LPUK: How to start fighting elections

The Henley by-election has been and gone. I didn’t comment on the time because comment seemed superfluous. Labour lost – badly – in an area where they just weren’t going to win. Yeah, the extent of the defeat was embarrassing, but hardly surprising given the nadir Labour has sunk to. The only really noteworthy aspect of the Henley by-election was the fact that it coincided quite neatly with the first anniversary of Gordon Brown. That was handy timing - happy anniversary, Gordo!

What did surprise me was the absence of the UK Libertarian Party in the list of candidates. As I commented a few weeks ago, the party was gearing up to the first electoral test. However, they ended up not running. After a minimal amount of research I soon learnt the reason from the candidate himself:

Having spent the last week campaigning from Thame to Henley, it's become apparent to me how much money, and how many people, the Westminster parties are throwing at this election. As a relatively new entrant to British political life, the Libertarian Party simply doesn't currently have the resources needed to compete in such a febrile environment.

It is a valid reason – there is a real bias against small parties in the British political and electoral systems. But it can’t be an excuse that the party can use in perpetuity – after all, if they wish to become a force to be reckoned with in British politics, then at some point they need to stand up and start fighting. The question is, how exactly can they do that?

Recent British political history offers no real examples. The formation of the SDP was aided greatly by the being formed by senior Labour officials and former Cabinet Ministers. From day one, they had MPs. They also went into an alliance with the Liberals, giving them further parliamentary coverage and electoral clout. Neither option seems open to LPUK. Sure, it would be great publicity wise if someone like David Davis was to join the party, but I somehow doubt that is about to happen. Likewise, the party ideologically is not just going to rush into an alliance with another party. After all, the party is ideologically opposed to the statist inclinations of the major/more established parties, and equally, if all the party was about is allying itself with another party, why the hell would the party have been formed in the first place?

Likewise, the reasonably successful (in terms of votes gained in a short space of time) Referendum Party from way back in 1997 is not a great example for LPUK to use. After all, the party was financially backed to a massive extent by James Goldsmith. Unless I have missed a trick, there are no billionaires waiting in the wings to fund the Libertarian Party. Which may be a good thing. It forces the party to be more democratic and prevents it from falling under the sway of the massive egos of the wealthy.

The demise of the Referendum Party increased the votes for another party that could be used as an example for the LPUK – UKIP. Yet UKIP is not a great example of how a small party can start influencing British politics. Mired in on/off internal conflicts and falling prey to rampant egotists like Kilroy-Silk, the party’s only real representation in government (outside of the EU) has been through undemocratic means such as the defection of Lords and the defection of an MP. After 15 years in the political game, the party is still waiting for a serious electoral breakthrough.

Which means that the Libertarian Party of the UK will have to find a new way of breaking through and becoming a political force in this country. And this probably comes down to two main things: firstly, finding money, and then working out how (or more importantly where) to spend it.

Make no mistake about it – money is crucial to getting anywhere in modern politics. Whilst the party will have to work very hard to avoid taking donations or falling foul of their own rigorous rules of what they can and can’t use/take once in power, finding funds is doing to be crucial. Over in the US, the campaigns of Barack Obama and (in particular) Howard Dean have shown how just how much money can be gathered if the internet is used effectively as a fundraising tool.

Therefore, the party needs to (shamelessly) ask for donations wherever possible. Part of this may be to encourage the blogs and websites of party allies to carry a link allowing donations to be made*. Part of this is the party promoting itself wherever possible – on their website, on every epistle the party sends out etc. It is quite telling that the LPUK website front page does not carry a donate button, merely a link for donations hidden away in the sidebar.

It will be ghastly, it will make the party look desperate for funds (although I am guessing it is desperate to get some coffers in the war chest). However the golden rule should be this – everywhere and every time the party makes their case or tries to sell their political vision, there should be a button (or at the very least a link) allowing people to donate – even if they don’t want to commit to joining the party. Yes, these donations will need to be checked to make sure they are legal and do not fall foul of any rules – legal or party based. But unless the party asks for money wherever and whenever possible, it will not get the (unfortunately) large sums of money required to fight elections in this country.

Selling the vision is part of the process of fighting elections. Getting the money to fight for the vision is much less pleasant but just as essential.

Once the party has some money to fight, it is just as essential that the party decides where to fight. Even the large parties in this country struggle to field credible campaigns across the country. It is just not feasible for a small party to do so. And if they try to fight every campaign going, not only will they lose, they will build up a reputation for standing and losing in elections. The party should instead choose which areas they are most likely to get decent results in, and then start raising their profile in those areas.

Some areas suggest themselves quite easily, although research would be necessary to back up the slightly clichéd views about to be expressed. In affluent areas, the Income Tax policy should go down very well. In student areas, a Libertarian view on drugs should prove to be a vote winner. And in areas with a strong regional identity, the concept of a weaker Central government should get some support. Once the money has been made and the areas identified, then a marker could be set in the sand as to when the LPUK should start to fight elections in these target areas. Whilst it seems a long way away, the 2010 General Election should be a good target. After all, the amount of time required to raise funds, identify target constituencies and then raise the party profile in those areas should not be underestimated.

The UK Libertarian Party is in an interesting position, and arguably at a crossroads. As the party experience in Henley shows, it is in a position where it can adhere to the cliché of a small party and waste whatever resources are available by squandering their funds on deposits in constituencies where they can never win. Or it could become the model of how a small party can get to the position where it can get electoral success quickly and efficiently. If the party doesn’t have the money or spends it in the wrong area, then it will never win elections. But if it thinks in a politically savvy way then maybe, just maybe, it can start to have an electoral (and therefore political) breakthrough.

*Yep, this blog should carry such a link as well. And it will do when I get round to it.

Wendy Alexander: Dumb and corrupt.

In a move that will no doubt provoke a wail of anguish from Mr Eugenides, the Scottish Labour Leader has resigned. And since I harbour no feelings for Alexander other than mild contempt, I can say “good riddance” without a second thought.

The reasons for Alexander’s resignation make for amusing, if delusional, reading:

Colleagues said that while she believed she had done nothing wrong, she had had enough of a 'personally debilitating' campaign which was damaging Labour's credibility.

Amazing, that. A modern politician facing a personally debilitating campaign. That’s never happened before. It isn’t happening to Obama at the moment, is it? David Cameron in no way has been painted by Alexander’s party on a continual basis as a toff. And in no way does Brown face a seemingly infinite myriad of personally debilitating attacks on a daily basis, does he? If Alexander is genuinely so spineless that she stood down because she could not deal with the personal attacks, then she should never have been in the position in the first place. Personal attacks may be unpleasant, but they are part and parcel of modern politics. To deny this is hopelessly naïve.

But deep down, Alexander knows why she had to go. It wasn’t the personal attacks, it wasn’t the controversy over calling for a referendum on Scotland. No, the reason why she had to resign is simple. She accepted corrupt donations. Regardless of whether she knew she was breaking the rules, and regardless of whether she was given bad advice, she broke the rules. That is the reason why she had to resign.

And before anyone else points it out, yes, I know that the rest of them are all up to no good as well. And whilst it offers no comfort to Wendy or her fans, the reason why she is going why so many other corrupt fucks stay on is that she was stupid enough to get caught. In fact, she was stupid enough to get caught accepting an illegal donation to a campaign where she was running unopposed. It is unforgivable to be corrupt; it is doubly unforgivable to be corrupt and stupid.

Doctor Who: The Stolen Earth

So, that episode happened. Whatever one might think of the episode as a whole, the cliffhanger was pretty spectacular. But more on that later.

But first and foremost, the episode itself. The clever plotting and interesting characterisation that we have seen so much of in every episode since The Unicorn and The Wasp went straight out the window. Instead, we got a whole host of bangs, crashes, and Hollywood style visual FX. Which is no bad thing, really. There is a place for clever plotting and strong characterisation, and there is a place for action. The new series of Doctor Who seems to be getting the balance between the two right.

There were problems with the episode. The plethora of companions and spin-off characters meant it was hard to keep the momentum of the story going for each of the main characters – and for the likes of Torchwood to hide downstairs whilst the world is blown away by the Daleks over their heads seemed somewhat out of character. Plus, the production team needs to be careful with the special effects. At some points, particularly as the TARDIS floated in the Medusa Cascade, I did wonder whether I was watching a live-action drama or a cartoon. CGI is great, but it is not and should not become the be all and end all of Doctor Who.

However, the great moments far outweighed the drawbacks. The concept of the stolen earth was great. It was good to see Harriet Jones again, particularly given her fall at the end of The Christmas Invasion, and it was nice to see her character given the chance to be heroic again, albeit in a very tragic way. And finally, there was Davros. Back from the dead, a looking just as he should. He was brilliantly brought to life, and the concept that he had built the new Dalek army from his own desiccated chest was chilling and nauseating – I am amazed (and impressed) that such an image was broadcast before the watershed.

