Last of the Time Lords...

...was fucking incredible! Emotional, awe-inspiring, epic - everything you should expect from the largest of Hollywood blockbusters, not a resurrected kid's show on the Beeb on Saturday night.

I know I come across like a gushing fan boy when I write this sort of post, but fuck it. There is so little worth watching on TV these days that to have something as great as the new Doctor Who has to be celebrated whenever possible.

In fact the only thing wrong with the season finale is the fact that it is the finale, which means we won't see any new Doctor Who until Christmas. But judging by the end of this episode, Voyage of the Damned should be worth tuning into at Christmas time...

Hunting For Witches

Topical lyric? Possibly...

29/6

Someone tried to bomb Central London last night. For whatever the reason, they failed.

I could blog any number of glib things. I could make quips about Tiger Tiger, I could make quips about bad driving. But, ultimately, I want to make just one point.

Thank fuck terrorists are just as human and therefore fallible as the rest of us. Thank fuck the bombs didn't go off.

David Miliband Is Foreign Secretary. Oh Christ.

What the frig fuck is it with Nu Labour and their Foreign Secretary? Do they really look at the leading lights of their party and decide to give the role to the least capable, least charismatic option?

I mean look at those who have held the post recently. The ginger weasel who, in retrospect, was more interested in his affair with his secretary rather than foreign affairs. He was replaced by the Demon Headmaster, a bumbling buffoon who helped with the lurch into an illegal war. And then we had Margaret Beckett - a woman who looks, speaks and acts like she slept in a hedge after a gin bender. But just when you thought things couldn't get any worse that total geek Miliband gets the gig.

But then again, is he really Foreign Secretary? Blair has been made the Middle East Envoy for the US, UN, EU and Russia. Or, I rather suspect, Foreign Secretary for the US, UN, EU and Russia. Miliband has been made Foreign Secretary for the parts of the world we either can't do anything with, or don't care about. Miliband being made Foreign Secretary is less concerning than it should be as Blair's new role has made the position a complete irrelevance.

"Puzzling and perplexing"

Having a pop at Paris Hilton is a bit like having a pop at a Liberal Democrat - pointless, but a lot of fun nonetheless. So here we go.

Paris is out of prison and banging on about it. Let's have a look at some of what she says. Apparently it was a "traumatic" experience for her. Quite what she thought prison was going to be like is beyond me, but it was never going to be a walk in the park, was it? And whilst I dare say it wasn't very pleasant, I'm guessing that, as a socialite celebrity, she wasn't kept in the female equivalent of Oz.

The BBC also reports that she "said she had panic attacks and nightmares that someone would break into her cell and do harm to her, and that her small cell had exacerbated her claustrophobia." I may be wrong here, but the point of a prison cell should be that you can't break out of it. So, logically, it must also be very difficult to break into. And you can't have it both ways. You can either have a small cell where you are protected, or greater exposure to the prison population. Prisons don't tend to palatial cells.

She also comments:

"I think the crime did not fit the punishment. I don't feel like I deserved to go to jail."

Making her unique amongst criminals (and yes, she is now a convicted criminal) - I mean no-one has ever felt before that their punishment did not fit the crime and that they should not have gone to prison. It seems like an obvious point, but it is actually for the courts to decide what is an appropriate punishment. Not the criminal.

But, fair play, she has learnt from her traumatic experience and says:

"I feel like God does make everything happen for a reason."

Yeah, uh-huh, God didn't make this happen, Paris. The real giveaway should be the fact that God doesn't exist, and didn't exist in your little world until you were forced to go back to prison and serve time for your asinine crime. The person who made this happen is you, Paris. For continually breaking the law. If you haven't figured that our yet then you haven't learnt anything from prison.

It is too easy to call Hilton stupid - I don't think she is as dumb as she is made out to be, and Larry King's comment (that is also the title of this post) that she is "puzzling and perplexing" is probably accurate. She doesn't understand that she caused her time in prison because she committed a crime. Her problem is not a lack of intelligence, but rather she has been brought up and lives in a world without consequences. And by being caught pissed up behind the steering wheel she should have faced up to some of the consequences of her actions. But it says something about her worldview that even a spell in prison hasn't persuaded her that she is the architect of her own misfortune.

