this.  Suppose that there is military intervention - we know this will only involve bombing or missiles - how will the interventionists ensure only the 'guilty' are targeted?  Then ask yourself, what's next?  I don't have the answer and I suspect that neither do our so called leaders.