And finally we have the cliffhanger. That cliffhanger. The Doctor suddenly being forced into regeneration. Arguably the most popular and iconic Doctor since Tom Baker being cut down almost arbitrarily by Dalek gun fire, before starting to change with barely a moment’s notice. It is an incredible cliffhanger – one that left me shocked, and dying to know what happens next.

The question that should be one every viewer’s lips should be “is the Doctor actually regenerating?” Well, it certainly looks like it. He was effectively killed, his body began to change, and then there was the regeneration effect that we saw when the Master changed at the end of Series Three and when the Doctor changed at the end of Series One. It sure as hell looks like he is regenerating.

However, I'd throw in a note of caution. The Doctor might not be regenerating, or something might happen that stops it all. Within the story, the Doctor's severed hand was being seen a lot in that episode - it is linked to regeneration, so it could act as a help or hinderance to the apparent regeneration.

But it is more the production side than the plotting that makes me cautious about stating that Tennant is regenerating. First of all, if that was his last episode, then his Doctor went with a whimper rather than a bang. The episode was great - but the Doctor himself did very little. He landed on earth, went to the space police, moped a bit, then got called by his far more resourceful companions before getting zapped by a Dalek almost by accident. No big, epic final scene; no face to face confrontation with Davros. It might be a way of showing the arbitrary nature of death, but I honestly think that both Davies and Tennant would want to give the Tenth Doctor a bigger send-off.

And could they really have kept the regeneration a secret if Tennant is leaving? With the best will in the world, things leak these days. And changing the star of the BBC's biggest programme of the moment (ok, ok, it is going head to head with Eastenders, but it is still in the top two of current BBC programmes) would be a story that the tabloids would pay an absolute fortune for. And someone, somewhere, would leak it for the cash.

Which leaves the series in a slightly awkward position – either the Doctor *is* regenerating and Tennant got a lacklustre final episode, or the story is somehow going to stop the regeneration process and effectively undermine the cliffhanger. Neither proposition is great, but as far as I can see those are the only options open to resolve this cliffhanger. Then again, this production team has always been full or surprises so maybe they have something to pull out of their hat that will prevent this from being an anti-climax.

Still, whatever happens, it was a pretty special episode and an awesome cliffhanger. And I genuinely cannot wait to see what unfolds on Saturday...

David Davis v, Mad Cow Girl

So, let's recap. David Davis resigned from the Commons to have a big debate about civil liberties - which is probably one of the crucial questions of our time, as the state has the technology and the paranoia to intrude into every aspect of our lives and seems intent on doing so. Now, we have the list of candidates who are going to be fighting him in that election. Here are just some of the highlights:

Mad Cow-Girl - The Official Monster Raving Loony Party

David Laurence Bishop - Church of the Militant Elvis Party

Gemma Dawn Garrett - Miss Great Britain Party

Tess Culnane - National Front Britain for the British

Christopher John Talbot - Socialist Equality Party

A bunch of halfwits and morons. Fucking hell, even David fucking Icke has thrown his hat in the ring. A man who channels the Christ spirit and believes the arsing world is run by arsing lizards. Can't quite put my finger on it, but for some reason I'm not sure he has a great deal to say that is worth hearing.

Is that really the state of play in this country today? That when someone tries to debate about the continual erosion of civil liberties in this country, the only response comes from idiots and try hards who are probably taking a break from sitting in the corner and rocking like a madman to fight in this election?

Maybe one of the Independents will be able to debate properly*, and will at least challenge Davis on not just his stance on 42 days detention but also on other areas of civil liberties. Those who support the Nu Labour stance on this are wrong, in my not at all humble opinion, but the only way that can be shown to be true is if someone makes the case for it. What does it say about the British perceptions of the relative importance of civil liberties when no-one is going to stand up and debate it?

In my more optimistic moments, I cling to the idea that Davis has won. The fact that no-one is fighting him other than this bunch of lackwit fucktards shows that either people agree with his stance (Lib Dems, UKIP) or they are too afraid of losing the argument to actually fight for their beliefs (Nu Labour). But as I appraise the list of moonbats and morons who are standing against Davis, I can't help but despair at the lack of real debate around this crucial area. And then I can't help but feel that this is part of it - of that slow sleepwalk into totalitarianism, where security has become more important than anything else, even freedom.

*I confess I know the square root of fuck all about any of them.

The Fall - 15 Ways

A very commercial and mainstream song for The Fall - slightly off the wall and a bit random for every other band on the planet.

Labour Finances: Gimmick Time!

The Moai has sent me this gem of an article - things are now so bad financially for the Labour party that they are shamelessly whoring out whatever oafs pass as Nu Labour celebrities these days. Amongst the usual run of pseudo socialist piss midgets who always jump on the Labour bandwagon, you have some ex-politicians offering their time - including one Tony Blair offering a game of tennis:

The most eye-catching was undoubtedly the chance to play tennis with Blair. Lord Levy, the former prime minister's best-known tennis partner, said whoever won would be in for a tough match unless they got Blair on a bad day.

Hmmm. It would be worth bidding for that, if only so one could get the chance to go along and smack Tony Blair on the back of the head with a tennis racket and the twat the grinning, smug chipmunk of a man into oblivion.

Of course, there is no offering from Gordon Brown, but then again, what activities could you do with Brown that you would be willing to pay for? I mean, who would pay to sit in and sulk with Gordon Brown? Who would pay to see Gordon throw a tantrum? Would you really bid to see Brown sitting in a chair, consumed by paranoid indecision? And who would pay to spend time with Gordon as he shits on the Great British public?

How ever bad things are in the Labour party, however much they need the funds, Gordon Brown will never be a money maker for the Labour party.

Vote, vote vote for the Treaty!

Via Open Europe, I've come across this humdinger of a quote from Nicholas Sarkozy on the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty:

"They [the Irish] are bloody fools. They have been stuffing their faces at Europe's expense for years and now they dump us in the shit."

I don't think Sarko really understands that the Irish have rejected the Lisbon Treaty, rather than the EU. And why would they vote for further integration of Europe just because they have benefitted from the EU? Voters don't make choices on national sovereignty based on French perceptions of how much they owe other countries.

What has shone through from EU leaders is a naked contempt for the opinions of the Irish voters. They didn't vote from the EU, therefore they are stupid and deserve to be ignored. The German Interior Minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, best sums up this mindset:

"Of course we have to take the Irish referendum seriously. But a few million Irish cannot decide on behalf of 495 million Europeans."

That is an impressive stat, but also a misleading one. Because, other than those few million Irish, no other voters in the EU have been given a chance to decide about the Lisbon Treaty. The decision hasn't been made by the people; rather, it has been made by an increasingly unaccountable EU elite. But since the Euro-philes can throw around misleading stats, I'll do the same too. Of the countries that have voted on the Lisbon Treaty, 100% have rejected it.

If the case for the EU was strong and if there was a real reason for the Treaty, there would have been votes across Europe. Make no mistake about it - the reasons why governments are holding votes on the Treaty is for one, simple reason. They are afraid of losing.

And, irony upon irony, the one country who may get a vote on the Treaty is Ireland. Yep, as Valery Giscard d'Estaing states, the mentality is simple:

"The Lisbon Treaty is not dead... It is imperative that they vote again."

Ireland can keep on voting; the EU demands it. And they must keep on voting, until the EU gets the answer it wants.

EU leaders: arrogant twats.

This is pretty damning.

*smiles*

Election 2008: Terror, terror, everywhere

One of John McCain's staff has got himself into trouble after making comments about terrorism. Apparently another terror attack on the US "Certainly it would be a big advantage to (McCain)".

The response has been tedious in the extreme - Obama slates the aide, McCain distances himself from the aide, and the aide apologies. So far, so good. You could argue the aide is right in his analysis - well, maybe, but you do have to admit it was a pretty dumb fucking thing to say. But the even more worrying comment for me came in that aide's follow-up:

"I recognise that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration." (My emphasis).

Seriously, you what, now? Security is more important than anything else, in the world, ever? That's just pigging stupid. Security is (and must) be a key consideration, but in conjunction with other things. Like, you know, freedom. After all, if we all lived in bomb proof bubbles in concrete shelters we'd be pretty fucking secure - although the quality of live would be absolutely shocking. There is a trade off between security and other considerations; security cannot be placed before any other consideration.

Plus, other considerations will increase security, as insane as that might sound to paranoid politicians everywhere. But it is true. A strong economy means more contentment which is turns means a lesser chance of people being radicalised and therefore increases security. Likewise, health is another key consideration - it doesn't matter how secure I am if my body is consumed by rancid cancer.

