The 2020 Vision

I defy you to go to this site and not reproduce your lunch. Waffling pseudo management speak that would make any right minded person want to punch a hole in the wall in demented frustration.

"Renewal cannot be about going back. It is about moving forward. That is what The 2020 Vision aims to do."

Do, please, go and fuck yourselves, you utter, utter cunts. This new vision for Britain, sponsored by a man who looks like the perfect advertisement for why inbreeding is wrong and a man who is quite possibly the slimiest, smarmiest arsehole civilisation has ever, ever seen. Don't believe me? take a look:

These people are going to renew the Labour Party? Christ, these failed Labour Ministers couldn't renew an arsing library book...

Can you imagine working for a total idiot? Can you imagine feeling sick to the pit of your stomach every time your boss walked towards a microphone? Could you take the jeers and abuse of friends and acquaintances, and the deep seated shame of your family, based just on who you work for? And can you imagine feeling suicidal every single time your boss opened his mouth?

If so, you should work for Sir Ian Blair. For his latest egregious blunder have a look at this. And then marvel at how such an out and out cunt has become such an influential figure in British life.

Tea Birds

Via the Moai, I give you a blog which is dedicated to "Nothing but pictures of cute girls at tea. A tea blog like no other."

Regardless of what think of it, it sure as hell beats this.

Art and Freedom

I was in the Tate Britian yesterday and by far the standout exhibit is Mark Wallinger's State Britain. It is a supposed exact reproduction of Brian Haw's protest in Parliament Square - at least until the police came and took most of the placards away. I am not sure whether it is art, but it is certainly striking.

However when we were there we saw a man sitting by the wall. Owing to our highly attuned powers of deduction we realised it was Brian Haw himself (we recognised the hat), either taking a break from protesting or enjoying a little nostalgia. Surreal itself, but nothing compared to what followed.

In the corner of the hall that houses State Britain there are a couple of boxes that seem to contain various activities for kids to get them interested in art. A trio of teenagers had used these activity areas to create their own barriers and, as both Haw and our good selves watched, they proceed to try to add their banners ("Please give more money to our school" was one example) to the exhibit. Only to be stopped by a Tate official.

The complex levels of irony involved in the scene hurt my head, quite frankly. You have an exhibit that is an artistic reproduction of a protest that evolved over many years, basically through people adding their banners. You have a trio of kids getting into the spirit of things, and trying to expand the protest by adding their banners only to be stopped by an official representing the organisation that displays this evolutionary protest as a work of art. And all of this is witnessed by the man who inspired this work of art through protesting about, amongst other things, freedom of expression.

Quite what to make of it all I don't know. But thinking about it too much makes my eyes cross slightly...

Wrecking the party?

It is going to come up again and again over the next few months and years, so I thought I may as well address it now. There are going to be claims that people like myself - who are (ex)Tories but deeply dis-satisfied with the Cameron leadership - are going to wreck Cameron's chances of seizing Number 10 from the clutches of Gordon Brown.

Well, bollocks, as far as I am concerned.

There are a number of different points I would make to that claim. First of all, a Cameron victory is by no means certain. Owing to the massive electoral mountain Cameron will have to climb an outright Conservative victory is highly unlikely, even given the current poll lead he has over our visually challenged Chancellor. If Cameron does win a minority victory (and let's not forget there is a real difference between what people tell pollsters and what they actually do in a voting booth) then he will have to form an alliance with Ming The Merciful's Lib Dems - and coalition governments in this country just plain don't work. So for all of you shouting "go, go Cameron!" and imagining our pudgy faced friend sweeping into Number 10 after the next election, I would advise a hint of caution.

Furthermore, my vote is largely irrelevant. I live in a constituency that is Conservative through and through and the chance of my vote allowing anyone else to get in is, frankly, nonsense. I know we are talking about more than just my vote here, and about what would happen if lots of people like me changed their votes. But I maintain that my vote is not going to change the course of the next election. I will still vote, but am under no illusions that my constituency will return the Conservative candidate regardless of how I vote.

But thirdly, and most crucially, there is the argument that anyone like myself, who is right wing but doesn't vote Tory, will be electing by default a further Labour administration. This is just so much horseshite. Because my counter-argument is simple - there is no point in electing a Tory party that is just a photo-copy of the Blair administration. Which, I am sorry to say, the Conservative Party under Cameron are.

I am tired of hearing about how the Conservatives are the best we have got, or how politics is the art of the possible. Bollocks. This country has elected radical governments before (see Attlee and Thacther) and those radical governments are the ones, regardless of whether you think their policies were right or wrong, who actually managed to acheive something. Crazy when you think about it, but there was a time when political parties actually aspired to something other than good headlines and a nice photo opportunity. The fact that Blair has spent the last ten years terrified of moving from the middle ground - and in doing so has terrified Cameron into exactly the same position - is no reason for us to accept this post-Blair consensus that offers nothing other than more of the same to the British people.

Here is the brutal truth - it doesn't make a blind bit of fucking difference to me if Labour win the next election over a Conservative Party that is indistinguishable from that Labour party. I don't care whether it is Labour, Conservatives, Liberal fucking Democrats or even the bloody Monster Raving Looney Party in power. It is not the name of the party in government that matters to me. It is the ideas and policies of that government that matter. Heath was elected as a Conservative Prime Minister. Great! The Tories in power - except, as must be obvious too all bar the politically myopic, Heath was to the left of Blair. It is the policies that matter, not the party.

I've said before but I'll repeat it here again - there is no point in winning power if you have abandoned the ideas and policies that made you seek power in the first place. I reject the idea that politics should be achieving power to the detriment of everything else outright - and, sadly, this seems to be the guiding idea of both Cameron and Blair.

By voting for someone else at the next election it won't be me wrecking the party for Cameron. It will Cameron wrecking the party for himself, by forgetting that he is a Conservative and that the valid, workable ideas for improving this country actually come from the right of the political spectrum.

The Everyman Myth

I watched The Assassination of Richard Nixon this morning. Probably best mention now that there are spoilers ahead.

For those of you who don't know the film, it is the story of Samuel Byck. Byck was a funny sort of a chap to say the least - he appears to have had some sort of major breakdown and decided he would kill President Richard Nixon. His assassination method was very interesting in this day and age - he decided he would hi-jack a plane and crash it into the White House. The echoes of 9/11 are obvious and perhaps the most unsettling part of the film and of Byck's story. However Byck was (thankfully) nowhere near as capable as the 9/11 hi-jackers and his decision to hi-jack the plane whilst still on the tarmac and by shooting both pilots meant his plan never really went anywhere. He was shot by the police through the airplane door and, critically injured, he turned his gun on himself. He had managed to murder both a policeman and an airline pilot (the other pilot survived) but things could have been far worse.