Dropping Your Pants With Unseemly Haste

I know that kissing the arse of a departing Prime Minister when they finally resign or get booted is not unprecedented. One of my first political memories is watching the news just after Thatcher decided not to contest the second round of the Tory leadership contest back in 1990. And who were the first two people on the news, praising her? Neil Kinnock, the Opposition leader, who had been trying to depose her for years and Michael Hesletine, the man who had just deposed her. Gushing, hypocritical praise from those who opposed her.

But Blair's sendoff defies precedent and sickens me as a result. A standing ovation in the Commons for the man? I'm sorry, but what? Blair is good at one thing, and one thing alone - winning elections. If this skill made you a good Prime Minister, then he would have been on of the best. But as he has proved, being a good election winner does not mean you will be a good PM.

And listen to what Cameron has to say:

"On behalf of everyone on these benches, can I congratulate him on his remarkable achievement of being prime minister for 10 years. For all of the heated battles across this dispatch box, for 13 years he has led his party; for 10 years he has led our country, and no-one can be in any doubt in terms of the huge efforts he has made in terms of public service... "He has considerable achievements to his credit, whether it is peace in Northern Ireland, whether it is his work in the developing world which I know will endure."

That's not a member of Blair's family, circle of friends or even party. It is the Tory leader. But Ming the Merciful is not going to allow himself to be left behind in the arse kissing stakes:

"...in relation to our personal dealings, he has been unfailingly courteous and I would like to express my gratitude to him for that. As he leaves office, may I, on behalf of my colleagues, extend our very best wishes to him and his family."

Remember, these guys are the opposition. Although you wouldn't have been able to tell this yesterday. Nick Robinson nicely links this behaviour with The Thick of It on his blog - Blair is no longer a threat, so now he gets praised like a hero.

Well, I'm sorry but no. No, no, no, no, no. Blair resigning does not make a blind bit of fucking difference. I am not going to change my opinion because he has buggered off into the distance, like a second rate cowboy in a cheap as shit Western. The truth remains the same.

Tony Blair is a tosser. Always has been, and always will be.

Goodbye, Let's Not See You Again Soon

He's gone.

And it has only taken ten fucking years.

The Glorious Day Comes - a reminder

A quick reminder - the Nameless One and I look forward to raising a glass with anyone who wants to celebrate Tony's exit from Number Ten at St Stephens Tavern in Westminster tonight. 7pm onwards!

Some light reading to prepare.

Crossing the Floor

Quentin Davies has left the Tory party to join the Labour. No doubt there will be a whole raft of posts along the lines of "turncoat bastard" but I have some sympathy with the man - at least until you hear what he actually has to say.

This brings a wry smile to my lips:

"Although you have many positive qualities you have three, superficiality, unreliability and an apparent lack of any clear convictions, which in my view ought to exclude you from the position of national leadership to which you aspire and which it is the presumed purpose of the Conservative Party to achieve."

I kind of agree with this, although I would point out that Davies is a supporter of Ken Clarke, who also seems to embody "superficiality, unreliability and an apparent lack of any clear convictions". To me, Cameron is the heir apparent to the pro-European, One Nation spineless conservatism of Ken Clarke and Ted Heath. Davies should be embracing Cameron as "Ken Clarke: The Next Generation" rather than fleeing into the suffocating embrace of Gordon Brown.
And I lose any agreement when I read this -

"...a leader I have always greatly admired, who I believe is entirely straightforward, and who has a towering record, and a clear vision for the future of our country which I fully share".

Believe it or not, he is talking about Gordon Brown. That's right, Gordon Brown. Anyone who is frankly delusional enough to call Brown entirely straightforward and believe the money grabbing, charismaless, mis-shapen ape of a man has a"towering record" and "a clear vision for the future" needs a sound beating with a baseball bat.

On a superficial level at least, the Tory party is now the most left-wing it has been since the dreaded days of Ted Heath. So any Tory MP who leaves the Conservative Party at the moment is either doesn't (to quote Mr Davies) "believe in anything, or to stand for anything" or was in the wrong party in the first place.

And neither represents a particularly strong argument for the morals, political acumen or general intelligence of Quentin Davies. I hope that the constituents of whichever safe seat Brown drops Davies into realise this, and soundly kick him out of Parliament at the next election.