This mindless veneration of security is a major problem today. It leads to crap policies like the Patriot Act, like 42 days detention. The only way to guarantee security absolutely is via totalitarianism, and make no mistake about it - that is where the priorities of McCain et al will lead.

Brown-Bashing: A year of gaffes, tragedy and farce

Come Friday, Brown will have been in power for a year. I fully expect Britain to grind to a halt, what with all the spontaneous celebrations of the first anniversary of the great healer coming to power, and repairing our damaged society with his bold courage and clear vision.

No, not really. I’d imagine anyone who thinks of Gordon Brown’s first anniversary on Friday, including many members of the Labour party, will respond with a sigh of weary despair. They might ask “Jesus, is he really still in power?” and “what, you’re kidding, it has only been a year? I thought it would have been much longer.” Still, one group of people who will be celebrating the dreadful travesty that is Brown’s first year in power are the Tories. In fact, via Guido, it appears they have even put together their own document, tearing into Gordo.

It is a good read, and should bring a smile to the lips of anyone who things Brown is a massive tool. Go take a read; it shows that at least one section of the Tory party still has teeth. Some of the chapter headings say it all: “Brown the failure”, “Brown the incompetent”, “Brown the ditherer”, “Brown the hypocrite” and (my favourite, as it perfectly sums up the past 12 months) “Gordon Brown: a year of gaffes, tragedy and farce.”

Of course, there are still some Brown loyalists (look, stop laughing, there are. No, stop it, there are) who will defend him. Take Dawn Butler, who is quoted in The Independent as saying:

"Whatever their politics, most people in this country know that Gordon Brown is a decent man with integrity trying to do the best for Britain in difficult times. They will be disgusted by these kinds of personal attacks on his character."

Gordon Brown – a decent man? With integrity? Don’t make me laugh. He is a spineless, self-serving shit. An angry arsehole of a man, bitter and broken by circumstances entirely of his own making. He is a coward, hiding from any act or action that might make him unpopular – unaware that such naked opportunism makes him even more unpopular. He is a bottler, an egregious ejit of a man, not deserving of the high office he holds. He is not a decent man; he is a liar, a bully, a thief and an arrogant cunt to boot. I long for the day when his administration finally becomes a joke, because that will be the day he leaves office. As it stands, his administration is a hopeless, surreal nightmare. Brown is not a man of integrity. Instead he is a shallow man who is despicable in every important respect.

And I’m not alone in thinking that. The polls speak for themselves. But just to clarify for the likes of Butler, and anyone else who just doesn’t get it. Brown is incompetent. Brown is a failure. He should do the country a favour by just going.

Over the course of a year, Brown as shown himself to be absolutely incompetent. He should celebrate his first anniversary in Number 10 by making it his last. Resigning is the way forward for Gordon.

Insulting Random Celebrities

We’ve all been in the situation. You’re at the pub with some friends. You’ve had a long day. And you start talking about someone. Maybe someone who has pissed you off over the course of that day. Maybe someone who really gets on your tits anyway. Or just a random person who has shredded your nerves. And you lay into them a bit. It is not big, it is not clever, but you do it anyway. Because you think you are doing it behind their back.

The problem is that they are actually behind your back, listening to every word you have to say.

I’ve been in that situation a few times before. And, last week, I managed to take it to a new high. Oh yes, I managed to diss a minor celebrity without realising he was sat behind me.

I was in a pub in Central London with a mate. He told me that he had been in the same pub the previous, where he had seen that guy from some BBC sitcom. After a certain amount of discussion, we established who he was talking about. The actor it turns out, is starring in a play just across the road. It looks smashing. If by "smashing" you mean "tedious crap".

My mate said “that’ll be why I saw him, then. Because he’s in that play."

Me: “Yeah, makes sense.”

My mate: “It doesn’t look great, does it?”

Me (a little too loudly): “Doesn’t look great? It looks like total fucking shite to me. I mean, seriously. The crap that somehow ends up on the stage. Does my head in.”

At which point my mate half smiled, half looked shocked. And with a gentle point he indicated to me that the celebrity in question was sat at the bar, well within earshot. He stayed there for about 10 minutes, his lanky frame hunched over the bar, before he got up and left. Looking mightily pissed off.

Of course, he might not have heard me. But I almost hope he did. In fact, I hope he did hear me, and went off, really motivated to prove me wrong, and gave the performance of his life and turned that risible looking production he currently stars in into theatre gold. And I hope everyone who saw the play enjoyed it. In fact, anyone who enjoyed Kris Marshall in Fat Pig last week should track me down and buy me a beer. If only so I can slag off other people completely unintentionally and without any provocation other than a deep distrust of the theatre.

Zimbabwe: The best way forward...

Congratulations to Mr Mugabe on his election victory! Really, smashing stuff. Who wouldn’t use that age old democratic custom of forcing your opponent through intimidation, violence and murder to pull out of the race just because it looks like he might win?

And with this victory, the people of Zimbabwe have a lot to look forward to:

- Murder
- Suppression of basic human rights
- Political violence
- Hyper-inflation
- Total economic collapse
- Possible starvation
- Maybe even civil war.

We can also expect a lot of shaking of heads and angry grumblings from the rest of the world about this situation. No doubt there will be talk of (more) sanctions. Not quite sure that will be the best course of action. The governments will have to work hard to make sure that the sanctions don’t fuck up the people of Zimbabwe rather than the government. After all, the people of that country have a lot on their plates, what with their government trying to shaft them at every available opportunity.

And now, with Mugabe clinging to power through the will of a fictional divine being, it is difficult to know what the best case of Zimbabwe is. As harsh as it sounds the best thing they can hope for is the death of the ageing Mugabe. A painless death after a sudden illness for Mugabe seems to be the quickest way to bring change to Zimbabwe. Although I don’t think many people would wish that the vile Mugabe’s death is either painless or quick.

Doctor Who: Turn Left

And so it came to pass. Turn Left. An episode of Doctor Who with very little of the Doctor in it. Instead, the lead role went to Catherine Tate. And the content of the episode? A shameless pillaging of the more recent continuity of the programme. Frankly, this episode had "potential disaster" written all over it.

And yet... it really worked. For two reasons. Firstly, the pillaging of the show's history was skillfully done. The episode referenced the events of Army of Ghosts/Doomsday, The Runaway Bride, Smith and Jones, Voyage of the Damned, Partners in Crime, The Sontaran Stratagem/The Poison Sky and the whole Bad Wolf story arc from Series One, but did so in an immensely interesting way. Taking the concept of the Doctor dying because he never met Donna, the episode showed the devastation wreaked on the planet had the Doctor not lived to fight on in a number of adventures. Martha, dead. Sarah Jane Smith, dead. The Torchwood team, dead. London destroyed by the spaceship Titanic smashing into planet. Millions of Americans killed to make up the Adipose (making that particular enemy mildly scary for the first time). And the UK descending into a nightmarish dystopia. All because Donna turned left, rather than right, leading to the death of the Doctor.

The second reason was Catherine Tate. Seriously, she can act. She showed just how much Donna has changed during her time with the Doctor, and by returning to the Donna from the start of The Runaway Bride, she showed just how much thought has gone into how Donna has changed and grown as both a character and a performance. Rose Tyler's return should have stolen the show, but this was very much Donna's episode. Hats off to Catherine Tate. And I never thought I would be writing that.

But it wasn't just the episode itself that won me over. There was also the brief (oh so brief!) glimpse of what is to come next week. And it looks to be a bonanza of Doctor Who. The Doctor. Donna. Martha. Rose. UNIT. Sarah Jane Smith. Captain Jack. Torchwood. Daleks. The Judoon. And maybe... just maybe, the creator of the Daleks?

We'll see. But bring it on!

I've just turned on the TV (to watch Doctor Who, of course) and have seen that there is a special edition of The Weakest Link. With puppets.

That's right, a woman (who presumably long ago surrendered any remaining dignity for a fuck off large pay packet from the BBC) is patronising puppets due to their lack of general knowledge. On one of this country's most watched TV channels.

I know it takes all sorts, and I know that the BBC has to try to provide content for very different tastes, but seriously, who the ruddy fuck watches a Weakest Link special starring Roland Rat?*

*Except people like me, who are waiting for the next programme to start...

British Sea Power - Please Stand Up

Some fans don't like this song; personally, I think it rocks.

