All Hail Saint Tony!

For he is so wise!

Blair, on his farewell tour of the world, has stated:

"However ferocious the challenges are in this part of Africa it's better to intervene and try to make a difference than stay out and try to cope with the consequences at a later time."

Uh-huh. Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, Tony, but Sierra Leone aside, you've done the square root of bugger all. What about Darfur? Zimbabwe, anyone?

Blair, you had ten years to try to transform Africa. Ten years. And you blew it. Just like you blew the chance to transform your own country. As Prime Minister, Tony, you blew it.

Time to shuffle off the world stage, Blair. And shut the fuck up whilst you are doing it.

Good Riddance Day

Dear All

You are hereby invited to raise a drink in celebration to the end of Blair's premiership on 27th June in Westminster. The venue will be St Stephens Tavern. We can be recognised as the excitable gents in the corner who will have drunk too much.

Blair destroyed the party that The Moai - once upon a time - believed in. Blair is the antithesis of everything the Nameless One believes. After everything that he has done, at the very least, we can get a good bash out of his departure!

Pass it on, fellow bloggers...

Voting for Self-Interest

One of the fundamental questions of modern politics is why people actually go out and vote. It is the issue that obsesses our political parties to the extent where, like Nu Labour in 1997, they almost cannot think of anything else (even core issues, like policy). So why do people vote?

The answer, as far as I can see, is naked self interest. People vote based on what is best for their families and what is best for them as an individual. In order for people to get off their butts and go out to vote for a particular party, that party has to appeal directly to their self interest.

You just have to look at post-war electoral history for good examples. In 1945 the voters loved Winston Churchill, but wanted the Welfare State as offered by Labour. Their self-interest over-rode their love of Churchill and their patriotic pride at having won the war. In the 1980’s, the working classes should have been deeply opposed to the extremely Conservative Thatcherite governments. But large numbers of them turned their back on the Labour and voted for the Tories. Why? Well, the Falkland’s War helped, but above all it was the right to buy council houses that allowed Thatcher to gain working class support throughout the 1980’s. Voting because of self-interest – the right to buy. And 1992 may be the best example of self interest voting. The Tories were tired, had been massively unpopular during the 1987 to 1992 administration and it appeared to be time for the Labour party appeared to be ready for power. And yet Major managed to win one of the largest popular votes in history and a slim working majority in the election. Why? Well, his relative humility next to the astounding arrogance of Kinnock will have helped, but ultimately it was the fear of how much a Labour government would cost. The “Double Whammy” posters about Labour tax increases and general economic performance, combined with John Smith’s publication of the Labour spending plans prior to the election, convinced the British public that a Kinnock administration would cost them more money. Whatever the thoughts on the Tories, naked self interest returned them to government. Vote Tory, and save money on a personal basis.

But what about those voters who genuinely do vote based on ideological concerns? Those in the middle class who vote Labour or Lib Dem, to help the less well off, for example? That sort of mind set does not seem to suggest self-interest. But, then again, what, fundamentally, is the motive for voting in this way? By voting for an ideology rather than for own personal gain is still based on self-interest. It is allowing the voter to feel good about themselves, to meet their ideological beliefs and feel “right on”*.

And what about those who don’t vote? Again, self-interest. The standard reason for not voting is “I won’t vote because it is not worth it.” The parties fail to provide some people to make the effort to go out and vote, so they don’t.

So, how can you apply these ideas to political parties today? Well, take a look at a couple of the right of centre political parties** in the UK today. UKIP are failing to meet this self interest requirement. The perception of UKIP is as a European focussed party. And, despite the ever increasing control that the EU has over the UK’s political system and economy, most people do not understand the effect the EU has on their lives. As an issue, it doesn’t appeal to their self-interest. So until UKIP can find someway of either making people understand how the EU affects them personally, or can find a way to appeal to voters’ self-interest in other ways, then they will remain a minor party. Sure, they do have other policies, but they need to communicate that message to voters and make them understand how voting for UKIP is a vote for their own benefit.

Likewise, Cameron’s Conservatives arguably do themselves a favour by carping on about the environment. It will strike a chord with the “right-on” centrist or left of centre voters mentioned above, and as long as they do not focus too much on the environmental tax side of things, they will not be having an impact on the self-interest of their right wing base.

However, the grammar schools issue may cost Cameron votes from the right, and may give UKIP the chance to snatch those votes. Sure, the Tory announcement (that they would support existing grammar schools but just not open any new ones) is in keeping with the Tory actions the last time they were in office. But the problem Cameron may have lies in the perceptions of the policies. Those who, through self-interest in their families well being, had an aspiration to send their kid to a grammar school and supported the Tories because of their perceived commitment to grammar schools, may find this policy announcement to be crucial in deciding who it is best to vote for in relation to their families. Their perception of the policy may be wrong, but Cameron’s surprisingly cack handed approach to announcing this policy may lose him some votes. And it gives UKIP the chance to capitalise on those votes if they can publicise their support for Grammar Schools effectively***.

Put simply, the grammar schools issue (or non-issue) gives UKIP the chance to appeal to the self-interest of some voters and take them from the Tories. And, likewise, the Tories have the chance to keep some voters from defecting to UKIP. All by appealing to people’s self interest on an issue that doesn’t really represent a change in policy. Parties succeed and fail based on whether they can appeal to that self-interest.

*I’m not being overly cynical about this group. As I have mentioned in the past, when it comes to voting, I am focussed on ideology rather than pragmatism. I am right of centre, but I will vote for the right of centre party that most closely resembles my ideological beliefs rather than the right of centre party that is most likely to win.
**i.e. the ones I have an interest in doing well at elections.
***I know there is something on the UKIP website but they need to do a lot more to publicise it than that.

Chubby Nest

One of my brother's two (and counting) bands. Worth watching to the very end...

Via Mr Eugenides I note the comments of would be US President Mitt Romney:

"They want to bring down the West, particularly us. And they've come together as Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, with that intent."

Such incisive political insights! So brilliant - covering off all the facts with a real understanding of the issues of the conflict, both in terms of politics and religion. No doubt Romney sees the troubles in Northern Ireland as being an evil alliance of Unionists and Republicans, of Catholics and Protestants, against the heroic union of King Tony and Queen Cherie, with their tireless Prime Minister Elizabeth Windsor Junior.

This man could be the next US President. Terrifying, isn't it?

Environmentalism is McCarthyism

I have been pondering for a while exactly why our elected politicians are banging on so much about environmental politics. I mean, there is no real evidence that climate change is occurring, and if it is occurring then there is no real evidence that it is linked to anything other than natural phenomena*. So why on earth would the political elite be so focussed on meeting the demands of the environmental lobby?

The obvious answer would be to win votes. But do the electorate really care about environmental concerns. Since my basic theory about voting is that people vote based on naked self interest**, and that (ignoring the dubious and spurious scientific data behind the environmental lobby) the impending global environmental catastrophe is decades away, why would environmentalism be seen by our leaders as a vote winner?

I don’t actually think that our politicians do see environmentalism as a vote winner, and I don’t think that they truly believe in environmentalism***. But they are conscious that the issues that are vote winners – such as the NHS, education and crime – are also extremely difficult to deal with. There are tangible ways for the success – or lack of – policies relating to crime to be assessed. The same is not true of the environment – not least because the science behind it all is so fiercely debated and potentially flawed. Parties can claim that their policies in this area are best, and are the ones that will save the world. They have the added benefit that environmental taxes will increase the government’s coffers. Put simply, the politicians are the ones forcing environmentalism onto the agenda because they can make money and cannot really be held accountable for how well their policies actually do. The environment is not a mass vote winner, but politicians want to make it into one.