And so what to make of Byck? A sad loser, probably blighted by mental illness, sure - but he is not really worthy of much sympathy at all. Thousands, if not millions of people, have suffered some setbacks in their lives and have also had to live with mental illness. They have not decided to kill a President, and they have not murdered other people. It is tempting to see Byck as a product of a broken society, forced into his depserate actions because society left him behind. But bollocks to that - the same thing happens to others. The defining moment of Byck's life was his aborted killing spree, not the problems and losses that drove him to that moment.

Which is my problem with the film. Whilst is well directed and certainly very well acted it had an unpleasant undertone of sympathy for Bicke (as it is spelt in the film). The film presents him as someone fighting against the tide of life - left behind by a wife who let's him know that it is finally over through a divorce decree; bullied by his boorish boss (a boorish bully in a sales manager job? *crazy*) and through the government refusing to give him money for his frankly really rather amateurish business plan. The film makes constant references to him being the small man, to him being dis-enfranchised, and the tag line of the film is "The Mad Story of a True Man." We are meant to feel some sympathy for Bicke as he is pushed into becoming the kind of madman who would try to steal an aircraft to kill the President. But for me there is no difference between Bicke and other spree killers or random would be assassins. No matter how terrible or crappy his life was, he still had a choice. And by chosing to kill, he a terrible and wrong choice.

You can watch the film and come away feeling a sympathy for Byck/Bicke as he loses his grip on reality. He is a hard man in the film to truly dislike. But the people really deserving of sympathy in the film and in real life at those who turned up to work one day and ended up being murdered. It is telling that they play next no part in the film, other than being targets for Bicke's rage.

The Assassination of Richard Nixon perpetuates what I would call the everyman theory of spree killing. Like Falling Down before it, it suggests that anyone could snap and kill given the right provocation. That may be the case, but those who do are not typical and there is no causal link between society being a tough and occasionally shitty place to live in and people who explode and do something stupid. The real everyman (and everywoman) is the person who gets on with life. The real everymen in Byck's/Bicke's story were his victims, and it is a shame that Hollywood couldn't celebrate them rather than an unhinged killer.

The Double Standard

Via DK I see UKIP have got themselves into more than a spot of bother with The Electoral Commission. In fact, they could be crippled owing to a technicality relating to donations. Of course, it is tempting to say that if they have earned themselves a major financial penalty through not following the rules then that is their own fault – even if it is a draconian punishment completely out of proportion with the alleged wrongdoing/crime.

Then you see the white-washing of the Liberal Democrats in spite of their acceptance of funds from a man who is a now convicted crook, and it all jars. I have tried to look at this from a number of different angles but from every perspective this sticks in the back of my throat. This does seem to be one rule for the main parties, and another for the smaller ones. I can’t help but feel that part of the reasoning behind this choice is that the Lib Dems – by sheer weight of numbers – can make more noise than UKIP.

UKIP have had their fair share of woes and have taken on people that they really, really shouldn’t have done in senior party positions. But it is the burden of small parties to be left wide open to hi-jacking by nakedly populist or high-profile figures. The fringe elements of a small party will seem to be shouting louder than the fringe elements of larger parties, but this is also inevitable given the sheer weight of numbers. So I support UKIP in their woes with the Electoral Commission, because I think they are being unfairly treated because of their public perception and because of their small size relative to the major parties in this country.

UKIP may yet come to play a major part in the political scene in the UK. I think they will only do so if they become the Independence Party and when they dump the Poundstretcher symbol as their logo. But I am sure of one thing – if they are strangled at birth by the Electoral Commission (who will simply dump the money with the Treasury*) then they will never achieve anything long-lasting in the national political scene. Which, given the utterly anodyne and spineless parties currently leading this country, could be a real tragedy.

*h/t: Mr E

It Wouldn't Have Happened If He Was Wearing A Tie

I don't like the fella but making a cheap *shot* (geddit?) based on this picture is too easy. Nonetheless I will post it so it is always here, waiting for those slow moments when I could do with a cheap laugh at the expense of the dickhead Cameron.

The World's Most Photographed Squirrel

Today is one of those fiercely productive days in the office. So in tribute I give you this link.

Count yourself lucky - I could have given you the blog written by a philosophical lurcher.

Letwin: The Mouth Moves, Nothing Comes Out

On Tuesday evening I attended the annual Bow Group Lecture (with the Devil’s Kitchen and Jackart – Trixy put in an appearance later when we had made the vital journey to the pub), where Oliver Letwin discussed whether the New Blues were the New Reds. And very meaningless it all was too. In fact, I would go so far as to use the really rather unpleasant phrase that it was “all fart and no poo.” Letwin made lots of the right noises, but utterly failed to offer any practicalities. And as the questions he took at the end so categorically proved, he is unwilling to commit to anything unless it is on arsing environmental policies. In fact, I would argue the alcohol fuelled conversation in the pub afterwards was much more useful than anything Letwin said, not least because we came up with a way to deal with Councillor Terry Kelly*.

He began his talk with a sterling defence of Thatcherism – and how Thatcherism negates the question “are the new blues the new reds” because Thatcherism pretty much ended socialism in this country. So far so good. He then acknowledged that Thatcherism did not succeed in one of its aims – namely ending poverty in this country. Also very true – if you look at the mining communities, for example, then you can argue that Thatcherism made poverty worse. So then he focussed his talk on how Blair and Brown has categorically failed to address these problems in spite of cunting (my word rather than his) billions of pounds away on increasing the bureaucracy within this country. However a Conservative government would extend the Thatcherite aspiration to end poverty by enabling people to help each other.

And, to all intents and purposes, that was it. Because when it came to detailing exactly how the Conservative would increase social responsibility within this country, Letwin was found utterly wanting.

There was some logic behind Letwin’s claim that he could not offer concrete policies until he had explained his vision behind those policies. But we need to hear something other than the right platitudes and a touchy-feely vision for Britain. We need something concrete – something to vote for, not just to vote against. The only time Letwin seemed to commit to anything at all was after someone asked him a long, rambling question about the environment – when he name-checked the utterly dis-credited Stern Report and started banging on about carbon credits like a fatter version of David Miliband. His response to DK’s question about how any government can transform British society when so much power has been surrendered to the EU was quite telling – he dodged the question, instead disputing the costs relating to leaving the EU. He did not tell DK he was wrong about the loss of autonomy to the EU, but rather rejected the idea of doing anything proactive about it. It pretty much sums up where Letwin – and the rest of Hug A Husky Cameron’s Conservatives – are when it comes to policy. They are terrified of committing to anything, and instead are determined to make all the right noises and hope no-one notices they actually have nothing useful to say.

It occurred to me towards the end of his talk that the New Blues are not the New Reds. The Reds/lefties/socialists/whatever you want to call the fuckers were hopelessly wrong about almost everything, but they were distinct from the New Blues in one crucial respect. The Reds believed in tangible policies. The New Blues don’t seem to believe in any policies at all.

