I’m as riled as a rat that’s just had its coat shampooed. You see, there’s an important local by-election in the Norwich North constituency, where I live.

The most likely winner will be the Conservative candidate, Chloe Smith. But the Labour guy Chris Ostrowski might just swing it, if he’s very lucky.

The only problem is, these two are about as exciting as having a Jehovah’s Witness on your doorstep.

But the other candidates are no better. The drippy eco-campaigning Green Party, for example, is fielding University of East Anglia (UEA) lecturer and city councillor Rupert Read, a pious cabbage cruncher who thinks the world will end if we don’t drive Citreon 2CVs and recycle our nail clippings.

You can’t have a reasoned discussion with the Greens, anymore than you can with a Jehovah’s Witness. Both are true believers in their chosen creed and there’s no shaking them.

OK. You might argue that the Green Party’s position has some basis in science and reason. But you’d be wrong. The Greens are as much purveyors of mistruths as Jehovah’s Witnesses. Put another way, they’re liars.

The Greens push the idea of global warming, for example. But the truth is global warming stopped in 1998, and we’re now undergoing a period of cooling. And besides, the planet has always gone through periods of warming and cooling.

During the 16th and 17th centuries, Britain went through a particularly cool period. The River Thames would freeze over in winter and festivals were held on it. During the Roman occupation, there were vineyards as far north as Northampton.

The Greens don’t talk about such "inconvenient evidence." Just like Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t like to talk about the theory of evolution.

If something doesn’t fit their model of reality, they reject it.

Don’t get me wrong. I want a clean planet. I want my tuna as pure as the driven snow. I want clean rivers. I want clean air. But the Greens won’t help with this; they’re blaggers who distort science to their own ends.

Worse still, they’re puritans who love to stop people having fun.

Say no to eco-fascism: Don’t vote Green.

This may or may not have come from a US soldier serving in Afghanistan. But according to Clayton Cramer, who it was emailed to, it sounds like it could have.

“YOU MAY BE TALIBAN IF …”

1. You refine heroin for a living but you have a moral objection to beer.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher but you can’t afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand but consider bacon “unclean.”

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can’t think of anyone you haven’t declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least one.

10. You’ve always had a crush on your neighbor’s goat.

I’m as mad as Richard Dawkins after having had a visitation from God. Why? Because the main candidates in the Norwich North by-election, to be held on July 23rd, are so boring.

The Tory candidate, 27-year-old Chloe Smith, for example, looks set to pull a victory, and achieve her long-held ambition of nabbing a seat in the Commons. But come on Norwich North citizens – do you really want a deadly dull management consultant representing you?

And the dismal Labour candidate, Chris Ostrowski, a 28-year-old University of East Anglia graduate who works at department store John Lewis’, is no better. You’d find more life in Michael Jackson’s coffin.

But it’s very likely one or other of these straight-laced dullards will win. Still Norwich North will get some modicum excitement at being able to boast that it has the youngest MP in the Commons, once the by-election is over.

But they’re dull, dull, dull…

Don’t this pair have skeletons in the closet? One or other must have had some form of weird sex at some point in their lives? Or taken drugs? Come on, someone out their in Norwich must have a secret on one of them? Someone must have had weird sex with Chloe or Chris…perhaps at the same time?

If so, reveal it to your humble corespondent! The Norwich North by-election needs some spice.

OK, the by-election is a big deal in terms of the next general election. If Chloe Smith wins, then her puppet-master David Cameron will be about as confident as he can be of becoming the next prime minister.

But who cares about that?

What we want is to see this boring pair take a tumble, and lose the by-election to an independent – or to anyone, I don’t care.

Preferably they’d be caught having weird sex together – or in some kind of outlandish foursome – while snorting cocaine.

Come on Chris and Chloe. Do it for us. Prove you’re not boring. And make the Norwich North by-election go down in history for all the right reasons.

Weird sex and drugs. That’s what we want.