Which is why environmentalism reminds me of McCarthyism. Just as America really wasn’t about to descend into a Communist dystopia in the late 1940’s and 1950’s, the world today is not about to descend into the catastrophic hell of The Day After Tomorrow. But it is in the interests of our leaders to make us think it is. To use environmentalism as a distraction from the real issues, just as fear of communist infiltration was used in post-war America to distract the American people.

I am not saying that there is a massive conspiracy – that Blair, Brown, Cameron et al have sat down and decided together to use the environment to pull the wool over the eyes of their people. But I think it is in the cynical nature of the modern politician to do this instinctively. The environment is a non policy that they cannot really be held accountable for. It is far easier for them to jump on this bandwagon than it is to work out, for example, how to fix the NHS or whether it is actually worth fixing.

The good news for people like me who really see no validity in the environmental movement is that, most likely, our leaders will move on from it if it does not bring the electoral success they crave. Just as McCarthy fell from grace so too will the mendacious, hysterical environmental lobby. And the more people who critique the claims of the environmentalist, the quicker this fall from grace will happen. But, just as the environment has replaced the War On Terror as the politicians distraction of choice, so something else – something as equally cynical and meaningless as environmentalism – is likely to be picked up and used by our leaders. Unless we see a sudden change in the type of people running for and being elected to power, cynical smokescreens hiding the real issues will continue to dominate our political landscape.

* Please don’t quote the Stern report at me. I said “real evidence”.
** Sorry, I have meant to write a post about this for ages and haven’t got round to it. Will do so later this week, I think.
*** Otherwise, why would they leave a massive carbon footprint to fly out to photographed with a husky during a local election campaign?

Find Felicity!

Normally I wouldn't get invovled with what some people refer to as blog wars, but this is something else. A very unpleasant case of cyber stalking. I've stuck the button in my side bar - I don't think it will do a lot of good but at the end of the day this Felicity Lowde character is a convicted criminal on the run. And if nothing else I'd liked to illustrate my hope that she is caught very soon.

I'm watching this case with interest.

Let's face it, if you can log on to sex sites at work and not get fired, it is going to make the American working day go much quicker.

Why NOT to be an MP.

People occasionally* ask me whether I would like to run for Parliament. Others, such as the Moai when I first got to know him, ask me when I am going to run for Parliament. And those people are often surprised when my reply is extremely fucking negative. And then they ask me why.

Well, this story, via Iain Dale, gives a good reason. The House of Commons, and the local party associations, come across as utterly odious institutions. Reading the article, you actually end up wondering why anyone would ever want to go into Parliament.

I have been involved in local politics, and have campaigned for three Tory candidates for Parliament (two actually got elected). I have seen amount of tedious campaigning and events that they have to attend to get into Parliament. I have first hand experience of the dull, self-important and back-biting people who gain positions of influence in local party associations** – those types who have to be appeased to enable selection and re-selection as a candidate for Parliament. And the whole process just leaves me cold. I would find it dull, frustrating and aggravating.

Once you get into the Commons, what great benefits do you gain? You have to keep on campaigning, keep on answering those constituency issues. But you are now part of a hard drinking, backstabbing, vicious old boy’s club – with cliques, pointless archaic rules and cripplingly anti-social hours. An old boy’s club run by bullying, self important whips.

And if your philanthropy is so strong that you still want to endure the constant headache of heading up a local party association and the odious environment of the Commons, then what, precisely, do you do to get your beliefs into policy? You need to be in a senior position in Parliament. So you need to shed everything that may be even slightly controversial, completely restrict your behaviour and interactions with others, and become a policy vacuum rather than a functioning politician or a real person.

Put simply, why would anyone want to be a politician in this country?

Along with a lot of other guff, Plato wrote in The Republic about Philosopher Kings. Now, the concept of a navel gazing philosopher as king of anything other than pontificating fills me with fear. But there is some merit in his assertion that the people who are capable of running a country are actually the people who run the country. The glaring problem with our political system is that anyone who might be vaguely capable of running the country is put off running***.

So the next time you wonder why our ruling class seems to be populated with the image obsessed ideological vacuums or the utterly inhuman then think about Fiona Jones’s tragic story and think about the hoops MPs have to jump through and the compromises they have to make to get to the top. Those who manage to claw their way to the summit of the political game are those incomplete human beings who are not capable of taking on the responsibilities they gain.

*I was going to write often. But that would make me seem big headed. And I would hate that…
**I am not saying everyone in a local party is like this, but some certainly are.
***I am not saying that I am suitable for running the country simply because I am one of the ones put off doing so. For the record, I could run the country. Just very, very badly.

Via Dizzy I see that traffic wardens are going to get the power to issue instant fines for anti-social behaviour. That’s right – traffic wardens are going to become jumped up police officers. As if the mad little traffic Hitlers needed any more power to abuse. Magic.

The only other time that I have seen Traffic Wardens given the powers traditionally associated with the police was on the TV. In the harrowing, post-apocalyptic film Threads. After an all-out nuclear war and the total destruction of society Traffic Wardens are given additional powers over their fellow citizens. That’s right, it is only in a world where a mother is forced to sleep with a tramp in return for dead rats to feed her baby that people have previously been able to envisage Traffic Wardens getting extra power.

Now I know that after 10 years of Blairism things aren’t great in the UK, but I didn’t realise they were that bad…

What a shame.

Thom Yorke: Great Songwriter, Pretentious Twat

I was listening to Radiohead’s The Bends earlier today, and it struck me what a good record it is. And also fired me up, with bugger all else to do in the office, to do a bit of research into Radiohead, the members and their songs.

Then it struck me what a pretentious cock head Thom Yorke is. Pretty much everything he says is in some way obtuse, self-serving, or revealing quite shocking delusions of grandeur. Take one of his comments about the Radiohead song Street Spirit (Fade Out):

“Our fans are braver than I to let that song penetrate them, or maybe they don't realise what they're listening to. They don't realise that Street Spirit is about staring the fucking devil right in the eyes, and knowing, no matter what the hell you do, he'll get the last laugh. And it's real, and true. The devil really will get the last laugh in all cases without exception, and if I let myself think about that too long, I'd crack.”

Clearly Thom Yorke has a different version of that song in mind to the one I know. Street Spirit is standard Radiohead in most regards, albeit a little slower and a little more depressing than usual. It has moments of lyrical incoherence, such as “Cracked eggs dead birds/Scream as they fight for life” (err, how can dead birds scream for life? And can birds actually scream?) but generally speaking it is a well constructed song and one of the better ones in their back catalogue. But that’s it. Nothing more. So where the frigging hell does this talk of the song being about “staring the fucking devil right in the eyes” come from? I mean, really, where does it come from? It’s a bit miserable, making it not exactly unique for Radiohead. Some of the imagery is negative, but it ends on the relatively upbeat repeated refrain of "Immerse your soul in love". There is nothing to suggest the overblown hyperbole of Yorke’s comments. If you don’t believe me then go have a listen to Street Spirit and see whether you think it is

a) An above average, downbeat indie pop song
b) A confrontation with the Prince of Darkness, Satan himself.

Most sane, well-adjust people will go with the former, I would have thought.

Of course, a lot of people are overly pretentious when they are young. Perhaps Yorke has become more sane in his opinions as he has got older. Sadly, no. Take a look at his comments on his recent solo single, Harrowdown Hill:

"The government and the Ministry of Defence... were directly responsible for outing him and that put him in a position of unbearable pressure that he couldn't deal with, and they knew they were doing it and what it would do to him... I've been feeling really uncomfortable about that song lately, because it was a personal tragedy, and Dr Kelly has a family who are still grieving. But I also felt that not to write it would perhaps have been worse.”