*The plan was as follows – we find someone who is willing to sleep with Kelly’s no doubt lovely daughter, Rayleen. We thought someone who has unspent criminal convictions and would undertake this mission rather than face a life sentence in prison. Rayleen could then introduce our brave warrior to El Tel – at which point our brave warrior would reveal he is actually a Tory. This should cause Terry’s head to explode like the bloke in Scanners. In the cold, sober(ish) light of day it is not the best plan in the world. But it remains far better than any plans proposed by Letwin at the lecture.

The Moai, Tony Blair, ID card shite

The Moai has a pop at Tony Blair and his ongoing love affair with ID cards. And a thumping good read it is too. The Moai signed up to that petition about ID cards that proved so popular that Blair got an aide to send out a generic, and utterly fucking useless, response to those who signed up. Tony Blair's utter shite is in italics...

“Note the prevalence of the word 'believe', and the lack of any cited evidence:

The petition calling for the Government to abandon plans for a National ID Scheme attracted almost 28,000 signatures - one of the largest responses since this e-petition service was set up. So I thought I would reply personally to those who signed up, to explain why the Government believes National ID cards, and the National Identity Register needed to make them effective, will help make Britain a safer place.

Good start, can't argue there.

The petition disputes the idea that ID cards will help reduce crime or terrorism. While I certainly accept that ID cards will not prevent all terrorist outrages or crime, I believe they will make an important contribution to making our borders more secure, countering fraud, and tackling international crime and terrorism. More importantly, this is also what our security services - who have the task of protecting this country - believe.

Really?

So I would like to explain why I think it would be foolish to ignore the opportunity to use biometrics such as fingerprints to secure our identities. I would also like to discuss some of the claims about costs - particularly the way the cost of an ID card is often inflated by including in estimates the cost of a biometric passport which, it seems certain, all those who want to travel abroad will soon need.

Inevitability. Nice. So, every country everywhere will require biometrics, will they? When? Has this been debated at the UN?

In contrast to these exaggerated figures, the real benefits for our country and its citizens from ID cards and the National Identity Register, which will contain less information on individuals than the data collected by the average store card, should be delivered for a cost of around £3 a year over its ten-year life.

Citation of evidence? Or just plucked out of the air? I counter-cite.

But first, it's important to set out why we need to do more to secure our identities and how I believe ID cards will help. We live in a world in which people, money and information are more mobile than ever before. Terrorists and international criminal gangs increasingly exploit this to move undetected across borders and to disappear within countries. Terrorists routinely use multiple identities - up to 50 at a time. Indeed this is an essential part of the way they operate and is specifically taught at Al-Qaeda training camps. One in four criminals also uses a false identity. ID cards which contain biometric recognition details and which are linked to a National Identity Register will make this much more difficult.

The July 7 bombers made no attempt to hide their identities and knowing how they were would have done nothing to prevent that event. Unless ID cards are introduced worldwide, how can they stop foreign citizens from entering this country legally and then committing crimes? This assertion is baseless.

Secure identities will also help us counter the fast-growing problem of identity fraud. This already costs £1.7 billion annually. There is no doubt that building yourself a new and false identity is all too easy at the moment. Forging an ID card and matching biometric record will be much harder.

But by no means impossible. It *will* be cracked. And at that point becomes a useless, costly bit of card. From the LSE Report: 'Successful identity theft of a person's biometric data would mean that their fingerprints or iris scans are permanently in the hands of criminals, with little hope of revoking them.'

I also believe that the National Identity Register will help police bring those guilty of serious crimes to justice. They will be able, for example, to compare the fingerprints found at the scene of some 900,000 unsolved crimes against the information held on the register. Another benefit from biometric technology will be to improve the flow of information between countries on the identity of offenders.

If the crimes are unsolved, how will they lead you to the culprits? Or, perhaps, Tony will be keeping the fingerprints of innocent people on file for comparison?

The National Identity Register will also help improve protection for the vulnerable, enabling more effective and quicker checks on those seeking to work, for example, with children. It should make it much more difficult, as has happened tragically in the past, for people to slip through the net.

Checking people's identities for sensitive jobs can already be done with existing systems. Introducing a further layer of bureaucracy may cause even greater problems.

Proper identity management and ID cards also have an important role to play in preventing illegal immigration and illegal working. The effectiveness on the new biometric technology is, in fact, already being seen. In trials using this technology on visa applications at just nine overseas posts, our officials have already uncovered 1,400 people trying illegally to get back into the UK.

You don't know how many are here or are even leaving, so where's your measure of success? If the individual is unknown to the database, how do you stop with them *with* the database?

Nor is Britain alone in believing that biometrics offer a massive opportunity to secure our identities. Firms across the world are already using fingerprint or iris recognition for their staff. France, Italy and Spain are among other European countries already planning to add biometrics to their ID cards. Over 50 countries across the world are developing biometric passports, and all EU countries are proposing to include fingerprint biometrics on their passports. The introduction in 2006 of British e-passports incorporating facial image biometrics has meant that British passport holders can continue to visit the United States without a visa. What the National Identity Scheme does is take this opportunity to ensure we maximise the benefits to the UK.

So, because everyone else eats horsesh*t, we have to? Firms can choose to do what they like with their money and staff who don't like it can leave. Conflating a biometric passport with an ID card is a neat trick but it won't wash I'm afraid. Separate questions. Which, presumably, Tony was hoping I did not notice.

These then are the ways I believe ID cards can help cut crime and terrorism. I recognise that these arguments will not convince those who oppose a National Identity Scheme on civil liberty grounds. They will, I hope, be reassured by the strict safeguards now in place on the data held on the register and the right for each individual to check it. But I hope it might make those who believe ID cards will be ineffective reconsider their opposition.

Ah yes, civil liberties. Which this govt has such a fabulous record on. This is the 'just trust me' argument and it does not wash. The database will be maintained by people. People are unreliable and bribeable.

If national ID cards do help us counter crime and terrorism, it is, of course, the law-abiding majority who will benefit and whose own liberties will be protected. This helps explain why, according to the recent authoritative Social Attitudes survey, the majority of people favour compulsory ID cards.

Yes, they were asked this question: 'do you support the introduction of ID card system to combat terrorism?' Which is a bit like 'do you torture puppies for fun?'

I am also convinced that there will also be other positive benefits. A national ID card system, for example, will prevent the need, as now, to take a whole range of documents to establish our identity. Over time, they will also help improve access to services.

I don't mind using two or more forms of ID when I *choose* to interact with services where I need to prove who I am. I choose to do so, and it doesn't cost me anything.

The petition also talks about cost. It is true that individuals will have to pay a fee to meet the cost of their ID card in the same way, for example, as they now do for their passports. But I simply don't recognise most claims of the cost of ID cards. In many cases, these estimates deliberately exaggerate the cost of ID cards by adding in the cost of biometric passports. This is both unfair and inaccurate.