The Insanity of Robert Mugabe

In case anyone wasn't aware of it, Robert Mugabe, de facto dictator of Zimbabwe, has become (or possibly always was) a mentalist of the highest order. The sort of mad old man you might see wandering down the street, ranting delusional shite at no-one in particular. Of course, if you see that mad old man on the street you can always cross to the other side, or take a longer route to avoid him. The people of Zimbabwe have no respite or escape from the demented old fucker who currently runs their country. Mugabe's slow decline is not just affecting him, but an entire nation of people suffering torture, murder, the suppression of basic rights, economic collapse and even starvation. The insanity of Robert Mugabe is destroying a whole country.

And for anyone wondering whether Mugabe is totally insane or whether this is just blogging hyperbole (of which there is no shortage on this blog), I actually have some evidence. It is not a case of me waking up this morning and deciding I wanted to have a pop at someone and just happened to pick on Mugabe*. The ongoing election crisis (ie Mugabe didn't win) is highlighting just how far Mugabe has descended into the realms of the demented. Take this comment on his imagined right to rule:

"Only God who appointed me will remove me - not the MDC, not the British."

Well, the MDC are trying hard to remove Mugabe. Which is kind of what they are supposed to do, what with them being the opposition and all. They'd be a pretty shit opposition if they accepted Mugabe's divine right to rule and fucked off into the sunset, wouldn't they?

And I'm not entirely sure that the British are trying to remove Mugabe. Sure, the government don't approve of Mugabe, but is Mugabe really so paranoid that he thinks the whining of that pimple of a man David Miliband really constitutes a fucking attempt to remove him from power? Mugabe should get into the habit of ignoring everything David Miliband says. That's what the rest of the world does.

But it is the concept of God appointing Mugabe and deciding when he steps down that shouts most loudly about Mugabe's mental decay. I mean, really, what is supposed to have happened? God descended from the clouds a few decades ago, and annoited Mugabe ruler of Zimbabwe for as long as the divine being believes it to be appropriate? And how is God going to communicate when it is time for Mugabe to go? Because I'd imagine those who do believe in the invisible sky fairy could probably argue that the vertiginous decline of Zimbabwe, and the horrific state of that country at the moment, might be a message from God that it is time for Mugabe to retire into the shadows, and let someone else have a go at ruling his country.

However it is clear that Mugabe thinks he has a divine right to rule, and that is immensely depressing for anyone in Zimbabwe. Because he won't step down now, or accept any election defeats. It is all irrelevant. In his demented, decrepit old brain, God has told Mugabe that it is ok to rule in perpetuity.

And that leaves Zimbabwe broken and brutalised, on the cusp of a civil war.

*Some days I do wake up and want to have a pop at someone. When that happens, the default person is Gordon Brown. Because he really is a execrable piece or rectal sputum.

Olympics: How Much?

I'm not a sporty person. Sport is something that happens to other people as far as I am concerned. I'm happy for others to play sports, I'm happy for others to enjoy sports. Just so long as they don't involve me.

When it comes to the Olympics, I just don't care really. It is my understanding that the Olympics will happen this year. Fuck-A-Doodle-Do. It will have zero impact on me, other than occasional disruption to the TV schedules. Again, I'm happy for those who will enjoy the Olympics. Means nothing to me.

What does matter to me is the 2012 Olympics; because they are happening in the country (and, indeed, the city) I live in. During the Olympics, I expect the city to grind to a shuddering halt. I don't think the city has the capacity to cope with the Olympics. Still, that's not my gripe, because London always looks like it is going to collapse under the weight of those people living in the city. The archaic, unpleasant transport system just cannot cope. It is fact of life in London - we don't need the Olympics to further make the point.

What really fucks me off about the Olympics is the cost. The Olympics is a national vanity exercise. It is the host country showing off, like a spoilt little shit of a kid at a school play. It is an ego-boost for the government that wins the election, so the cost is simply about giving the already massive ego of Tony Blair a bit of a boost. And what a massive fuck off cost it is!

£9.3 billion. The figure is astronomical. A vast amount. A massive sum of money that is being pissed against the wall for no real reason. I despair of it. I really fucking do. Why does the government have to pay for this? I know all the arguments about the Olympics bringing investment into the country; but if this is the case, why can't that investment pay for the fucking games in the first place? Why does it have to be the poor bastard inhabitants of the host country who pays for this glorified school sports day of an event?

If you are happy to contribute to this £9.3 billion through your taxes, good luck to you. But I know I can't be alone in thinking that this fuck off wodge of taxpayer's money being spent on the Olympics might be better spent by the government elsewhere. Or, as crazy as it sounds, not spending that money at all.

Election 2008: The Clinton Millstone

On some levels I feel sorry for Barack Obama. Yes, he’s got what he seems to lust after – the chance to run for President. He actually stands – despite a massive lack of experience – the chance to get elected President. He’s not done too badly for himself.

Yet he has a massive headache. In fact, he has an eyeball popping migraine of a problem. It is, of course, Hillary Clinton. Now, Obama and his campaign might feel she is no longer a problem – after all, he seems to have finally consigned her campaign to the dustbin of history. Yet she still looms over him, like a shrill, demented sword of Damocles. Because, having failed to win the nomination, she now has set her razor sharp, Terminator-esque eyes on the vice-presidential nomination.

The simplest thing to do would be to offer Clinton the vice-presidency. He would have her onside, and he would have the considerable support she mustered in the primaries behind him as well. Yet how long would it be until she started to think that she was the one running for President rather than Obama? If their ticket won the White House, how long would it take her to assume she was President? You’d have to be delusional and arrogant to make that that sort of assumption – but after her endless campaign for President, you could argue that Clinton is both.

However, the latest intelligence seems to suggest that Obama is shunning Clinton. Fair enough, but this strategy has risk attached to it as well. And that risk can be summed up by the question “just how insane is Hillary Clinton?” If she is snubbed again, what will she do? I doubt, given her campaign for the Presidency increasingly showed the *tenacity* of a rabid poodle savaging a child’s face, that she will simply shrug and walk away. So how destructive will she be? Will she just refuse to campaign for her unlikely victor? Will she start a whispering campaign against him? Will she completely lose the plot, and run as an Independent - thus throwing the chances of the Democrats winning the White House back straight down the crapper?

Make no mistake; Hillary Clinton is a millstone around the neck of Obama. And it is a millstone that could drown the Obama campaign, just as surely as it drowned the once invincible Hillary ’08 campaign.

42 Days: Craven Cowardice

Following on from a sterling record of cowardice at every available turn, Gordon Brown is running away from yet another electoral test – this time putting a Labour candidate up against David Davis. Therefore, if there is any candidate fighting Davis, it will either be from one of the fringe parties or a shaved fucking gorilla like the execrable Kelvin MacKenzie. Such is Gordon’s commitment to his ideals and his policies that he is happy to force them through the Commons with bribes for other parties. However, give him the chance to argue for them in an election, then he is disappearing over the hill like a coward with a deep yellow streak who is facing a battle.

Which leads me to conclude that Gordon can’t defend these ideas. If they are so important for this country and so essential, why not have a public vote? What does he have to fear? If 42 days detention is right, then why not take the case to the people and bury the debate once and for all?

Anyone with half a brain cell knows the answer to the questions above. When you remove the hysteria from the debate, and the mindless fear of evil terrorists lurking in every shadow, the policy does not make sense. Even more so, it is pointless. There is no need for 42 days detention – no-one is asking for it. It is a headline grab by Brown, playing to the unthinkingly ignorant. This is a malformed abortion of a policy; Davis knows this, and so does Brown. Brown’s failure to fight this by-election on this issue shows he has no case to make.

Congratulations, Mr Davis. On 42 days detention, you’ve won.

The David Davis campaign for freedom has well and truly begun - there's a website and everything. It will be interesting to see how this campaign progresses, especially since his own likely opponent has already dropped a massive clanger and probably won't be running. I've already wish Davis luck, so I won't do so again. What I will do is voice a hope that his campaign is not just for the duration of the by-election, but becomes something more solid and more permanent.

See, the attempts to increase the massive state intrusion into our lives are not going to stop. Look at Gordon Brown's speech on civil liberties today - he sees terror looming everywhere; terror that can only be fought by restricting liberty in this country. Such a vision is nonsense - palpable, paranoid nonsense. But it is still persuasive to some, as it is backed up by naked scaremongering.

I don't know whether David Davis will ever me a minister now - hell, I'm not sure whether he will ever get back into the Shadow Cabinet. But if he turns his by-election campaign into a wider fight for freedom and if he makes this the opening shot in a wider war for our civil liberties, then he will have achieved far more than your average minister. Hell, he will have achieved more for this country than every Tory leader since Major.

If you care about civil liberties, follow the link to Davis' website. Even if you are ambivalent about 42 days detention, make no mistake about this. This law is just the start of an avalanche of laws that will damage and destroy civil liberties in this country. Brown et al won't stop here. Not unless we make them.