I sort of agree with his appraisal of what happened to David Kelly, and can understand why someone would want to write a protest song about it. Quite why Yorke chose to make that song lyrically vague and backed by the sort of fragile, electronic bleeps and squeaks that wouldn’t frighten a paranoid mouse, let alone the more violent and brutal parts of the British establishment is beyond me. But it is the final sentence that makes me want to scream in frustration. “But I also felt that not to write it would perhaps have been worse”. What sort of toss is this? How can it be worse not to write the song? A song that, by Yorke’s own admission, may be intruding on a private tragedy. Is Yorke so arrogant that he thinks that the world will suffer if he doesn’t put his thought in song and on a record? Was his collection of semi-coherent cut up lyrics so dramatic that he had to get them out of his head before they damaged him? Because, if they were, then God help him if he ever comes up with something really powerful. His head will probably explode!

When you listen to other bands, like the Manics or the former members of Joy Division, talk about their music they come across as unpretentious and very down to earth about their music. When you read what Yorke has said about his music, you get the impression of a man even more overbearing, serious and dour than his most ponderous music. My advice – listen to the music, ignore the man.

The "Clause 4" Moment

There has been some talk of the recent Tory announcement about Grammar Schools being something of a Clause Four moment for young "Hug A Husky" Cameron. Now I don't really care about this announcement, contrary to what you may had read from Jackart. As I mentioned in my post on this topic, the problems with the UK's education system are deep and fundamental. It will take more than a few city academies or grammar schools to turn the education system around and make a real difference. But I really don't think this is a Clause Four moment for Cameron, and I would also argue that he doesn't need a Clause Four moment.

I'm inclined to go with Guido's view that this was a rare fuck-up from the new, PR focussed Tories. It is a lot less controversial than it first appears, and is in keeping with the actions of the Tories the last time they were in power. The problem was with the presentation - it was made to appear much more radical than it actually is. Cameron may have fanned the flames of the pseudo-controversy, perhaps looking to appear more centrist than he - or his policies - actually are, but this is not a seismic shift that is equal to the Labour party abadoning their Clause Four. At the end of the day, each Labour party member used to have the old Clause Four printed on their membership card. There is no equivalent pledge on the Tory memberships cards, and certainly no similar focus on grammar schools as there was Labour focus on public ownership.

Fundamentally, Cameron does not need a Clause Four moment. Tony Blair needed to change Clause Four to make his party electable. He needed to show Middle England that his party had fundamentally broken with their pseudo-socialist past. There is no similar problem facing Cameron - as Norman Lamont notes here:

"Clause Four was the embodiment of a very mistaken, foolish philosophy - there is nothing comparable for the Conservative Party."

The reasons for the Tory election failures since 1997 have very little to do with policy. In fact, Nu Labour have won two landslides using watered down Tory policies. The Tory Party was riven with divisions, tainted by scandal after scandal and led by a weak, compromised leader. Blair offered similar policies to the Tory but with a nice, fresh, non-threatening face. The public agreed with the Tory policies, just not with the party implementing them.

The Tories have now been in the wilderness for long enough to rediscover some discipline, to shed the image of sleaze and to have a generation of fresh faces come through the ranks to put real distance between them and the failed Major Administration. They have the added benefit of facing a broken down Labour party, an unpopular Prime Minister who is about to be replaced by an even more unpopular figure and a sleaze ridden, moribund, bankrupt government. The Tories have the chance to seize power, and do not need melodramatic, Clause Four style moments to regain the keys to Number 10.

Very droll.

h/t Mr E.

Eleanor Put Your Boots Back On

A mannered, cerebral love song. And an obvious, literal video. But so what?

Still an awesome track.

Brooker on Facebook

Via the Moai some classic, old school misanthropy with a nice twist of social ineptitude. Go take a look.

Why Socialism Means Dictatorship

Over at Jackart’s place there has been some fierce debate over socialism versus capitalism, mainly with those of a right-wing disposition taking on the laughably naïve Sugarhoney. Now political ideology is something I have studied extensively, so I thought I would throw a couple of thoughts into the debate.

Jackart writes “Socialism is Communism writ small”, which is pretty much spot on. Both socialism and communism want to achieve the same aim – the end of the capitalist way of life (and, btw, liberal democracy). Their key disagreements lie in how that is to be achieved. Communism (as created by the hopelessly wrong Karl Marx) sees the end of capitalism occurring because of a violent revolution and a subsequent dictatorship of the proletariat*. Socialism, as advocated not only by purists such as Eduard Bernstein but also all those of a Social Democratic ilk, sees the creation of the socialist state through piecemeal reform and through undemocratic, economically damaging institutions such as Trade Unions. The means are different – the end is the same. The end of capitalism and, as a result, dictatorship and society based on misery for all.

See, the problem with socialist and communist ideology comes down to their perceptions of human nature. They see human beings as, in some way, perfectible. They think that, given the right circumstances, human beings will be reborn as generous, giving beings who are happy to make every effort in all parts of their life to share the proceeds with their neighbour, regardless of what the neighbour has done. In the crushingly naïve view of the socialist, the perfected human will be more than happy to adhere to the Marxist maxim “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.”

Of course, people don’t work like that. Humans are capable of acts of great goodness and generosity. They are also capable of acts of extreme selfishness and greed. The instinct of humanity is to get the best for the individual and the individual’s loved ones. If strangers can be happy as well, all well and good – but the happiness of others is not the main motivating factor of the average human. People want to acquire, and they want to have their efforts rewarded. The only way that you can fight that instinct is through the state interfering and compelling people towards the more socialist way of thinking. That is why thousands of kulaks starved in Stalin’s collective farms. Stalin tried to compel them to be communists. In doing so, he forced them to act against their instincts, removed their freedom and led to many of them dying.

Jackart also writes:

“Fascism is merely a better dressed form of communism. So does it matter whether its the Jews or the Kulaks who got exterminated - Surely they're both still people? Both creeds are equally evil.”

I would agree with this as well. We have to stop thinking about this debate as being between right and left. It isn’t. It is the difference between freedom and state control. The only real difference between socialism/communism and fascism/Nazism** is the ideology they pay lip service to. They both take the chance to interfere in the lives of their people, they both remove the freedom of the citizens in an attempt to make them conform to an idealised and incorrect view of humanity. I always find it very telling that Nazism is, technically, National Socialism. Socialism with a Nationalist bent. The far ends of the political spectrum are Libertarianism (be it capitalist or anarchist) and Dictatorship (be it socialist, communist or fascist).

Basically you’ve got a choice. You can have a society where everyone is free to go out and make the best of their lives, in what ever subjective way in which the citizens view success. Some will be happy, some won’t. But that have, to a large extent, the choice. Or you can have a society where the government tries to control every element of the citizens’ life and where everyone is equally miserable, barring the tiny ruling elite. Liberal Capitalism versus Socialism – the choice is literally as stark as freedom versus dictatorship.

Therefore, if you are a socialist – like Sugarhoney and the glaringly ignorant Terry Kelly - you are not a democrat and you support dictatorship and misery.

Quite simple when you sit down and think about it, really.