But, Tony, above, you conflate ID cards and biometric passports yourself. You present them as one policy. Therefore, is it not fair to cost them as one policy?

As I have said, it is clear that if we want to travel abroad, we will soon have no choice but to have a biometric passport. We estimate that the cost of biometric passports will account for 70% of the cost of the combined passports/id cards. The additional cost of the ID cards is expected to be less than £30 or £3 a year for their 10-year lifespan. Our aim is to ensure we also make the most of the benefits these biometric advances bring within our borders and in our everyday lives.

Is TB seriously suggesting that I will not be able to leave Britain in the absence of a biometric passport? Therefore, by extrapolation, is the government proposing to ban anyone from entering this country who does *not* hold a biometric passport? China/India/Ghana/Jamaica etc.?

Other cost estimates: I refer to the LSE Report, and the well-established govt track record for massive IT overspend.

You see how, at each stage, I try to use logic to think through how the system would actually work in real life? How I cite evidence at each stage? Can't you detect the tone of desperation as each, increasingly wobbly argument, is wheeled out?”

The terrifying thing is that Blair and his shower of cunts are not desperate. They don’t need to be. They can implement this farcical and worrying policy. Fucking hell, they are implementing this farcical and worrying policy…

Insert Cheap Joke About Being One-Legged...

...here.

Insomnia.

The BBC is offering the opportunity to ask the Labour Deputy Leadership candidates a question.

Well, to each of the excerable bastards who have contributed to this idiotic government and propped up this odious excuse for a Prime Minister my question would be "How do you sleep at night?"

Terry Kelly: Political Giant, Future Prime Minister and Eloquent Genius

It is always difficult to express sarcasm through the medium of the written word, but rest assured the title of this post is so saracastic it actually hurts me slightly.

For anyone not in the know, Terry Kelly is a Labour councillor who blogs. And unlike more naive but ultimately harmless Labour bloggers, Terry Kelly is a vitriolic, ignorant little worm of a man who would be out of place in Michael Foot's Labour party. He spouts left wing bullshit and responds to anyone who disagrees with him with insults, some of which are utterly offensive and positively slanderous.

There are so many different things I could say about El Tel. I could point out that he was not exactly blessed with good looks - and given that, he is probably leaving himself wide open to personal abuse by putting his photo on his blog. I could point out that, whilst the spelling and grammar on this blog is not the best sometimes, Terry Kelly's is terrifyingly bad - possibly exposing his utter ignorance nearly as much as what he writes. And I could point out that there are any number of readable attacks on Kelly out there in the blogging world. But attacking Kelly is just too easy so I will sum up my position quite simply and succintly:

Terry Kelly: Total Cunt

Update:

The Moai has had a look at El Tel's blog, and has the following comments:

"Terry Kelly's blog is great find.

'I'm a Socialist who believes in equality, peace and the redistribution of wealth, I oppose Racism, Sexism, Sectarianism, Nationalism and any kind of discrimination. Best wishes for a Socialist future. What appears on this website are my personal views and opinions. Not those of the Labour Party, Renfrewshire Council or anyone else, mine only.

About Me
Cllr Terry Kelly
I'm a Socialist'
What a mong. I'd quote something choice but the whole blog makes Kalahari Lighthouse look like Tolstoy."

Mong is a great word for Terry Kelly. Although possibly unfair on Mongs worldwide.

He also points me in the direction of The Guardian job pages today, which, amongst the usual meaningless roles advertised, has a vacancy for a Low Pay Worker in Bradford, who was on 23k minimum. I believe the intention was to get me to work up a good head of steam for some profane ranting. Actually it just makes me shrug and note that I would apply for the role myself if it wasn't based in arsing Bradford.

Admin

Or the really boring post that no-one reads.

Blogging has been light of late for a couple of reasons - partly because over the past week I have only been home to sleep (and over the weekend not even for that - *ahem*) and partly (and much more concerning for the author) because I cannot access blogger at all times at work. So postings on The Appalling Strangeness may be a little haphazard morving forward, but rest assured there is still some bile that needs to surface...

A Band Called Malice

Well this is just plain fucking stupid.

Reform The Jam. Without Paul Weller. Yep, that's without the singer, songwriter and guitarist. Reform the band without the one person who has a recognisable talent beyond basic competence at a musical instrument.

Rick Buckler and Bruce Foxton must have their heads in the fucking clouds if they think this is ever going to work. Although I have to say I am tempted to go along to one of their dates. Mainly to jeer and throw stuff.

Anonymity…

…or how I learned to navel gaze and stop worrying.

Yep, it is time for another post about blogging. Not about why I do it – I have pretty much decided that the reason why I do it is because I want to do it. But it did strike me that the blogosphere is a fairly odd world – mainly because of the anonymity.

A few people know that I write this blog – two of them have their own blog IDs anyway. Bits of my family know, and a couple of work colleagues figured it out using the age old technique of looking at my screen and asking me what I was doing. One person I know managed to find my blog using Google, but aside from that The Nameless One remains anonymous.

Which gives me a fair bit of flexibility to say what the flying fuck I want to say, and in the fucking way I want to say. And probably creates a persona that is not reflective of whom I actually am.

Sure, I can be cynical and I have absolutely no issue with swearing like a trooper*. But I am not as negative as I appear on The Appalling Strangeness – I mean, I tend to talk about stuff I like more than stuff I don’t like, but here I can only muster about 200 words on music I do like and 750 words on pop stars I don’t like. Equally, in real life I try not to be too judgmental, and when I do judge people, I try not to make it too obvious. On this blog the label I use the most appears to be “Worthless Cunts”. The anonymity of this blog creates a slightly different me, a nastier, more angry version. The Nameless One is a manifestation of my anger and irritation at life, a bit like a split personality but without the need to dress up as my mother and murder people in the shower.

The anonymity of other bloggers can also be interesting, because you cannot help but build up an image of the author without any real idea of what they look or act like. Take Mr Eugenides – I would picture him (partly owing to the angry baby in the banner of his blog) like Stewie Griffin from Family Guy – an eloquent but angry baby, sat at a computer terminal, flicking through The Guardian website muttering “Victory Shall Be Mine!”

But like all of my posts on blogging this is going nowhere, so The Nameless One persona will have to be put to one side and I will have to be the real me. At least over lunch.

*When a swear box was briefly introduced to our office my response was to chuck a couple of quid in it with the phrase “fuck that.”

Noel Gallagher - Total Cock

I have never liked Oasis. In fact I would describe them as "refried sub-Beatles bollocks", the musical equivalent of food poisoning. And Noel Gallagher has become a total and absolute cock because he was venerated in the mid nineties as some sort of musical genius, even though most of his songs could have been written by a five year old with a toy piano.

