Thursday, December 28, 2006

Review of the Year

“And so this is Christmas, and what have you done?” asked the wife beating hippy John Lennon is his simultaneously simpering and preachy Christmas song from 1971. Personally, the answer is “not a lot.” In fact, the sole goal I set myself last year I have totally failed to achieve. Hooray! Go me! So rather than review my own year, which would be dull and pointless, I thought I would cast a caustic eye over the rest of the world. And you know what? This has been a really disappointing year. So much potential for change, and none of it realised.

For the first time, the Tories have managed to gain a respectable, solid lead in the polls and also have had a measure of electoral success. And how have they celebrated that lead? By selling out, and rushing to embrace the policies of the left and the Greens. Magnificent work from Cameron – for the first time the Tory party is in a position to offer and alternative to government and how do they respond? They offer a facsimile of Nu-Labour.

Speaking of Nu-Labour, they had a couple of attempts at change over this year. First up was the aftermath of the Local Elections, when Charlie The Safety Elephant was ditched and John Prescott crippled his party by knobbing his secretary. But nothing really changed – Clarke was replaced by an even more egregious cunt and Prescott was allowed to keep his job, but with the added bonus that he has been stripped of all of his duties. He is being paid for doing fuck all. But there was that wonderful moment over the summer where Labour appeared to go into meltdown – it actually looked like they might ditch Blair and, because of his naked and unseemly ambition during the leadership crisis, Brown might have blown his chances of succeeding Blair. But what was the end result after the dust had settled? Blair still in power, Brown still the presumptive heir to the throne. How disappointing. How dull.

The Lib Dems also had a moment of meltdown at the beginning of the year – with Kennedy finally admitting he was a drunk and resigning under pressure. With Oaten dropping out in the face of an eye-brow raising scandal and the Hughes campaign shooting itself in the foot, it actually looked like the Lib Dems might choose a radical candidate for leader. But no, it was not to be. They went with Ming “The Merciful” Campbell – a man with “Caretaker Leader” written all over him. And Ming’s most memorable moment to date? Being upstaged by Kennedy at the party conference.

Across the pond both houses of Congress went to the Democrats for the first time since 1994. And Bush offered Donny Rumsfeld, the incoherent idiot, up as a sacrificial lamb. But as I warned at the time, not a lot will actually change. Not least because they could lose control of the Senate. Change will come to the US, probably in 2008. But it hasn’t really happened this year.

Over in that massively stable region that is Middle East there was the usual unrest that happens over and over again, but with nothing being resolved. After Ariel Sharon collapsed into what must be brain death, Ehud Olmert took over as leader of Israel. And what happened? An inconclusive war with Lebanon, a Presidential sex scandal, and dire poll ratings. Israel remains as vulnerable and dependent on the US as ever.

Iraq sentenced their famous dictator to death, in what was utterly inevitable since they found him in his little hole. Even when Saddam is finally pushed off this mortal coil with a noose around his neck, nothing will change in Iraq. In fact, the biggest change for Iraq would be purely a semantic one, when the coalition of the willing finally admits that Iraq is mired in a civil war.

The utterly barmy and utterly terrifying Ahmadinejad remains in power in Iran and, despite some losses in the polls and ongoing international pressure, seems intent on becoming a nuclear power. The end result being Iran is not popular with the West. Which is pretty much how things have been since… oooo… 1979.

Speaking of powers looking to go nuclear, North Korea made a bold claim to have made a nuclear weapon. Which led to a couple of terrifying days until it became clear that Kim Jung-Il may well be a big fat liar. North Korea remains isolated from the world and mired in a destructive haze of self-deception so again - where is the change?

So my hope for next year? That some of the potential for change is actually realised. Starting with a new Prime Minister in this country

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

RIP Gerald Ford

I am not going to speak ill of the dead and offer my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Gerald R. Ford. But he was one of history's also-rans - he came after two Presidential giants and lost the one Presidential election he stood for (against the man The Simpsons once called "history's greatest villian"). His claim to fame is that he is the only President not to have been elected to national office. Arguably, through the Betty Ford clinic, his wife has made a more lasting impact on America than he has.

But let's take a moment to celebrate history's great also-rans. We need people to keep government ticking over, we need people who don't make a spectacular impact on history. For every Ronald Reagan, we need a Gerry Ford. For every Margaret Thatcher, we need a John Major or a Jim Callaghan. It may not be the most striking of tributes, but it should not be under-estimated - Gerry Ford did his best, and managed not to do anything too damaging to the country. Just compare him to the incumbent President if you want an example of how much damage one president can do.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, December 24, 2006

'Tis the Season

Well, Central London is deserted*, my flatmates seem to be over-excited and I have an over-whelming desire to watch terrible films I would never normally consider. Yep, as all but the terminally stupid must now know, it is Christmas. So I'm putting the demented ranting on hold for a couple of days to enjoy food, wine, gin, presents, a couple of good TV programmes and silly but enjoyable conversation. Just leaves me to wish everyone who reads this blog a Very Merry Christmas!

*It is a bit like the beginnning of 28 Day's Later, but mercifully without the rage fuelled zombies.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Stop Wasting My Fucking Money!

Well, it seems our beloved government needs to increase our indirect taxes. This time through the TV tax - sorry, my bad - licence. According to Jowell and Brown – a duo I wouldn’t trust to lace their own shoes, let alone run the sodding country – we will be getting a below inflation rise to £135.45 from £131.50. A lot of people will probably say a rise of £3.95 is nothing to worry about. I would wholeheartedly disagree.

I suppose you could argue that there is choice with the licence fee – that if you don’t want to pay it you don’t have to, you just don’t own a TV (actually, this is a strategy adopted by at least two of my friends). But this is not realistic. Even if you don’t watch the BBC, you still have to pay the licence fee. It is a tax, pure and simple. It is just that the government (and previous governments from both parties) are not willing to admit to this.

It really pisses me off that I pay the licence fee when I mainly use my TV to watch DVDs (It’s A Wonderful Life at the moment, a festive favourite of mine, but this is a complete aside). In fact, the only thing I watch on TV is Doctor Who. So I pay (given there are 13 episodes a year) £10.42 per episode. Count the Christmas Special, and it is £9.68. Which is more expensive than going to the cinema. It would be cheaper just to piss off and buy the Doctor Who Boxed Set, which retails at just under £70. In fact, if it wasn’t for my pseudo-autistic obsession to watch each episode at the original date of transmission, I would probably abandon my TV and use the laptop to watch DVDs on and save myself a small fortune each year. And I would advise everyone I know to do the same thing.