*And please don’t tell me that Lenin, Stalin and all the other bastards who ran the Soviet Union were some sort of departure from classic Marxism. They aren’t. Everything they did – every evil, brutal act – was explicitly condoned by Marx by him advocating of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. And don’t give me “oh, well, Lenin et al weren’t members of the working class”. That may be the case, but Marx explicitly stated that the working class would be joined by members of the other classes as the violent revolution drew near – middle class people like Lenin would become part of the proletariat as the dictatorship of the proletariat loomed.
**Aside from the fact that communism has a far higher death toll. I’m not condoning Nazism of the Holocaust in anyway, but fundamentally murdering someone in a concentration camp is the same as murdering someone in a Gulag. The crime is the same – murder. And I am disgusted by murder in whatever form it takes, regardless of the ideology or reasoning behind it.

Zodiac

I went to see David Fincher's new film yesterday - with, I'll admit, a degree of trepidation. I know something of the story of the Zodiac Killer (I've owned the Robert Graysmith book for quite some time, but have never got round to reading it, *bah*) and did not feel that the long, sprawling saga of the unsolved murders suited Fincher's flashy, showy directorial style. After all, this is the guy who made Se7en: perhaps the very epitome of the gimmicky, crude, horrific and (above all) unrealistic serial killer movie. But I'm happy to say that I walked away pleasantly surprised, having seen a gripping and exceptionally well made film.

First off, Fincher restrained his more extrovert directorial tendencies. There were some striking shots - not least of the murder in the taxi cab and of the Golden Gate bridge itself - but these completed the movie and were not at all ostentatious or distracting. Instead, Fincher tried other methods to make him new film stand out from the crowd. He has a number of long scenes, very much focused on dialogue and allowing his actors to do their stuff. The initial police interrogation of the most likely suspect sticks in my mind. The way it was so long, with so many minor details included, and the way it was acted in such a restrained way made it far more memorable (and unsettling) than the standard interrogation scene you would see in a serial killer movie. Fincher also managed to justify the film's long running time - there was not really a moment wasted, and even the slower scenes helped to give this viewer a sense of the long period of time covered in the film.

But above all, this was a film that tried to be realistic - and, to a large extent, succeeded. Unlike other real life serial killer flicks, it set out to tell the story in as much detail as possible. It was like watching modern history on the big screen. In some respects it was like Spike Lee's Summer of Sam - but whereas that picture focused on the lives of New Yorkers linked to the serial killing spree, Zodiac placed itself in the heart of the long, sprawling investigation. Every part of the film was believable.

First of all, the characters were strikingly real. No-one was perfect. The police were presented as tired, overstretched, portly and prone to petty arguments over jurisdiction. They weren't malign, or overly heroic - just normal people, trying to cope with extraordinary events. They also, on several occasions, pointed out that with the numbers of deaths occurring in California each year (both accidental deaths and murders), the number of people confirmed killed by the Zodiac were a mere drop in a far wider ocean. The nominal hero of the movie, Robert Graysmith, was also presented as a flawed - and consequently very human - character. He was a bit of a geek, a non-drinking, non-smoking "eagle scout first class", who became obsessed with the Zodiac case to the cost of just about everything else. There was also a wonderful lack of heroics - people responded to the crimes as you would expect - as panicked victims, jaded news paper professionals, over-excited cartoonists and weary but determined police men.

But above all the flow of the narrative was strikingly realistic. The criminal escaped not because of one massive blunder, but a whole myriad of uncertainties and mistakes, caused by flawed memories, drink problems, vanished witnesses, failures of police forces to talk to each other and other, very human, failings. Finally the film also acknowledged the ambiguities still affecting this case - whilst it strongly suggested that Arthur Leigh Allen committed the murders, it also highlighted other suspects and added at the end that DNA tests would appear to reject Allen as being the Zodiac. The lack of a clear resolution to the mystery (and the lack of an exciting, rousing denouement) may cost the film massive box office success, but does allow it to reflect reality.

Which is why I think Zodiac will stand out as one of the most interesting films of the summer. Against a backdrop of lame superhero sequels, gratuitously violent horror films and robots in disguise, a film that presents recent history and one of the great unsolved mysteries in a realistic but compelling way is something of a rarity. And is all the better for it.

A Little Bit of Admin

I have taken the opportunity of a crushingly slow day at work to do some admin tasks on this blog. Mainly updating the sidebar with some new links both to other blogs, and to parts of the Dead Tree Press. I have also (hopefully) fixed the link to Trixy's blog.

If I haven't included you on my sidebar and, for reasons that defy understanding, you feel a need to be included then drop me a line on my namelesst e-mail address. But I will keep this post short and sweet, because any admin post is, by very definition, deathly dull.

Shop a Work Mate

According to the BBC, the Home Office is looking for co-workers "to tip off police about anyone they believe could commit a violent crime." Warning signs include "heavy drinking, mental health problems or a violent family background."

I'm sorry, what?

How many people are covered off by these parameters? I mean, heavy drinking? By following this policy the police will inundated with calls from concerned colleagues after each and every leaving do and each Christmas party! And you show me the causal link between mental illness and violent family background and violent crime. Oh, wait, you can't. Why? Because there isn't one. Some violent criminals may have mental health problems, some won't. And the mental health problems may not be the reason for the violent behaviour. The same applies to those from a violent family background.

And it is also worth pointing 0ut that, in theory, everyone is capable of committing a violent crime. Everyone. I could turn round and smack the guy sat next to me bang in the side of the head, and he could do the same to me. Unless someone is in a fucking coma, they could, in theory, commit a violent crime.

So where does this stop? And how can untrained co-workers - with any number of personal prejuidices arising from the politics of the work place - make judgments on who is ok and who might be a potentially violent criminal?

Yet another ill-thought, piece of crap policy designed to further reduce our already dwindling civil liberties. All this policy would do is further create a culture of fear in this country - the nasty, dystopian, spying culture that should be restricted to the Soviet Union in the 1930's. Not the United Kingdom in the 21st century.

"Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient."

Jimmy Carter on Blair's support for Bush.

A rare example of the former President talking sense...

Stop the Presses!

According to The Times, e-mails from random strangers promising you vast fortunes in return for an upfront finder's fee might be fraudsters. The fact that anyone would fall for some of the total crap that I receive in my spam folder is startling to me.

Let's take a look at the rubbish that has been sent over night to the e-mail address listed on this blog:

From Gary Downey, I have something entitled "The Only Penis Pill that Works 29". Jeanie Cantrell has sent me "However the LCP will revert to no-delay passthrough operation" (thanks, Jeanie). nikiema mark has sent me "FROM THE DESK OF: MARK NIKIEMA" and margalo pip has sent "download Abode Photoshop CS3".

Not only I am not fooled by the contents of these e-mails, but I cannot actually be bothered to open them. In fact, I find the best method is "select all", then... delete.

The Freedom of Information Act...

...doesn't apply to the English Parliament.

So, they have gone and done it. Again. To mirror the thoughts of Mr Eugenides, there is one rule for our elected leaders, and one for the rest of us.

According to Maclean, the Tory (yup, Tory - not Labour...) MP who introduced this bill, it has nothing to do with hiding their expenses but rather protecting the correspondance between MPs and those the supposedly represent. Yep, for some reason that doesn't add up for me. There is something... something already in place that would protect that correspondance. Some sort of existing act of parliament, perhaps? Maybe... hey, maybe the Data Protection Act would do that.

Everyone who supported this Private Member's Bill in the House - hell, all those who failed to properly oppose it - are tossers. Just to state the bleeding obvious for a moment.

He really looks like a smug cock, doesn't he?

Save the Nell!

Sign up here. The Nell may be an idiosyncratic pub, with extremely dubious toilets, but it is one of the few pubs in the Strand/Covent Garden area that has any character whatsoever. And in this day and age of identikit pubs and bars, pubs with a unique identity are something to celebrate and preserve.