Freedom's March

George W Bush is doing his farewell tour of the world, and is currently visiting lil ol' England. The pointless visit is as predictable as the pointless protests - Bush is a world leader on the way out, an unpopular, idiotic lame duck. The protests are a knee jerk reaction, and will achieve nothing more than further disruption to the City of London. The time has come to start getting over Dubya - within months he will have begun his slow decline into obscurity. Hopefully he should become a footnote in the history books, an oddity - an example of what not to do in the White House.

Of course, that won't be the way he wants to be remembered. Indeed, part of this farewell world tour is to start working on that legacy. Look at his interview with Sky news. The rhetoric is already coming through:

"This isn't the American Empire, the British Empire or coalition empire; this is freedom's march. And freedom has had a way of taking hold in some of the places where people have never given freedom a chance.... I'm not surprised that an enemy that can't stand freedom is trying to shake our will."

One of the many ways in which Bush - a man who restricts stem cell research, who believes abortion is evil and should be banned, a man who does not allow gay couple to form a civil union - has failed is in his understanding of freedom. Whenever you see Bush talking about freedom, insert a "my" before the word freedom. Because - and make no mistake about this - it is all about a very narrow vision of freedom. A Christian Fundamentalist, neo-conservative mutant strand of freedom. One that should be alien to anyone who generally believes that people should be free to choose how they live. In some respects, Bush's vision of freedom is not that different from Kim Jong Il's - "you can be *free*, just so long as it is my vision of *freedom*".

But whilst Bush will probably spend a large portion of the next six months painting himself as a freedom fighter, the rest of history will have something different to say. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will rage on, whilst other oppressive regimes that have been prodded by the Bush administration happily go on suppressing. Then there are other countries that abuse human rights and have little freedom that have been glossed over by the Bush regime - Burma, China, Zimbabwe. Even if history does see Bush as a man who brought freedom through war to two nations, it will have to judge him as a man who was very selective about which countries were allowed to join his freedom march.

And people have been questioning it - not just during Bush administration, but throughout the past century - just why does the USA have a right to decide which countries need to be freed, and why does it award itself the ability to free those countries? The Bush years will become synonymous with US arrogance, and of a belief that freedom is best brought to countries in the wake of the US war machine ploughing across the landscape.

On the radio this morning, I heard Bush being compared to Ronald Reagan. It made the point that Reagan was disliked by many during his time in office, but is now seen as someone who brought freedom to many countries. Now, whilst Reagan did help to bring freedom to a good many people in the world, it was part of a team effort. Thatcher also played a role. As did - both intentionally and unintentionally - Gorbachev. And one of the few good things Pope John Paul II managed to achieve - in between condemning homosexuality, continuing to forbid his followers to use contraception or have an abortion, and hiding paedophile priests - was supporting the bid for freedom in Poland. Reagan did play a part in all this, but the more important distinction is between how Reagan's push for freedom was achieved and how Bush has tried to achieve his. Reagan (perhaps because of the ever present threat of nuclear war, perhaps for other reasons) used diplomacy in almost all cases. Bush has unleashed the might of the Military Industrial Complex.

Bush has displayed the judgement and tactics of a schoolyard bully who believes he is right - he doesn't understand the need to persuade, to convince, the win over the other person. No, he would rather go in with his fists and punch anybody who doesn't agree with him into submission. His freedom march is much less free than he realises - he's there to force people and nations to be free.

I love America - I think she has brought a great deal to this world, and will continue to do so. I hope America will become a democratic beacon to the world once more. But I know this can only happen when Bush gains his rightful legacy in this history books - as an aberration, as a zealous ignorant maniac whose perverted vision of freedom damaged the US and the world.

I wish George W Bush the very best when he goes back to his ranch for good. That is his natural place, not as a freedom's hero in the history books.

Doctor Who: Midnight

One of the great strengths of Doctor Who is the versatility of the story telling format - he can go anywhere, and anytime, which pretty much allows you to tell whatever type of story you like. This can allow you to tell great epic stories, like Human Nature/The Family of Blood and Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead. It should allow the writers a lot of freedom to produce the stories they really want to tell. That said, there should be a minimum standard. There is no excuse of childish nonsense like the Adipose or the farting Slitheen. And that minimum standard should be that each episode should either be exciting or scary.

Last night's episode, Midnight, achieved that latter. Magnificently.

To some extent a retelling of The Twilight Zone's Nightmare at 20,000 Feet, Midnight managed to be a claustrophobic mix of a ghost story, a tale of pseudo-demonic possession and a horror story. It showed how people really behave when panicked, when faced with the unknown. It also put the Doctor in a situation where he genuinely wasn't in control, and his smug intellectual arrogance got him into trouble rather that got him respect. The monster he was fighting was clearly more powerful than him. And - perhaps best of all - we never got to know what that monster was or how it could be defeated. It was left open at the end of the episode as to whether the monster had actually been destroyed, with a strong implication that it hadn't. There was no real explanation of what it was, or why it took over Sky; or, indeed, what it wanted and what it could really do. The fact that the Doctor was so clearly traumatised at the end of the episode left a real chill in the air.

A simple story, on a small set with limited special effects, Midnight was far, far more than powerful than it had any right to be. A glowing testament to the calibre of the writer, actors, and director, Midnight was a powerful reminder of just how scary Doctor Who can -and arguably should - be.

The Incredible Hulk

Went to see The Incredible Hulk last night (in a surprisingly cold cinema). And, frankly, it rocked.

Probably best I confess a bias here - I like the Hulk. I like the old TV series, I like some of the comic books. Hell, I even enjoyed the original big screen adaptation, although many others feel differently. So there was every chance I would like this version. And it did not disappoint.

Edward Norton is a great piece of casting; looking just as one would imagine the weedy, geeky scientist Doctor Bruce Banner looking. Liv Tyler makes the best of the role of Betty Ross - which is no mean feat as it consists mainly on saying "Bruce" a lot in a longing way. William Hurt brings the right level of pomposity and danger to the crassly named General "Thunderbolt" Ross, whilst Tim Roth manages to bring a certain physicality and a generally unpleasant facade to the role of Emil Blonsky, who becomes the Hulk's nemesis. A great cast, performing well - and all for a comic book adaptation about a guy who gets pissed off a lot.

The special effects are superb, with the Hulk coming across as a real character. A particular high point for me was the (first) helicopter crash, particularly with the helicopter blades detaching as the machine hit the ground. The Abomination also looked impressive (although clearly part of Emil's transformation was the loss of his genitals; for obvious reasons the film didn't explore that but his sudden emasculation could be the reasons why he was so uber pissed off in the final scenes) and in general it illustrated just how much special effects have come on since the original TV series - no longer is the Hulk a big guy, painted green, in a fright wig.

But above all, it was the script that worked. Don't get me wrong, it was a piece of hack script writing, with more cheese in it than a Dairylea factory. The story - such as it was - hung together on a serious of deeply unlikely con-incidences. But it almost seems stupid to mock a movie like this for having an unlikely, cliched script - because the story is built on an absurdity anyway. Anyone pointing out the plot holes needs to acknowledge the fact that the central premise is absolutely absurd as well.

What the script did understand is that the film needed to be fast paced, action packed and with an overall acknowledgment that this is a bums on seat, popcorn selling Blockbuster movie. It was produced, like the recent Iron Man flick, by Marvel Studios, who seems to understand that for all the pretentious implications that can be wrought from comic books, ultimately the comic books work because they are fantastic, and they are escapist fun. The producers seem to understand that both The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man were never going to be The Godfather - and, in my not at all humble opinion, are all the better for it.

I’ll stop banging on about this soon, but the resignation of David Davis has really shone a light on how we view our politicians. When I first heard he had resigned, I wondered what sort of scandal had brought him down. It never occurred to me – and I’m sure I’m not alone in this – that he was resigning on a point of principle. After all, politicians don’t do that. Career means more to them than principles.

And we’ve also developed this reverence for political parties in this country – that anyone who doesn’t tow the party line is in some way insane and is somebody to be avoided and shunned. Why? I mean, people join parties (in theory) because they feel an ideological link to that party. What if that party doesn’t represent your ideas any more? Or if you feel that your ideas could me more effectively represented in a way other than party politics? Are you really going to stick to that party through some sort of dumb, tribal loyalty? Fuck that. There’s no evidence – yet – that Davis has damaged his party, but so what if he does? Maybe the principle is more important than the fucking party.

It could be Davis doesn’t get his big debate about civil liberties if Labour doesn’t run a candidate against him – but that speaks volumes about the validity of his case. The other parties agree with him, whilst the Labour party may yet show themselves to be too scared to actually put their case for 42 days detention in front of the people. But even if the debate doesn’t happen, for me Davis has shown that there can still be integrity and ideology in British politics – and placed into sharp relief just how little there is of it normally.