The Same Boy You've Always Known*

From some of the sycophantic arse licking of the man who will be king, you'd have thought that Gordon Brown has completely transformed himself from the dour drip into the most charismatic saviour the media has seen since, well, the young Tony Blair. Have a look at Kevin Maguire's gushing prose on Gordo's coup d'etat - sorry, my bad - ascension to power:

"He was like a tornado as he swept through the Manchester hall promising initiatives on housing, health, education and poverty. If Blair was a sometimes wimpy Vicar of St Albion, Brown intends to be a muscular High Priest of Social Progress."

But it gets worse. Brown is being presented as the anti-spin PM - a refreshingly honest and unpretentious occupant of Number 10 , flying in the face of the PR obsessed Blair and Cameron.

I have no issue with those who take Blair and Cameron to task for being spin and PR focused. But don't think for one moment that Brown isn't doing exactly the same thing. His new persona is entirely spin. Do you really think that he doesn't want something like the crowds that welcomed Blair to Downing Street in 1997 to also welcome him to his new home and office? Of course he does - but he knows that he cannot have it, partly because the media would attack him, and partly because no-one feels enthusiastic about the Labour party anymore. And do you really think that he isn't the sulking, brooding, over grown teenager when things don't do right for him anymore? Or the truculent, smug fucker when things do go right for him? What do you think has happened since he has become PM elect (perhaps designate would be a better phrase)? Nothing. He's the same as he always has been. He just has better PR operatives because he's been promoted.

Nothing's changed in the world of Gordon Brown. And anyone who is fooled - just you wait and see for the re-emergence of Sulking Gordo as soon as his government hits a barrier or a problem...

*From The White Stripes song called, well, The Same Boy You've Always Known.

An End Has A Start

The Editors have been one of my favourite bands for quite some time. Their first album contains two of my favourite songs - the spiky, clipped Munich and the edgy, manic Fingers in the Factories. They also do an awesome version of REM's Orange Crush. Seeing them live at the O2 Wireless Festival a couple of weekends ago has simply confirmed them in my mind as one of the best bands around at the moment.

So today I'll be going out to pick a copy of their new album, An End Has A Start. Based on the tracks I've heard it should be more than a match for their debut album, and as such should be one of the most interesting records released this year. If you haven't heard anything from The Editors and fancy trying something new, then I would recommend picking up a copy either of their new album or The Back Room. Or, if you are feeling particularly adventurous, both...

And the winner is...

...Harriet Harman!

No, really. She is now Deputy Leader of the Labour party.

Words fail to describe my feelings on reading this piece of news. I am staggered, though, that the Labour party have managed to find someone to be their Deputy Leader who appears less capable than John Prescott. That takes some doing, but those canny Labour party members have somehow managed it.

Just to summarise the events of the past few weeks, though: the Labour MPs think the sulking, egregious lump that is Gordon Brown is the best their party has to offer, and the Labour party members think that Harriet Harman - who displays all the charisma, consistency and integrity of a cardboard cutout left out in the rain all night - is the second best person that their party has to offer.

Time for a beer, I think. The concept of Brown and Harman leading our country will be easier to swallow after a couple of pints...

Gordon Meme

DK has tagged* me with the Gordon Meme. He deals with the Meme with his trademark profane vitriol and in fairness I agree with his comments. But since I was tagged, I should probably mention a couple of thoughts of my own on this one.

Two things Gordon Brown should be proud of:

1. Making the Bank of England independent. He did this in the first week of Nu Labour. Over ten years ago. Quite worrying when the first achievement people associate you with happened over a decade ago!

2. Erm, two is really stretching it. I struggled with one. But, since two is the required number, how about Brown clinging to one of the highest offices in the land despite having all the social skills, charisma and economic capability of a rancid pig carcass.

Two things he should apologise for:

Taxes seems too obvious an answer so -

1. That air of intolerable, undeserved and all pervasive smugness that descends over him and exudes from him whenever something goes right for him in spite of his total lack of ability. I prefer his grim, sulking, drab demeanour to that "please punch me in the face" smugness.

2. Not standing up to Blair as his teflon boss lurched from fuck up to fuck up. Brown could have been a political giant if he had stood up to Blair over something that was wrong like, say, the Iraq War. But no. For reasons of political expediency whenever there was a chance to stand up to Blair, Brown was either stood, glowering behind his boss. Or was nowhere to be seen.
Two things he should do immediately when he becomes PM:

1.Call a snap General Election

2. Lose a snap General Election

Two things he should do while he is PM:

Oh, Christ! Look, I am trying to focus on the positive! Blair is leaving office! Fucking brilliant! I just don’t want to think about what happens next! Alright? I will face the terrible ascension of the dour drip on the day after Good Riddance Day, no doubt with a crippling hangover. But in the meantime, I just can’t bear thinking about Gordon fucking Brown becoming Prime fucking Minister.