Enough, already!

At the risk of sounding controversial and insensitive, I would say enough is enough. Playing a video at the FA Cup Final of Madeleine McCann is just too much. Actually, her parents visiting the House of Commons was too much. Actually, most of the unrelenting media coverage of this abduction is too much.

Let’s maintain a sense of perspective, people. This is one girl. The main reason why she has had so much of a focus on her is that she is very photogenic. That’s it. The media needs to change so it only reports developments in the case, instead of looking at every single release of data and speculating needlessly and randomly about it. The celebs need to put their wallets away and stop seeking publicity through a meaningless reward offer. And everyone needs to stop with their criticisms of the police.

The way Madeleine will be found – if she can be found – is through the hard work of the police and the accounts of witnesses. And this is a tragedy for the family, not for the nation. And no-one can know how well the police investigation is going unless they are working on that investigation. So let’s end the introspection, let’s end the speculation and let’s let the police get on with their jobs and hope that they can find this girl. The endless hype and growing media circus around this abduction is doing nothing to help anymore, and will simply drive the abductor(s) further underground.

The Day Today - September 11th

Not heard this before, but is worth seeing - well, listening - to. In hideous bad taste, of course, but would you expect anything else from the genius Chris Morris?

You don't need to know, you little pleb

A shameful piece of legislation. I must confess, I thought this sort of thing more likely to come from NuLabour than the Tories.

More power to Norman Lewes, I say. And, David Maclean, you are the Appalling Strangeness Wanker Of The Day! Congratulations. Now fuck off.

Hat tip to Beau Bo D'Or - a great image, as ever. More here.

The Right Decision

Prince Harry shouldn't go to Iraq, and the army is right to prevent him.

Now, the republican in me wants Harry out there. The fact that he is a member of the Royal Family should not prevent him from being treated as a normal soldier - so if his unit is going out to Iraq, then so should Harry. And to his credit, Harry seems to want to accompany his troops into the War Zone. But to insist on Harry going out there to prove a point about equality in the army would not only be obtuse, but also moronic.

The simple fact is that Harry would be the ultimate scalp for the insurgents. They would make every effort to take the Prince, parade him on camera if they captured him, and no doubt execute him on film if their (almost certainly grossly unreasonable) demands were not met. And Harry would not be the only person to suffer. The insurgents have shown their ruthlessness time and time again - so not only would Harry suffer, but so would those around him if he was captured. The risk is simply to great for him and for those he would serve with.

If Harry does want to serve the country that has elevated him to the status of prince by an accident of birth, then there are far more sensible and sane ways for him to do it - both inside the army and in other areas of society.

Bye, Bye Grammar Schools

Is this yet another lurch to the left? Well, it is being packaged that way. It is another cynical attempt by the Cameronies to steal the clothes of the left to try to win over left of centre voters at the same time as hoping that the right wing voters will stick with them as there is nowhere else to go. Whether it proves to be successful or not remains to be seen - Blair did the same thing from the opposite side of the political spectrum, and it certainly worked for him. Of course I think it is cynical, deceitful and not worthy of the Conservative party, but I have banged on about this for long enough and don't plan on having another go at Cameron*. What struck me about this story is this piece of rhetoric:

"We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright poor kids. This is a widespread belief, but we just have to recognise that there is overwhelming evidence that such academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it."

My gut reaction is academic selection is a good way to transform the lives of poor bright kids, but I actually think there is a far wider issue at stake here. Our education system is deeply, deeply flawed. We have catch all classes where success is based on rote learning and a very narrow selection of subjects designed to force as many people into university, regardless of suitability. If you see the point of education as preparing people to go into the outside world then our education system is failing the vast majority of pupils in this country. Education is not a pathway to success, and success often occurs in spite of the education system.

Fundamentally in this country we need to reconsider how we quantify and assess success in education. The formulaic, assembly line approach to comprehensive education in this country is just plain fatuous when you think about it. As part of being a liberal democracy we accept that everyone is an individual. Yet our approach to education treats everyone as the same. We need to accept that people are different, with different capabilities, and are most likely going to follow different paths in life. Education should not only acknowledge this individuality, it needs to embrace it.

Our education system develops rote learning skills, and simply assesses success through grades achieved in exams. The reality is that success in life is not simply based on the skills needed to get a good grade in a GCSE or an A-level. Other areas, such as emotional intelligence, practical capability and lateral reasoning, are equally as important to be successful in life as the narrow academic skills used in an exam room. But these areas are neglected in our education system, partly owing to the pressures of schools getting a good place in the league tables.

We need to accept that some people will thrive in the more cerebral atmosphere of university whilst others will not. Some people will thrive in an atmosphere where practical skills are key, others will not. And some people will have the emotional stability and strength to deal with high pressure and emotionally draining environment, others won't. The simple fact is we do need some sort of selection in place, so children are educated in the best possible way given their skills and their intelligence. Sure, mistakes will probably be made and some people may end up having the wrong focus. But a targeted approach to education is going to be more successful that the "one size fits all" approach we have at the moment. The problem lies not with selection, but rather with the narrow academic parameters of selection laid down by the flawed values of our education system.

Selection is a part of life, and children should be made aware of this and should be equipped to deal with this when they leave school. Because as soon as children grow up and venture into that cliched, but unavoidable, arena of the real world, they will see that selection based on academic intelligence, practical capability and emotional intelligence is not only common, but actually the norm.

*For the moment, I am sure my ire against Hug A Husky Cameron will rise again soon.

So who is the best James Bond?

Mr E highlights a question put to the freaks and cockbags currently running for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour party – “Who is the best James Bond?” – and uses the answer to prove the truism that no-one should vote for Harriet Harman. But I find their answers reveal something about each candidate. Nothing good, of course…

“Hilary Benn: Sean Connery is James Bond, but Timothy Dalton was pretty good too.”

What a very Nu Labour answer. Offering a definite, certain answer then hedging your bets with some sort of qualification. It must be that iron certainty seen in Tony Benn’s less charismatic son that has led to him being unable to muster enough support to stay in the Deputy Leadership race.

“Hazel Blears: Daniel Craig.”

Yep, drop the name of the person in the role and therefore the person most people will have heard off. Hazel Bleats goes for naked populism, showing herself to be the grubby vote whore I have long suspected her to be. And such naked populism will no doubt win her the election – after all, Labour has done so well in her time as Party Chairperson.

“Jon Cruddas: Sean Connery. Even if his political preferences are not to my taste, his acting is.”

I always need reminding of exactly who Cruddas is. Fortunately his answer helps me to distinguish him from his colleagues – he likes to answer in cliches, and he supports Labour party policies. Hmmmm…

“Peter Hain: I think Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond, and a much grittier and more realistic figure for the current age than the suave country gents who preceded him.”

Hmmmm, the perma-tanned status/image obssessed Hain is dissing others for being “suave country gents”. Hmmm, there is a phrase about pots and kettles that springs to mind. Also, I would argue that only Brosnan and Moore played the role as a “suave country gent” – Connery played it like a smug Scottish bouncer, Lazenby like a grinning fool and Dalton like a slightly unhinged sociopath. Finally, note that Hain doesn’t answer the question. He names Craig as a fantastic Bond, but, even though he has the longest reply of any of the contenders, he does actually name his favourite Bond. So much the politician – he cannot give a straight answer to a straight question.

“Harriet Harman: None of them. It's time to let Miss Moneypenny drive the cars!”