So it riles me slightly that Oasis get a Brit award for "Outstanding Contribution". And it pisses me off something chronic that the worthless cunt gets to spout off on Newsnight about politics. Frankly I would rather ask a rabid dog for political opinion before turning to the simian Noel Gallagher. Asking the half empty bottle of Pepsi next to my computer is going to come up with more reasoned arguments than this refugee from Planet of the Apes.

Have a look at some of the comments Gallagher makes here. Apparently "there is nothing left to vote for." Except who makes up the next government. Except who runs this country. Nothing too important then, Gallagher, you utter, utter wanker.

"David Cameron is no different from Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown is no different from David Cameron."

If you had paid attention to anything other than the sound of your own -deeply annoying - voice, Noel, then you would know that no-one knows what Cameron stands for. That is the problem with him. And the assertion that Cameron is the same as Blair at the same time as being the same as Brown makes no sense - because that would make Blair and Brown the same. And we know that is not the case, which is why the total fuckers have been at each other's throats since the beginning of this millenium about who leads their shambles of a government.

"They're all cut from the cloth and it annoys me that the biggest political icon from the last 30 years has been Margaret Thatcher, someone who tried to destroy the working class...it freaks me out you know."

Oh, good, we have, once again, the old cliche that Thatcher tried to destroy the working class. I would imagine it comes as a surprise to Thatcher that she tried to destroy the working classes. Through such evil means as allowing them to buy their council houses and to buy shares in formerly government owned companies. What a bitch! No wonder the working classes punished her by voting for her in landslide election victories in 1983 and 1987. And the fact it freaks you out, Gallagher, is probably more to do with the drugs you forced up your nose in the late nineties then any political realities.

And speaking of drugs, Gallagher (who has clearly never heard a famous phrase about pots and kettles, or another one about throwing stones in glasshouses) has a pop at Cameron owing to his recent drug related woes:

"To say no comment is typical of him and his party copping out."

No, it is in line with his stated principle that people are allowed to have a life before politics. And frankly Cameron having a fucking stated principle is something to be celebrated.

But Gallagher decides once again, from his oh-so informed viewpoint, to rewrite conventional political wisdom by saying Nu Labour, the washed down Thatcherite rump of the Labour movement in this country, are being copied by the Tories.

"They wait to see what Tony Blair says...and then they move in behind and switch it and change a little bit."

Lord, this guy really is a total dickhead, isn't he? Nu Labour is based on Blair copying the Conservatives. This fact is acknowledged to such an extent that Cameron can actually use it as the excuse for not having any policies and get away with it. If the Tories announce a policy, nine times out of ten Nu Labour will copy it. To state anything else smacks of utter ignorance. Which, in fairness, does seem to the hallmark of Gallagher's political assertions.

But he saves the best for last:

"It's like a song writer who's eternally ripping off someone else's song and just changing the odd line a little."

This from the man whose entire song-writing canon can be found in the back catalogues of The Beatles, Slade and Gary Fucking Glitter. What Gallagher has managed to do in his oh-so finite wisdom is that he is just like the Tories. Well done Noel, you slack-jawed retard. You have shown exactly why you shouldn't be interviewed on Newsnight. You don't have the first fucking clue about what you are talking about.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Another British *Triumph*

21 industrialised nations assessed on the quality of life for their children.

Where does the UK come?

Number 21.

No doubt Nu Labour will find a way to blame this terrible ranking on the Tories. Which will be terribly convincing, given they have been in power for nearly ten years.

Scoop of the Year - Pop Star Takes Drugs!

The Sun (yes, I have been trawling their website this morning) has this out and out scoop as their lead story – pop star goes into re-hab! By Christ, this is the story of the year! Never before has a pop star gone into re-hab! This is completely and utterly unprecedented! In no way does Pete Doherty, for example, spend half his time in rehab and the other half in court* owing to his crack habit.

In order to celebrate this scoop, The Sun goes into graphic detail about the problems Williams has. Literally – graphic detail. They have pictures of pills, cigarettes, Red Bull cans and espressos in case anyone is so fucking dumb that they don’t know what those items look like. But they also list exactly what is causing Robbie Williams’s problems:

“The singer finds it impossible to get to sleep until 4 or 5am due to insomnia and is on sleeping pills. He is hooked on the powerful and controversial anti-depressant Seroxat, which has been linked to suicidal tendencies in teenagers. And daily he gets through an incredible 36 super-strength double espresso coffees, 60 Silk Cut cigarettes and around 20 cans of energy drink Red Bull.”

That list sounds like an average day to me. But joking aside, 20 cans of Red Bull, 60 fags and 36 double espressos may well be the cause of the insomnia. I’m no doctor, but I am guessing that pumping your body full of caffeine is going create sleeping problems. Maybe I am missing the point here, but Williams is causing his own sleeping problems. Perhaps cutting down on the coffee and other stimulants may, in the long term, negate the need for sleeping pills. I appreciate I am being deliberately obtuse, but sometimes it is worth pointing out the bleeding obvious.

Also, the observation that Seroxat is linked to suicidal tendencies in teenagers is pointless and stupid – it is merely going to make anti-depressants more of a taboo. Of course anti-depressants are linked to suicidal tendencies in teenagers – the teenagers taking Seroxat are likely to be fucking depressed – hence the need for anti-depressants. You can link Seroxat to suicidal tendencies, but you probably need to stress that they are not the cause of those suicidal tendencies.

Anyway, that is an aside. Let’s get back to the problems of poor Robbie. The Sun identifies the cause of Williams’s addictions and other woes:

“He suffered agonies as Take That’s reunion tour became one of the biggest pop events of 2006. Their comeback single Patience went straight in at No1 and stayed there for six weeks. Their new album Beautiful World also went straight to No1 and has sold 1.5 million copies.”

Agonies? Agonies? Fucking hell, I would have thought mild disappointment would be the most Take That doing better than him would have caused. I would equate agony with cancer, or some other terrible disease. Perhaps a crippling bereavement would warrant the word “agonies”. Not his former band doing better than him in the charts. Ultimately he fucker lives in luxury, and has had a successful career that most people can only dream of. If the success of the reformed Take That is really the cause of Williams’s problems, he should get a bit of frigging perspective on his life.

I am sure that Robbie Williams is suffering, and addiction is a terrible thing. But it is also about personal responsibility. Everyone suffers from disappointments and setbacks in life, not everyone gets themselves addicted to prescription drugs and other vices. Sure, Williams has made a positive step by going into rehab to overcome his problems, but I cannot bring myself to be too sympathetic. As harsh as it sounds, he had the choice to become addicted – as difficult as it may have been to resist the slippery slope to addiction – so in spite of The Sun’s surprisingly sympathetic treatment of someone they would normally class an evil druggie, I think Williams has only himself to blame. Fundamentally Williams is responsible for his own behaviour, and the fact that he has made the wrong choices does not make me think he should become a tragic figure warranting our sympathy.

*Believe it or not, Doherty used to be a rock star before he became a celebrity drug addict. I remain a big fan of The Libertines. However, most of the music he has made since leaving/being sacked from that band has convinced me that he should focus on his real job – getting loaded, and then arrested.