*I don’t tag people generally speaking. However would be intrigued to hear the thoughts of The Moai and Trixy on this one. Oh, and Neil Harding…

Sickening

Kissing the butt of a departing, failed Prime Minister still seems necessary, as these scenes from the farcical charade that is other wise known as Blair’s Last Cabinet Meeting (via the BBC) seem to prove:

"Mr Blair's official spokesman said the prime minister was given a standing ovation which only ended when he left the room."

Gordon Brown appears to have taken this opportunity to arse lick the man he has hated with a passion for the past 10 years:

"Mr Brown said people would "look back in 100 years time and see the achievements that Tony Blair has made… (he said) ‘Whatever we achieve in the future it will be because we are standing on your shoulders’"

David Miliband, however, was not to be outdone when it comes to brown nosing:

"The tolerance of the House, I'm sure, is related to the fact that it understands it takes a very long time to enumerate all the achievements of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister… (It took) still more time to cross the floods of tears that are now trailing down Downing Street"."

The last comment actually makes me feel physically sick.

These people not only fail to live in the real world, but the real world is actually a distant memory to them – a half forgotten nightmare of what life was like before they clawed their way into Parliament.

It falls to William Hague to touch base with reality – and he does so with admirable restraint:

"He wouldn't get a standing ovation from most of the country."

Quite.

Bitch-slapping Brown

It is quite funny when an incoming Labour Prime Minister sees such a tremendous lack of talent amongst Labour MPs that he has to turn to failed, former Liberal Democrat leaders to make up the numbers in his Cabinet.

It is even funnier when that Liberal Democrat turns to that incoming Labour Prime Minister, and politely tells him to fuck right off.

Nick Robinson describes the move in this way:

"What is clear though is that an audacious and high stake political gambit has, in the end, come to nothing."

Not quite, Nick. The gambit has come to something - a massive embarrassment for Brown. Yep, the Liberal Demoracts, under the least charismatic leader of any political party since Michael Foot, have managed to bitch-slap Brown already.

Well done, Gordo - you've managed to fuck up before you've even made into Number 10.

1 in 10 of us was/is barmy

'The NCH defined an "emotionally well" child as one who demonstrated empathy, self-awareness, an ability to manage feelings, motivation and good social skills.'

Has there ever been a teenager who ticks all those boxes? I'm not sure I do now, and I'm 28. How transparent a funding/headline grab is this?

Banning Hunting

Manhunt 2, that is.

The government's board of pet censors have seen fit to deny us the dubious pleasures of the sequel to Manhunt. See here for details.

Which of course is a cause for celebration. Keith Vaz said so. And the parents of Stefan Pakeerah, murdered apparently because of the original game, are also relieved. So the banning of the game must be a good thing.

Except, actually, no, it really isn't.

After all, Keith Vaz is hardly the moral leader he might fancy himself to be. And the parents of Stefan Pakeerah may have suffered an appalling tragedy, but that doesn't mean that they have some awesome insight into the mind of their son's killer. The police might have a better idea of why their son died, and the BBC reports:

"Police said robbery was the motive behind the attack on Stefan in Stokes Wood Park on 26 February 2004 - and not the video game blamed by Stefan's parents."

As unpleasant as the game may be, there is no reason to ban it. It may inspire people to suddenly go on a violent rampage, but let's face it, the chances are, it won't. And if you are going to ban stuff because it may inspire violence, then you have one hell of a lot of stuff to ban. I mean, Saturday's Doctor Who ended with the Doctor and co surrounded by terrifying cannibals. Ban that. Eastenders this week featured a woman chained to a bed, about to undergo an unwanted C -section. Ban that. Mark Haddon's hugely enjoyable and highly acclaimed A Spot Of Bother features an aging gent trying to remove a lesion from his own body in the bath with a pair of scissors. Ban that. And that perennial addition to GCSE reading lists, Lord of the Flies, is basically about kids being shitty and violent to each other. Ban that.