Oh, please do fuck off Harriet. I have no problem with women in power, I have no real problem with feminism and I have no problem with positive female, strong female characters. But for the love of God, Harriet, try to define yourself as something other a feminist. Your entire campaign is based on your gender and your belief that there should be a female at the top (or near the top) of the government. This answer shows that your myopic view of life is simply focussed on gender. But you know what? Sexism ceases when people view others simply based on their abilities and suitabilities for a role. Gender should be irrelevant. And men are more suitable to play James Bond because James Bond is a male character. Just as women are more suited to play Lara Croft because she is a female character.

“Alan Johnson: Sean Connery, despite his politics.”

So Alan Johnson has an opinion, but feels the need to clarify that Connery’s political opinions do not reflect his own. Jesus, Alan, we are talking about you endorsing someone’s portrayal of a fictional character. Not every political opinon they have ever uttered in their entire lives.

It is terrifying to think that one of the above cretins will end up our Deputy Prime Minister. But at the risk of damning with faint praise, I have to concede that each and every one of them represents an improvement on what went before.

Thought for the Day

I once thought this blog might be a forum for angry, reasoned protests against the morons who run this country. Then I realised that the reasoning part would require time and thought, so it is much easier to call Prezza a cunt and then move on to arbitrary posts about, frankly, bugger all.

So I give you my thought for the day. As I get older, I am finding that my hangovers are getting worse. Three pints of lager gives me the same hangover as eight pints of lager. Therefore, it makes no odds whether I stop at three pints or carry on to eight pints. Therefore, I should drink eight pints every time I go out.

There is probably some flaw in my logic, but I can't be bother to work out what it is.

Prescott backs Johnson

The Guardian writes:

"In a significant boost to the education secretary, Mr Prescott will endorse his neighbouring Hull MP as he formally launches his deputy leadership campaign."

Sorry, what? "In a significant boost"? Holy Mother of Christ, since when did the support of the EU lard mountain become a boost for anyone's campaign? In any right thinking party, the support of Prezza would be the kiss of death on your bid to become Deputy Leader - the electoral equivalent of a flesh eating virus.

So that's it then?

The choice the Labour party have for leader - and, ergo, our Prime Minister:



Look at them: a choice between a man who looks like a cross between Tony Hart, a university geography lecturer and Roger Moore in A View To A Kill. And a man who looks like an obese Smeagol. A crap choice in any circumstances - but in the contest for the person who will lead our country? Those two are the best the country has to offer?

No.

Look at the above photo. This is the best the Labour party has to offer.

Paul Gambaccini on Britain and the Eurovision Song Contest:

"Britain's votes plummeted with the invasion of Iraq and have stayed in the basement with the occupation. It may be the strangest reason for ending a war but if you want to win the Eurovision Song Contest again, bring the boys home."

Fuck off, Paul. There may be any number of reasons why we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq, and there may be any number of reasons for bringing the boys (and girls, let's not be sexist) back from Iraq, but the pile of fetid musical arse that is the Eurovision Song Contest is not one of them. And to even hint or joke about it when people have gone out and died for the cause is beyond crass and beyond insensitive.

The Eurovision Song Contest is absolutely worthless. The lives of those who have gone out to fight and fighting in Iraq are not. Regardless of what you think of the politics of the Iraq war, to make flippant comments about it is ignorant and pathetic.

Paul Gambaccini – what an appalling twat.

Sweeney, Scientology and Speech

Whilst anyone who takes on Scientology deserves a pat on the back in my book, I am afraid I am going to disagree with one of John Sweeney’s statements after his outburst against one of the cult’s – sorry, religion’s – representatives. He said:

"I am a British subject, not an American citizen, and in my country we have a freedom of speech. I have a right to report that."

Er, no, John. There is no guaranteed freedom of speech here in the UK – the government can suppress freedom of speech. You have no right to report it here - whereas in the US, freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution.

John Sweeney would do far better in making his case of he got his facts right. And if, by his own admission, he didn’t end up looking like “an exploding tomato”…

28 Weeks Later

Went to see 28 Weeks Later last night and was both surprised and relieved to find that it is actually a decent film. Unlike the relative disappointment of one of the summer's other big sequels, 28 Weeks Later is very much in the style of the film that spawned it but also takes the time to tell a decent story as well.

Oh, and spoilers ahead.

It starts well - with a reserved and quiet opening conversation that neatly sums up the scenario of the original movie but also sets up the atmosphere of the film. It is aspiring to be thoughtful as well as horrific and nerve racking.

Then the Infected* attack, and there is a pulse pounding scene where Robert Carlyle's character just manages escape against all the odds. The fact that, from the initial 5 or 6 characters we are introduced to, only one appears to survive shows just how hopeless it all appears in the face of an Infected attack.

However then the tone of the film changes again, and the action moves to the Isle of Dogs, where - under the watchful eyes of a US led NATO force, there are attempts to rebuild the UK. These scenes remind me of the protagnosists in the shopping mall in the original Dawn of the Dead - trying to get on with live in an artifical and conditionally safe environment, and trying to ignore the devastation all around. And the way these scenes are filmed is very interesting - the use of CCTV and sniper scopes stress the cost of their freedom from the Infected: they are constantly under the watchful and intrusive eyes of others.

Then Robert Carlyle's apparently dead wife returns - causing both an awkward moment for Carlyle character and the revelation that whilst she is infected and carrying the Rage virus, but not displaying any of the symptoms. But as you might expect, things go badly wrong, and within minutes her husband is infected and she is dead in one of the most unpleasant silver screen killing scenes I can remember in a long time.

And from there we see the increasingly desperate - and murderous - attempts of the NATO forces to contain the latest outbreak. Several people do escape, but their route out is an ordeal. Included in the survivors are the Carlyle characters son and daughter, and the impetus is to get them out of the city and away from the Infected to discover the cause of their family immunity from the virus. But their trek across London is nightmarish owing to both attacks from the Infected and also the US military. And this section of the film also has my favourite scene - when a helicopter takes on the Infected.

Needless to say that the two kids do make it - but the film has the intelligence to question whether their escape is a good thing and suggests that the draconian and lethal actions of the NATO forces were actually necessary and right to protect the rest of the the planet from the virus. It is a thoughtful and intelligent film that dares to suggest that mass murder might be a better option that the *good guys winning*, and the downbeat ending is entirely befitting of the apocalpytic tone and nature of the rest of the film.

So to paraphrase the tag lines from the Austin Powers sequels - "if you see one sequel this summer, see Spiderman 3**. However if you see two, see 28 Weeks Later as well."

*And they are not, strictly speaking, zombies as they are not dead. They are people infected with the Rage virus so in effect are just very ill human beings. It is actually key to both films that the Infected are not dead - after all, it is only the Infected starving to death that stops the initial carnage caused by the outbreak of the Rage virus.

**Mainly because it is visually stunning and will come across far better on the big screen than it ever will on DVD.

Michael Howard at his best

See here for details.

Watch Out, Bakri's About

Surreal.

'What Hank doesn't know is, we've loaded his Hummer with nailbombs....'

The Nameless One chipped in with, 'You could have a special Western section on the show - “Friendly Fire Frolics”.'

Other programme ideas:
I'm A Sailor, Get Me Out Of Tehran
When Countries Go Bad
Jihadis Do The Funniest Things
Afganistan's dumbest enemy combatants
You've Been Maimed
Candid Caliphate
You've Been Ji(Had)

Sanctimonious Shite, Even at the Bitter End

And so to Blair’s resignation speech. Let's have a look at some of the *ahem* choice morsels (via the BBC):

“There are obviously judgments to be made on my premiership and in the end that is for you the people to make."