The battle lines are drawn in the Norwich North by-election fight to nab the seat left empty by Labour’s Ian Gibson, who was forced to resign over the MPs expenses scandal.

The odds-on favourite to win the hotly-contested seat, which will be fought on July 23rd, is 27-year-old Conservative Chloe Smith, who has fierce ambition for a career in politics written all over her (this isn’t a good thing, in case you were wondering).

The hapless Labour candidate, Chris Ostrowski, a member of Labour’s Christian Socialist movement (Christ, not more Christians), isn’t considered to have a hope in hell – even Gordon Brown is tetchily refusing to discuss his chances.

David Cameron, who has visited Norwich North twice to support Chloe Smith, thinks his party has the contest in the bag.

Well, I wouldn’t be so sure, Dave…

The Libertarians have come to town in the form of 18-year-old Thomas Burridge. He vows to make Chloe Smith and her brand of career Conservatism "history."

OK. He might not do it this time round. But the likes of Chloe Smith, who represent the "old guard" of professional politicians, will go the way of the dinosaurs one day (arguably in less than a decade).

Why?

Because no substance, image-only politicians like Chloe Smith (and her puppet master David Cameron) are NOT relevant to Britain’s society today. They are not interested in life experience. All they are after is a career in politics.

In other words, they have their sights on YOUR (tax) money. Yes, they might do a token job of cleaning up MPs expenses. But make no mistake, professional politicians like Chloe Smith and David Cameron will find a way of getting their "squeaky clean" mits on your tax dollars (I’d should have said pounds, but it never sounds as good).

Why are the Libertarians any different?

Because Libertarians do not believe in career politics. Nor do they believe in big, bloated government – local or national. They believe in low taxes and freedom of the individual to live his or her life as they choose, so long as it does not harm others in any way.

What’s more, Libertarians encourage self-reliance and entrepreneurship. Unlike the Tories and Labour, they don’t maintain a welfare system that makes if more lucrative for a million or more people to languish on incapacity benefits, rather than gain the self-respect of earning money through a job or by being self-employed.

But wait, the Norwich North Libertarian candidate is only 18…

You could argue that a kid of 18 hasn’t got any life experience. And you’d have a fair point. But if you bear in mind that 1 million 18-24 year olds in Britain have no training and no jobs, you could argue that Thomas Burridge is a valid spokesperson for his generation – unlike the Tory Cloe Smith who, as I’ve said, is merely looking to feather her nest as a professional politician.

Ian Parker-Joseph, leader of the Libertarian Party UK, puts it this way:

"One of the things that has been made clear, especially by the younger members of our party, is that the so called ’experts’, the ’professional politicians’ and the older generations have seriously let them down, left them with debts that they will probably never be able to repay and they are mightily hacked off about it.

"They now want their say, in the places that matter, in those places where the decisions are made, and Thomas is one such young man, who having now completed his exams in political studies is ready to stand up and be counted.

"It comes down to the old adage, If you keep voting the same, you will continue to get the same. So it is time for new, fresh faces with fresh ideas to come forward to keep these older politicians on their toes, to start putting forward policies that put the people first, that honestly take care of our rights, liberties and freedoms that the older generations of politicians have eroded, and are continuing to undermine and erode."

Lastly, all I can say is: Don’t vote for career politicians like Chloe Smith, they’ll only rip you off for yet more taxes (the Tories aren’t really the party of low taxes, any more than Labour is).

Instead, vote Libertarian. Vote for individual freedom. Be all that you can be.

Visit: http://www.lpuk.org/

Despite the recession, Gordon Brown and his robber baron Labour Party cronies are to plough a whopping £1800 million into social housing.

Where’s he getting the money from?

Us, of course.

OK. You say this will help the needy. I don’t think so. Walk around any council estate and note the new and often flashy parked in the drives – all subsidized by cheap rents courtesy of the council tax payer.

A relative of mine and his wife have lived in social housing for decades. They’ve always had well-paid blue collar jobs. And surprise, surprise, they’ve always had new cars, foreign holidays, and many, many luxuries in life.

The equivalent couple in the private sector would have had to scrimp and save.

Therefore the social housing system is unfair.

So let’s get rid of social housing and create fairness. Let’s make sure everyone pays for housing according to the market rate.

Maggie had it right…

Margaret Thatcher recognized the iniquity of the social housing system. Hence she used the ploy of selling off council housing stock. She knew she couldn’t abolish the entrenched socialistic system of social housing in Britain, so offered the carrot of “owning your own home”.

She played on people’s greed. Existing council tenants were able to buy their homes at knock down prices and, if they so wished, sell them at a profit.

Margaret Thatcher only did what she had to do.

Only for the needy…

But if we’ve got to stick with the system we’ve got, then one solution would be to ensure that only the needy have access to social housing. – with the proviso that when they find themselves on a reasonable income, they would have to hand their home over to someone less fortunate than themselves, and enter the private sector.

My relative should have done that.

Ideally, of course, if we have to have social housing, I’d take it out of state control altogether and put it in the private sector. But then I’d make everything part of the free market and have a tiny, tiny government.

Someone on my Facebook summed up social housing perfectly. He said:

“There’s something very wrong with a society that sees theft (socialism) as not only a virtue, but a moral imperative.”

Tory leader David Cameron has ordered a big campaign to nab the Norwich North seat after local Labour MP Ian Gibson quit over the MPs expenses scandal.

The Conservative candidate is 27-year-old Chloe Smith who has been campaigning for 18 months.

David Cameron was in Norwich on Friday last week campaigning with Chloe, so determined are they to bag that Norwich North seat.

I met Chloe for a drink earlier this year. She was pleasant enough, but something of a goody-goody. And most definitely out to be a career politician. You can just see her bagging those expenses the first chance she gets (I would too, but I’m honest enough to admit it).

Like all politicians, it was clear to me that Chloe would stick a knife in your back if that was what it took to succeed. And she said all the right things, like it was all scripted.

Of course, my views made her decidedly nervous. The fact was, she was only there because I’ve written for national newspapers like The Independent and Financial Times.

So she had to grin and bear me talking about how Britons should have the right to keep and bear arms and how we should abolish road tax and all traffic regulations – and legalize all drugs, of course.

In the end, I knew the only way I’d be able to hit it off with Chloe was if she threw a bag full of cocaine on the table and snorted it like a frenzied alligator.

I’d love to be able to report to you that she did this. But that would be a lie…so this is not a "shock horror young Tory in drugs scandal!!!" exclusive.

But if you see "cocaine" as a metaphor for someone with verve, character and personality, it’s a shame she didn’t pull out the nose candy…

David Cameron would also benefit from getting his nose in the cocaine trough.

Gordon Stalin Brown said yesterday that us UK tax payers will have to pay our "fair share" to fight climate change (read "forced to pay"). He announced plans for a whopping £60 billion fund to help developing countries cut emissions.

He said: "I will commit the UK now to paying its fair share…"

Well, what if we say no? What’s that scumbag Brown going to do then?

What’s more, he should ask us, the UK tax payer, whether we actually want to pay for this or not.

OK. Whining environmentalists will say we have to save our planet and if this means higher taxes, it’s a price worth paying.

Nope, they’re wrong… the dimwitted greenies have been duped. Either that or they get a kick out of being the "new puritans".

Anyway, let’s look at what this is all about…it’s about "fighting climate change", as Gordon Brown puts it. What Brown and the environmentalists never admit to is climate change is normal on Planet Earth. If you "fight" it, you are taking on nature itself.

This is insanity…

As I keep saying, the planet warms up and cools down as a natural cycle. In Roman Britain, it was warmer. There were vineyards in middle England. And in the 16th and 17th centuries, it was cooler. The then equivalent of Glastonbury was held on the frozen over River Thames in London.

By the mid-twentieth century, the climate began warming again. In year 2000 it stopped, and I believe figures show it has been very slightly cooling ever since.

Therefore, that sanctimonious ugly piece-of-work Gordon Brown is asking us to stump up cash on very iffy grounds – as usual. The man is a criminal. No better than a back street gangster. He’s running a protection racket. Pure and simple.

Taxes: Just say no… It’s the only way to stop the state-sponsored protection racket. Hit Gordon Kray Capone Brown where it hurts; in his pocket.

It won’t improve the planet…

Lastly, make no mistake, that sixty billion won’t go towards making our planet cleaner and a better place to live. It won’t stop mercury turning up in cans of tuna and it won’t see the development of hover cars running on clean energy.

Why? Because all this would have already transpired in the world if the will was there. Combustion engines would have been a thing of the past in the 1970s, and tuna would have been pollution-free.

The reason none of these things have come to pass is down to big government and it’s self-serving regulations that hinder or virtually eliminate any possibility of a free market.

Had we gone down the laissez faire route, it would have been in everyone’s interests to rid our planet of pollution and to have better technology – not stone age combustion engines on wheels (cars) that forever break down and lose their value within seconds of being bought.

But going back to Gordon Brown, you can be sure the sixty billion is more about keeping the big government status quo – and about Brown and his cronies keeping their jobs. It’s not for the good of the planet, whatever the duped greenies may tell you.

The question is: did someone have it in for the Thriller star, who died of a heart attack late last night?

Lookout on the US Message Board makes the following observation:

A report in Britain’s The Sun newspaper, citing a UCLA Medical Center source, claims that Jackson received an injection of Demerol – a drug similar to morphine – shortly before the incident and began breathing very shallow shortly after. A photo of a police 911 computer purportedly from a call related to Jackson says the subject was “not breathing at all.”

The major hazards of meperidine [demerol], as with other narcotic analgesics, are respiratory depression and, to a lesser degree, circulatory depression; respiratory arrest, shock, and cardiac arrest have occurred.

Top marks to Lookout for being one of the first with a conspiracy theory… I’m eagerly awaiting the rest.

The United Nations says 400,000 Britons have a "serious drug problem."

And do you know what their problem is? It’s the fact they can’t get quality controlled drugs from their local chemist at reasonable prices.

The "problem" is purely and simply down to the fact that drugs are illegal in Britain (and most other parts of the world). This means criminals have control of the market and they aren’t remotely interested in ensuring the quality of their product.

Ideally, drug users would be able to opt for organically grown cannabis. The Soil Association should be able to approve it.

What’s more, the packets heroin and cocaine would be supplied in would have a list of ingredients and additives (along with noting potential side-effects) like any other drug or medicine on the shelves today.

And if you legalize drugs, they would be as cheap as cigarettes and alcohol – cheaper if you abolish duties (the ideal situation).

Of course, the prissy and socialistic United Nations has long been critical of the British Government for downgrading the criminal status of cannabis in 2004 – the shift of cannabis from category B to C was reversed this year.

And Mr Pious – Antonio Maria Costa, director of the UN drugs agency – says: "Drugs are not harmful because they are controlled. They are controlled because they are harmful."

There speaks a true socialist (and an idiot). A man who wants to be a nanny… and look after us all because we can’t look after ourselves.

Give us some credit…

President Nicolas Sarkozy said yesterday that the burqu is not welcome on French territory. The burqa is a head-to-toe outfit worn by some Muslim women. It conceals their faces and is about as far from revealing as it is possible to get – which is fine, if that’s what you want to do.

Addressing a joint session of the French Parliament at Versailles, Sarkozy said the burqu isn’t a statement of religion, but "a sign of enslavement and debasement" of women.

Come on Nicolas, in a free society you should be able to wear whatever you want – be it a burqu or go bare ass naked. But with one proviso: you don’t interfere with the rights of others. You don’t tell anyone else what they should or shouldn’t wear, and don’t tell them what to do.

But then again, I forgot, France is not a free society…