The Sun Lite

No really, there is a Lite version of The Sun. In case the standard Sun website was too high-brow and intellectual for you.

"Every day we'll be bringing you a round up of the best stories from across the site" they somewhat optimistically claim. Let us take a look at some of their "best stories":

Perveillance of CCTV operator

Oh, you are a sexy fin

Queen Cleopatra... the minger

And finally:

Pervert doctor struck off for life

Fuck me, it is difficult to why the level of public discourse and general intellectual health of the British population is so poor, isn't it? What with the nation's most popular paper printing such gems of modern journalism. Woodward and Bernstein had nothing on Queen Cleopatra... the minger.

Shut Your Mouth

Mr Eugenides covers this topic in more detail, including with a really rather nice picture of the worthless cunt in question covered in shite. But in response to Kilroy-Silk's arbitrary claim that M&S use slimming mirrors for reasons that frankly defy understanding, I would simply say to the man "shut up you pointless freak."

Malign, Misanthropic Genius

The Moai and I have been discussing the world of Viz this morning (look, it is an adult comic, and we are both adults, so there is nothing wrong with reading it) and in particular one of our favourite strips - the grimly compelling Drunken Bakers. It is not that funny, and often deeply depressing and quite painful to read. But that said, it is the first thing I turn to in Viz when it is published. In fact, I like the strip so much that if I was to form a band it would be called The Drunken Bakers in tribute to the misanthropic genius of that strip. Go to the link, and read some of the strips. You will either love it, or end up psychologically scarred. But some of our favourite quotes:

"'I recall belting a squat bloke with a ponytail.'
'Yeah, that was this morning. The little deaf girl.'"

"'Didn't we once have some Merry Christmases?'
'You might have. All I remember is throwing up.'"

"Your mouth is pissing blood."

"Got any Coke? This is a bit raw."

Genius!

Jokes 'n' Stuff

An interesting and really quite good weekend has left me feeling oddly centred and content. Even the mad, sweaty woman in the pub on Sunday night (she wanted to be taken to Chiswick - no mean feat given we were in Wimbledon at the time) didn't really bother me. So I am not really in mood for the boggle-eyed, foaming mouthed profane ranting that normally makes up this blog. If you want such misanthropic malice, I would suggest a quick look at this post, which tears into Patsy Hewitt with a vitriol that is breath-taking, offensive, and - given the target - utterly, utterly, utterly deserved.

So instead I thought I would share a joke told to me by an old friend.

David Bowie, Mick Jagger and Iggy Pop have all passed on. Owing to a clerical error, the sins committed as part of their rock 'n' roll lifestyles are ignored and they are all considered worthy of Heaven. After dying they ascend into the clouds and stand, waiting, at the Pearly Gates. St Peter is there, at the gates, checking people off very slowly as they walk into paradise.

David, Mick and Iggy are all used to people who fawn over them and worship them. So they all find it a little difficult to wait in a long queue. However, they rationalise it and decide that getting into the kingdom of Heaven is probably worth waiting for. So they stand in the queue, patiently awaiting their turn.

Then they see Bono completely ignore the queue and walk up to the Pearly Gates. The gates swing open, and Bono walks straight into Heaven. This outrages the three rock stars and when they finally reach the front of the queue, an irate Bowie asks St Peter why Bono is allowed to jump the queue.

St Peter replies:

"That's not Bono, that's God. He just thinks he's Bono."

Well, it made me laugh.

The Tories v. Big Business

As detailed at length in Matthew Parris's column in The Times today, David Davis, the man I voted for Conservative leader last time out*, has had a busy week. He has categorically stated that an incoming Conservative regime would reverse all ID card legislation and end the private sector contracts with those companies that have been chosen to provide the cards. Yes, the Tories finally have a policy. No doubt young "Hug A Husky" Cameron is enraged, but it is comforting to see that the Tories are still occasionally worth listening to and that the arrogant claims of Nu Labour that the ID cards scheme could never be reversed will be challenged by any future Conservative administration.

But it is the direct conflict with the private sector that intrigues me. It is tempting to see this as further evidence of the total transformation of British politics in the wake of Blair stripping the Labour party of any left wing ideology. The Tories, traditionally the party of big business, are now taking on the big businesses favoured by the traditionally anti-private sector Labour party. Hell, you could almost see this as the Conservative party taking the ground traditionally held by the Labour party - a post Blair lurch to the left.

However the truth is that Davis is just doing what the Conservative Party should do. The ID cards scheme is simply a bad idea. Unnecessary, illiberal and doomed to be an expensive failure. Davis is simply stating that a Conservative government would reverse this ridiculous scheme, and is making the companies involved in it aware of the fact that their ID card cash cow may not prove to be as profitable as it first appeared. Davis is simply stating that the Tories will end a hideously expensive and totally pointless piece of legislation. He is doing what the Tories should do.

He is speaking sense.

*Although I would imagine he has slightly more impressive claims to fame.

Duelling

This is quite an interesting article.

I would like to see a duel between Blair and Brown. It would be good to see only one of them walk away alive. But there is the danger that it could be Blair, and then the fucker might try and hang on for another 10 years.

David Miliband *Political Genius*

David Miliband is an astounding character. Not good or capable or worthy of even the most grudging respect, but astounding nonetheless. And what has the clueless fuckwit done now to warrant the adjective “astounding”? He has guaranteed that he will have no place in a Brown cabinet by laying into Gordo on national television. The BBC quotes him as saying:

“I predict that when I come back on this programme in six months or a year's time, people will be saying 'wouldn't it be great to have that Blair back because we can't stand that Gordon Brown'.”

Ignoring the fact that people may be saying “it would be great to have that David Cameron in charge because we can’t stand that Gordon Brown” rather than wishing for the return of the terminally compromised Blair, I think it is a bold statement to slag off the man who not only is going to be your next party leader but also the next Prime Minister. Miliband seems to be running towards political oblivion with a determination that stuns me. Not only is Miliband slagging off Brown, but he is compounding the sin by praising Brown’s nemesis*.

But being a Nu Labourite he very quickly flip-flops:

"I think Gordon Brown will be the prime minister. I think he will be a very successful prime minister, but I think that in politics it is at election time that people make their judgements."

So he is going to be a very successful Prime Minister who no-one likes? And even in his compliment to Brown, Miliband still manages to get in a little dig. He is almost saying even if Brown is successful as PM it will all be irrelevant as come election time Brown will lose.

Which begs the question what the hell Miliband thinks he is doing. I think he is utterly stupid, and politically tone deaf, but there may be some sort of political strategy behind what he is doing. As the BBC goes on to note:

“Mr Miliband, often tipped as a future Labour party leader…”

He is positioning himself for the leadership, pure and simple. Now I think the Labour party would be insane to elect the pompous, self-important and geeky Miliband as leader – and the thought of Miliband as Prime Minister makes me laugh until quiet tears of laughter cascade down my cheeks. But that doesn’t mean that Miliband won’t run, and it doesn’t mean that Miliband doesn’t want to be leader.