Damn right, Tony. So let me judge you. You are an abject, total failure as a Prime Minister. You are an embarrassment to your country. You have been blessed with large majorities but failed to create any truly worthwhile policies. When you have taken a stand, it has been a fucking disaster either through shite policies or through disastrous foreign policy adventures. You are a pitiful piece of crap, Tony - you are barely worth my contempt. It is the shame of the nation that you and your harem of total fucking tossers were re-elected not just once, but twice.

Was that the sort of thing you meant by "judgments on your premiership", Tone?

“Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right."

So fucking what? Very few politicians set out to do what they think is wrong. George W. Bush can put his hand on his heart and say he has done what he though was right. Fucking hell, Adolf Hitler could claim the same thing. History is full of people who thought they were doing the right thing but actually turned out to be horrifically wrong. Blair has become one of those historical figures.

“I came into office with high hopes for Britain's future, and I leave it with even higher hopes for Britain's future."

What hopes for Britain's future? In seven weeks we are going to have that ponderous, drab, sulking spendthrift Chancellor as our fucking Prime Minister. Blair's departure is bittersweet because whilst we are getting rid of one total cock, we are getting an even bigger twat in his place. If Blair wanted to achieve something - anything - to justify his ten years in power then it could have been blocking that miserable cunt Brown in his desperate attempts to win the keys to Number 10. But no. Blair is such a fucking failure that he didn't even fucking manage that.

“1997 was a moment for a new beginning, the sweeping away of all the detritus of the past. And expectations were so high, too high probably, too high in a way for either of us.”

Yeah, well, you set the expectations, Blair. And you failed to reach them, in spite of having pretty much unprecedented majorities and related power in the Commons. After ten years belly aching that the parameters were too high is not fucking acceptable. It is beyond lame. Of all the pissy excuses and justifications for a wasted decade in power, this has to be the weakest.

“And now, in 2007, you can easily point to the challenges or the things that are wrong or the grievances that fester. But go back to 1997, think back - no really think back. Think about your own living standards then in 1997 and now."

My living standards are much the same as they were when you won power, Tony. Except everyone is paying more tax for no tangible improvement in any public sector area.

“People say it is a tough job. Not really. A tough life is the life led by young severely disabled children and their parents."

What, like the Leader of the Opposition? And when you are in control of the lives and futures of every frigging person in this country, well, I would like it to be a tough job. Frankly I don't want you to sleep at night through worrying about the sheer magnitude of your job and the awesome responsibilities you have taken on.

"I give my thanks to you, the British people, for the times that I have succeeded - and my apologies for the times I have fallen short."

Ten years on, and Blair gets round to apologising. Doesn't really specify what for, but let's face it, if we went through all the fuck-ups that make up the Blair premiership, we would be here all night.

"Britain is not a follower today, Britain is a leader. It gets the essential characteristic of today's world - it is interdependent. It is a country comfortable in the 21st century, at home in its own skin, able not just to be proud of its past but also confident in its future."

Britain is a follower today. It is spoon fed foreign policy from Washington at the same time as giving away vast amounts of political influence, cash and economic independence to the EU. Britain isn't great anymore. And escapades like the Iraq war have further worsened an already tarnished international reputation.

Blair's speech is a nauseating collection of undeserved platitudes and vacuous posturing. Therefore a lot like the man himself and his abortion of a premiership.

Yep, he's definitely going

And in tribute, I give you the words of William Hague back in the day when the *boy wonder* was Tory leader:

"In more than 20 years in politics, he has betrayed every cause he believed in, contradicted every statement he has made, broken every promise he has given and breached every agreement that he has entered into... There is a lifetime of U-turns, errors and sell-outs. All those hon. Members who sit behind the Prime Minister and wonder whether they stand for anything any longer, or whether they defend any point of principle, know who has led them to that sorry state. "

Quite.

Could he look anymore evil?

Still, he should be quitting today. And good riddance to the total fucking cunt.

Petition to Save Paris!

The pseudo-celebrity, that is, rather than the historic city.

Sky News reports that there is a petition to pardon Paris Hilton to save her from serving time in prison. Needless to say, Paris backing said petition.

Apparently Paris "provides hope for young people all over the US and the world... She provides beauty and excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives." Perhaps the inevitable response from me is those young people need to get out more, and I don't really think that providing hope to people is something that can save you from prison. It certainly didn't save the far more worthy Nelson Mandela from a long stint inside.

Fortunately Paris's supporters have a further reason for petitioning to prevent a criminal from being punished for their crime:

"We, the American public who support Paris, are shocked, dismayed and appalled by how Paris has been the person to be used as an example that Drunk Driving is wrong."

Well, drink driving is wrong and I would imagine that Paris is very aware of that - after all, she has been in court before now for driving offences. And if she is this icon to America's youth* then surely she is the best person to show that drink driving is wrong, and if you are caught you will be punished.

Hopefully the Governator will have the good sense to tell the supporters of Paris where to put this petition - where the sun don't shine.

*I concede that the fact that I don't rate her doesn't mean that others won't rate her

Jeez.

Sarkozy wins the election, giving him a mandate to desperately try to turnaround the stagnant, failing economy. To offer a practical, rational response to France's problems for the first time in years. He wins both rounds of the election, having led the polls throughout the contest. And how does the defeated left respond?

Rioting.

And who said socialists were undemocratic, violent, bad losers?

Patrick Moore should cook and eat errant dogs

I cannot agree with the great monocled stargazing curmudgeon Sir Patrick Moore any, well, more.

Midweek Channel 4:

Homebuying
Gardening
Decorating
Cooking
Celebrities doing things they are unqualified for
Homebuying
Misbehaving pets
Gardening
Decorating
Celebrities doing things they are unqualified for
Homebuying (abroad this time)
Cooking
Gardening
The news aka Chaos in Iraq with Krishnan
Chefs decorating houses they've just bought
Gillian McKeith Gazes At Faeces
Celebrity gardeners cooking (formerly) misbehaving pets
Desperate Housewives
My Daughter is a Trans-sexual Nazi
Bodyshock: The Boy With a Buttock For A Head
Cooking
(closedown)

Local Election Results...

...were a little difficult to get excited about.

Labour took a kicking because most people now realise that they are a bunch of incapable, mendacious shites. The Tories did well because most people now realise that Nu Labour are a bunch of incapable, mendacious shites. The Lib Dems, under the non-leadership of Ming the Merciful Campbell, are stuck in a state of limbo and cannot even offer themselves as a decent protest vote anymore. And the minor parties (UKIP, Greens et al) remain precisely that - minor parties.

In fact, the results of this year's local elections are not unlike the results from last year.

Anyone really interested in UK politics could almost ignore this year's elections are a repetition of last year's elections. British politics hasn't moved on - we are still stuck in a state of nothingness as we trudge through the arse end of the Blair regime.

It is the next few months and years when things will start happening again. Blair will go - probably resigning next week. And Brown will take over, barring some sort of miracle. Then the questions start - can Brown defy expectation and actually reverse the decline of the Labour party? Will Cameron actually add some policies to back up the PR? Will the Lib Dems realise Campbell was a mistake and ditch him? And can any of the minor parties exploit the frustrations with the growing consensus between the major parties and challenge the status quo?

From now on things will get interesting; ignore the Local Elections of 2007 as the anti-climax they most definitely were.

Spiderman 3

I loved the original Spiderman film. It is tightly paced, ambigious, well acted and possibly the best big-screen adpatation of a comic book I think I have ever seen. Spiderman 2 was OK - a very good superhero movie, but a little long and ponderous compared to the superior original. But despite the difference in quality between the original and the sequel, I had high hopes for the third film in the series.