I know that I do have very fussy tastes when it comes to TV, and if I could stomach bullshit like Eastenders or Strictly Come Dancing then I would be getting much more value for money. Unfortunately I can’t. But it doesn’t help that the BBC seems to be willing to piss our money away on stuff that has nothing at all to do with their reason for existing. Take a look at this on Disillusioned and Bored – I would feel very different if the BBC wasn’t pissing money away on drinking binges. I have no issue with people wasting money on getting twatted (as Notes From A Drunken Evening attests to) but I have a real issue with talentless DJ’s wasting the BBC’s money at a time when the Corporation is putting its hand out, begging for more of our money with menaces - sorry, asking for an increase in the licence fee.

If a business wanted an increase in revenue and profit, it would look at ways to increase the quality of product at the same time as reducing taxes. But of course the BBC isn’t a business, so it simply begs for more money gets the government to put up the licence fee. If we want a decent BBC then the government has a simple choice – stop putting up the licence fee, or privatise the BBC. I don’t care what they do, what I do care about is the government once again increasing the amount of money robbed from me to fund an outmoded, inefficient and failing organisation.

Labels: ,

Friday, December 22, 2006

Barking Bloody Mad

The Ruhnama - the sacred text that Turkmenistan has (had) to adhere to. Written by the frankly loopy Saparmurat Niyazov. Go have a read, and then understand why that country is such an unmitigated shit-hole.

Labels:

Harriet Harman or a crack whore - you decide

This is a really rather wonderful deconstruction of the demented ramblings of Harriet Harman. Not least owing this wonderful opening:

"'Ms Harman said the "awful" Ipswich serial killings demonstrated the need for a change in the law to make soliciting illegal.'

But honey, it is illegal already...."

Quite. Always good to see our law makers don't have a clue what the law actually fucking is.

Now, it may be a staggeringly unfestive thing to say, but I can't be alone in wishing that Harriet Harman has ended up buck naked and dead in a ditch in Suffolk rather than those five prostitutes. Because opening their legs to service all the pervs, pimps and pricks of Ipswich contributes far more to British society than that vapid, worthless cunt Harriet Harman ever will...

Labels: ,

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Fairytale of New York

Now, I realise that I probably come across as more than a little grinch like on this blog -like someone who would hate Christmas. But actually I love it. I love Christmas, I love the build-up, I love the crappy decorations, the plotting of what you are going to buy, the food, the wine, the... erm... the everything. I love Christmas, and the fact that The Runaway Bride is on will make it all the better.

But there is one thing I hate about Christmas. The music. Not the carols - they can be fucking awesome (Hark the Herald Angels Sing is one of the best, most affecting songs ever - no joke) but rather the *Christmas Hits*. The shower of general cuntitude that inhabits the charts at this time of year. Sure - Slade, Wham and Greg Lake all managed to write great Christmas songs, but let's be honest, we are all skipping them on our MP3 players/I-pods come the New Year.

Fairytale of New York is an exception. It is one of the greatest songs ever written - a shining beacon in a miasma of utter shite. The story of two angry lovers, it is about Christmas without being just a Christmas song. It is angry (oh, name the teenager who does not love the lyric "you scumbag you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot) and is a Christmas song by default - simply because the confrontation between the two lovers takes place on Christmas Eve. It could be about Easter, or Whitsunday, but as they say in the opening line "it was Christmas Eve babe". It is Christmassy in spite of itself, rather than hundreds of other Christmas songs that desperately try to be Christmassy but utterly fail.

And that fits in with the general feel of the song - two people thinking about their year and their lives, realising that things aren't great ("Merry Christmas, your arse, I pray God it's our last") but that they are utterly dependant on each other ("I can't make it all alone/I've built my life around you"). Affecting, epic, and emotional, it sure as hell pisses all over other Christmas tunes...

Labels:

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Go go Cameron!

The Guardian, believe it or not, is championing the success of Cameron in the polls. The results are as follows:

Conservatives 40% (+3)
Labour 32% (no change)
Lib Dems 18% (-4)

On the face of it good news for the Tories, bad news for the Lib Dems blah blah blah blah blah. No doubt you can find detailed analysis for these poll results, but it won't be here. Mainly because polls are often hugely inaccurate, but also because there is a real difference between how people would vote if they were in a polling booth today and what they tell a pollster. Nonetheless, I have a couple of points to make. Mainly based around these two paragraphs:

"Despite recent publicity about Conservative defections to Ukip, and fears inside the party that Mr Cameron's remodelling of Conservative policy could alienate traditional support on the right, only 14% of Tory supporters say they might back Ukip instead.

"Asked to name one or more other parties that they might support, Conservatives are much more likely to choose the Liberal Democrats or the Greens: 32% of Tories say they might vote Lib Dem and 19% say Green."

I'll declare my own bias with this - I am against Cameron, and whilst I have not defected to UKIP (yet) I have departed from the good ship Tory for the duration of Cameron's stewardship. But I would also would ask The Guardian to declare their bias - after all, the Cameronistas do appear to be embracing the values of The Guardian's Cunt in Chief. It helps them if Cameron's lurch towards the left appears popular, just as I will be looking for ways to prove that this success is built on unstable, and worryingly short-term, foundations.

See, the 14% of Tory voters who might defect to UKIP should be far more worrying to Cameron than the 32% who might go to the Lib Dems. The 32% are the classic floating voters - the Tories need to win some of those votes to boot Labour out of office, but they also need the 14% of those who may defect from the right. It is the latter who have kept the Tory party as the opposition in the dark days of 1997 and 2001 - to alienate them now might cost the party a General Election victory next time out, but also divide the party catastrohically - at a time when, mainly owing to the sterling work of Howard in the two years immediately prior to the 2005 General Election, the party is at it's most united since the late 1980's. The right of the party have stood by the Conservatives at time when it appeared the party was doomed to electoral oblivion - to lose that 14% now will cost the party dearly in the long term. The floating voters will float to and from the Tories - but lose the core votes, and the party is just a fragile alliance of everchanging centrists, who can collapse the party at any time they want.

There is a counter argument that says the wandering 14% from the right will always return to the Tories, and the fact that I have not gone the whole hog and defected to UKIP indicates that there is some validity in this idea(there is a post brewing in my head that explains exactly why I cannot make the full move to UKIP at the moment). But this does not change my fundamental worry about Cameron - yes, he has been successful, but at what price? I harp on and on and on about this, but there is no point in winning the next election if we are simply swapping one Nu-Labourite government for another Nu-Labourite government. 18 months ago I would have celebrated the above poll results - now, with the castrated version of the Tory party that Cameron leads, it fills me with despair. I see a Cameron victory as an extension of Blairism - another government with a surplus of *style* and a complete dearth of policy.

Labels: , , ,

The Course Of True Love...

...Never runs smoothly - although when you are going through your second divorce to the same person it is probably time to admit that you are not meant to be together.

Labels:

Monday, December 18, 2006

Brilliant!

I am Time Magazine's Person of the Year! But then again, dear reader, so are you.