In spite of the fact that Rambo Reid has pretty much wiped out his chances of being the Blairite challenger through the ongoing crises at the Home Office that he has presided over, it will be too early for Miliband to run for the leader when Blair eventually stands down/is forced from office. Miliband’s game could be more cunning – he slags off Brown now, and therefore does not get a place in the Brown Cabinet. This would mean he is not associated with the Brown led Labour government that will, most probably, lose the next election to Cameron. He will then be a key contender for Labour leader after Cameron enters Number 10.

And I almost hope it happens – Miliband runs for the Labour leadership. Because I think he will lose, and the thought of Miliband running from the political centre stage, like a spoilt schoolboy (complete with tears of impotent rage running down his smug face), fills me with joy on this cold and drear Friday morning.

UPDATE:

According to The Times Miliband is being urged by senior Blairite ministers to run for the leadership when Blair finally gets booted. And like all good leadership contenders he is denying that he has any intention of running. Ho hum. But according to a close friend (I know, I know, it is amazing to think Miliband actually has any friends) he is getting into a little huff about the fact that people will not believe he does not want to run, commenting "Do I have to chop an arm off to prove it". Well, frankly, David, yes. If you chop off your arm, preferably on live television, I will believe that you are not seeking the leadership. Can't say fairer than that.

*It says something about Nu Labour that Brown’s nemesis is not an opposition leader, but rather his former friend and election winning Prime Minister. One of the many negative legacies of Nu Labour is this farcical “Politics as Soap Opera” that the Blair/Brown squabbling has created.

Walking to work...

…is really nice most days. I don’t have to worry about public transport (which seems to have come to a grinding halt in the absolutely unprecedented event of a smattering of snow in February) and let’s be honest about it, walking around Central London is pretty much the only exercise I get. Plus I get to see the sights of London on the way to work, such as the ongoing standoff between the Houses of Parliament and Brian Haw (I do wonder when he will give it up but also have a grudging admiration for the fact that he hasn’t).

However this morning it wasn’t so nice. I managed to both forget that we were expecting snow overnight and to look out the window before setting out on my walk to work. Consequently, I had no idea that it was still snowing. Which meant I forgot my umbrella and coat, and which also meant by the time I got to work I looked a little like a cat someone had tried to drown in a canal.

Part of the problem is my stubbornness, I suppose. I could have jumped into a taxi or a bus or onto the tube but I refuse to do any of those. The taxi option is just too expensive (when I can’t expense it through work of course). The tube is too crowded and it seems pointless to pay for a tube ticket for just two stops. And I am just too snobby to use a bus*.

Quite what this proves is a little beyond me, but I did feel my stubbornness waning slightly when I got to work this morning and had to dry my hair using the hand dryer in the gents. But look at it this way – I don’t use any transport other than my feet, so at least my carbon footprint is fine.

Jesus. I am unintentionally green…

*To some extent I am vindicated by the last time I tried to use a bus. Stood at a bus stop in the depths of South London, we were accosted by a Polish (?) gentleman who proceeded to talk at us manically in spite of the fact that he was speaking Polish (or some other Eastern European language) and therefore we could not understand a word of it. We tried to explain this to him, but I don't think he spoke a word of English. Normally I would find this entertaining and surreal. However at 1am in the depths of the SE postcode, and given the slight look of insanity in the guy's eye, it became a little uncomfortable to say the least.

So we got a taxi.

“And I won’t open letter bombs for you…”*

It is difficult to see what the person or persons behind these letter bomb attacks hopes to achieve. Attacking the likes of Vantis and the DVLA really isn’t going to achieve a great deal other than giving the media outlets a story to speculate on in a slow news period when the weather is the only other major news story. I wonder whether the aim of the letter bombs is to kill or simply to create fear and disruption - although mail bombings can be fatal. I reckon this will prove to be the angry loner, our equivalent of the Unabomber. And it is tempting to see the letter bomber as a latter day Robin Hood, fighting back against our bureaucratic and increasingly dictatorial government. But all bombs – be it rucksack bombs on tube trains or letter bombs in Crapita’s office – are indiscriminate things and tend to end up hurting and killing people who are utterly detached from the real target of the attack. And it is tinfoil hat time if you really think sending fireworks in the mail is going to keep Blair awake at night (although this is a good example of one of the many things that should keep Blair awake at night).

Whatever the motive, these letter bombs represent an act of terrorism – maybe not with the same level of carnage and destruction as July 7th 2005, but still terrorism. And as much as I hate to use an act of terror to make a political point, it is difficult to see how ID cards could stop these letter bombs just as it is difficult to see how ID cards could have stopped 7/7.

*A line from the song “Career Opportunities” by the Clash (“I hate civil service rules/And I won’t open letter bombs for you”) – although also a fairly sensible sentiment in its’ own right.

Jo O’Meara wants Celebrity Big Brother to be scrapped.

Don’t get me wrong, so do I. I hate that show with a passion. It is painful to watch a bunch of washed has-beens and never-weres parade themselves through the Big Brother house for weeks on end. The non-celebrity version was bad enough, the celebrity version is a pointless, humourless joke. Go for it, scrap it, replace it with endless re-runs of Father Ted or something. It would make me very happy. But not if you scrap it for the reasons outlined by the oddly masculine O’Meara.

"I feel if this is what a TV show does to people, then it shouldn't be a TV show” says O’Meara, missing the fact that she volunteered for the programme knowing exactly what would be involved.

"The whole thing has been so unfair and so cruel. I've not been portrayed as the person I really am." No, she has not been portrayed in the way she thinks she is. The endless footage shot by the Big Brother crew shows exactly what she is like.

The bovine O’Meara goes on to wail that she has considered suicide but was “too wimpish” to go through with it. Makes sense I suppose. Racists tend to wimps and cowards. But of course O’Meara denies she is a racist:

"I'm not a racist person, I never ever have been. None of it makes sense. I don't know how this has all happened."

Well, she was racist on Celebrity Big Brother. And the reason why “this has happened” is because she behaved in a racist way. But clearly this blindingly obvious logic is beyond the no doubt limited mental capacity of this also-ran manufactured pop star.

My message is simple – behave in a racist way in front of people, and those people will think you are a racist. Behave in a racist way in front of the nation, and the nation will think you are a racist.

O’Meara’s knee-jerk reaction of “scrap Big Brother” totally misses the point. The programme did not make O’Meara appear racist. She did. Instead of belly-aching about suicide like a recently dumped unstable teenager she should accept responsibility for what she did and live with it. I will never have respect for the likes of O’Meara with their bigoted and ignorant views, but I would find her less odious if she accepted she was at fault rather than lashing out at the programme she chose to go on and she hoped would re-launch her now utterly defunct career.