Empahsis, I'm afraid, on "had high hopes".

It is not a bad film, and it is visually stunning. But there is one glaring failing in the film. As this review points, out, it is the script:

"A pity a more sizeable chunk of the reported $250 million budget didn't go towards a decent screenplay. Far too many characters are squeezed into the bum-numbing 140 minutes and most of them suffer from a woeful lack of development as a direct result: Gwen Stacy abruptly disappears; Eddie Brock's back story is thinner than a size zero model; Harry's butler Bernard appears from nowhere to save Spidey's skin with a hackneyed disclosure and a revelation centring around Flint Marko and Spidey's Uncle Ben is so contrived, it would insult even the limited intelligence of yer average WAG."

Quite. Sometimes, less is more. The original film was so great because it took time to flesh out Peter Parker, Mary-Jane Waston and Norman Osborn. There is too much going on in Spiderman 3 to allow time to get to know any of the characters, and the over-whelming desire to tie up every remaining plot strands means that the script relies on patronising moralising, lazy plot contrivancies and all the emotional depth of a Police Academy movie.

I'd recommend people see the film at the cinema, since the spectacular visuals of the film will be far more impressive on the big screen that they ever could be on DVD. And I would imagine, what with the boat load of cash this film will undeniably make will probably make a further sequel inevitable. But if they are going to make a further Spidey flick, then I would ask the producers to sit down and think about what made the first film so great. They need a disciplined, well thought out script and the best way to do that is to minimise the plot threads in the story. Focus on just one villian, and you will have a convincing and realistic nemesis for Spiderman. If you have three villians, you will end up with half-baked concepts and characters no-one really gives a crap about. Venom should have been the ultimate villian in the Spiderman film series, not an after thought in a disappointing second sequel.

Spiderman 3 - a missed opportunity.

Jumping Before Being Pushed?

So, Dr John Reid, the pugnacious prick who has been running the Home Office into the ground, is going to stand down with Blair. It almost goes without saying that my first thoughts on reading this are "good riddance."

But his reason is typical Nu Labour self-serving bullshit:

"In my view it is better for the Labour Party, the leadership and the new prime minister that he be given the maximum flexibility."

Well, as the incoming Prime Minister, Brown will have "maximum flexibility". He could get of anyone he wants. And given his generally misanthropic and sukly demeanour, I am guessing that is exactly what he will do.

"He (Brown) has made plain to me there's a place in his government for me but he understands and he accepts my decision on this."

Yes, but what position, John? You have failed in the running the Home Office. You have been regarded as one of those most likely to challenge Brown. He has both the explanation and the motivation to humiliate you in his first Cabinet line-up. I am sure that there would be a place for you in a Brown government, Reid, but I am not sure what you would make of being Deputy Assistant Sub Secretary to the Minister of the Environment with Special Responsibility for Hedgerows or something equally demeaning.

Brown would sack or demote Reid without a thought - and if Reid really believes he is doing anything other than jumping before being pushed, then he is as stupid as he looks.

True Faith

One of my favourite ever music videos. Great song, wonderfully surreal visuals. Enjoy.

Local Elections

I won't be live blogging the Local Election results tonight. Primarily because I can't be bothered. I may leave some comments with those who are, but most likely I will go to bed. Like these *normal people* I have heard so much about.

That is not to say that I don't give a crap about the Local Elections - in fact, the opposite is true. So I would ask everyone to go out and vote. I am not asking you to voite for anyone in particular, just to go to the polls and vote. 39 million people are eligible to vote, so if you are one of those people, just do it. It doesn't take long, and if you have actually voted then you can complain about the way this country/your council is run. If you haven't voted, then you haven't really got the right to bellyache. Democracy was fought for in this country to give you a say, however limited, in who runs your area and who runs your country. So, no excuses, just do it.

Vote.

Cameron from both sides

Yes, it's me, the Moai, your friendly neighbourhood tame lefty.

The Nameless One asked me, 'As a recovering leftie, what are your thoughts on Cameron? There has been a lot of argument on the right wing end of the blogosphere (God I hate that word) about young Hug A Husky Cameron so I was wondering what your perspective is.' I'm happy to oblige.

Bullet points, based on my view of what a leader should do/be:

- No policies of any note, so he wins no points on that front. He appears be a total facade, built around electability, pure and simple. The party are obviously backing him purely to get back into power.

- I cannot picture him standing up for Britain on a global stage at all. Cameron v Putin? Don't make me laugh.

- I also note that the man was born into wealth and privately educated, meaning that he has never had to actually interact with the state as a client, or, crucially, actually worry about money on his own account. If there is any good in the ideology of the Tory Party, it must be in providing the means for anyone to make something of themselves, without hindrance, and I liked that in David Davis - he was a self-made man, who probably knew how and where to catch a bus. How can David Cameron ever address the needs and concerns of people who live in crime-ridden social housing, earning a minimum wage?

- Appears more than willing to use his wife and kids for photo ops. This I find incredibly distasteful and, for all his faults, Blair has never actually done this beyond the obligatory new PM entering Number Ten shot.

- Backed the Iraq War. 'Nuff said, really.


I am trying to find a positive, but I am struggling. Can anyone think of one? Perhaps we can discern something from his voting record. I also note his Commons attendance is not stellar.

As you can see, some of us on the left are still trying to think, although we have scant evidence to work with.

Barbra Streisand charges £100 for a Ticket.

A spokesman for the star defended the prices, saying the concert was "a momentous occasion that ranks up there with seeing Sinatra or Elvis".

No, it really fucking isn’t.

UPDATE:

Turns out I was right - tickets now up to £500. I despair of people, I really do.

The Blair Decade

10 years is a really long time. 10 years ago, I was about to leave school. 10 years ago, Islamic terrorism was much less of a problem than Irish terrorism. 10 years ago, Oasis seemed like a great band. And ten years ago Tony Blair seemed like a good idea to a lot of people in this country.

Of course, some still defend him. But after 10 years in power, two with massive majorities in the Commons, it must, must be apparent to most people in this country that Blair is nothing but an abject failure. Walking through Westminster today, past striking civil servants, anti-war protestors in front of parliament and more armed police than ever before, the contrast with the triumphant atmosphere 10 years ago tomorrow is striking. And when you consider the history of the past decade it is easy to understand why there is a pervasive stench of disappointment and failure around Westminster – and the nation as a whole – today.

Blair’s legacy has been much debated and will be debated further over the coming weeks and months as he hands power over to Brown. But the chalice he hands over will be poisoned to say the least. A legacy that represents a catalogue of failures, deceptions and disappointments. Think of all the things that have chipped away at Britain since 1997 – the Millennium Dome, the Eccelstone Affair, Cash for Peerages, Foot and Mouth disease, the Blunkett resignation(s), the Mandelson resignation(s), the crises in the NHS, the crises in the education system, the capture of sailors by Iran and their subsequent embarrassing behaviour, the ill-equipped army fighting an illegal war in Iraq, the relentless toadying to Bush, the total oafs and troglodytes who Blair has placed in his cabinets – fuck me, I could go on forever, but you get the point. Blair had the power to change Britain for the better. Either through apathy or choice, he did the exact opposite.

Looking back at the previous ten years as Blair prepares to fuck off into retirement, and at the whole scrag end of a Labour party who currently rule this country, one three word phrase sticks in my mind. Just three words, to describe the people who have run this country for a decade. Three words:

Shower of cunts.