Two thoughts spring to mind. Firstly, the award becomes utterly meaningless when you nominate everyone online. Also, given previous winners include Bill Gates, Bono, Hitler, Stalin and George W. Bush the award loses a lot of value.

So Time Magazine, thanks for the award, but you know what? I'll pass.

Labels: ,

A Little Wager

The Moai is willing to put a tenner on there being a catastrophic systems failure and/or a major security breach within 6 months of the implementation of this.

Given the track record of the fuckwitted shower of cunts, arseholes and general shitheads that make up this government when it comes to IT projects (and, you know, just about anything else) I reckon it is a brave person who bets against the Moai. And I would be surprised if it took as long as 6 months before there is some sort of major incident.

Always good to see that the government is looking for new ways to piss our stolen tax money away on, though. The likes of Crapita, EDS and Accenture must be laughing their tits off.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, December 17, 2006

The Suffolk Murders

As anyone who has read any sort of news website online or any form of the Dead Tree Press must know, Ipswich seems to have a serial killer. Obviously our media is known throughout the world for being subtle, sensitive and in no way whatsoever sensationalist or lurid, so the coverage of the Ipswich Ripper has been even-handed and not like watching a car crash happen in gory detail at all. Actually, it would take me far too long to pull apart the terrible articles I have read over the past few weeks but a few points do spring to mind:

1. This killer, whilst obviously a disturbed and evil person, is not a Ripper. That is a lazy, journalistic shorthand based around the fact that he kills prostitutes - like Peter Sutcliffe and Jack the Ripper. Now the term Ripper was coined by Jack The Ripper, who slit the throats of prostitutes and cutting their corpses. In one of his letters to the police he describes his own activites as "ripping". Sutcliffe gained the nickname Ripper because he too killed prostitutes and brutally slashed their corpses. It is true that the police are almost certainly keeping some facts to themselves to elminate the cranks who falsely confess to these slayings, but there is not evidence that he is mutilating the corpses. In fact, one of the key phrases used in media reports is "the cause of death is undetermined". Now, if the police were confronted by one of Sutcliffe's victims, they would perhaps not know what had killed her stright away, but they would probably be able to guess that it would either be the hammer blows to the head or the knife wounds to the body. The fact that post-mortems have not always revealed the cause of death in the Ipswich murders indicates that these are very different to previous "Ripper" murders. As evil and incomprehensible as these crimes are they do not appear to be anywhere near as brutal and savage as Sutcliffe's killing.

2. There is no evidence the Suffolk Murderer hates prostitutes. It is difficult to understand exactly why he is doing what he is doing given he is still a free man, and it may yet become clear that he does have a serious issue with prostitutes, but this is an assumption. Unlike Sutcliffe he does not hack at their corpses. In fact, owing to the lack of defensive wounds and obvious signs of restraint, it would appear that the girls see no reason to fight him. This would fit in with the speculation about the use of drugs - he drugs them, and then does whatever he feels he needs to do. These don't appear to be angry crimes, and the lack of mutilation of the corpses or obvious sadistic attacks on the girls would indicate that he is not killing because of hate. Whilst he does kill them, he seems to be tring to ensure that their murders are as painless as possible.

3. I do not think that there is any reason, based on these murders, to legalise heroin or prostitution. Heroin is a highly addictive drug, and legalising it would not stop women (and men, I would imagine) from walking the streets. Legalised heroin would mean that more people have access to the drug, meaning there is more chance for people to become addicted. And as more people get addicted, they will look for increasingly desperate ways to fund their drug habits. So, just as the drunk/alcoholic steals to fund a drink problem, so people would turn to prostitution to fund their heroin problems. The only difference would be that this would now be a legal addiction, which would make fuck all difference when someone is having to open their legs for some punter somewhere to pay for skag. Likewise, legalising (or at least regulating) prostitution probably wouldn't have helped these girls. One of the key requirements for legal prositution would be drug free prostitutes, meaning these girls would have been forced away from legal prostitution and back into the street-walking netherworld. With the clients who are too aberrant or mal-adjusted to be with the legal prostitutes. There are cases to be made for both the legalisation of drugs and prostitution, but not against the back-drop of these tragic killings.

4. The psychological profiles appearing in the press are total shite. Let me give you my profile of the killer: he will be a white male, between 25 and 45. He will have above average intelligence but has never realised his potential. He probably won't have gone to university and will have a low paid, menial job. He will be seen as an under-achiever and if he has a relationship with a woman, it will most likely to be a celibate one. He may be impotent and if not, will have various sexual deviances and may only be able to achieve arousal with an unconcious woman. He will be known to the police already, most likely for a minor sexual offence or for a failed attack or for being a regular in the red light district. And you know how I know all this? Well, I just described Peter Sutcliffe. Or Dennis Nielsen. Or Fred West. Or countless other male serial murderers. All these profiles appearing on the press are examples of cold reading, and have all the scientific validity of a cheap psychic or other circus performer. The police are probably using a criminal profiler, but this profiler will have access to all elements of the case (not just the drips and drabs of information appearing in the press). And the police will also treat the profile as a tool, not as the be all and end all of their investigations. The chances are that the Suffolk Murderer will be caught by a policeman patrolling ther redlight district, or based on CCTV footage. Cracker and Millenium might be entertaining, but they are fiction. The reality of the police work is in the detail, and the analogy of a net slowly closing in on the killer is the good one. The investigation will narrow in on the right person, and then one detail will give the police the evidence they need to make an arrest.

I hope the police catch the killer very soon and I really hope he does not get the chance to kill again. I feel for the families who have lost some one - I know the girls were drug addicts and prostitutes, but whilst they lived there was hope for their families that, against the odds, everything might turn out alright. The killer has robbed them of that hope in an effort to fulfill his perverted desires. But I am convinced that the lurid, ignorant and unpleasant journalism that has surrounded this case has done nothing to help this case other than provide needless speculation and hype for their readers.

Labels: ,

A Message to the People of London

When you are stood in a pub, talking, having fun, enjoying yourself over this festive period please remember one thing. When someone walking behind you says "excuse me" they actually mean "get the fuck out of my way." Not stand stockstill , not shuffle a couple of centimetres forward with a shake of the head and not tut, then go on talking to your mates. This is an over-crowded city which is going to get more crowded throughout Christmas. Let's not make it any more claustrophobic, particularly in the crowded, crampt pubs and clubs.

Message ends.

Labels: ,

Something to watch.

Go watch this. I am not saying it is good (in fact, the opposite is true) and I am not saying you are going to enjoy it. But just go watch it...

Labels:

Friday, December 15, 2006

Shock! Horror! The Sun Speaks Sense!

No, really, take a look here. Their comments on the Stevens report into the absolutely bleeding obvious are absolutely right - it was an accident, it was nine years ago, let’s let it rest now! The fact that so much time and money has been wasted to prove that it is an accident when a blind drunk driver crashes a car into a concrete wall is ever so slightly sickening. There was no conspiracy, there were no murders – as Stevens says it was “a tragic accident”.