No-one knows what happens next for Davis, but I am glad that someone in Parliament has taken a stand for what they believe in ahead of all other considerations. As Mr Eugenides, having considered the Davis situation for nearly 24 hours, wrote:

God speed, you magnificent fucker.

Amen.

EU No, thanks

Ireland - the only country to actually allow the people to vote on the EU Treaty - have apparently replied with a big fat no in their referendum on that Treaty.

That doesn't kill the Treaty, and the last time countries voted against the EU, the Union responded by changing the title of the document from Constitution to Treaty. I wonder whether they will do this now - and if they do, I wonder what the new title will be. Perhaps the EU Agreement. The EU Meeting of Minds. The EU oh-no-it-isn't-the-constitution-honestly-guv-it-is-called-something-different-anyway-innit. Rest assured, they'll find a way to keep the project going. Good God helps us all, they'll find a way to ignore the will of the people.

This quote, from an Irish Labour MP, is quite eye-opening:

"That was one of the biggest problems of this campaign – thousands and thousands of people couldn't even understand what the treaty was about."

Not just the treaty - I think a lot of people look at the EU and wonder what the ruddy fuck it is all about. The more referendums we have on the EU, the better - if only because it will make that amorphous, nebulous, expensive and undemocratic institution justify exactly what benefit it actually offers to the citizens of the member states.

If, of course, there are any benefits to boast about.

Idiotic Man for an Idiotic policy

The problem with elections is you never quite know who you will be running against. Be it a silly old news reader. Or some chopper from the Monster Raving Loony Party. Or maybe some nasty little fuck from the BNP who wins votes through fostering hate, you can never be quite sure who is going to run against you now. Still, even David Davis, who seems to be struggling to find any opponents in his upcoming by-election, can’t be too worried about this candidate:

David Davis could face an unexpected challenge from former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie in the by-election prompted by his shock resignation.

That would be the same Kelvin MacKenzie who is generally seen as a poison dwarf – an ugly little man who courts controversy at every single turn through his ignorance and general dislike for others. Take a look at some of The Sun headlines when he was editor. Or some of the blatant lies he published. And then you have his appallingly insensitive and crass coverage of the Hillsborough disaster. It is no surprise to me that MacKenzie supports 42 days detention. He is an ignorant cunt. A moron of the highest order. Anyone voting for MacKenzie wants their head examined – not least because MacKenzie himself seems to hold everyone other than himself in a deep, almost absolute contempt. Unelectable is a harsh word to pin on anyone, but I really, really hope that in this day and age MacKenzie shows himself to be unelectable.

Even Sky News seems to doubt MacKenzie’s chances:

The former Sun editor is not likely to pose a serious threat to Mr Davis' majority - he stood in a council election recently in his local ward of Weybridge South, but garnered little more than 200 votes and lost.

Hopefully MacKenzie fighting for 42 days detention – an idiot standing for an idiotic policy – will have a similar vote tally if he does run against Davis.

42 Days: Making A Stand

The statement that our MPs are a shower of ignorant, self-serving shower of shits should come as a surprise to precisely no-one. In the aftermath of the 42 days detention vote win, two people particularly stand out to me as colossal wankers: Bob Spink, UKIP's only MP, who seems determined to prove that UKIP are not Libertarian at all; and Mohammed Sarwar, who apparently decided to support the bill after it became clear that his son could take his parliamentary seat. Magic.

And yet, there is one MP who is actually standing up for his political opinions, and his stance on 42 days detention to the people. Yep, David Davis - bullying right of centre (now former) Shadow Home Secretary has resigned his seat to fight a by-election based on the issue of civil liberties. You could argue that this is designed to undermine Cameron, the man who deafeated Davis for the Tory leadership in 2005. That may be a factor. You could argue that this is a vanity exercise - maybe, but vanity is not unique to Davis in the political class of this country. But I don't think anyone can really deny that this is a bold, radical move that is high risk but very effective. I'm with Tory MP Nigel Evans on this one:

"It proves how committed and passionate David Davis is about his politics and the 42-days detention without charge that he is prepared to put his career on the line. We need people of principle. We need people of passion. We need people who are committed to freedoms that people have lost their lives for."

Of course you could argue that Evans could put his seat on the line as well, but let's not worry about that too much today. In David Davis we have a politician who is standing up for what he believes in and is risking his career to fight for what he is right.

I'll watch the by-election with interest, but I'm sure I'm not alone in supporting David Davis in his principled stand. In fact, we should have the fucker cloned, so we can actually have politicians worthy of the honour of being an MP.

UPDATE:

The Libertarian Party has (quite rightly) offered full support to David Davis, and also invited him to join the party. Part leader Partick Vessey said:

"Should Mr Davis find that the party of which he is currently a member does not share his grave and quite justified concerns about the continuing erosion of our precious civil liberties, he would be welcome to join the only British political party for which these issues are a matter of core principle, rather than purely the stuff of sound-bites."

As a former Tory, and as an active supporter of David Davis' bid to become Tory leader, I can recommend LPUK to Davis. He could do far worse than seriously considering the party's invite.

42 Days: For Fuck's Sake

So he won. Gordon Brown managed to break his losing streak, and managed to win something. And, Christ help us, it was the vote on 42 days detention. And how did he achieve this? Bribery, of course! This will be the major policy innovation of the Brown years. If there is a problem, if there is a potential defeat, throw money at it. After all, there is a limitless amount of money the government can get if they want it - their source, the taxpayer, is obliged to fund them. As David Davis notes, the government bought the vote after they lost the argument.

But I'm not going to gripe about the government bribing people with the taxpayer's money too much. We should all be fucking used to that by now. Rather, my complaint is against every single fucking MP who managed voted for this. Those Nu Labour whores, the ironically named Democratic Unionists, that short, fat testicle of a woman Anne fucking Widdecombe - they are either brazenly corrupt, staggeringly naive or terrifyingly stupid.

Or, thinking about it, all of the above.

There is no excuse for this; none whatsoever. Parliament has handed yet more power to the state, and this power is wide open to abuse and will, I don't doubt for a second, be abused by someone somewhere some time soon. And the police don't need extra time to interrogate terror suspects - they have foiled enough plots, and caught enough criminals, with the law as it was before this fuck awful new law. If the Libertarian party want a great policy to nail their colours to, then a loud, determined and eloquent call for the repeal of this law would be a great place to start. Hell, if the Tories and the Lib Dems want to seperate themselves from this shitting government, they should stick the repeal of this law into their next election manifestos as well. Fighting this change to the law is not over, and it should be a point of principle for any incoming government to want to reverse this naive, paranoid and dictatorial little policy.

We all wake up this morning to a country that is a little less free, a little less liberal. That is the tragedy, and the ongoing battle will be to stop further erosions of freedom in this country.

Imprisoned for 28 days plus? Here, have a bit of cash

Magic. The vote on 42 days detention is now going to be so tight that the government is doing what it does best: panicking, and throwing money at the problem. From the BBC:

"Under (the compensation plan), any suspect held for more than 28 days and later not charged could receive £3,000 for each extra day in custody"

Brilliant. Because the problem is the money, right? And not that gross invasion of civil liberties caused by being detained for up to 42 days without charge. Yeah, that'll do it: chuck some money at it and hope for the best.

If the total fucktards in the Labour party actually engaged their tiny, flaccid brains for more than 15 seconds and for more than just thinking about their own, grossly inflated, egos then they might see that this policy is being so roundly dismissed because it is a big old bag of sweaty bollocks. People are objecting - no, screaming their objections - at this plan because it attacks civil liberties in this country and attacks our way of life. This isn't like the rebellion on the 10p tax rate - this is about civil liberties, and their slow erosion in this country in the face of a nebulous and contradictory supposed "war on terror".

Compensation plan or no compensation plan - this bill must be defeated today.

42 Days Detention - No. Just.... no.

The vote on 42 days detention will be tight. Which is good - although not as good as it being a landslide against this freedom consuming, ill thought out piece of abject nonsense. Hopefully the Commons will vote against this awful piece of would-be law - not just because it will further embarrass and enfeeble the man in Number 10, but also because it is hysterical nonsense rather than real policy. This isn't a party political issue, it is far more than that. This policy represents a fundamental attack on civil liberties in this country. It must be stopped.

But part of me wonders who actually supports this policy, other than the bitter, paranoid chumps at the head of the broken, compromised Nu Labour hierarchy. It isn't MI5. It isn't even the Labour party. And the sort of celebrities who would normally embrace any Labour policy or politician are also coming out against this policy. So what on earth do Nu Labour think they will achieve by supporting the policy? It is absolutely beyond me.