Independence Party

Apparently UKIP is in the process of re-branding itself - here are the details.

From my position, as a disaffected Tory who is somewhere between liberal (definitely with a small "l") and libertarian, this could be very good news. I have had problems with UKIP because of the perception that they are a single issue party focussed on Europe, and whilst I do see Europe as a crucial policy area for this country, there are other issues that need to be addressed. Losing the "£" symbol and dropping the "UK" from the party's name would be excellent steps in changing how the party is perceived. Because if UKIP does want to replace the Tories as the right of centre party now Cameron has dropped his pants and become a Blairite whore, it does need to speak, and just as importantly, be seen to speak on wider issues than just Europe. Or, as Farage himself puts it:

"The theme that runs through everything that we stand for is 'independence': national independence, local independence and independence for the individual."

John Major

Recently read a (mercifully short) biography of John Major, and the summary for it was that he wasn't as bad as he appeared at the time. Which, in spite of leaning towards the Tories politically, I would strongly disagree with.

I think that a lot of the criticisms of Major at the time were brutal and needlessly personal - such as the famous story, most probably from the odious prig Alastair Campbell, that Major tucked his shirts into his underpants. That sort of thing has no bearing on whether Major was a decent Premier or not and given, if memory serves, Campbell was once arrested stark bollock naked and pissed out of his tiny little mind is a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Also, a lot of the problems encountered by Major were out of his control. He couldn't help it if Aitken decided to fight a court battle even though Aitken knew he was in the wrong. He couldn't help it if Neil Hamilton had accepted bribes from Al-Fayed. He couldn't help it if Mellor, Yeo et al all failed to keep their winkies in their trousers* and he certainly could not help it if Stephen Milligan decided to shuffle off this mortal coil in a highly idio-syncratic way. Also, his victory in the 1992 General Election was nothing short of spectacular (although a lot of that may have been fear of the Welsh Windbag).

But aside from that, he did not really achieve anything. He totally failed to unite his party - the argument that no-one else could have done does not change the fact that he still failed to do this. In 1997 he handed Blair a landslide election victory, virtually gift-wrapped. And the ERM debacle was entirely Major's fault - not least because he forced Thatcher to take Britain into it in the first place. The economic upturn enjoyed by the UK towards the end of the Major administration only occurred because we were free of having to conform to the pointless and counter-productive measures of the ERM - and leaving the ERM was most definitely not the policy of Prime Minister Major.

I am sure Major is an amiable chap - a little wet, but good-hearted and well-meaning. But as a Prime Minister he was a failure, and this rose-tinted retrospective move to praising him when he was pretty much despised whilst in office worries me. Not because I have any issue with Major now being seen as OK, but because I am terrified that in a few years people will have a rose-tinted view of Blair, rather than seeing him as the incompetent, mendacious piece of excremental filth that he undeniably is.

*Although Major launching Back To Basics when he had been knobbing Edwina Currie was perhaps an error of judgement and could have proved to be very costly for Major had it come out when he was in No. 10.

Changes

No, not a post about David Bowie. But as the more observant amongst you will have noticed there have been one or two changes to The Appalling Strangeness. Mainly the template. If I am honest, I never really liked the last one. For some reason, it reminded me of wallpaper in dodgy pubs. When I first started this blog I wanted a distinctive template. Now I just want one I like. And with a couple of changes (assuming I ever read the book about HTML on my desk) I think I could like this template.

I have also added a couple of links to the sidebar. The Vented Spleen is an obvious but good choice - sweary, right of centre ranting. Brighton Regency Labour Party is a less obvious one, not least because I disagree with nearly everything Neil Harding says. But there are very few people making the case for NU Labour anymore (including ex-Labour leaders and the incumbent Party Chairperson) so I really think it is worth reading. And I tried to add Boriswatch, but the link would not work for love nor money.

And finally, you can now find an e-mail address on my blogger profile and on the blog itself. I appreciate that this will leave me wide open to endless spam about viagara (people, I am 27, I don't need it!) but hopefully it will also allow me to receive hectoring and offensive feedback via e-mail as well as in the comments section.

Enjoy!

"Gentlemen! You Can't Fight In Here!

This is the War Room!"

There are very few films that are unreservedly brilliant. Dr Strangelove (Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb) is one. Stop reading this, go watch it. Now.

Please Stop Mr Policeman

According to Hazel Blears, Nu Labour's cross between a chipmunk and a shrill harpy, the cash-for-peerages saga is having a "corrosive effect" by "going on for months and months" (link). At first it might look like Blears has realised that her boss clinging to power in the face of a criminal investigation is bad for the country. But no - if you study her comments a bit more you get to the crucial phrase:

"I want the investigation to be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible."

In other words, please stop investigating us you nasty policemen. My Tony has done nothing wrong, I know because he said so and he would never ever lie.

Of course the investigation could end very soon. Although perhaps not in the way Nu Labour would like...

Resign. Now.

He is a disgraceful embarrassment of a Prime Minister. He needs to go. Now.

And over at Guido's blog, it appears that his likely successor is hardly whiter that white either.

The Wisdom of Others

The Moai is on form this morning, which is probably for the best because I am really not.

First up he has a look at rape statistics - link. "I am unaware of what rape convictions are like in other countries with similar demographies to Britain. That would be good to know. In fact, I would like to see policy makers making far greater use of data and examples from other countries, as it is the nearest thig you'll ever get to a trial run of a new idea. Can you think of any examples of British policies that are explicitly informed by the example of other nations? As a scientist, my first reaction when I read of a new policy proposal is 'What's the evidence? Where's the data? Has anyone ever tried this, or even simulated it?'"

Then, via Stumbling And Mumbling, he has had a look at class, race and Celebrity Big Brother: "this is not about race, it's about class. Jade is mixed race lumpenproletariat, Shilpa a high caste millionaire Bollywood actress with immaculate vowels. I am increasingly coming round to the view that much of the conflict we see is in fact class-based, with race, gender and religion as a cipher. A crude example - ask a section of the population if they'd like a Muslim family next door. Then, ask them if they'd like Mr & Mrs Khan, the surgeon and the accountant, next door. Watch the percentages change. People object to Muslims partly because Muslims in this country are overwhelmingly working class, and came from poor places like Sylhet with little qualifications to work in manufacturing an catering. By contrast, many Hindus and Sikhs were and are of a high caste/professional status, and went into medical practice and runnign their own businesses. Ergo, race is not the issue, class is."

My thoughts? Well, I think I found a pub yesterday evening in Central London where you can buy 2 pints for under £4. And I think I celebrated this find with more than one of the aforementioned pints. And I think the reason why the pints are so cheap is because they do not have a wonderful effect on you the next day. So anymore useful and coherent thoughts will have to wait for another day, when it does not feel like a badger shat in my head.