Even the Princes want an end to the torpid, seedy speculation. Of course, that doesn’t appear to be on the agenda of The Daily Express or The Daily Mail.

Labels: ,

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Via the eagle eyes of the Moai, I note that Tony Blair has been interviewed by the police as part of the cash for peerages investigation.

Just to re-iterate - a sitting Prime Minister, questioned by the police, over a corruption scandal. Not under caution and not with his lawyer admittedly, but here's hoping this scandal hastens the wonderful day when Blair finally leaves number 10. Preferably with him ceasing to be Her Majesty's Prime Minister and instead becoming a guest at Her Majesty's Pleasure. From No. 10 to being bum raped in Brixton prison. Still a long away off, but here's hoping...

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Defending Cameron... Actually, maybe not

You can't seem to move these days for blogs criticising Cameron, so it is quite interesting to come across one that defends him. Anyone who has paid even a cursory visit to this blog knows that I am not a fan of David "Hug A Husky" Cameron, so I found it very interesting to read Tim J's defence of David over at the wonderfully named Conservative Party Reptile (love the initials... CPR...). Needless to say, I really don't agree but since Tim J offers a calm, lucid case for Cameron I will try to offer a calm, lucid case against him. Rather than my usual sweary tantrum throwing.

It is interesting to see the picture that Tim J puts on his post - David Cameron with a tiny puppy. Now this is a very obvious image, and almost begging criticism. Yes, the new caring, sharing Conservative Party likes puppies. Cameron is showing us that he is more than capable of doing the baby kissing side to modern politics. But the problem is that there is no end to the media friendly images, but a real lack of any policies, and the few policies that do emerge seem to appeal solely to the readers of The Guardian. Sure, the Tory Party needs to branch out and win votes from the centre ground and the left, but not at the expense of losing core right of centre voters. Because, as I am living proof, they will leave the party. And if UKIP can actually make itself something other than a single issue party, then there is a natural home waiting for us.

Tim J begins his post by explaining that he is "getting a wee bit tired of the animus being generated from various parts of the blogosphere." He quotes Richard North's post at EU Referendum as "a bit alarming." Now I like North's post - in fact it sums up the way I feel very well. But that is more a puerile, nasty streak in me. And Tim J goes on to further criticise the attitude of those who are attacking Cameron:

"But this sort of comment, whether it's the club-room harrumphing of Simon Heffer or the more 'howling at the moon' effort above, almost invariably combined with lofty patronising of Cameron's age, or disdainfully arranged quotation marks around "Dave"is getting reminiscent of the Bennite raging against the tyrannies of New Labour."

Well, some of the more childish criticisms of Cameron (my own included) are based on purely cosmetic concerns - such as his relative youth, his attempts to be Dave rather than David and his rather portly appearance - and maybe that does cheapen our arguments. But there are some great arguments in amongst all the rage against Cameron. And maybe those moving against Cameron do resemble the Bennite opposition to Blair, but I would argue Benn (senior) is far more in line with what the Labour Party should be, just as those arguing against Cameron have a better idea of what the Conservative Party stands for than the leader of that party.

There are 3 key points to Tim's argument:

"1. David Cameron's strategy is extremely clear."

Yes, there isn't one.

"He intends, by projecting an image of Conservatism that is avowedly 'moderate', to gain rights of audience and, if possible, the benefit of the doubt for the policies that are to come."

Oh, the Blairite approach - hoping that if you appear inoffensive then people will not worry about any policies that you eventually come up with. But as Blair proves, the danger with this approach is you forget to come up with any policies.

"The underlying instincts of the Conservative front bench remain broadly the same as they have been for years: pro-market, Atlanticist and Euro-sceptic. Hague, Osborne, Gove and the like are not sopping wet liberals, and it is unrealistic to pretend to believe that they are. What they are is pragmatists, just has the Conservative party has always been, in victory at any rate."

It is difficult to know what Cameron and his posse stand for, other than lurching towards the centre ground. They do seem quite keen, with their embracing of all things green and their new love of Toynbee, to appear as "sopping wet liberals." Whether or not a party should be pragmatic in power is open to debate. However, to be so pragmatic as to gut the party like a fish before acheiving power is not open to question. Stand up for something, and compromise - if you have to - in power. But don't sell your soul whilst you are on the outside looking in.

"Cameron is seeking to avoid the instant Mandy Rice Davies response that has greeted every Conservative policy since 1992, when John Major, William Hague or Iain Duncan Smith stated that the aim of policy X was to help the poor, or to try to salve the hurts ofsocietyy, all they got was a curled lip and a 'they would say that wouldn't they'. If Cameron can manage it so that the policy is listened to before being dismissed he will have made real progress."

He might have to come up with some policies first - rather than getting his minions to talk about the relative imagery of Churchill and Toynbee. And he should come up with policies to "salve the hurts ofsocietyy" (sic), but also with other policies to address other issues facing the UK today.

2. He has brought a sense of professionalism to the party. There is little in politics so damaging as a sense of squabbling. The Conservative party gave up on being an organisation in the proper sense of the word in about 1994. For ten years there was absolutely no sense of unity, of purpose or of direction about the rump at Westminster. Since Michael Howard re-introduced a sense of discipline, Cameron has been able to take his party with him. Even the rumblings from Norman Tebbit have been both good-natured and self-aware, Tebbit being aware that dissent from him was actually rather good news for the Tories' public image.

Tim, your post is in response to squabbling within the party. Howard's coronation as Tory leader ending squabbling in the party for the 2005 election, and Howard came across - in spite of all his failings - as tough manager of the party. Howard did what Major and Duncan-Smith failed to do, and what Hague was scared to do - he united the party. Cameron's lurch to the left is dividing the party again.

And finally, Number 3:

"Despite the readiness of many right-wing commentators to play this down, or even to deny it, when David Cameron became leader of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party enjoyed a lead in the polls of about 5-6%. In a year he has turned this into a consistent Conservative lead of about 4-7%."

No, the polls say Cameron has done well, and I acknowledge this. My birthday this year fell on the date of the local elections, and in spite of my highly inebriated state, I watched the results come in and felt a surge of optimism that things - in spite of Cameron's failure to be at all Conservative - might change at the next General Election. Since then things have changed and I doubt Cameron is a Conservative - so my basic point is this - are the polls for Cameron's Conservative Lite, or against Labour? Because the anti-Labour vote in 2005 meant Howard made some ground in 2005, and I feel that any Tory leader in May of this year would have done very well, what with the problems of Prescott, Clarke and Hewitt.

For those who complain that this is nothingcomparedd to the stratospheric Labour leads of the 90s, Mike Smithson has voiced considerable reserve against the validity of comparing polls now with those twenty years ago.