Whilst I do despise Brown and his cabinet, I actually think they feel they are doing the right thing with this policy. In their pious, holier-than-thou little worlds, they actually believe this policy will save lives. I think they are so scared of a terrorist attack that they have lost all sense of perspective, and will blindly pursue any piece of policy they think will save lives - regardless of the cost in other aspects of British life.

Well, fair enough. They think they are doing the right thing. But they are absolutely, and completely, wrong on all levels. They are blind to the problems of their policies, that much is clear. So it falls to everyone else to point out how crass they are, and that the support of the narrow minded, ignorant Sun reading fools who might back this legislation is not worth the cost of pursuing this idea. Everyone who has opposes this policy should use their voice and shout out their objections, by any means possible. Everyone in Parliament who has a vote should vote against this. They should engage whatever intellect they have, rather than falling foul of the nagging paranoia and air of quiet panic that so consumes the Labour Cabinet both on this issue, and arguably now everything else they do.

It is not so much the case that this policy should be voted down, but rather it must be voted down. Otherwise we sit and watch as our government sleepwalks towards the dystopian nightmare of the film version of V For Vendetta. Or as they re-enact McCarthyism in a way that is both anachronistic or absolutely wrong for any modern democracy.

Policy should be based on pragmatism and intelligence. Not paranoia.

Anti-Piracy Ad

This spoof, from the excellent series The IT Crowd, is just a small step away from those fucking awful anti-piracy ads that now sit at the beginning of so many sodding DVD's. Like the series, this video is well worth a look.

Red Ken? Corrupt Ken!

So, Boris has managed to uncover some of the waste and blatant corruption of the piss midget who used to be Mayor of London. I'm not surprised that Ken and his administration were corrupt to the core; I am surprised that it has been so easily uncovered. For me, it shows the arrogance that was so prevalent in the last days of the Livingstone years. They were so sure they were right, they were so sure that they deserved the money and that Ken would be in power forever that they gave up even thinking about hiding their gross corruption.

Patience Wheatcroft, who heads up the forensic accounting investigation into the aftermath of the Livingstone years, has been damning in her appraisal of the former Mayor:

“Monitoring of projects was scant. Evaluation of effectiveness minimal. The culture of the place was that underspending was deemed to be a failure.”

What she is saying, in business speak, is that they were pissing money up the wall. They were taking money from the tax payers and cunting it away, like it was their personal allowance, their pocket money.

And inevitably the grubby hands of Lee Jasper are all over many of the scandals. My favourite is this one:

Diversity International, a company run by an associate of Jasper. It was paid £346,000 to create a website for London businesses that never appeared. The money is said to have vanished.

Public money vanishing? For some, an accounting regularity. From my perspective, I would describe it as fraud, pure and simple. And those responsible should be prosecuted.

Which would be the perfect end for Livingstone really. Having been booted out of office by a frazzled Tory who most people struggle to take seriously, it would be an appropriate full stop on his career to face prosecution for fraud.

Here's hoping!

Doctor Who: Forest of the Dead

Given how I rated last week's episode of Doctor Who, as written by the mighty Steven Moffat, it is probably no surprise that I enjoyed last night's episode as well. In fact, I loved it. Proof, if any further proof was needed, that Steven Moffat is the best person writing for Doctor Who at the moment.

For me, one of the key litmus tests of a good episode of Doctor Who is whether you really want to go an watch it again. To give you an example - few people really want to see Time and the Rani again. Whereas many probably wanted to see The Empty Child again as soon as the end credits stopped rolling.

Forest of the Dead is a little different. When I finished watching it, I didn't so much want to watch it again, as I felt I had to watch it again. It demands repeat viewing as it is a brilliant piece of work, literally overflowing with ideas. It also packed an emotional punch, and tied up every single strand of the story - from the data ghosts through to the Doctor Moon. Not a word, nor an idea, was wasted. It all fell into place - proof positive of a master story teller.

The rest of the series may seem anti-climatic after last night's episode, but no matter. It was great, plain and simple.

Clinton '08 - No More

And finally... she bows out.

There will be some who will be advise Obama to make Hillary Clinton his Vice-Presidential candidate for the election in November. And there is a case for that - she clearly has some support in the Democrats - how else would she manage to drag out her campaign for so long?

And yet... would you want Hillary as your Vice-President? Would you want her in your White House, constantly trying to become involved in every aspect of your administration? Would you want her running her own presidential campaign, whilst you run for President? Would you want her running for President, whilst you run the country? And would you want her secretly praying you get gunned down, so she can take your Presidency from you?

Maybe I'm being harsh about Hillary Clinton, but her campaign has highlighted again and again her naked lust for power. She wants to be President more than anything else, and will not let anyone or anything - even reality - stand in her way. If I was Obama, I'd be very wary before I made the call to Hillary, asking her to be my Vice-President.

LPUK - Starting to Fight

I'm probably a little late off the mark with this one, but as a member of the Libertarian Party I am intrigued and interested to see that the party is fielding their first ever candidate for election - Ian Parker-Joseph, a man who has been with the party since the very beginning, will be standing for the Henley seat so recently vacated by Boris Johnson. If you want to read about what Ian is up to in his campaign to win Boris's old seat, then you can check out the campaign blog here. For me, there is a great post that explains exactly why the people of Henley should vote LPUK. Ian writes:

I want a Government that doesn't repeatedly lie to me, I want a Government that is truly transparent and publishes everything for everyone to see, but more than that I want a Government that is small, really small and efficient, that doesn't need to steal the hard earned money from everyone to fund its own existence.

Which sums up the case for the Libertarian party nicely for me. And I wish Ian the very best of luck.

Which is probably, owing to the way the UK political system works, the best many members of the LPUK can offer. Ultimately, I'd vote for Ian if I could. Unfortunately, it is only the good people of Henley who can vote in this election. Which means of the thousands of people who would vote for the Libertarian party throughout this country, very few will have the
right to vote in this particular election.

So it does all come down to the LPUK campaign in that constituency - how convincingly can they make their pledge to the people of Henley, given the financial and time constraints facing a minor party fighting the major parties in a crucial by-election. What I would like to see is the party making a real breakthrough, and showing that the Libertarian message can really hit home with voters. What I think we will see is the party struggling to score votes, and this very much being the first shots in the long war to make LPUK a viable electoral choice in this country.

But still - at least the party is now fighting for election. And with every person they speak to, with every vote they get, they should be starting to attack the awful, stagnant politics prevalent in this country at the moment. If the party achieves just one thing, then it should be that - showing people that there is another way, another ideology to believe in. Other than the flabby post Blairite consensus that currently exists between Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems.

Smashing Pumpkins 1979

A so-so video but a great song. The Smashing Pumpkins are an under-rated band - even if Billy Corgan's whine is sometimes a little grating.

Spam Update

I have a number of clever and witty posts circulating in my mind. However, writing those posts requires concentration and engaging my brain. And since I am on holiday this week, neither concentration or engaging my brain is on the agenda. But just to keep my two or three regular readers interested (or not as the case maybe) here's an update on what comes into my span folder and also what comes into my inbox, owing to the limitations of the spam filter on free e-mail accounts.

The top five for today:

Lambrecht ERDTMANN is offering me a "Huuge Penis" - so big, it seems, it makes him unable to spell.

Pearl Colbert is e-mailing about ROLEX at unbelievable prices! twfr vuoe d. You had me 'til the "twfr vuoe d", Pearl.

Jarrett Comer wishes to discuss Attitude of the Hero. Unfortunately I know very little about heroics, and what I do know I won't be sharing with random spammers.

Moises Cameron (presumably no relation to David Cameron) tells me to Express your masculinity better! Frankly, I think only my friends can comment on my masculinity (or lack thereof) - for me, it is a bit of an assumption for a stranger to judge my masculinity.

And finally we have the ludicrous enews@libdems.org.uk offering [Crime news] Latest News : 05/06/2008.

Lib Dems? Crime News? Where do they get this crazy crap from? All these mad spammers want is money. Mark my words, no good will come of giving the likes of the Liberal Democrats money...

Election 08 - Obama-Clinton?

The new strategy of the Hillary Clinton campaign - position her to be Obama's Vice-President.

Seriously, I'm impressed with this idea. Not because I think it is a good one, but rather because it shows Hillary's courage. It takes a lot of fucking courage to spend the best part of a year telling a guy he's rubbish and not up to the job of fighting an election in November (at the same time as losing a series of elections to him) only to turn around and beg him for a job as soon as he has convincingly defeated you. It moves beyond "ambitious" part of the electioneering spectrum and moves more towards the "naked, unthinking lust for power" part.