The simple truth is there is no real link between violence in real life and fictional violence. And even when you can find the most tenuous of links between violence and fiction then you might be surprised by what apparently inspires violence. After all, it wasn't the likes of Driller Killer that allegedly inspired Jeffrey Dahmer to take a drill to the heads of his one night stands. It was that Sci-fi romp, Star Wars Episode IV: Return of the Jedi.

This is just another small, but still glaring, example of the nanny state. The government doesn't trust you to play a video game without turning into a dribbling, murderous sociopath. Which is further proof that we are governed by patronising wankers.

Rockstar games have six weeks to appeal this ruling. I hope they do so. And win.

From the BBC:

"The identity card scheme will become a "great British institution" on a par with the railways in the 19th Century, Home Office minister Liam Byrne says."

No, really, see here for details.

So, Byrne is comparing the railways - vital trading routes during an industrial revolution that transformed not only the nation but also the world - with ID cards - a massive waste of time and money and also a gross infringement of civil liberties.

For some reason, I can't see the similarity...

Great Hand Gestures

Good song too.

One Hand Claps

So, Sierra Leone has banned child marriage. There will be those that will stand up and applaud this step forward. I'm going to save my praise, since they have refused to ban Female Genital Mutilation.

It is abhorrent in this day and age that someone can marry a child and still not break the law - I'm glad that Sierra Leone has banned this. But it is equally abhorrent that girls can have their genitalia hacked away. And those governing Sierra Leone have refused to ban this.

If both had been banned, I would be happy to congratulate that country on a massive step forward. But by not only failing to ban Female Gential Mutilation but also to remove it from a the ban from a bill in a closed session of parliament warrants nothing but disgust. So you can look elsewhere for applause on this one.

Saturday Evening TV

Wasn't going to write this post as it will have the propensity to make me sound like a gushing fan boy, but the last two episodes of Doctor Who were frankly fucking spectacular. The fact that a British TV series managed to show a drama questioning the nature of war, love, being human and immortality is surprising in itself, given the general standard of British TV today. It is something else that these themes were explored in what is nominally a kid's TV series on Saturday evenings, between the People's Quiz and the National Lottery results*. And with such great artistic success too.

I appreciate that Doctor Who is not to everyone's taste, but if you've haven't tried the new Who yet then I would recommend tuning in this Saturday to watch Blink - it is written by Steven Moffat, who has produced The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances and The Girl In The Fireplace - three of the best episodes not only of the revived series, but also the series as a whole...

*Possibly, possibly not what was on TV on Saturday nights on BBC 1 - but I am 100% sure that whatever bookends Doctor Who on Saturday nights is trite shite.

Rok TV!!!

A classic from The Day Today.

First Person Narrators

Been reading We Need To Talk About Kevin this week* - for those of you who don't know it, it is about a mother coming to terms with her son's mass murder spree. It is written in the format of the mother writing letters to her estranged husband, meaning the mother narrates the whole story from her perspective. And it struck me that there have been quite a few acclaimed books recently that have been written using a narrator. Much to their detriment, in my not so humble opinion.

Of course, there is a definite precedent throughout literature for using first person narrators. Dr Watson narrated the adventures of Sherlock Holmes, probably partly to humanise the methods and character of the extremely idiosyncratic and, at times, almost inhuman Holmes. Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is a classic precisely because it uses a first person narrator. The Woman In Black is striking because it takes the format of a pre-Christmas ghost story, and also because it manages to express the sheer terror that the narrator feels when faced with the ghost. But these novels use the narrator to achieve a particular aim and the narrators come across as either sympathetic characters or at least, in the case of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, as interesting.

The problem with the more recent novels is not so much that they have an unreliable narrator, but rather they have an unsympathetic narrator. In We Need To Talk About Kevin, the mother comes across as not only cold and distant to her (admittedly very challenging) off-spring but also as self-pitying, clinging, and desperate for some sort of confirmation that she isn't responsible for the atrocity committed by Kevin. It is difficult to trawl through 400+ pages of attempted self vindication, particularly given the mother comes across as so self-centred.

Another good example is the character of Amir in Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner. Amir narrates to story, and comes out as thoroughly wet throughout. He stands by and does nothing whilst his best friend is bullied and raped, before selling that best friend down the river in order to assuage his own sense of guilt. Finally, when Amir returns to the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, it falls to his young nephew to save his life and, in doing so, the boy's life as well. Throughout the novel Amir comes across as a passive and curiously unsatisfying character. Almost every good or memorable deed Amir commits only comes after extensive persuasion and goading from other characters.