Sorry, being pedantic, but that would be 10 to 15 years ago, rather than twenty. And Blair won a landslide in the 1997 election - because of his lead in the polls. Cameron's lead gives him a small majority at best.

"The Conservatives have won elections most consistently with a moderate, optimistic leader."
And lost them with a moderate leader - Churchill in 1945, Douglas-Home in 1964, Heath in 1974, Major in 1992. I will concede the optimistic point though - in 1945, Churchill had been in power during a brutal war. In 1964, Douglas-Home was the fourth Tory PM, after Churchill, Eden and Macmillan. Heath was just terrible. And in 1997 Major was trying to defend just under 18 years of Tory rule.

"There is a hint in the criticisms of Cameron of a Goldwater Republicanism (or even a Footite Labourism): better ideological purity in opposition that the messy compromises and hypocrisy of government."

No, I just don't think there is no point in achieving power if you are a gutted, hollow shell of a party that has nothing to say or do in power.

"I bang on about post-modern narrative creation far too much, but that is precisely what Cameron is doing at the moment: creating a framework upon which to hang future policies."

Or accidentally/intentionally positioning the party so it is so far left of centre that it cannot be a Tory party in government.

I am half tempted to join UKIP, and half tempted to turn The Appalling Strangeness into a forum for those who think Cameron is a waste of space - and it is worth deposing him even if it means losing the next election. I would rather have a real Tory party in opposition with a chance of achieving power that a poor Tory copy of Nu Labour in power under Cameron.

Labels: , ,

Denial

Via Mr E, I see Iran is once again showing itself to be a nation of religious tolerance and historical realism. Yes, they are hosting a conference to deny the Holocaust. And who said Iran was a dangerous regime headed up by extremist hot heads? Actually, Blair - would you believe our Prime Minister has actually spoken sense? I am looking out of my window and enjoying the sight of flying pigs.

But according to the Iraq Survey Group these crazy anti-semitic extremist guys need to be our allies... It is really that much of a surprise that Israel feels the need to arm itself?

Labels: , ,

Thatcher and Pinochet

Daniel Finkelstein on the death of Pinochet:

"Long live Pinochet" chanted his supporters as the old man lay dying in hospital. As for me, I thought he'd lived more than long enough."

I wholeheartedly agree: a murdering despot on the right deserves to die just as much as a murdering despot on the left. Which makes me feel embarrassed by Thatcher's comments about the death of Pinochet. It is very difficult for me to square Thatcher's admiration for Pinochet when you read things like this.

I suppose could argue that Thatcher is right in some respects - Chile under Pinochet was an ally in the Falklands War - much more so that elements of the Reagan administration. And there are numerous other examples of Britain becoming the pal of regimes with dubious human rights records. I mean, take a look at our close ally in World War Two, Uncle Joe Stalin. History has shown him to be one of the most ruthless dictators of modern times, but at the time we needed his help to defeat the Nazi's. I am not going to go into a long discussion about whether the Falklands War was right or wrong, and it certainly wasn't the desperate struggle that characterises the Second World War. But my point is this - foreign policy makes for strange bedfellows, and sometimes when you look back at your allies, you wonder how you could ever have fought with them. As the USA found out so dramatically on 9/11.

That said, I still think Thatcher is wrong to continue with her defence of Pinochet and hope one day she will admit she is wrong. There is a difference between being a conviction politician and a stubborn one...

Labels: ,

Monday, December 11, 2006

Sometimes, you wonder why people bother.

Just watched the remake of The Omen. And it has to be said, it wasn't great.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't that bad. Mildly diverting and not a bad choice when you have a bit of a hangover. But you have to wonder why the spent millions making that film when they could just have re-released the original.

A remake does not have to be bad, although they often are. However those that do well and become regarded as classic films in their own right, such as The Fly and Dawn of the Dead, actually try to do something with the source material, rather than just slavishly following it. Sadly, The Omen remake just reproduces the original film. And drops the ball everytime it tries to do outdo the original. Liev Schreiber is a poor substitute for Gregory Peck, just as David Thewlis is a second rate David Warner. Mia Farrow does her best to live up to Billie Whitelaw, and the scence where she murders Mrs Thorn is one of the few chilling moments in the film (partly because, unlike so much of the rest of the film, it is understated and menacing rather than overblown and hysterical). The deaths are not as good as in the original - sure, they look more convincing but because you know they are coming they lose so much of the spectacle, and the director goes for making the deaths more brutal, rather than more surprising. Also, the few moments of originality - such as the sub Da Vinci code scenes with the Pope and the immolation of the Ambassador - add nothing to the film.

The original film isn't a classic, but it comes close. The remake is curiously pointless - I know it made money, but it just seemles soulless and workmanlike.

Also watched Superman Returns today. About 45 minutes too long and it could have done with being a Batman Begins/Casino Royale reboot, but it was definitely worth watching.

Labels:

In the future, when all's well

Last Friday I went to see Morrissey play. Now I know in the past I have been critical of Mozzer, and I maintain that teenage angst is more credible for the young than it is for an increasingly portly, middle-aged man. But I couldn't pass up on the chance to see the man who c0-wrote There is a Light and It Never Goes Out, even if I am seeing him play when his prime has been and gone.

So we arrived quite early at Wembley Arena, keen to get a space near to the front. We managed to get a decent spot, but as a result we had to listen to the support band. I forget what they were called but they were quite possibly one of the worst bands I have ever seen (and hopefully will ever see). They were like an inverted version of The White Stripes - a male drummer and a female keyboard player who yelped and shreiked like a rabid cat in tumble dryer. To say that they out stayed their welcome would be a massive understatement - by the end of their incredibly repetitive set the crowd was in the right mood to lynch them. My friend was convinced Morrissey had put them on as a wind-up, I was convinced that he put them on so that, no matter how badly he played, he would seem good by comparison.

Anyway, whilst the roadies went around the stage, preparing everything for the arrival of the former Smith, I nipped from the hall to get a beer and go to the loo - my friend was left to guard our space in the increasingly packed hall. As I wandered out and looked around for the nearest bar I saw a group of middle aged men stood in the corner, chomping on various hot dogs and burgers. And stood in the middle of them, forcing a hot dog into his fat face, was a podgy, middle aged man. He was wearing a brown leather jacket and had his foppish hair brushed back. He really reminded me of someone, and it wook a moment for me to work out who he was. Then it struck me. It was the King of the Cunts - David Cameron.

I did a double take. I was convinced I must be seeing things - that my simmering hatred for Cameron that has been burning so bright over the past few weeks had made me delusional. But even on second, and third, glances it was still him. And then I remembered that Davey boy is a fan of the Smiths as well.