Still, Obama could do a lot worse than getting her on the ticket with him. After all, if she is running for office with him, even she will have to concede that the nomination race is over and she can finally turn her relentlessly, energetic hectoring on the Republicans. Surely not even Clinton would have the naked audacity to continue to run for the Democratic nomination for President even after she has been nominated for Vice-President?

Actually, I'll stop right there. Don't want to give Hillary any ideas...

What if... Brown won the 1994 Labour leadership election?

Now Gordon Brown has categorically shown that he has been a disaster for the Labour party and now he is the least popular Labour leader since... well, ever, we can all wallow in some good, old-fashioned politician slating. I've no intention of stopping bashing at Brown any time soon - Brown is a deeply unpleasant personality who deserves all the flak currently being thrown at him.

But it is tempting to look at Brown - a man who has completely compromised and shafted himself after less than a year in the role - and wonder whether it had to be this way for his time as Prime Minister. Brown had the chance to win an election at the end of last year - he didn't take it. Brown had the chance to force Blair from power a year before Blair actually stepped down - Brown didn't take it. And Brown could have run for Labour leader in 1994 - he didn't do it.

And it is the latter idea that has struck a chord with me. What would have happened if Brown had run in 1994 - and what would have happened if Brown had won the Labour leadership?

It is a conversation I had a few months back with the Moai - his verdict was this:

Brown comes to power, leads attacks on Major
BUT a few public gaffes reinforce to Labour that they still haven't got the right man
Labour lose very narrowly to Tories in '97, close to hung parliament; Brown turfed out, Blair/AN Other elected
Tories totally implode
Blair comes to power in 2001

My thoughts on what would have happened are similar - with one key difference. I think Brown would have won in 1997 - God knows, the Tories were so compromised then that even Kinnock could have taken them down. But I think Brown's majority would have been far, far smaller than Blair's - possibly between 40 and 60. Then, events like the Petrol Crisis and the Foot and Mouth outbreak - combined with the natural personality of Gordon that we have all come to know and hate - would quickly have undermined Brown's time in Number 10. Plus, the Tories (under Hague or perhaps Portillo - the result would have been far closer, meaning Michael may have been able to keep his seat) would not have been a humiliated rump of a party in Brown's parliament, and could have provided an effective opposition. And come the 2001 (or, given Brown's fear of elections, 2002), I reckon the Tories would have been back in power. And given his lacklustre performance as PM, Brown would have been retired to the backbenches...

There will be lots of these counter factuals, when Brown is finally turfed out of Number 10. Hundreds of "what if" scenarios, all playing out slightly different permutations of what might have happened if Brown had been braver, or acted differently. Some will probably be able to dream up a happy ending for Brown - how realistic that happy ending is, given Brown's natural lack of charm and ability, is open for question. But ultimately all counterfactuals are pointless, because what is happening right now is what actually happened. Brown was always going to wait for too long before becoming PM, because he is a coward. And he was always going to screw it all up when he got into power, because he is incapable.

Alternative histories be damned - the real history has spoken, and has made itself heard. Brown should never have become Prime Minsiter, and his experiences and actions in the role simply reinforce this.

Plane Stupid? Yep.

You may remember Plane Stupid. They were the ladies and gents who scaled Parliament to protest about runways or something. Not a bad little publicity stunt. They ripped it off from Fathers 4 Justice, of course, but the history of protest is littered with one protest group stealing another group's ideas.

The Guardian on Saturday ran an article about the group - link here And there is, perhaps unsurprisingly, a feeling of muted admiration from The Guardian:

More than audacity, what captured people's attention was the smart articulacy of young activists who confounded the eco-warrior stereotype. "That's far from accidental," Murray says. "We just recognise that it's extremely counter-productive to play into people's stereotypes. I mean, I only own a suit for when I'm on TV or in court. Some people in the activist movement were certainly suspicious of ... how prepared we are to play the game ... At this stage, direct action is mostly a tool of PR."

I have to admit a bias here - almost nothing said or done by Plane Stupid has grabbed my attention. What did grab my attention was the picture in Saturday's Guardian of Plane Stupid. Yeah, they don't look quite like a cliche of an eco warrior. What they do look like is a group of people who were rejected from the Arcade Fire for being too dowdy and frumpy. I can imagine them standing up at a meeting of a student union, and banging on about environmental issues regardless of what the debate is supposed to be about. And whilst you cannot say they look exactly like your average tedious eco-warrior, what they say and the way they behave is perfectly in line with those well-meaning but dreadfully dull environmental activists who watched too much Captain Planet when they were young.

Even when talking about their current legal woes, they show a detachment from reality that you would normally associate with paranoid schizophrenics:

But when we meet this week at a north London cafe they laugh about the bail terms, which ban them from coming within a mile of Westminster. "Was it a square mile or a radius?" says Leo Murray, 31, who is studying animation at the Royal College of Art. They have been granted an exemption: travelling through on public transport. "But what about on my bike?" Olivia Chessel, 20, asks mockingly.

Yes, Olivia, "what about on your bike?" Your bike is travelling on public transport. If it is a fucking tandem and you let the public ride on the back seat. Otherwise, I'm guessing, as private property, that bike isn't exempt. You twat.

But I'm nitpicking here, when there are far more glaring examples of the stupidity of, well, Plane Stupid. Because as soon as you start to pick at the ideology of these eco-nuts, you see just how pernicious and wrong their ideology is:

"I fully appreciate that at the moment, for an ordinary person making choices on their personal circumstances, which is exactly what you would expect people to do, flying from London to Edinburgh makes sense, because of gross distortions in the travel market," Murray says. Urging anyone to alter his or her "consumption behaviour" is a total waste of time, he continues. "We need to change the conditions of choice - not individuals' minds about things."

See that? That is what Plane Stupid are about. They've decided what is right, and given that knowledge, they want to reduce your freedom. Stupid little totalitarian fucks, they believe they have a right to decide how you live your life. The arrogance of youth meets with the naviety of youth - and creates this mindset where dicatorial politics is ok - just so long as this twattish group of acivists is in charge.

And given this arrogance and their detachment from reality, the article goes from bad to worse - to the point where even The Guardian seems to be mildly mocking them:

What Plane Stupid are campaigning for is the removal of that choice - by the closure of all short-haul flight routes. But what about long-haul flights? These would be acceptable, only if they were "necessary". But who would be the judge of that? "We're not policy wonks," says Murray. "But we're calling for some kind of demand constraint."

To translate - Plane Stupid have policies, they have no idea whether they are workable or not, or how to implement them, but others should find a way of making their half formed beliefs into law. One can imagine the phrase "we're not policy wonks" coming from ignorant protestors anywhere. Hell, it would sound just as normal coming from a racist BNP supporter in Essex somewhere, stating he wants to send all the immigrants back home, but when challenged on it falls back on the get out clause of "I don't know how it will work. I'm not a policy wonk."

And it does seem to be the default position of Plane Stupid:

But when pressed on the "equitability" of this solution - the rich would be able to continue flying, the poor wouldn't - they keep retreating behind the same disclaimer: "We are not a thinktank."

I think everyone can see that Plane Stupid are not a think tank. Probably from the lack of any intelligent thought coming from the group.

The article ends with the group saying they would happily go to prison for life if that is the sentence for escalating their protests. The thoughts of this raging ego maniacs in prison for the rest of their days mildly amuses me - I somehow can't imagine that, when surrounded by murderers, armed robbers, sex offenders and others serving a life sentence at Her Majesty's Pleasure, the whimpered phrase "we are not a thinktank" will save them from a sound beating. Or maybe worse.

There is a case to be made for environmental politics. I'm not sure it will ever win me over, but there is a case to be made. However that case can only ever be undermined when it is supported by the plain stupid members of groups like this.

Doctor Who: Silence in the Library

It is always slightly awkward admitting to being a Doctor Who fan. Even now, with the TV series one of the most watched programmes on the television, people still look at you oddly if you say you are a fan. You can almost hear them tutting slightly, and realise that they are rolling their eyes mentally, even if they don't actually do so. You can hear the great unasked question swimming around in their minds - "why on earth are you a fan of that?"

The answer is simple - episodes like last night's Silence in the Library. I'm not going to go through every reason why it was a great piece of TV - if you go to the BBC Doctor Who website you can watch it for free there (for the next week or so) and see for yourself. But so much of it comes down to the concepts. And last night was a great example of where the show takes a very simple, every day concept - in this case shadows - and turns it into something nightmarish. If you haven't watch it - because you were tuned into some godawful talent show - go watch it now.

And the best thing about it? It was written by Steven Moffat, who is taking over as chief writer for the show. The best episode of this series thus far was written by the person who will be writing the bulk of the scripts come 2010. Expect the show to get much better then.

And much scarier...