Finally, the narrator in The Lovely Bones, Susie Salmon, is a sympathetic character, but distinctly unmemorable. The only time her narration is truly striking is in the first chapter - somewhat unsurprisingly - when she is raped and murdered. For the rest of the novel she is detached from the characters and events she narrates, and you are left wondering whether the novel would pack more of an emotional punch if Susie Salmon was removed from narrating and instead the author described the feelings and actions of the characters without the narrator's filter.

Of course, there are some more recent novels that do narration very well. Douglas Coupland's Hey Nostradamus! is a good example, although it is worth noting that Coupland's novel uses four different narrators. However it is possible for a writer to express the inner thoughts and emotions of his or her characters without using the device of a first person narrator - whatever other flaws his novels may have, Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials triology let you know exactly what the protagonists are thinking and feeling in spite of being written in the third person.

It is worth noting that I am simply expressing a personal opinion, and the three novels criticised above are all highly acclaimed and, in two cases, award-winning**. It may just be a personal preference and perhaps others prefer this first person format to the neutral third person writing style. But I can't help but feel that the books criticised above would have been better if they had been written with a broader, less self serving and less emotional voice.

*Reading that sentence back reminded me of that guy in The Fast Show: "This week I have been mostly eating..."
**If you can count Richard and Judy's Best Read as an award...

All Animals are Equal...

...But some are more equal that others. Particularly when brought before the eyes of the US *Justice* system.

Paris Hilton has been freed from prison having served three full days of a 45 day sentence. That's right, serving just under 7% of her original sentence. Not bad going, really. At least from the point of view of Paris.

Of course, it would be totally wrong of me to observe that there is one rule for normal US citizens, and another rule for those the media dubs as "celebrities". And completely wrong to wonder what would have happened to someone in Paris's position if they were male or not photogenic or middle-aged or even black.

I'm not saying that if I was in the same position as this vacuous trollop I wouldn't fight tooth and nail to get out of prison. All I'm saying it that Paris has achieved nothing with her pathetic little life other than appearing on a trash TV show and being fucked on a video tape. And therefore it sticks at the back of my throat somewhat to hear that she is free from prison after serving a derisory sentence inside.

Well done, Paris. Enjoy your *hard won* and *well-deserved* freedom.

Time To Get Over It

Apparently fewer than 20 people complained about the Diana documentary that apparently showed her dying. Hardly surprising. I'd imagine that most people who wanted to complain about the documentary managed to get their hysterical wailings out of the way before the programme was even broadcast.

Of course it was in poor taste of Channel Four to broadcast the images. Of course it was sensationalist. But what more could you expect from Channel Four? The station that broadcasts Big Brother. The station that broadcast the rapes, murders and wifebeating of Brookside Close for 21 years. And the station that broadcasts such great self help shows such as It's Me or the Dog and the execrable You Are What You Eat.

But Channel Four is simply responding to public demand when it comes to stuff like the Diana documentary. Ultimately there is a very simple way to stop Channel Four - and other elements of the media - continually revisiting that car accident ten years ago. And that is that we all lose our interest in hearing more and more about the dead Princess.

It was arguably a personal tragedy ten years ago - a personal tragedy that somehow was elevated to the level of a national tragedy. Three people died in that car, the nation only mourned the one. Then, and now, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There was something undignified about the way the nation fell apart in the aftermath of the death of one woman. But ten years on, we really, really, really should have moved on. An individual who is still wrapped up in the death of someone ten years ago would be a candidate for some sort of mental therapy. Diana died nearly a decade ago. It is time for the country to get over it.

The media will let Diana rest in peace when we all learn to let Diana rest in piece.

"Fight against these insulting, ugly and otiose labels."

I haven't commented on the government's plans to introduce labels to booze in this country. Needless to say I think it is totally fucking stupid. Because labels like "Smoking Kills" on cigarette packets have had such an impact on smoking in this country.

But I would advise having a look at Boris Johnson's take on this policy - as witty, verbose and outraged as ever.

Transmission

A startling performance by one of the most influential and inspiring bands since The Beatles. Radiohead, Franz Ferdinand, The Editors, Kaiser Chiefs - even the likes of U2 and R.E.M. owe a debt of gratitude to Joy Division...

Oh, Happy Day!

Good Riddance Day moves ever closer...