So I sent a text to my friend in the hall saying "you will never guess who is out here - David fucking Cameron."* I quickly got a message back - something like "No way - punch him." I replied that I probably wouldn't be punching the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. The text I got back read "Do it! I've got my camera!". However, in the event the need to go to the toilet outweighed the need for me to try to think of something to say or do to the man whose idiotic approach to being Conservative leader led me to leave the party. But I did wonder to myself whether Morrissey would play Last Night I Dreamt Somebody Loved Me, and if he did, whether Cameron would appreciate the irony. Probably not.

Inevitably, an idea of what I should have done did occur to me - halfway through Saturday, when it was about as much use as a whore in a church. I realised I still had my Tory party card in my wallet (the original plan was to chuck it in the recycling bin at work but that might be a bit "green" and therefore might appeal to Cameron). I should have taken out my card, gone over to Cameron, torn it in two and handed it to him. It would have been a cheap stunt, sure, but let's face it, Cameron is not above cheap stunts himself...

* I actually wanted to go with David cunting Cameron, obviously. But unfortunately that particular word was not in my phone's dictionary (for some strange reason). That oversight has now been corrected, as has the absence of fucktard as well.

Labels: ,

He won't be missed

I know it won't be an original comment, but good riddance to the bastard. Let's hope that the equally odious Castro goes the same way soon.

Labels:

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Identity Crisis

No, not another anti ID card rant. I recently noticed a long post on the Devil’s Kitchen dealing with his ongoing row with a paranoid, tantrum throwing commentator on UKIP Home. The commentator constantly refers to DK by his real name, leading DK to conclude the comments are meant to:

“…ultimately, force my employers to put me in a SBBS situation: my blog or my job.”I know that some will probably say that I have been hoisted by my own petard, but that isn't even true. I don't mind what people write about me: that would be hypocrisy of the highest degree. If I think that what they post is ludicrous and offensively wrong, then I shall defend myself (often by attacking them, to be sure) but I address them by their pseudonym (except on the rare occasions when they either have no pseudonym or freely use their real name). I expect others to work in the same way.

“Having my real name scattered over the 'net and associated with The Kitchen is something that I simply cannot allow to happen: especially at this rather delicate point in my career.”

Which got me thinking. I would not like to see the termination of the Kitchen – it is perhaps the best example of Mr E calls “sweary goodness”. But has DK actually hoisted himself on his own petard? I mean, I know his name – I clocked it first on his e-mail address for one of his blog round-ups (no, I am not going to link to the particular post) and then again when I had a brief look at his appearance on 18 Doughty Street. His name certainly is out there for anyone who wants to find it (which is something he acknowledges in the post).

Now, I don’t particularly hide my identity, but equally do not advertise it online. The Moai knows who I am in real life, as does Beverage – which is no real surprise as I often out for beers with both of them, what with them being mates ‘n’ all. Other people know of my blog but don’t really follow it. My family know about it, and often read, as do a couple of my work colleagues. All in all, probably about thirty people know my true identity – but they are all people I know and trust. I don’t think my job would be at risk if the powers that be found The Appalling Strangeness – mainly because my one golden rule is I never, ever comment on my job on this blog. But I do feel happier knowing that people online can only attack The Nameless One, and don’t know who I really am. I agree with the Moai on this one – I love the anonymity of Blogger.

So I would argue that if you don’t want people to use your real name online, then don’t put it on line. Don’t give them the chance to use it.

But I think that this view rather misses the point. DK posts as Devil’s Kitchen. He has mentioned his real name a couple of times in posts, as an aside, and one when he appeared in person on an internet TV show (where, let’s be honest, it is a bit awkward to call yourself by the name of you blog). He does not call himself by his real name a lot, unlike others who spring to mind, such as Iain Dale and Neil Harding. So I would use my intelligence to sense that he does not want to be called by his real name online, and respect that. Just basic politeness, really. But I guess his erstwhile opponent is either not intelligent enough to work this out, or is a little shit stirrer.

I don’t believe there should be an official code detailing how people should and shouldn’t behave online, and am really impressed with the concept behind Disillusioned and Bored’s Voluntary Code Free Zone. But people should at least engage their brain cells and work out for themselves what is acceptable and what isn’t. Put simply, Blair is not going to lose his job if I called him a fucktard. I’d imagine that my vitriolic words would have next to no impact on my targets. If they did, and someone might lose their job over something I put in a blog or online anywhere (particularly publicising their name) then I wouldn’t put it on The Appalling Strangeness. I guess this is called self-regulation – and as Nu Labour has proved time and time again, if people are not willing to regulate themselves, the government will do so with absurd, knee jerk, draconian legislation.

Labels: ,

"You Are Not Alone"

Oh, nearly forgot but as a random aside, for any other disillusioned and angry ex-Tories have a look at a blog I recently found - Bretters. Well, I say “I recently found”… actually Bretters just linked to one of my posts and I followed the link from there. But well worth a look for anyone who believes Cameron deserves a sound kicking for his crimes against the Tory party.

Labels: ,

Friday, December 08, 2006

It is all falling apart, Davey Boy

Via DK I see another Tory bites the dust - and this time a relatively high-profile one. And he sums up the way I feel about the Conservatives under Cameron:

"I didn't leave the Conservative party; the Conservative Party left me."

Amen to that.

I think it can only be a matter of time before Cameron loses a high profile shadow cabinet member - I would love it to be be Hague, but he seems to be kissing too much arse at the moment. Davis is still to career motivated... but Fox might be willing to do so. But fuck it, I don't care who it is. The more high-profile people who leave the better. Cameron has built a fragile house of cards that is based simply on popularity in the polls and nothing else. He gains votes from the centre but loses them from the right. The Toynbee story was the straw that broke the camel's back - every right minded right wing Tory is not going to sacrifice that party's heart and soul so a shattered shell of a party can win a General Election. There is no point in replacing Nu Labour with a party modelled on Nu Labour - pure and simple.

It turns out the Tory party members do give a fuck about what the party stands for - and Cameron is now finding this out.

Labels: , ,

Carry On Fatty

A conversation occurred in the pub last night (among the many learned contributors was the Moai) about what to do with the obese. Owing to the venue and the drinks consumed, some of the suggestions were a tad politically incorrect. And some were down right offensive, but the general feeling was the best solution was to lock them in a small room with a toilet and a basin so they could drink and shit, but leave them there locked in for two weeks. Enforced dieting, if you will.

However, no matter how evil and vicious the suggestions got, we never took the ultimate step. No, I am not talking about killing the obese (that was covered off – I believe there was a feeling that they should all be turned into soap) – I am talking about introducing that horrific harridan, *Dr* Gillian McKeith, to the proceedings.

