The Joys of Spin

The Labour Party is blaming John Prescott’s affair on the Tories. Apparently, if Margaret Thatcher had not abolished free eye tests then Tracey Temple would have been able to see how terrible Prescott looks and would never have slept with him…

Talk About Low Standards

We all have ex's or flings that we are not proud of, but this takes the biscuit.

Not as bad as being the person who is rejected for the beached whale that is John Prescott, though.

"Ms Temple's boyfriend, lorry driver Barrie Williams, 46, told the Daily Mirror: "I just can't believe that my darling Tracey has been sleeping with John Prescott behind my back"" says BBC News.

No, I am not surprised that he can't believe it...

The Birthday Present

Given it is my birthday soon (well, it is two weeks away but like the Queen I am planning to celebrate for several months) I have been thinking about what I would like to have as a birthday present. And I have come to the conclusion that this is one of the best things that could possibly happen - the end of the regime in the Home Office of the sweaty baboon. And this could actually bring down the awful Clarke. Think about what the tabloid press is going to make of the Home Office releasing sex offenders into the community when they should have been deported. The headline of The Sun should be memorable tomorrow.

And if Clarke does go, it is another Blairite relegated from the Cabinet to the backbenches. Which means less support for Blair politically, and once again he will be associated with a failed minister. And all that surely brings the wonderful day when Blair leaves Number 10 even closer.

Therefore, the best birthday present for me would be the fall of Charles Clarke.

Fantasy Film League

One of the things I sometimes to when idly daydreaming is think up how I would adapt books/stories/TV programmes for the big screen. Seriously, I had pretty much modernised Doctor Who in my head long before Russell T. Davies got his hands on it. Ok, he did a better job than me, but that is not the point...

Which led me today to think of what great books/stories/programmes need to be put on the big screen. And, as always, I came up with a Top 5. So, in no particular order, I give you:

The Day of the Triffids: Ok, it has been made into an average TV series, a terrible B-movie and this film is little more of a rewrite of it, with the infected in the place of the Triffids. But the book itself deserves a truly faithful adaptation, as it is a grimly realistic and often compelling look at a society that has fallen apart and those trying to live in the remains of it. Furthermore, the concept of the Triffids, in this day of genetically modified crops, is more topical than ever.

A decent Alan Moore movie. The adaptations of his works have ranged from the terrible to the barely average. My preference would be for a decent version of Watchmen but that is really unlikely. Not that someone adapts Watchmen, but rather that the end result would be any good. But one interesting idea might be Christopher Nolan adapting The Killing Joke as the sequel to the excellent Batman Begins.

In these days of trilogies (Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, The Matrix etc) there is one natural trilogy that checks all of the necessary boxes of being sci-fi/fantasy based, suitable for kids but interesting enough for adults and only really possible to produce using modern special effects - namely The Tripod Trilogy by John Christopher. Hell, it even has a prequel...

An adaptation of the poetic and tragic The Lovely Bones would be worth seeing. Ok, one is planned, but given it is being directed by Peter Jackson, who gave us this and this, I am not quite convinced.

Finally, what about The Wasp Factory? A demented, funny, shocking, warped book. It could go either way and become a classic or a travesty, but with someone like David Cronenberg or David Lynch at the helm, it would certainly be worth seeing.

Anyway, that would be my choices of films to see at the cinema. And if any major movie producer reads this post and thinks "yeah, I would like to make that film", then I am available to help with the scripts. At a very reasonable rate.

Like Flames Around The Sun

To something other than politics... namely, music. Or more particularly, U2 winning the competition for the best lyric - ever. Now, I quite like One, but I cannot see how this has won this award. Likewise, Morrissey has come up with some very moving/clever lyrics, but How Soon Is Now? is a fairly dirge like song and the lyrics quoted in the chart are just an observation of a rubbish teenage night out. I could go on, and attack each and every lyric in the chart (don't get me started on Yellow) but that is not my point.

Basically, as the BBC points out, John Lennon's Imagine topped a similar poll in 1999 but is not in the Top 5 of this poll. The Nation's Favourite lyric will change from year to year, probably from month to month, and possibly from day to day. How do I know this? Well, my favourite song lyric changes from day to day. Earlier in the week, I would have said it was Shine by New Order subsidiary Monaco. Today? Well, without a shadow of a doubt it is L.Wells by Franz Ferdinand. And next week? It will probably be something completely different again.

Although I am impressed by Pink Floyd doing so well here: Roger Waters is genuinely one of the greatest lyricists there has ever been.

Campaigning Without Issues

The Labour Party resorts to pointless negative campaigning worthy of the fag end of the Major Administration.

The Conservative Party has so little to say that they cannot fill their party political broadcasts.

And Ming the Merciful's leadership of the Liberal Democrats focuses on what car he is driving.

As much as I hate them and their pig ignorant racist policies I can see why people from run down communities are looking to the BNP when the other parties in the UK have absolutely nothing worth saying.

The Knack of Speaking Without Saying Anything

This makes an excellent point - Oliver Letwin, the living example of Tory Boy, tries to be touchy/feely over child poverty and instead comes across as wishy washy and unable to offer any solutions worth hearing.

Basically this is the problem I have with Cameron's Conservatives. It is like they are discovering for the first time that there are problems like child poverty and with the environment, and then failing to offer any solutions to them. And after eight years of Blair doing the same thing, I amazed that Cameron thinks this is in anyway helpful to him, his party, and his country.

Local Elections, May 4th

Possible preamble to something that may well end up on the UKDF but something I need to rant about nonetheless.

Received my polling card for the local elections yesterday. Now I think voting is so important. I get frustrated by those who can't be bothered to vote. But I don't know who to vote for this time out. David Cameron - too empty, too PR, too Etonian. Tony Blair - corrupt, tired and on his way out. Menzies "Ming the Merciful" Campbell - an old man leading a party that tore itself apart at the beginning of the year. And as for UKIP and the other freak parties - not a hope.

And I know that some will claim that at local elections you should vote for local issues. But you just know that whatever party does best - their national leadership will be claiming victory the next day. And the party that does least well will have their national leadership spinning desperately the next day. This is not about local issues, this is a referendum on the political parties a fifth of the way through the parliamentary term. And at this point, I don't think any of them deserve to do well.

"They were the only ones who stood by you"

I see Morrissey is at the top of the album charts. Frankly I am staggered - who is still buying his records? Morrissey makes music for miserable teenagers. Don't get me wrong, I think the Smiths were one of the best bands of the 1980's. The Queen Is Dead is a classic album. But Morrissey solo is nowhere near as good as the Morrissey of the Smiths. And most importantly - surely all those teenagers who fell in love with the Smiths have grown up now?

Morrissey himself predicted that he would fade away. In the excellent song Rubber Ring he sees his fans - those who depend on his music for an emotional crutch - growing up, becoming happy, and forgetting about him. With a wry self pity he says "And when you're dancing and laughing/And finally living/Hear my voice in your head/And think of my kindly/Do you/Love me like you used to?" The logical turn of events is the teenagers grow up, and Morrissey becomes a fond memory.

So how is a man who is resolutely unable to move on emotionally in his music number one in the album charts?

I'm probably the missing the point.

This really amused me. Alan Milburn positioning himself as Blair's successor. A failed health minister, a failed general election campaign manager, and one of the few people in New Labour who genuinely appears more media obssessed than Blair himself - Milburn, you haven't got a chance. But I suppose when one of Blair's few other high profile supporters is this man, Milburn suddenly appears to be a good choice.

Angry Loners

Interesting piece in the Observer today about the 7th July terror attacks in London. The bombers apparently waged their war on London on a shoestring budget, using the internet. They had no direct links to Al Qaeda. The implication is that the four bombers were the equivalent of Michael Ryan - angry loners, bent on the maximum destruction of random strangers.

But I think that there needs to be an further understanding of what happened. Ryan was a one-off - there have been others who have done similar things but generally speaking Ryan was a lethal loner. However, as the 21st July, 2005 so dramatically proved, Khan et al were not one offs. Whilst Ryan's suicide prevented any meaningful examination on what caused him to go on his rampage, it appears that he failed to connect with society at all. He was a loner, his motivation revenge on a society that he rejected and rejected him. However Khan et al could socialise with others, and were motivated by a mixture of politics and religion. To write them off as loners is counter productive.

Therefore I see three critical points. First of all, we need to understand how Islam - an inherently peaceful religion on some levels - was perverted to become a reason for mass murder. And we need to accept that this will be happening in other mosques in the country. There is nothing wrong with Islam. But there is something very wrong with this perverted version of Islam that inspires people to commit mass murder. We need to accept that, we need to say the perverted version of Islam is wrong, and we need to go out and convince fundamentalists of that. People are entitled to any belief they want to hold. But if that believe involves going out and killing people, we need to fight it. We need to convince people who hold fundamentalist views that they are wrong. They are allowed to hold those views in a liberal democracy, but we have a duty to prove them wrong.

Secondly, we need to accept that a War on Terror is not like a conventional war. It is not even like the campaign against the IRA. The IRA were an army - there was a clear reporting structure. Al Qaeda is not like that. Bin Laden long ago surrended operational control of his organisation, and the point of Al Qaeda ("the base", literally translated) is to act as an inspiration, not a coherent army. You will not stop Khan etc by arresting/killing Bin Laden. You will stop Khan et al by trying to convince they are wrong, or failing that using the police/intelligence services to stop of disrupt their activities. This should be a war fought covertly, not by bringing civil war to nations in the Middle East.

Finally we need an independent enquiry into what happened in London on 7th July, 2005. The government does not want this to happen. But we need to fight for it, because we need to know why this happened, what could have been done to prevent it, what can be done to prevent it in the future and what we need to do in the (sadly) likely event that it happens again.

"Now it is the time to press on the accelerator..."

"Changing our party - changing our country. The fire of hope burning bright once again."

So said David Cameron, at the Tory party conference, with an apparent disregard for basic grammar/verbs.

As much as I hate to agree with him, Prescott makes a valid point:

"David Cameron cannot continue going month after month without saying anything of substance."

There are two key roles for any opposition party - to oppose the government, and to offer an alternative vision of government to the electorate. And any Leader of the Opposition must achieve at least one of these objectives lest they become like the Quiet Man. Both Hague and Howard, regardless of their flaws, were very good opposing - they argued and won at Question Time and Howard in particular managed to oppose Blair in spite of leading a demoralised rump of a party. He could never have won the 2005 election, but he managed to extract a respectable result (relative to 2001) in the 2005 General Election in 18 months of leadership. He may not have set out a convincing alternative vision for the UK but he did at least oppose Blair.

Now Cameron has made it clear that he does not want to be a typical negative, carping opposition party. Which is fine - he can instead focus offering an alternative vision of Britain - something the Conservatives have not offered since Blair stole their clothing to win his "historic" victory. But something has gone wrong with the Cameron Project. He is talking about change, a change to win. But he is fundamentally failing on a crucial level - as Prescott hints at, he talking about change, but failing to say what that change will be.

Getting the likes of Bob Geldof to advise the party is not useful - it is a PR stunt, pure and simple. Equally holding the conference in the North is a media exercise - nothing more. Cameron has had a wonderful honeymoon period with the British media, but the British electorate are not convinced. With a dog tired Labour Party and a scandal ridden Liberal Democratic Party, the Tories are still set to lose seats in the local elections on May 4th.

Cameron needs to say what he wants, he needs to vocalise what he believes in and what his party believes in. The ex-PR man is doing very well at impressing the media, but if he wants to take on Blair and Brown, he needs to start explaining how the Conservative Party has changed. Prescott is right - Cameron is flirting with the media, but not saying anything useful.

We need an opposition party in this country that can really take on Labour, and we need an alternative government that can offer a way of improving the NHS, the education system and the pension system. It also needs a party that can get us out of Iraq in an honourable way (apologies for the shameless plug for the UKDF). Now, I voted for Davis but when Cameron won, I desperately wanted him to do well. I desperately wanted him to get away from his nebulous talk of future change in the party and get on with the business of offering a real, tangible alternative to New Labour.

Cameron - I want you to become an opposition leader worthy of being the next PM. Either fight New Labour or offer an alternative to it. But stop pontificating, stop promising change and failing to explain what that change will be. Stand up and say what you believe in, and what you want to happen to the UK. Cameron does not need a Clause Four moment (when Blair left behind the Labour party and became Tory Plan B), but he desperately needs to define himself and his party.

Because at the moment, whilst my vote in the Conservative Leadership election was for the losing candidate, it was for the right person. And the Conservative Party is well on it's way to another defeat at a General Election.

Media Hysteria

I am stunned by the media attention on Bird Flu.

Don’t get me wrong, it is very concerning (although somewhat predictable) that it has hit our shores. The potential impact on the poultry industry is devastating. But let’s retain a sense of perspective.

Almost all the media is talking about how “deadly” it is. Yes, it is deadly. To birds. Hence the clever term “Bird Flu”. But so far it has been deadly to one swan. Given the hysterical tone to a lot of the coverage in the media, anyone would have thought that there had been an outbreak of a virulent, killer disease that affects humans. No. Death toll in the UK so far – one swan.

Yes, it could transfer to humans. But we could also be struck by a meteorite. We could be killed by a dirty bomb. Hell, aliens could invade and enslave humanity. But in general we don’t worry about those things as they haven’t happened and are unlikely to happen.

H5N1 needs to change in order to affect humans. And in order to be at risk, realistically you need to be handling infected poultry. The vast majority of people in this country have nothing to worry about. Those most at risk are the poultry farmers – and what they are at risk from is damage to their livelihoods. Headlines ranting about “Deadly” Bird Flu are hysterical and unhelpful. It is scaremongering of the worst kind.

Likewise we need a debate on immigration, but the hate filled front page of the Express does not help.

My point is this – we demand that our politicians, our police, our health service, our judiciary all take responsibility for our actions. It is time to expect the same from the media. Actually, it is time to demand the same from our media. They let us know what is going on the world, and we should demand that the information is clear, informed, educational and informative. Not hysterical, prurient and ignorant.

Sweets from Strangers

Another "great idea" from the party that brought you Mark Oaten.

Now I have campaigned on council estates, and I honestly think you would get a better response of you handed out hard drugs rather than sweets.

“Rock star Pete Doherty was arrested again today. He was found in possession of crack cocaine and a number of leaflets about the Liberal Democrats…”

The *New* Statesman

I cannot believe how much the picture here of the slimy Alan Milburn looks like AlanB'Stard.

Mind you, Milburn acts a lot like B'stard, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised after all...

ID card nonsense

ID cards are a personal hate and concern of mine, and throughout the whole debate I have been astounded by the pigheaded stupidity of this "Labour" government. But this comment from the ever terrible Charles Clarke struck me as even more nonsensical than normal:

""I would be very surprised if the next Conservative manifesto said 'stop the scheme'. It would be very difficult to do," he said. "

Yes, well, it would be difficult to stop the scheme. Clarke - it was difficult to privatise national industries. It was difficult to set up the Welfare State. Hell, it was difficult to win World War Two.

Just because it is difficult for a government to do, Charles, does not mean that a government won't do it. And if it is the right thing to do, then the fact that it is difficult will not stop that government from doing it.

One Year On

Well, a year ago the man I tended to refer to as JP2 passed away after a long illness. And one year on I am still struggling to decide what to make of him.

Now I am not a Catholic; in fact, I would struggle to call myself a believer of any religion. But I don't think anyone can deny the impact that the Catholic Church makes on the world, particularly in the developing nations. And given the Pope is the infallible leader of that Church, even atheists must acknowledge the impact John Paul II had on the world.

And I think John Paul II did do a great deal of good. His solidarity with, well, Solidarity was just as important to ending the Cold War and bringing down the Soviet Union as anything Reagan or Gorbachev did. His decision to forgive his would be assassin is an excellent Christian message for the world. Whilst dying a slow death he still managed to oppose the Iraq War. But...

His refusal to acknowledge the need for contraception when millions of Catholics in the Third World are crying out for it is difficult to defend, as was his opposition to abortion. STD's and unwanted pregnancy will have increased owing to his belief that contraception is a sin. His views on homosexuality were hopelessly outdated. And his refusal to really acknowledge and deal with the US paedophilia scandal is difficult to defend on any level.

So when they talk about sainthood for John Paul, I am just not sure. History may come to view him as a great man, but I think it is more likely he will be seen as a divisive figure - someone who is next to impossible to judge.