Al Gore - Victim or Loser?

There is a rather interesting article in this week's Economist about Al Gore potentially running for President - and why he shouldn't bother. The broad sweep of the article is absolutely correct - Gore doesn't have the personality to run for President, and he lacks the spark he needs to have with the electorate. But for me the real reason why Gore shouldn't run is because he does not stand a chance of winning.

The Democratic party needed Gore in 2000 - there were no other credible candidates. They arguably need him on 2004 - when the Democrats managed to nominate the only person in their party who was less electable than Gore. But this time out the entire field of Democratic front runners appear credible candidates for the nomination - and indeed the White House.

Look at their pitches - Hillary Clinton is the heir apparent. She has the name recognition, she has the war chest, she had a peerless campaigner as her husband and she has the attention to policy detail. Sure, she winds up some people the wrong way, and lacks the charisma of her husband. But she is mounting a credible campaign for the nomination, and would be able to mount a credible bid for the White House.

Also running for the Democratic nomination is the apparent antithesis to Senator Clinton. Barack Obama is charismatic, a natural candidate. His Audacity of Hope more than makes up for his paucity of policy. Sure, he is a political lightweight compared to the like of Clinton but he looks like he could win.

And somewhere in the middle you have John Edwards. He is genial, credible and with recent experience of a presidential campaign. He has name recognition and whilst he is in third place at the moment, if the Democrats see Obama and Clinton as too much of a risk then he could be the perfect candidate in next year's General Election.

So there you have it - the capable, the charismatic and the compromise. There is not place in the field for Gore. In the charisma stakes he is beaten by Obama and Edwards. In the capability stakes he is beaten by Clinton. And in the name recognition stakes all three candidates can give him a good run for his money. He is soundly beaten - and this is just by people in his own party.

Gore would need to find a unique selling point to justify his bid for the White House. And what is he best known for now everyone hates Bush and most people want to leave Iraq? Banging on about the environment. Sure, this will make him popular with some sections of the American electorate. But those sections are the left wing, would be liberals. The Democrats need to branch out from their traditional base, whereas all Gore can offer is an appeal to those who would be voting Democrat already.

It is tempting to see a historical parallel between Nixon in 1968 and Gore in 2008. Nixon, a sitting Vice President, had been beaten in a very close election 8 years previously, with his rival arguably using some very underhand tactics. He staged an unlikely comeback against the backdrop of an unpopular war, and, despite having been written off as a potential President, he won the White House. However Nixon was lucky that his credible rivals left the race, one by one* and Nixon, for all of his faults, was a far better candidate than Gore, if only owing to his tenacity and ability to use all means at his disposal to fight. 2008 is not a re-run of 1968 - there are any number of tenable alternatives to the former Vice-President.

History has a place for Gore - he will be one of the great what-ifs, and will always gain some sympathy from history because of the perception that he was cheated by Bush Junior. But if he runs again he risks losing that sympathy. If he runs again, he loses, and instead of people feeling sympathy for him because he ran and won the election but lost the White House owing to nefarious action from his rival people will see him as the guy who kept on running, but just couldn't win.

*Lyndon Johnson refused to run owing to health problems and Vietnam, RFK was assassinated and Rockefeller was too liberal for his own party.

Handbags at Dawn!

Been away for a few days on a well-deserved (in my not so humble opinion) and really rather excellent holiday. No doubt I have missed out on some exciting stories whilst I was off the radar but, somewhat unsurprisingly, the world has managed to get by without me.

But there was one story that I feel I just have to comment on. Yep, it is that spat between the female Labour Deputy Leadership candidates on the subject of handbags.

Say what you like about the Tories and their latest attempt to bicker like female teenagers in an all-girls school, but at least they are arguing over something that actually matters - how the kids in this country are educated. The Labour party? Well, judging by their leader's undignified farewell tour and the level of debate amongst the Deputy Leadership candidates, they are utterly washed out - they have lost their ideas, lost their drive, lost the will to govern. And the risible non-contest to succeed Prescott shows how screwed our government actually is.

The Labour Deputy Leadership candidates - making the case for involuntary euthanasia every day.

Quote of the Day

"Honestly man, life's just too short to wake up each morning and realise you have to work for a complete cunt."

Kelvin McKenzie

The new Olympic logo: Simpson pr0n

See the new logo here.

As a mate of mine described it, 'it looks like Lisa Simpson giving head.'