McKeith is the kind of woman I would like to hit in the side of the head with a brick and then stamp on her throat until she confesses that she is a terrible cunt, unworthy of both the gift of life or even the gift of death. Of all the shrill harpies who preach on at prime time, she is the worst. I once wrote a long, rambling (and unpublished) post about how I feel that those people who appear on her programme (“You Are What You Shit” or whatever it is called) would benefit more from Ellis’s Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy rather than being hectored by an arrogant, ignorant gobshite – my argument was that the 30 stone mother of two who eats five chicken dinners a day probably needs therapy more than she needs shrill carping from an unqualified* cunt. But McKeith doesn’t deserve calm rational, argument**. She is a reprehensible, miserable excuse for a barely evolved human being. I would never sign up to a programme like the one she hosts – I believe such programmes are a cancerous growth on our rapidly failing society. But if I did, and she wanted to look at my stool sample, I would be tempted to force her face into it. Except I have a sneaking suspicion, what with her faecal obsession, that she would probably like it. I wonder whether she has met Mark Oaten – they would probably get on like a house on fire.

*Ben Goldacre managed to get his dead cat affiliated to the same body that McKeith claims to be a member of.

**If you want a more detailed, well-researched and less sweary deconstruction of McKeith then take a look here.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, December 07, 2006

The Verdict On Cameron

BBC news quotes a number of people on their thoughts of Cameron's first year in office. Two of them really stand out to me:

"The long march to the middle ground is almost complete, but where will the battle be fought? The Liberal Democrats and the Guardian are captivated but those five million Tory abstainers are not yet back on board." - Lord Tebbit

"It has been a year in which he has turned his back on every sound conservative issue. Millions of voters who believe in a self-governing country, with lower taxes and choice in education, have been left wondering where to go." - Nigel Farage

Couldn't agree more.

One year on, and Cameron comes across as a watered down version not of Thatcher - hell, not even of Major. He comes across as a watered down, less credible version of Tony Blair. One year on and for every floating vote he has won from the centre ground I am willing to bet he has lost two from the right.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Hold the Front Page!

George Clooney's pet pig has died. I think we should be thankful that the BBC is here to pass on this tragic, but crucial, news. Who says the licence fee is being pissed away on complete and total crap?

Mind you, there are one or two parts to the article that made me raise my eyebrow, including the paragraph:

"The 300lb animal, which shared the actor's home, and sometimes his bed, for 18 years, died peacefully on Friday of "natural causes""

Shared his bed?! I'm sorry, what?! Surely the headline should be "Clooney sleeps with a pig"...

"Earlier this year Clooney took the pig for a flight in John Travolta's private jet, declaring afterwards that Max "absolutely loved it"."

This makes me see the lives of the Hollywood elite in a completely new way. I mean, just think about the conversations that go on behind the scenes. "Hey, JT, can I borrow your jet for the day? I wanna take my pig for a flight." "Sure, George, no problemo, I just hope the little fella has a good time..."

Labels: ,

Too much time on their hands

One of the great things about the internet, aside from foaming, ranting, right wing blogs, amazon.co.uk and all the porn, is the amount of total crap that can be found by the terminally bored. With this in mind, I give you:

and
Enjoy!
UPDATE: let's not forget Bee Dogs, which claims to be "the premier online repository for pictures of dogs in bee costumes." Essential, groundbreaking work I think you will agree.
UPDATE 2: towcestarian has come up with an excellent link in the comments sections to this post. If anyone else knows about stupid but funny animal related sites let me know...

Labels: ,

"The wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy"

Used to describe the attempts to widen the Korean War into China, but also sounds very relevant to what is going on in Iraq today...

Labels: ,

Well, that is just plain wrong...

Apparently David Tennant is the best Doctor Who ever. Needless to say, I don't agree. Tennant is good in the role but that is about it - there is nothing particularly striking about his performance, and his decision to play the Doctor as a bi-polar person sometimes becomes quite irritating when his Doctor slips into one of his manic moods.

But I suppose this sort of thing is typical of the lack of imagination from the public. They vote for him as he is the incumbent, they vote for him if it is easier to think about him the current face of the programme than it is to remember who had the role beforehand. For God's sake, people, this is the tenth person to play the role (eleven if you count Peter Cushing) - surely you can think of someone other than Tennant who you thought did well in the role?

But for the record, my order of preference is:

10. William Hartnell
9. Jon Pertwee
8. Paul McGann
7. Colin Baker
6. Peter Davison
5. David Tennant
4. Slyvester McCoy
3. Tom Baker
2. Patrick Troughton
1. Christopher Eccleston

Troughton and Eccleston are the ones who were/are strong enough actors to convince the viewer that they are aliens when playing the Doctor, but also able to play other roles convincingly. Tom Baker may the iconic Doctor, but he has never been able to escape from the shadow of the role and, as the Moai always points out to me, he has the unfair advantage over the other actors of "actually being an alien."

Labels:

It all started to go wrong...

...a year ago today you know.

Labels: , ,

Monday, December 04, 2006

Party Funding Gets Silly

Today I got a letter from Francis Maude, Chairman of the Conservative Party. I can tell it came from him,and that he put a lot of time and effort into it, because it is signed with his very own auto signature. And guess what? It is a letter begging for money from me for the Tory party. Ho-hum - your timing, Mr Maude, is not great.

"Dear Member"

the letter begins. Erm, no, sorry, but not anymore. It then goes on to invite me to hoing the "brand new Conservative Weekly Draw." Apparently this is the Tory version of the National Lottery. Presumably with the shitty WebCameron taking the place of the shitty Saturday night lottery show.

The letter goes on to explain why the Tory party needs to fleece yet more money from Tory party members through a piss poor version of bingo with the paragraph:

"The Conservative Party needs to widen its sources of income and not rely like the Labour Party upon a few millionaires or its Trade Union backers. We have therefore introduced this new scheme in order to involve more member and help raise much needed funds to help unlock the door to Number 10 Downing Street."

Uh-huh, the Tory party is just as reliant on millionaires as the Labour Party, as the police questioning Michael Howard over the Cash-For-Peerages scandal proves. Of course, said millionaires would probably be more willing to part with their cash if young "Hug A Husky" Cameron had turned up to the CBI conference...

And how does this thing work? Well, you can pay £1 a week (more if you are stupid enough to do so - sorry - if you want to do so) and each week there will be a draw where someone wins £1,000, and 20 people win a tenner. And then, every quarter, there is a £5,000 draw for regular participants.

Let's do the maths. £1,000 a week, so £52,000 a year. 20 people winning a tenner a week - £200 a week, £10,400 a year. 4 quarterly prizes of £5,000, that is £20,000. £82, 400 a year. Jesus, Maude, you had better hope that a lot of people sign up to this pile of wank or you are going thrust the party into even more debt...

According to the letter I can "take out as many entries" as I wish. Oh, good-o, I plan to take out *precisely* zero. Nada. Squat. The square root of fuck all.

Apparently "David Cameron and his team are relying on (my) support" - well, they are shit out of luck then. And Maude signs of the letter saying "I look forward to hearing from you" - nah, I bet you don't really. Any letter from me, Mr Maude, will describe you as a whore. And your boss as a total cunt.

The Conservative Weekly Draw is tacky and pathetic, a party desperately grasping at money to fund a meaningless lunge at power. And it is probably in bad taste to publicise another low point of the Conservative party. But you know what? Fuck it. After all, Hell hath no fury like a Tory scorned...

Labels: , ,

Back Me or Lose...

... says David Cameron.

I'll stop carping on about this after this post, but what precisely will we lose? The next election will see one Blairite party handing over to another Blairite party. Yes, I know parties have to put themselves into a position where they can win an election. But there is no point in winning an election if you cannot remember why you wanted to win in the first place...

Labels: , , ,

The wonderful sound of knives being sharpened

From The Daily Telegraph:

“Senior Tories have expressed growing private criticism of the influence on David Cameron of a former marketing consultant who masterminded moving the party to the centre ground.”

Good. Quite frankly, that is fucking fantastic news. Senior Tories should be deeply worried about the direction Cameron is taking the party in, and should be very willing to criticise any fucking marketing consultant who is behind this lurch to the left.

“The Daily Telegraph can disclose that there is deepening tension in the upper echelons of the parliamentary party over the role of Steve Hilton, 38, who is paid a reputed £270,000, the biggest salary ever paid to a party official.”

I’m sorry, what? What the fuck? The guy is paid more than a quarter of a million pounds to drag the party away from their core beliefs? He should be fucking fined if he is the mastermind behind the Cameron non-strategy. Apparently he is the “sole architect of strategy, marketing and presentation.” I’m being old-fashioned, but a party doesn’t need to pay someone a small fortune to look after business bollocks like “strategy”… Jesus, no wonder the party is constantly sending out begging letters to its supporters. They need to pay off a marketing consultant. How many shitting peerages do we think Mr Hilton costs?.

“It was Mr Hilton who devised the much-derided "hug a hoodie" and was behind the decision last week of Mr Cameron to boycott the CBI conference in favour of a photo-opportunity in Iraq.”

I kind of envy Mr Hilton. Paid a fucking fortune for making bad decisions. Tell you what, I’ll do his job for half his salary, and judging by the ineptitude shown by Cameron in his first year, I will do twice as well.

“In 1998 the Oxford-educated Mr Hilton set up Good Business, which pioneers the concept of social marketing to help business discover its conscience. The philosophy has dominated Mr Cameron's first year of leadership.”

Ugh, dear God, doesn’t that make you want to puke? Good Business? Helping business discover its conscience? This is the sort of wishy-washy, touchy feely bollocks that is the preserve of the Liberal Democrats, not the Tories. But then again, Hilton seems to want to make the Tories into the Liberal Democrats anyway…

“Shadow cabinet ministers have privately expressed misgivings about the advice given by Mr Hilton, whom they regard as highly intelligent and motivated but misguided.”

Misguided? Jesus H. Christ, misguided is a bit of a fucking understatement. He is left of the Labour Party!

“Mr Hilton is one of the few advisers permitted to interrupt and contradict Mr Cameron at meetings with shadow ministers. One source said: "Steve just interrupts Cameron and says: 'Shut up Dave, you don't know what you are talking about'. Cameron takes it from him because he trusts him so much."”

Right, so not only is Mr Hilton an arrogant cunt, but Cameron – a man seeking to lead this nation – lacks the backbone to stand up to a marketing consultant. A fucking marketing consultant! Well, that bodes well for international fucking diplomacy, doesn’t it? Just imagine negotiations with Kim Jong Il. North Korean diplomat: “The Dear Leader says shut up, Mr Cameron.” Prime Minister Cameron: “Oh, no worries, wilco, what!”

I kind of suspected all this: Cameron using his tenure as Tory leader as little more than a marketing campaign. And with this Hilton, he seems to have found the perfect foil. He should take note, though, that those who stay loyal to the party in spite of him reducing it to an ideology free shell of a party will only stick with him as long as the polls stay positive. And as The Telegraph notes, there are murmurings of disquiet – not from the centre ground – but from the loyal supporters who kept the Tory party alive in 1997 and 2001:

“A poll for the website conservativehome.com has found that the number of Conservative supporters unhappy with Mr Cameron's leadership has doubled from 16 per cent in January to 32 per cent.”

And that figure probably doesn’t count those of us who have already ceased to be Conservative Supporters…

Labels: , ,

Talking Toss

I passed a sign yesterday that described a business as "Family Solutions." What was the business? A fucking nursery.

I despair of this country sometimes, I really do.

Labels:

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Leaving the Tories

Well, my last political post seems to have provoked some comments and some debate. Which was not really my intention – if I did have a deeply unrealistic hope then it was my post would lead to the resignation and suicide of Cameron. As far as I am aware, Cameron is alive and well so I reckon we can file that particular post under “insane ranting that probably indicates a need for some therapy and/or anger management classes.”

I stand by my fundamental assertion though. There is no point in winning power if you are going to sell out on everything you believe in. Just as Tony Blair sold out on every principle of the Labour Party in order to win, so David “hug a fucking husky” Cameron has sold out on every principle of the Tory Party, like a gypsy flogging stolen DVDs at a car boot sale. That is why I am leaving the party.

Over at the Devil’s Kitchen one comment criticises people like me who have left the party:

“Yeah great stuff guys... let's split the right-wing vote, let these Labour cocks in again, miss our best chance in years to have a eurosceptic government.”

Now that sort of thinking is what kept me in the party for the past six months, a fear that if people abandon the party because Cameron is a complete and total cunting publicity whore then the Labour fucktards who have run this country into the ground for the past ten years will another term. But if Cameron is just the same as Blair and the other cadre of cockmunchers in power at the moment, then what is the point in voting for him? And right-wing? Euro-sceptic? Must be getting confused, because neither term defines Cameron for me. A Cameron government would be the equivalent of another Heath government – and let us not forget that Heath was a spineless shithead who took us into Europe in the first place and managed, through his general incompetence, to give us a second, even less glorious, Wilson administration. Worst case scenario for the country at the moment? Cameron wins power, fucks it up and makes a Blairite seem like a good idea again in 2012. And suddenly David twatting Miliband is Prime Minister.

I feel – now as ever – that I need to be part of the political process in this country, even on a very minor level (as canvassing in Wimbledon for the Tories undeniably was). So I need to decide what I do next – either wait around for the fall of Cameron and rejoin the Tories or find another party. And as the Devil’s Kitchen constantly points out, you can join UKIP online.

Labels: , , ,

Well, that is 101 minutes of my life wasted

Just watched a DVD of the Fantastic Four film. And you know what? There were more than four people in the film, and it was far from fantastic. Can I sue under the Trades Description Act? Because that film was absolute dog shite.

Labels: