Loyalty and Cowardice

You can tell things are bad for Gordon Brown by all the people not running for the Labour leadership at the moment. Jack Straw isn’t running. Harriet Harman isn’t running. And David Miliband certainly isn’t. And yet they should be running. Each and every one of them. I think not one of them is worthy of the title of Prime Minister, and I don’t think anyone of them is capable from rescuing the Labour party from the doldrums. But it is a national embarrassment to have such a compromised and beleaguered figure as Prime Minister. Brown should be forced to stand down.

It is utterly surreal that the *leading lights* of the Labour party are professing loyalty to Brown. What, precisely, has he done to deserve such loyalty? Seizing power in a coup d’etat? Ducking winnable elections? Destroying his party’ standing in the polls? Handing key by-elections to rival parties? Hardly a startling track record, is it? Whatever you think of John Major, he could at least claim to be a vote winner. Brown can only claim to be a colossal failure.

There comes a point when loyalty ceases to be a virtue and instead becomes mindless foolishness. The Labour party has reached that point. And the failure of Miliband, Straw and Harman to act speaks more about their cowardice in the face of the awkward bully Brown than it does about their loyalty.

YouTube

The government is having a bit of a pop at YouTube. They want the site to remove sick and dark video clips, like those depicting gang rape. Which is fair enough, really. Except YouTube already has a method to flag, and then remove, those videos. The government's gripe seems to be that they don't do it quickly enough. Quite how they would be able to do so is beyond me. I reckon YouTube is suffering from the problem that all sites that allow public access suffer from - mainly that some members of the public are cunts.

That said, I haven't come across anything on YouTube that is shocking, dark, disgusting etc. Part of the reason for that is because I only use YouTube to watch music videos, film trailers, random clips of Doctor Who and old episodes of The Tripods. And yes, I am aware of how geeky that makes me sound. And on all my interactions with YouTube the worst thing I have come across is not a sickening video, but rather the endless video monologues of people who believe that because they have a webcam, they have an opinion that is actually worth hearing.

They don't. They film endless videos of themselves talking shite, unaware that their videos are only going to be watched by terminal insomniacs desperate for a bit of kip. They don't seem to understand that their videos are about as interesting as a coma. And slightly less worth watching than a horrific car accident. Furthermore, they really shouldn't make videos of themselves as, generally speaking, they have faces that only a mother could love. And it we're talking a grudging love here, based on a deep-seated maternal instinct rather than anything more valid.

From my experience, the real problem for YouTube is ugly people being boring rather than anything else. Although I some how doubt that MPs will end up complaining about that - after all, they too are ugly people being boring...

Prime Minister Miliband? *Retches*

So, David Miliband is setting out his stall for the Labour leadership. You can read it here. Quite frankly, it sent me to sleep. He criticises Cameron for not standing for anything at the same time as not actually making his own proposals in anyway interesting. It is dull. Dull, dull, dull.

But it hasn't been treated that way. Christ, given the response to this article, you would have thought Miliband had called Brown a cunt. What he actually said is tedious beyond believe and a perfect illustration of the ideological bankruptcy of the Labour party.

Let's look at the bigger picture. Let's look at what this means. A man who looks like a constipated eight year old is seriously been spoken about as a potential Prime Minister. Holy mother of fuck, we are through the looking glass here people. Miliband should be working in an accounting firm somewhere not sitting in the highest strata of government. If Miliband does replace Brown, we shouldn't just call for an election. We should have a fucking revolution. The very fact that the Labour party would even consider replacing this septic sore of a man with a spineless, geeky looking dickweed shows the naked contempt they feel for the nation as a whole.

David Miliband as PM should be a warning sign; a biblical omen of impending doom. Not a credible alternative for a ruling political party.

The Labour Party: Shafted, but not dead

This is something you don’t see often – rats running not just towards a sinking ship, but actively looking to captain it. If you are at all cynical (and I am – sometimes I think it is my defining feature) then you would wonder why on earth anyone would want to lead the party that is incapable of retaining their third safest seat and can boast the like of Terry “I’m A Socialist Moron” Kelly as not just a member but key cheerleader. On paper, it is a lot like becoming leader of the Soviet Communist Party. Or winning the job of guitarist in Deep Purple 30 years after they were last worth listening to.

But then again, is being the Scottish Labour leader really such a bad deal? Yeah, you’ve not going to do well in the near future. But if you can hang on – perhaps by using radical means such as not accepting illegal donations – then maybe you can slowly bring about the resurrection of the once dominant force in Scottish politics.

The same is true of the Labour party at the moment. One of the reasons why the Brown administration is still dragging on is because no-one really wants the job. I mean, what politician actively wants to lead their party to electoral defeat? But then again, defeat is now so certain that a new leader could win a strong reputation by minimising the extent of the coming disaster, and rebuild the party slowly but surely. It is not a dream job for anyone – make no mistake about that. But equally it is not the worst job in the world – it has potential, if you make the best of it.

Because, whilst Labour is in a bad state, it certainly isn’t a terminal case. As much as I would like to be predicting the glorious end of this dismal political party, it just isn’t going to happen. They will lose the next election, but not be wiped out.

There are several reasons for this:

Gordon will go

The Labour party has shown a real appetite for regicide in history, but equally they have never really been this unpopular before. They are swimming in uncharted waters, and they will want someone to blame for their current woes. Brown is the obvious candidate, not least because he is the one responsible for the disaster the Labour party is enduring.

So the party’s senior politicians may pull their finger out of their arseholes and go to Gordon, tell him to go, and then sack him when he refuses. A new leader would almost certainly be better for the party’s fortunes – even Harman would be preferable for the party than the execrable Brown. The party is full of talentless shits, true, but no-one is shitter than the man who clawed his way to the top of that tree. A new leader before the election could save the party from a 1997 style electoral wipe out.

And if they decide that Brown is the best option to take them into the next election (which would be a lot like the Titanic stating that it really like icebergs and thinks they are the way forward) he will last roughly five hours after the election results come in and Cameron becomes Prime Minister. Brown’s time as Labour leader is finite – it isn’t a case of “if he gets binned”, much more of “when he gets binned.” And once the cuntiest cunt of the party brimming over with cunts falls, someone more capable (even the aforementioned twat Terry Kelly would struggle to do a worst job) will take over.

It took four Tory leaders and well over a decade for the Conservative party to tear themselves from the electoral doldrums. It may take Labour a similar amount of time and heartbreak to so the same thing. But at some point they will turn it around, and become a credible political force once again.

Cameron isn’t good enough

Seriously, he isn’t. He lacks the killer instinct to truly fuck the Labour party. He performs ok at PMQs, he is riding high in the polls. But, as I have said time and again, that is not about who he is, but rather who he isn’t. Just as Blair pulled off a stunning victory in 1997 by simply not being John Major, so Cameron will almost certainly trounce Labour at the next election for not being Gordon Brown. You can argue that winning is everything in politics, but some victories are certainly more hollow than others. I’d argue (and some will no doubt disagree) that I am more popular than Peter Sutcliffe and Gary Glitter. But I don’t put that meaningless achievement on my CV.

A ruthless Tory leader would be looking beyond just winning the next election. They’d be looking to slash the throat of the Labour party once and for all, and leave the fetid corpse of that out dated and ideologically bankrupt party to slowly rot away to nothing. However Cameron, both instinctively and in terms of competence, is not able to do that.

Clegg isn’t good enough

One of the startling things about the woes of the current Labour party is that the Liberal Democrats are not capitalising on the governments numerous failings. In fact, it is difficult to know exactly what the Liberal Democrats are doing these days. They are faced with a Labour party that has been utterly discredited and a Tory leader with all the ideological gravitas and political experience of a toddler. They should be relishing this moment, and going in for the kill. Instead, they seem to be hiding underneath a big rock doing, precisely, nothing.

Clegg has some half-decent proposals, but seems incapable of getting himself into the media spotlight with those proposals. He has all the media savvy of a cucumber. For a party that is reliant on the leader being able to steal column inches and get onto the news, Clegg was a poor choice. And the Liberal Democrats are now paying for that. At a time when they should be pushing towards their breakthrough moment and become the second party in this country, they are actually stagnating. Their big moment will pass straight by them, and they will be left nursing broken dreams and wondering, now and forever, “What if…”

Barring miracles (if you can call something really shitty happening a miracle) Labour will lose the next election. Right-wingers, and right minded people, can and should relish this moment. And they can look forward to dancing on the (political) grave of Gordon Brown. But it is wrong and naïve to write Labour off forever. With the tedious regularity and determination of a Terminator, they’ll find a way. They’ll be back.

The Dark Knight - Why So Serious?

Having ranted away this morning about a couple of things that fucked me right off, I thought I would attempt balance by offering a more positive post. Although it is something positive that I reckon a lot of people will find fundamentally depressing.

Yep, The Dark Knight. The new Batman picture. It has been hyped to the max, and was always going to make a lot of money. But being hyped and making money is not an effective test of quality. If it was, then Titanic would be the best film ever made. Rather than a tedious, predictable bit of popcorn fodder enjoyed only by teenage girls lusting after the boyish Leonardo Di Caprio. So, is The Dark Knight any good?

Yes. Absolutely. Pretty fantastic, if you ask me. There are some negative points, of course - no film is perfect. Some of the action sequences don't make sense. Other moments, like Dent's kidnapping, should be seen rather than told. Overall, the already long film feels like it should be longer - and that the extra time would help make the narrative clearer and more coherent. Finally, Bale's Batman is so gruff that it is almost impossible to hear what he is saying - if his voice was any deeper, it would be a dull, incoherent rumble. A tube train, rather than an actor talking.

But these are minor gripes. Overall, the film is superb. Ledger is good in an actor's dream role - his Joker is scary and unpredictable, but I think those actors with less obvious parts are arguably stronger than Ledger. Bale effectively plays three different roles - Bruce Wayne the arrogant playboy, Bruce Wayne the detective, and Batman the action (anti) hero. Eckhart does Dent justice but really comes into his own when playing two face - making a hideously disfigured murderer sympathetic. But for me the best performance comes from Gary Oldman as Gordon - he manages to make the police officer a fallible, human character at the same time as making him the quietest, yet most affecting, hero of the picture. And the film is visually stunning - the action set pieces look good and the pace of the film, despite the long run time, never lets up. A stunning piece of film making.

And my review is in line with a lot of other positive reviews. Mark my words, though, it won't be long until people start dissenting and criticising the film. And I think a lot of criticisms will focus in on the tone of the film. Make no mistake, this is a dark film. Batman is seriously screwed up. The Joker gives people Glasgow smiles. Two-Face is created through a traumatic moment, and the make-up for the monstrous side of his face is horrific. As a result there will be those who remember the 1960's show, or Joel Schmacher and the Bat Nipples, and ask (to quote the Joker) "Why so serious?"

The answer is simple - because it should be. Yes, Batman is derived from a comic book. But that doesn't mean it has to be light-hearted pap. This is a dark story - it is about a vigilante with post traumatic stress disorder fighting in a crime ridden city against nightmarish psychopaths. It was never going to be, and should never aspire to be, Mamma Mia. If you are looking for a jovial, comic book romp, Iron Man is for you. If you are looking for an audacious piece of film-making that transcends the comic book origin, go see The Dark Knight.

In fact, go see The Dark Knight anyway. Part Greek tragedy, part horror movie, part action packed blockbuster - whether you like Batman or not, The Dark Knight is worth a view.

Britain's railways: Redefining Shite.

There are a number of reasons why, this morning, I am a testy, prickly ball of quiet rage this morning. I’m not going to detail them all – let’s be honest, hearing the ins and outs of a blogger’s life is like having a stroke – tremendously dull, life sapping and pointless for everyone involved. However, I will share one cause of consternation, as I am sure others will feel the same way. I’m talking about the rail network in this country.

The railway system in this country is the transport equivalent of a paranoid schizophrenic. Incapable of working and jarringly all over the place, the rail system will really fuck you up if you go anywhere near it. Seriously, going on a train journey at the moment is like being slashed in the face by a madman. Actually, having your face slashed by a nutter is actually preferable on some levels. At least it is over quicker than your average train journey.

To explain, this weekend I did the epic voyage that is travelling to the Midlands. When I was a kid, the journey (both ways) took just under two hours. This weekend, it lasted for over six. There’s progress for you. An extra four hours of my life disappearing into the ether, watching cows shitting in fields and observing just how rundown and crap life seems to be in and around Britain’s stations.

It all began several weeks ago, when I went online to buy the tickets. I always buy in advance. That way it is cheaper. Actually, no, scrap that. That way it is less gut wrenchingly expensive. Looking at the price I paid for an advance ticket I cannot help but think “sweet Jesus titty fucking Christ, I’m glad I paid in advance. Had I paid full price, I would have had to take a second job just to be able to afford the ticket.”

Then I turned up at the station. To find the train I was on did not exist. Never the best of starts. So I went and asked the good people of Virgin Trains for assistance. Actually, saying “good people of Virgin Trains” is a little bit inaccurate. They actually had the interpersonal skills of Josef Stalin with a bout of depression. To put these people in a customer service position is like putting a spree killer in a gun shop – a disaster waiting to happen.

Anyway, having spoken to four different people and been insulted, patronised and lied to, I eventually found my train. And, after a good three hours, one train journey and one coach journey, I arrived at my destination. Feeling as exhausted as one might after a bout of radiation sickness. You know your journey is not going well when you are sat in what looked like a barn in Northampton station, waiting for a bus.

The journey back wasn’t much better. Again, the train/train and bus/whatever didn’t exist. Cue a forty minute wait in a station reception hall for a coach back to Northampton. Somewhat amazingly, there was a train waiting. It was the coldest train in the history of the world, leaving me with chills down my spine on the hottest day of the year. Still at least there was a train there.

And in fairness, the train conductor apologised for all the fucking around that was going on. A grudging apology, mind. When he apologised for the delays he was quick to blame Network Rail. So it was the sort of apology that went “I’m sorry but it is not my fault”. So not a genuine apology really. He did offer complaint forms that one could get from his office (seriously, an office on the train?! The trains don’t run on time but the conductor has an office on board!) but he added the caveat that there weren’t many of them. In other words, you can complain, but you’d better do it quick or you will miss out!

I was tempted to grab a complaint form – any readers of this blog will know I love a good moan – but seriously, what would be the point? Virgin will say “not our fault, we’re passing the problem to Network Rail.” Network Rail will say “can’t do anything about it, we’re passing this on to the government.” And the government will say “ha ha! Fuck you!” Spending five minutes filling in their form would be a further waste of my pointless life. It would be more effective if I just wrote “you are a bunch of fucking cuntwads” on the form and posted it to them. It would still be ignored, but at least I would feel better for having vented a little bit.

I don’t know how to cure the ills of the railway system. Nationalisation, a regulated monopoly, firebombing the whole fucking network and trying again; I genuinely don’t know what the solution is. But whatever happens, something needs to change. Because the rail network in this country currently offers the levels of service and efficiency that one might associate with a post apocalyptic wasteland. Rather than a developed nation in the year 2008.

John Prescott: Support of the Worthless

My general misanthropy is pretty fucking high this morning, so imagine my joy at seeing this article on Labour Home. Yep. John Prescott is running to support Gordon Brown, like an obese knight in shining armour.

For most people, I would imagine the prospect of Prescott supporting you in your job would be a trigger to not only resign in disgrace, but to go to a public square and immolate oneself to burn away the disgust felt at being supported by a man utterly devoid of any virtue. Most people, I would imagine, would rather have “rapist” tattooed on their forehead than “supported by John Prescott”. However, such is the state of this rancid abortion of an administration, that Brown is probably thankful for the support of Prescott. Even though the rest of us see this for what it is; a fat cunt backing a thieving cunt.

But let’s take a look at what Prescott actually says. Well, I say “what Prescott actually says” – I reckon that this was actually written by some parliamentary aide. After all, I don’t think Prescott could actually use a keyboard. Partly because his fingers are likely to be too fat for the keys, and partly because the keyboard is probably jammed with all the food that falls into it as Prescott forces pies into his fat gob whilst he types. Still, it is in Prescott’s name, so I’m going to blame Prescott for it.

He "writes":

I’m sure I also speak for all of you in wishing Gordon, Sarah and their boys a thoroughly deserved break and that they have a wonderful time in Southwold. I have every confidence that he will come back refreshed, renewed and ready to lead us through these difficult times.

Of course, he doesn’t speak for me in wishing Gordon et al a happy holiday; I wish them all a very miserable time. But such is the unpopularity of Gordon at the moment that I doubt even the doe-eyed Nu Labour morons who read Labour Home wish Gordon a wonderful time. After all, he is leading their party towards oblivion. And don’t even get me started of the phrase “thoroughly deserved”. If I spent all day every day fucking up my job, my employers wouldn’t offer me a well-deserved break. They’d offer me a permanent, unpaid holiday.

And what is it about Brown and being renewed? Every other fucking week that talentless twat is being renewed. And yet, when he appears on the television, he looks more pale, more jowly, and more ill than ever. The only way Brown could actually be renewed is if he dies and is reincarnated as something better than Gordon Brown. Like a dung beetle. Or a tape worm.

Still, Prescott supports Brown. For this reason:

We have undoubtedly some very talented men and women. But with respect, none of them at the present moment, has anywhere near the skills and experience, nationally and internationally, to lead this great party and country as we tackle these unprecedented major global problems.

I can’t think of anyone with any talent in the Labour party. A bunch of annoying lackwits and pious wankers; maybe. Talented; no. But if Brown really is the best person to lead the Labour party, despite the talent vacuum, then they are utterly fucked. They may as well give up now, and go back to their constituencies and prepare for opposition.

Plus, what “unprecedented major global problems?” A recession? Terrorism? War? I appreciate Prescott probably missed out on history at school; I’d imagine he was in the canteen shovelling grub into his fat gut. But there is nothing happening in the world today that is unprecedented. Except for the fact that the incumbent Prime Minister is an incompetent moron paralysed by indecision.

And doesn’t Prescott know that when you write “with respect” you actually mean “with no respect whatsoever, you total cunts”?

It’s only a year since party members, trade unions and MPs unanimously voted for Gordon to become our leader. Let me make this very clear - party members and the public will never forgive MPs and others who force Labour to go through another leadership election in less than two years.

Sorry, but I must have missed the precious Labour leadership election. I do remembered an uncontested beauty pageant that Brown *won* because he had bullied all the opposition out of the contest. That was not an election. It was not a contest. It was nothing more than an ego boost for the fragile self-image of the Prime Mentalist.

One final point – and I think this should be made clear not just to Prescott but to every fucker in the Labour party – the public will forgive you for having a leadership election. In fact, most people probably want one sooner rather than later. What they won’t forgive you for is continuing with this nightmarish scenario that we now find ourselves on – where the Prime Minister is suffering some sort of breakdown, and where the government and country is paralysed as a result. This country needs leadership. Brown blatantly can’t provide it. Therefore, he should go.

It really is that simple.

What if... Gordon had fought a General Election?

When the politicial obituaries are written for Gordon Brown (and hopefully that won't be too far away, given the reaction to the Glasgow by-election) I think they will point to one event that damaged Brown more than any other and started his freefall into political oblivion. Yep, I'm talking about the election that never was. It destroyed the (utterly false) impression that Brown had the courage of his convictions and was politically canny. It showed Brown in his true light - a cowardly little misanthrophe too afraid to fight for what he believed in.

But what if Brown had called that election? Where would we be now?

Well, for a start, there would be another 4 years of Labour government, rather than 18 months. Brown would have won that election; possibly with a diminished majority, but he would have won it nonetheless.

And rather than having Cameron as leader, I now think that David Davis would be heading up the Tories. Cameron's pitch for the Tory leadership was (and still is) based purely on him bringing the perception of success to the Conservatives. There is no policy to get behind with Cameron, no sense of political belief. He represents the pragmatic nature of the Tories - he makes them more popular, so they'll go with him. And had he lost that ability to make them popular, then he would have been replaced. Davis, campaigning on being a tougher fighter and more instinctively Conservative than Cameron, would have been that replacement.

But what would be the position of the Labour party right now? How would they be faring in the polls? I'm guessing pretty much where they are now. All of the problems encountered by Gordon's government (the loss of data discs, the corruption scandals, Northern Rock etc) would still have happened. And those problems would still have the same impact on Labour's popularity.

The problems that are consuming Labour at the moment were not caused by the election that never was. That aborted election was not the cause, but rather a symptom of the affliction that is crippling the Labour party. And that affliction is, at heart, down to their choice of leader.

That's the problem with the Labour party at the moment: Gordon Brown.

And the fact that he's shit.

Glasgow East: Not Getting The Message

Wow. Labour actually managed to lose one of their safest seats in the country. Which is nice. I'm no supporter of the SNP, but it is nice to see this godawful party further slip towards well-deserved electoral oblivion.

They'll be lots of comment about this defeat; Labour are going to have to work hard to spin this as anything other than a total fucking disaster. That isn't going to stop them from giving it a go though. As we can see in the words of the slightly delusional Des Browne, commenting on this leader:

"Gordon Brown, in my view and the view of the party, is outstandingly the best politician in the country. He is a man of known strengths - the country knows his strengths."

Yes, we do know his strengths. Sulking, fucking up, hiding from problems and generally being a shitbag. Which is why we continually vote for other people when the opportunity arises.

And if Gordon Brown is "outstandingly the best politician in the country" then we are all royally fucked. It also doesn't say much for Browne's self esteem that he rates himself as inferior to the dreadful Gordo.

"At the end of the day, when you ask them who is the man to see us through these tough times, they will tell us that…"

Yes, Browne, they will tell you. They are consistently telling you who the man is to see us through these tough times. However, if you actually listened, then you would realise that they are telling you that Brown isn't that man.

But since this message seems to beyond the limited capacity of Browne (and, one suspects, the rest of the Cabinet) they should heed Cameron's call and have a snap election. The message should sink nicely in when the electorate resolutely tells Nu Labour to fuck right off...

You'd think they'd have better things to do with their time and money.

Look, peeps, it is this simple. Smoking is dangerous, it is unhealthy. But a lot of people find it enjoyable. And therefore, it is their choice as to whether they smoke or not. The opinion of paternalistic, patronising billionaire cunts should be neither here nor there.

The Worst Title Sequence Of All Time

I love Doctor Who, and I love the spin-offs, but seriously, what were they thinking with this opening for K9 And Company? K9 singing?

*Shivers*

Plane Stupid: Getting Stuck In

Protests can, of course, take any format. And there have been some dramatic forms of protest in the past. Firebombing shops that sell fur, rioting over the poll tax in Central London, taking over Strangeways prison, throwing yourself in front of horse at the races - that is legendary, memorable and controversial protesting.

This, however, really isn't. But what else might you expect from the morons in Plane Stupid?

I mean, seriously, what sort of a plan is this? Gluing yourself to the PM? From the words of the protestor:

"My left hand was covered in superglue and I stuck it to his sleeve... I just glued myself to him and after 20 seconds he tore my hand off - it really hurt. He had to give it a couple of tugs before it came away."

Ok, worst case scenario, what would have happened? He'd have glued himself to the Prime Minister. And what do we think the Prime Minsiter would have done? Panicked, realised the error of his ways, and changed government policy? Or perhaps he would have just taken his jacket off.

The protestor also notes Brown's reaction:

"He was just grinning about it. He didn't seem to take me seriously."

I'm not surprised. This must have been one of the happiest moments Brown has had since he became PM. For the first time in months, he was the biggest, most moronic and incompetent fool in the room. Brown was actually face to face with a bigger fucktard than himself.

But the protestor, having not made enough of a tit of himself already, went on to further *protest*:

When he left the building he tried to glue himself to the gates of Downing Street but had his hand detached by a police officer.

And how was that police officer able to do that so easily? Again, in the words of the protestor:

"I didn't have much glue left by that point," he said.

*Sighs*.

Look. If you are going to protest through the medium of a moronic stunt, then at least prepare yourself adequately first. And the only thing this fucking chimp needed to remember to do was bring enough glue. And he failed at that.

There is a case to be made against a third runway at Heathrow. However, that case is undermined given it is so voraciously supported by such utter choppers as this lackwit. Seriously, what are people meant to do? Support the guy whose idea of revolutionary protesting is to try (and fail) to superglue himself to the PM? This is the antics of a drunk, retarded student - not of a serious campaigner.

Once again, Plane Stupid are living up to their name. In fact, they couldn't have picked a better title for their group. Unless it was "bunch of fucking morons."

Sleeping in the Shitter

A new method of looking after prisoners:

"Prisoners are having to sleep in toilets because of overcrowding at one English jail, the chief inspector of prisons revealed today."

No doubt this story will provoke the normal, well-rehearsed debate about prisoner rights. They'll be those who harp on about human rights and treating prisoners fairly fighting against those who believe that a prison sentence should be pretty much like going to a torture party in the lower bowels of Hades. I'm not going to go through those arguments here; my advice is try to avoid going to prison in the first place.

But this comment, from a prison inspector, did bring a smile to my lips:

"Resettlement provision had continued to improve and, in the context of a busy prison with a transient local population, was among the best we have seen"

Well, that's hardly surprising, is it? Most people would be open to a little resettlement, if it is a straight choice between that and sleeping in the shitter.

Mercury Music Prize 2008

Another year, another host of nominations for the Mercury Music Prize. The list is, as always, a curious mix of music I've never heard of mixed with music I couldn't care less about. Radiohead, for example, get a nomination for once again producing an album of largely unlistenable nonsense that shows none of songwriting or performing ability that made them famous in the first place. And then we have Robert Plant - a man who hasn't produced an iota of interesting music since Led Zep split up nearly three decades ago. And so on.

I'd like to see British Sea Power's Do You Like Rock Music? take the prize. Whether it will or not is open to question, but there is one key reason why it should win - it is the best thing on the list.

Which, for the Mercury Music Prize, is a sure sign that it won't win. And was probably lucky to get the nomination in the first place.

Spam of the Day

Was entitled, quite simply:

Bomb Her Womb With Your Huge Cannon.

Now, I've heard a lot of euphemisms for sex, but I have to confess that "womb bombing" is a new one, even for me...

Holiday Time for *Hard Working* Leaders

It is that time of year again when politicians fuck off away from London, to spend their unearned money on pampering their poor little souls for all the hard work they don’t do in the House of Commons throughout the year. Part of me is happiest when Parliament is in recess. At least they won’t be passing any other stupid, shitty laws to further fuck-up and restrict our lives.

But it does mean one hundred and one articles appear, each more tedious that then last, discussing where the party leaders are going to holiday. Like this one. Seriously, does anyone really fucking care where Gordon Brown is going to spend his summer? Is it essential to know where young Hug A Husky Cameron is taking his family this year? And given he is completely irrelevant for the rest of the year, why the ruddy fuck would you care where Calamity Clegg spends his holidays?

It is like all those disapproving articles that appeared when it became clear that Tony Blair was always going to sponge off second rate celebrities to get foreign holidays. Their tone was all the same – “what does it say about our (then) Prime Minister given he holidays abroad at the expense of others?” Well, it says that he a publicity seeking, self-serving cunt of the highest order. But seriously, that’s news? Really? There was a plethora of reasons to show just what a ghastly person Blair was as Prime Minister (and, no doubt, still is). If you need confirmation of what a total fucker that man was through seeing where he holidays, you are, quite frankly, dumb.

Although, maybe there is a reason why it is good to know where Gordon Brown is going to be taking his holiday. If only so you can avoid that area like the fucking plague. I mean, just imagine it. You’ve worked hard all year, and you have really been looking forward to your holiday. You arrive at the beach, lie down, sunbathe, have a bit of a nap. When you wake up, you roll over and see non-other than Gordo, lying on the beech in his frayed speedos, looking for all the world like a anaemic beached whale, his saggy tits slowly roasting from exposure to the sun that he normally avoids at all costs? You’d want to destroy yourself. You run out into the sea, and swim until you could swim no more, and the salty sea saves you from reliving the most disgusting vision you have ever seen by taking you down to the cold, watery depths of the ocean.

Actually, that image really is a step too far. Sorry. Anyway, I’m off to bathe my brain in bleach to destroy the image of Brown sunbathing forever…

The Ghost

On Saturday, on the way to a wedding where there was a surplus of booze and a complete absence of soft drinks or water, I saw an advert for the Robert Harris novel The Ghost. And it said at the bottom of the ad "DESTROY AFTER READING". No doubt this was to provoke a mental image of the book as a highly controversial threat to national security, or something similar. However, having read the book, I can say I am half-tempted to destroy it. Not because I think it is a threat to national security or any similar guff, but rather because it wasn't very good.

The plot itself is partly the problem - whislt there are some exciting moments, the book as a whole is about a dislikable ghost writer writing a book about dislikable characters. The plot is almost entirely predictable. You know from the outset that someone is guilty and that the suicide was almost certainly a murder. You know it is all going to be about the War on Terror, and the unpleasant underbelly of that conflict. And most of the book is about someone writing up that story - so we are seeing the events second hand, through the jaundiced eyes of a ghost writer. And by the time I reached the final *twist*, I no longer cared about any of these characters and their silly little lives.

Part of this is probably because I have read, and very much enjoyed, other Robert Harris novels. So my expectations for this one were very, very high. And fundamentally, a book about a ghostwriter trying to hit a tight deadline lacks the raw excitement of an attempt to expose the Holocaust in an alternate history where the US is about to make peace with the Nazi empire. Or a book where there is an attempt to find Stalin's son by hardline communists who are determined to restore Stalinism to Russia. But there is another problem. On some levels, The Ghost seems to want to operate as a satire - a satire on Blair, on the War on Terror, on Nu Labour and the tragic death of Dr David Kelly. And in that attempt at satire, more than anything else, is where the novel fails for me.

The book is so lumpen with the references to famous people that Harris should have just dropped any pretence of this being fiction, and instead called Adam Lang "Tony Blair". The book as a whole felt like a pedestrian novelisation of The Trial of Tony Blair - without the humour, but with the same commitment to the leaden satire that would embarrass a student union revue.

Satire works better when it takes reality, and corrupts it enough to make it outrageous but still recognisable. And - crucially - the characters need to be distinct and stand up in their own right. Francis Urquhart works so well as a satirical character as he is recognisable as a ruthless politician, but also has a distinct and interesting personality as well. He is not any particular member of the then Tory government, but he does represent the darkest elements of that government, and magnifies them to create a character who is both nightmarish and compelling. Likewise, Alan B'stard is an outrageous satire - an unbelievable, amoral character who is somehow still likable and worth watching. He represents the very worst of eighties greed and malice, but is not anyone in particular. The Ghost fails in part because the Lang character is Tony Blair in all but name, and after enduring 10 years of Blair I know I am not alone in never wanting to hear about him again, and not giving the first crap about whether a character based on him lives or dies.

There is a great satire about the Blair years; it is called The Think of It. The Ghost tries, and fails, to better that.

Well, I for one cannot wait to go and see this. Nothing quite gets me as excited as going to see a film about a man who dresses like a bat punching the living crap out of an evil clown.

So it is just as well I have tickets to see it on Friday!

Who regulates the regulators?

Michael Meacher has written an article on Comment is Free, bemoaning the fact that in a national culture that almost seems to be one of endemic failure, no-one is taking responsibility when things go wrong:

Take five recent events – 90 people dying from c. difficile at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Trust hospitals, the torture and murder of Baha Musa by seven British soldiers in Basra, the failure to repair the drains at Pirbright, which came within an ace of another foot-and-mouth outbreak, the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes at Stockwell, and losing a lap-top containing details of 600,000 potential recruits to the armed forces? What is the link between them? Nobody was held responsible.

There is another link between them – have you spotted it yet? Who is responsible for the NHS? The government. For the British army? The government. Pirbright? Yep, partly government owned. Who shot Jean-Charles de Menezes? The police who ultimately are the responsibility of… the government. And who lost the details of the recruits? The same organisation as the one who lost the details of millions of families on data discs – yep, it is that government again! Yes, no-one took responsibility for any of these fuck ups. But who did responsibility ultimately reside with? Where does the buck stop? Government.

Take another example:

The American firm ETS (another flagrant privatisation failure) not only served up its exam markings very late, but badly mismanaged the whole exam process (claiming hundreds of pupils had not sat the tests when they had) and used people to mark the tests who were completely unqualified.

Yes, a privatisation failure. But who is responsible for deciding to give this responsibility to ETS? The government. Privatisation can be a positive force, and a good policy to follow. But only if the government doesn't fuck if up!

However, Meacher is not content to simply look at government failures. He has other ideas as well:

Despite Northern Rock exposing disastrous flaws throughout the banking system, no committee of inquiry has been established to remedy these highly damaging failures in governance and transparency.

Maybe I’m wrong, but what Northern Rock actually showed the disastrous flaws of was Northern Rock’s business plan. Businesses do fuck up, and they do cease to exist. Whole markets can be affected, but ultimately it is down to the individual business to decide how they trade and deal with any fallout from those decisions. It isn’t down to the government to intervene in the markets – either in the above example, or in this one:

Codes of Practice for industry, where they exist, are voluntary and therefore ineffective. The voluntary ethical trading initiative, to stop Oxford Street stores trading on developing country sweat-shops, is unenforceable and repeatedly breached.

See, the whole point of the code being voluntary is to allow people to make their own choices. To let the organisations concerned choose whether money or morals are more important, and to let customers choose whether they want cheap clothes from sweat-shops or not. If government removes the choice it treats both business and the people who use business services as children incapable of making up their own minds. Furthermore, it ceases to be a moral choice if people make the choice with a metaphorical gun to their head.

Meacher’s solution, that runs through is article like a bad smell, is more regulation. Regulate the regulators. And everyone needs to get involved:

Meanwhile, regulators should be required each year to report publicly on what they have achieved and how all the main complaints have been handled, and there should be regional meetings at which the public can question those who regulate on their behalf.

Call me cynical, but I don’t think a whole host of people are going to turn up to those meetings. I would imagine they would be about as much fun as watching paint dry. And a really dull paint colour, as well. Puce or something. Anyway, given that, do we really think the vast majority of people in this country, who only seem able to get excited about something if it is a second rate actress auditioning for some bag of shite musical, would actually attend these meetings? Still, Meacher seems to be a fan of government coercion, so maybe he will make people attend.

And, of course, there is another level that can regulate the regulators – and guess what, it is the government:

Parliamentary select committees should summon regulators to public hearings where there is significant public disquiet about their efficacy.

There we have it. The answer to all of these problems, in the outdated, limited and moronic outlook of Michael Meacher, is the government.

Let’s look at just how qualified Meacher is to propose sweeping reforms to the business world and to advocate yet another layer of regulation in a country already groaning with government regulation:

Born in Hemel Hempstead, the son of an accountant and farmer, he was educated at Berkhamsted School, New College, Oxford and the London School of Economics, where he gained a Diploma in Social Administration. He became a researcher and lecturer in social administration at Essex and York universities and wrote a book about elderly people's treatment in mental hospitals. He was the Labour Party candidate for Colchester at the 1966 UK General Election, and fought the 1968 Oldham West by-election after the resignation of Labour MP Leslie Hale but lost to Conservative candidate Bruce Campbell.

So, a graduate, then a teacher in social administration (whatever the ruddy fuck that is) and then a Labour party politician. Meacher is well placed to pontificate, isn’t he? Like so many other politicians, the real world is, for Michael Meacher, something that happens to other people.

Parliament is a institution filled with half-interested amateurs who are more interested in their own wealth and their own egos than actually helping the poor fuckers who fund them. If they were actually genuinely interested in helping the UK, then they would realise the simple truth – the answer is more intervention and regulation from the government. After all, everything the government touches at the moment seems to turn to shit. The real solution to so many of Britain's ills is the government intervening and regulating one hell of a lot less than it currently does. Or to put it another away, it is the government learning to fuck the fuck off.

Weezer - Buddy Holly

Never worked out whether I like this song or not. However, I do like the video. Mainly for the bit when the Fonz dances like a retarded David Brent on speed.

Just 21% of people think Tony Blair should get a state funeral. And that is a poll of the readers of The New Statesman. Personally, I think don't care whether he gets a state funeral or not. Just so long as I can dance on his grave before urinating on his headstone once he has shuffled off this mortal coil...

The Curse of Calamity Clegg

Nick Clegg – the face that bedded 30+ women*

Here’s a question for you – why isn’t Nick Clegg having more success?

Yes, I know part of the problem is the party who he chose to join and then chose to lead. But other Liberal Democrat leaders, in particular the ginger drunk, have managed to get much more success than Calamity Clegg. Put simply, what is Clegg’s problem?

David Cameron is the correct answer. Cameron has managed to steal the mantle of the Liberal Democrats, and in doing so has removed the need for Clegg and his merry bunch of environmentalists, vegetarians and geography teachers.

Before any of the fans of Cameron get their knickers in a twist, I am not talking about Cameron stealing the policies of the Lib Dems. That’s a whole other debate to be had another time. But Cameron looks and acts just like a Lib Dem. In that he appears to be moderate, reasoned, middle of the road and – crucially – not threatening. After years of Tory leaders who look foetal, or like middle managers in unethical banks, or even vampires, the Tories have a leader who looks like a normal human being. Aesthetics shouldn’t be important in how people chose who to vote for, but ultimately they are. And Cameron looks like someone friendly enough for a normally Lib Dem voter to back.

Look at this way. Whilst you probably wouldn’t leave your kids with Cameron, you’d be happy for them to be in the same room as the Tory leader. You wouldn’t say the same thing about leaving them in a room with Gordon Brown. You’d be afraid that he might tear them apart with his teeth to make an obscure point about austerity or something. Cameron looks, in an era where marketing and PR is more important than ever, like someone who isn’t a threat.

Which renders Nick Clegg, whose sole selling point is that he is young and non-threatening, completely pointless. He is leading a party who struggle to clearly identify themselves at the best of times, and often fall back on the personality of their leader to distinguish themselves from the two main parties. With Clegg they can’t do that. As limited as Cameron’s ability might be, he is at least more capable than Nick Clegg.

Had Vince Cable run, then the Lib Dems might actually have had a leader capable of leading and someone who could have positioned them in a way that make them distinct from the two main parties. But he didn’t, and the Lib Dems elected Calamity. Which means they have a leader who is, to all intents and purposes, a waste of time.

The ironies are almost breathtaking, given the party itself is arguably a waste of time.

*Picture via the BBC.

Asbestos - That'll learn 'em!

From a report about the presence of asbestos in the Palace of Westminster:

"We became aware of significant dangers and risks to the health and safety of persons not only gaining access and working in the risers and ducts but generally to all persons within the Palace of Westminister (sic)."

MPs* have significant risks to their health and safety? I don’t believe in karma, but if I did, I can’t help but think many members of Parliament have recently earned significant risks to their health…

*I appreciate this is also a worry to staff and visitors at the Palace of Westminster – of course, they have my sympathy.

Post of the Day

From the archives of the frankly loopy Dirty European Socialist (tag line: I LIKE POLITICS):

Tebitt said get on your bike. What if you have no bike.
He did not think of that did he. What if you have no shoes or no money? We have to have a welfare state so people can get back on gear.
The government should provide opportunities for people.

We have to assume he is talking about Norman Tebbit, but spelling is not one of Dirty European Socialist's strengths. And presumably he is talking about this comment Tebbit made about his father:

I grew up in the 30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot; he got on his bike and looked for work and he kept looking 'til he found it.

I'm not sure whether DES is being intentionally obtuse or is just a fucking moron, but he seems to have missed the point of Tebbit's comment, which is about being pro-active when trying to find work. Whether you have a bike or not is irrelevant. Tebbit was banging on about taking responsibility for your own actions. Although such concepts as taking responsibility and ownership for your own actions and life may well be alien to the type of trogg who proudly adopts the moniker of Dirty European Socialist.

Still, we get an insight into the mind of a simple socialist. I can imagine DES's campaign slogan if he ever won power. "Bicycles for all under the Dirty European Socialist!" Yeah, that'll sort everything out!

What a colossal chopper.

Derek Draper

The Labour party have found the answer to all of their problems. In the (highly unlikely) form of Derek Draper. Draper is a Nu Labour drone turned psychotherapist who is now going to help Labour on a voluntary basis. What can he bring to the Nu Labour table, I hear you ask?

Draper, whose psychotherapy website describes him as "experienced at treating emotional and psychological issues including: self-esteem, personal development, depression, anxiety, addictions, self-harm, personality problems and family and relationship concerns", will advise Labour on how to win the next election.

Not so sure, if his boasts are to be believed, that he would be best served helping Labour win the election. In fact, if he is a decent psychotherapist, his main focus should be on helping the increasingly insane Prime Minister get through the day.

Anyhoo, the man who has employed Draper (albeit on an unpaid basis) has this to say about his hiring:

"To help with all this I have asked Derek Draper to work with me on a voluntary part-time basis ... Derek ... will be assisting me in thinking through where we need to go organisationally to ensure our campaigning in the next few years matches our past best. I believe we can achieve this goal, despite our financial challenges, if all sections of the party work together."

The problem, of course, is getting all sections of the party to work together. And I rather suspect it will take more than just Draper to make that happen.

After all, who would want to work together with Gordon Brown?

Twat.

The Futureheads - Hounds Of Love

...with the version by the not widely known indie band The Futureheads. And then guess which one scored higher in the "UK singles chart."

Kate Bush - Hounds of Love

Compare and contrast the famous Kate Bush's version of her song "Hounds of Love"...

Oliver Stone's W

Actor Josh Brolin has been arrested for being in a fight in a bar.

Of course, that isn't what I am going to comment on. An actor being arrested for a fight in a bar is not an exciting news story. It is about as groundbreaking and new as a footballer being arrested for rape. Or a politician being accused of corruption. Stories such as this are deeply predictable and almost beyond tedious. They are the staple diet, the very backbone of the 24/7 media cycle.

What did strike me is the fact that Mr "Bar Fighter" Brolin is the:

"...star in Oliver Stone's new film about George W Bush... The Times of Shreveport newspaper said the others arrested were also working on the film, called W."

Really? Oliver Stone's new film about George W. Bush? Called W?! Well, that's going to be neutral, isn't it? Fuck me, Stone will be in his element with a film about Dubya. I wonder whether he will abandon all attempts to make the film even-handed and go with a brutal hatchet job. I wonder whether Stone will actually go the whole hog and put devil horns onto the head of Dubya in every single scene he appears in?

Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of George W. But there is a lot of interesting history in the past eight years of US politics. And there is a great story to be told in how Dubya's simple worldview helped to make the world into an even more complicated mess than it was when he came to power. It is a story that should be told after Bush has left power, after the dust has settled a little bit. And it is a story that should be told by someone other than hysterical liberal and demented conspiracy theory nut Oliver Stone.

A Well-deserved Honour

Well, this should wind up the left-wing when it happens.

*Chuckles heartily*

Sympathy for the PM?

Any regular readers of this blog will know that I am not a massive fan of Gordon Brown. In fact, I despise the man with a passion that sometimes surprises even me. And one of the wonderful things about modern politics is I know I am not alone in this feeling of deep malice towards our unelected PM. However, Gordo seems to have found an unlikely ally in a former Prime Minister. No, it isn’t Blair coming to Gordo’s rescue – I still think Blair hates Brown as much as amoebic dysentery – but rather Sir John Major is giving some grudging support to the PM:

“Former Conservative prime minister Sir John Major has said he feels "human sympathy" for Gordon Brown.”

Presumably Major means he is feeling sympathy as a human for Gordo, rather than Gordo is a human deserving sympathy. Because Gordon isn’t human. Oh no, I rather suspect he is a malicious demon goblin from the deepest bowels of Hell. But Major offers further reasons for feeling bad for our demon goblin friend in Number 10:

"He has been doing an extremely difficult job in extremely difficult circumstances… For a long period he had an extraordinary ride and was praised more than he deserved. I think perhaps he's being blamed more than he deserves. Perhaps these things even out."

Ignoring the startling scenario of John Major invoking basic karma, let’s look at what he has actually said. Now, I think we can all agree that Gordon got far more praise that he deserved when he was Chancellor – although with this track record any praise whatsoever is more than he deserved. And now, maybe, he is being blamed more than he should be. But there is still one motherfucking load of shit that can be laid directly at the door of the dour drip. The difficult circumstances may not have been entirely his own fault, but so many of the problems that have befallen Gordon are entirely down to him and him alone.

I know why Major has been quoted here, and why his irritating yet ultimately innocuous comments have been made into news. After all, the lazy journalistic perception is Major is just like Brown. Except, he isn’t. He really, really isn’t. Major was elected in a three-way contest by his MPs. He took his party to a (startling) victory in the 1992 General Election. He screwed up the economy in one gigantic – and utterly avoidable – fuck-up in 1992. And then he worked hard to rebuild the economy so when he handed it over to Nu Labour in 1997, it was in a strong enough position to withstand a decade of slow, Nu Labour acidic attrition.

Brown, on the other hand, was elected by precisely no-one. He flunked the chance to fight an election that he might win. He presided over the slow decline of the British economy for a decade, and now is sitting there panicking as recession grows ever more likely. For every problem faced by Britain, there is no sense that Brown is working to improve things. The solution to every problem is to ask the British people to sacrifice further, whilst that bloated pestilent sore of a Prime Minister gorges himself at banquets and lives comfortably off the taxpayers. Major may have been a poor Prime Minister, but he was one fuck of a lot better than Brown is proving himself to be.

And there is another reason why it is far easier to feel sympathy for Major. You get the impression that Major – as spineless, weak-willed and devoid of charisma as he might appear to be – was at least a nice guy. He wanted to do well for his country, he genuinely thought what he was doing was right. Brown, however, exudes this awful arrogance that suggests he is completely devoid of humility and feels he deserves the title of Prime Minister. That is combined with a gnawing self-pity and hatred for others when things don’t go right for him. Major comes across as a nice guy, Brown comes across as anything but.

As I read Major’s words, the thought occurs that he isn’t talking about Brown when he mentions “difficult circumstances” and “human sympathy” – he is talking about himself. And I don’t think Brown – the egregious cunt that he is – deserves even an iota of sympathy. Rather, he deserves to be punched in the face with a brick until his jowly, Droopy-esque cheeks become mashed into his skull and the desiccated, malfunctioning calculator that Brown calls a brain stops working once and for all.

Davis wins a battle, not the war

David Davis won; hardly a surprise given his opponents included the Church of the Militant Elvis. But what does his victory actually mean?

To the Labour party, it means nothing. Tony McNulty, a Home Office minister, stated that it was:

"...a vain stunt that became and remains a farce."

Which may be the way forward for any new by-election faced by the Labour party. Avoid crushing defeat by not participating. A bit like the posh kid with the expensive football who confiscates it from all the other kids in the playground and refuses to play because his team isn't winning.

Of course they miss the point that this by-election was fought on a point of principle. But then again, they never were going to understand that, were they? Principles for the Labour party is first and foremost a chain of dubious clothes stores.

Moving on, David Davis is obviously pleased that 17,113 people voted for him. I'm not surprised -the failure of having a credible opponent meant he very easily could have ended up with precisely no-one voting for him. Apparently this victory sends a:

"...stunning message to the government".

It certainly shows that there is not a bedrock of support for Labour policies - which hopefully the party already knew.

This is a far more interesting comment:

"We have fired a shot across the bows of Gordon Brown's arrogant, arbitrary and authoritarian government."

Particularly when backed up by this:

He said he would return to Westminster on Monday with a mandate "to fight Gordon Brown's vision of Big Brother Britain tooth and nail, to stop 42 days in its tracks, to prevent the disaster of ID cards before it happens, to protect our personal privacy from being ransacked by the ever-intrusive state".

Which, for me, is the point. This by-election was part point of principle, part stunt. It captured the public imagination, and Davis deserves his victory. But 42 days detention was still passed by the government. This by-election victory is not going to stop Brown et al from continuing to rape our civil liberties and crush freedom at every available opportunity. This must be the start of a campaign for civil liberties in the UK - not the end of it.

And the interesting moment will happen after the next General Election, when the Tories come to power. Whilst the Tories are instinctively less dictatorial than the Nu Labour control freaks, they still instinctively believe that a Tory led state is the answer to most problems. And when faced with terrorism, when faced with stabbings and other crimes, they will have to fight the instinct to eat away at our freedom in a desperate attempt to implement populist policies. Don't see the Tories as being the best people to fight for freedom in this country - after all, one of the first policies of the most recently elected Tory was to restrict freedom under the banner of fighting crime.

So that will be the challenge for David Davis - when his own party starts restricting freedom, how strong will his principles prove to be?

Prime Minister Heathcliff

Apparently some people look at our Prime Minister and see the Wuthering Heights character Heathcliff. An interviewer stated:

"Some women say you remind them of Heathcliff".

To which Gordo replied:

"Maybe an older Heathcliff, a wiser Heathcliff".

You can understand why Gordon might want to be compared to Heathcliff. It is probably better for his no doubt shattered self-esteem to be Heathcliff rather than Stalin. Or indeed, Mr Bean. But actually the comparison might not be as complimentary as Gordon thinks it is. Let's look at who Heathcliff actually is, courtesy of the sometimes accurate Wikipedia:

Heathcliff is often regarded as an archetype of the tortured Romantic Byronic hero whose all-consuming passions are powerful enough to destroy both himself and those around him.

And:

Heathcliff... is characterised as a passionate, dark, brooding and vindictive man.

Actually, looking at some of those descriptions, they seem to sum up Gordon Brown quite well. And we should be so glad our Prime Minister can best be compared to a psychotic, depressed and (self-)destructive monster from a bleak novel...

Justifying the Snouts in the Trough

DK has picked a fight with a Labour MP I’ve never heard of – Kerry McCarthy. As part of their debate, Kerry has got slightly indignant about the criticisms that are levelled at her over how much she costs. In a comment on her blog she writes:

For all those who constantly raise the expenditure on staff and office costs - would you rather I didn't employ anyone, didn't follow up on casework, didn't have anyone answer the phones or open the door to the hundreds of people who contact me asking me for help or advice each year?

It has reach a point where I'd answer the question with a yes. Which I rather think is not the answer Kerry is looking for, but there we go.

The problem is this – if we were getting value for money from MPs, there wouldn’t be a problem. Seriously, if your average MP was worth the amount of the taxpayers’ money that they cunt away on an annual basis, then I would be fine with them costing you, me and every other poor fucker who pays tax in this country the massive amounts that they *seem* to require. However, the problem is that most people who operate in Parliament are simply lobby fodder; following the whips in the hope that they get promoted further so they can thrust their porcine faces further into the parliamentary trough. You could get a retarded puppy to traipse through the right lobby every now and again for a fraction of the price of an MP.

Now I could be being harsh about Kerry here – for all I know she is a very good MP for her constituents, and they think that she is worth every penny she costs. But I don’t have the time nor the impetus to research Kerry’s record as an MP - after all, I can't use taxes to employ a researcher. But let me take another example. Let’s look at the record of another MP, and see whether they are worth the amount of money that is being spent on them. To pluck a name from the sky…let’s have a look at Gordon Brown.

Last year, Brown claimed £135,525 in expenses. So just to be clear, that is not the full cost of Gordon Brown. It is just how much he claimed in expenses. And what has he achieved in that year? Presided over the economy going down the shitter. Watched as his government has lost the personal data of millions of voters. Gleefully bribed other politicians to rape our civil liberties. And it goes on. And on. Gordon cost over £130k in expenses, and in return just fucked this country up further.

Imagine paying a business - say buying an expensive car, or a cheap house - £130k. The item you buy doesn't work. Not only does it not work, but the person who sold you the item comes round, kicks you in the knackers, says it is your fault and then says now you should do without. You'd be fucking livid. And yet this is what Gordo - and almost everyone in the Commons - is doing. Year in, year out.

And Gordon Brown came 372nd in the cost rankings of MPs. He cost a small fucking fortune to achieve nothing, but he’s not one of the worst ones in terms of expenses.

That’s what people like Kerry don’t understand. I wouldn’t mind spending the money, if we got something back in return. But we don’t. The vast majority of those people in the Commons are there to boost their own egos, and to rip as much money as possible from the taxpayers. That’s why we are pissed off with you, Kerry. That is why we constantly raise expenditure and office costs. It is because we do not trust you, Kerry, and resent having to spend our hard earned money and get nothing back in return.

Insulting Berlusconi

The White House on Silvio Berlusconi:

The White House has apologised to Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi for a briefing describing him as a political "amateur" who is "hated by many".

Presumably, on hearing this news, Mr Berlusconi wandered over to Bush and said "takes one to know one."

Privacy and Max Mosley

When is your private life not private? When it can shift newspapers, of course.

As Max Mosley has found to his cost.

Regardless of what you think about Mosley’s activities, try a spot of empathy for a moment. Imagine it is you, having a sexual encounter that could be construed as embarrassing, paraded across the headlines. Imagine how it must feel to have your intimate moments splashed across the tabloids. Let’s be honest, it wouldn’t be grand for anyone, would it?

And that is exactly what has happened to Mosley. There is no real public value to this story; Mosley’s sex life is his issue and his issue alone. It doesn’t matter whether he likes kinky sex and it doesn’t matter whether or not he likes to dress up as a Nazi. It wouldn’t matter if he liked to dress up as Bobby Davro whilst having a carrot shoved where the sun don’t shine at the same time as furtively jerking off – it should be private to him. As unpleasant as you might perceive someone else’s idea of getting their rocks off might be, as long as it is between consenting adults, it should not matter.

What does intrigue me is the way this story is being reported. Take this article from The Daily Hate. It works quite hard to sound neutral – and no wonder, because if they criticise Mosley directly no doubt they will end up in court as well – but the detail the article goes into is quite striking. I mean, the article is so long that it is broken into sub-headings. There is a level of detail that you just wouldn’t see with a far more important story – like the latest abortion of a policy from Gordon Brown, for example. There is even a picture that details exactly what Mosley has been getting up to. That is quite startling – a daily tabloid publishing a photo of an act that would be described by some as depraved.

There is only one reason why there is so much detail in the article. It is because the readers of the paper want that level of detail. The article is titillation, pure and simple. It is a lurid little story for the readers; a chance to marvel at what other people get up to – and then the opportunity to judge those people. The message is simple from this story – and from other famous people who have had their private lives splashed across the tabloids. You have a right to a private life, just so long as you are not a (even very slight) celebrity or person of interest who has a slightly unconventional sex life. If you are such a person, then your sex life is going to be splashed across the headlines – like it or not.

I don’t know whether this prurient interest in the sex lives of others is curiously British thing or not – although I rather suspect it is. What I do know is that private lives should be private, not fair game for any tabloids trying to shift extra copies of their rags through a sordid little article.

Brown-Bashing: Give him a fitting tribute

San Francisco may be about to give a very fitting tribute to outgoing President George W Bush - naming a sewage plant after good ol' Dubya:

"In President Bush's case, we think that we will be cleaning up a substantial mess for the next 10 or 20 years... The sewage treatment facility's job is to clean up a mess, so we think it's a fitting tribute."

It is a cheap shot, a gimmicky idea with little real world value. But like many such cheap little jokes, it is also very funny.

And, of course, got me thinking about what we could give (hopefully soon to be outgoing) Prime Minsiter Gordon Brown. And after much thought* I think we should go with a dog turd - a pointless, ugly object that just gets in the way and irritates other people. Sure, the dog turd will degrade and ultimately vanish, but that in itself would be a nice metaphor for what should happen to Brown as his administration continues to fall apart and he goes on with his slow drive towards obscurity...

*About 15 to 20 seconds actually...

Doctor Who's Phone Number

In The Stolen Earth a phone number briefly appeared on the screen, claiming to be the Doctor's phone number. In case you are interested it is 07700 900461.

It doesn't work, of course. And no, I haven't tried it. I didn't bother on the grounds that it is unlikely to genuinely be the Doctor's phone number. What with him being a fictional character and all.

And I thought that this would have been obvious for everyone - sadly, this is not the case. A fan is quoted on Sky News as writing:

"Grrr - I phoned the Doctor's phone number but there was just an annoying network message. What's the point in showing a phone number if you're not gonna use it?!"

Sorry, I'm missing something, but what *exactly* did that fan expect to happen when he called the number? The Doctor to answer it, and invite him to join the TARDIS? Maybe Donna Noble could have picked up, and asked the fan out on a date. Or maybe someone offering him a prize for having the initiative to phone a fictional phone number belonging to a fictional character in a fictional TV story. After all, the phone number should have been what the fan noticed more than anything else, what with the Daleks, Davros, the Doctor regenerating etc - that's all to be expected, isn't it?

I'm glad the fan was disappointed. Serve them right for being a lackwitted fucktard with no sense of perspective or reality.

Gordon Brown wants us to stop wasting food. Well, I hope the cunt has mentioned this to John Prescott.

It is funny, isn't it, that Gordon Brown extracts billions from the Great British public each year in unreasoning, unthinking taxation - and yet when there is any problem facing the Great British public, we have to stop doing something, we have to tighten our belts, we have to be more careful with food. Billions of pounds and Gordo's solution to any problem is "well, it is your problem, people, not mine. You do without."

Austerity is never a sexy, successful political policy. Austerity combined with the highest tax bill in history is just an insult. We should be able to look to our (extremely fucking well paid) politicians to solve national problems in a more constructive way than telling us to do with out whilst they stick their corpulent, porcine snouts in the taxpayer funded trough. Because if there is one thing we can do without based on this announcement, it is politicians.

UPDATE:

The Daily Mash has summed up the situation nicely:

GORDON Brown has outlined plans to recapture the political agenda by acting like your old gran.The prime minister is urging people to finish their dinner and reminding them that during the war Britain had to eat mice, tree bark and bits of shoe.

Then they point out the problem with the "gran strategy":

"What Mr Brown fails to realise is that while some people may like their own gran, they absolutely do not like anyone else's, especially if it's a six-foot tall, brooding, Scottish sociopath."

I think they are a little bit nice about Mr Brown, but otherwise the analysis is spot on.

Doctor Who: Journey's End

So it happened. The last episode of the current series of Doctor Who. It came, it went, and consigned us to several Who-less months until the Christmas Special comes (with Cybermen, natch). But was it any good?

It was both stupendous and stupid. Awesome and awful. Clever and crass. Blockbuster entertainment on BBC1 on a Saturday evening that still managed to have a real heart.

On the downside, the story devalued the Daleks. It isolated the Torchwood team and seemed to struggle to find things for all the different characters to do. The Doctor spent a lot of the episode stood still, watching and commentating on the action with Davros - surely the most demented of DVD commentaries ever recorded. And the resolution from that cliffhanger was a cop out. Yes, I know it fueled so much of what happened in the rest of the story. But it was a cop out.

On the flipside, the episode managed to tie up all the loose ends caused by having so may characters in the story very effectively. It showed what Russell T. Davies is best at - the big sci-fi is a diversion; what he wants to tell is the small, character based stories. The tales with real emotion. The tales that hurt and damage, yet develop and grow, his characters.

And finally, Donna's fate was heartbreaking. It is difficult to imagine how her departure from the series could have been worse for the character. And it left the Doctor lost and alone, once again contemplating an empty TARDIS.

But enough already. Enough of these big, The Five Doctors style stories. Yes, The Stolen Earth and Journey's End worked. But they worked because they were big and gimmicky. They worked because they were like a band's greatest hits album. And that is what these episodes were - Russell T. Davies' greatest hits. His last, big hoorah. But the series will change over the next 18 months, and a new showrunner will come to the series. And that is what the series needs now - the smaller, scarier stories of Steven Moffatt. As grand as the season finale was, these sort of stories can only ever happen occasionally.

Journey's End was big, wonderful and stupid. But the future of the series is in being smaller scale, perhaps even less ambitious. But also less gimmicky and, crucially, scarier...

Ray Lewis and The Labour Response

Another day, another resignation from Boris Johnson's mayoral team.

The first one was probably something he could not control. People say stupid fucking things all the time - it is no excuse, though, and Boris was right to boot this guy. However, the scandal around Ray Lewis was entirely avoidable.

Seriously, the allegations relate right back to the 1990's. Was Lewis not vetted? The Tories should have known that there is a problem before Lewis was even offered the job. As unpleasant as it might sound, background checks are part of modern politics, and the Tories should have got to know everything about Lewis before he was offered the job with Mayor Boris.

Because Boris is the most powerful Tory in the country right now. Yes, he is even more powerful than Hug A Husky Cameron. Calm down David, I know that damages your ego and deflates the air of smug complacency and pomposity that has surrounded you for the past year or so, but it is true. Boris Johnson is the most powerful Tory since John Major handed over the keys for Number 10 to Tony Blair. This scandal is the sort of thing that should happen to a Liberal Democrat leadership contender. Not to the most powerful representative of the party who most likely will be in power after the next election. The Tories need to raise their game and sort themselves out.

The Labour reaction to this resignation has been as predictable as it has been hypocritical. Take Hazel Blears:

"People across the country will note that after just two months, the new Tory administration in London is in complete disarray. David Cameron has known Ray Lewis since his first day as Tory leader and Boris Johnson appointed him as deputy mayor days into the job. People will ask themselves: how have they allowed themselves to be embroiled in a mess like this?"

Yep, that is Labour criticising the Tories for being in a mess. It is the pot looking over at the kettle, chuckling slightly, and calling it black. Seriously, Hazel, if you think that the Tories are in disarray, why don't your toddle off to Scotland and look at how the leadership of the Scottish Labour is getting on? Whilst you are north of the border, head over to Glasgow and see how that by-election, in a safe Labour seat, is going. And even if you don't want to head North, go into a Cabinet meeting and watch the Cabinet positioning themselves behind their sinking leader, waiting to jostle for the position of Labour Prime Minister for whatever period of time is left before Labour ceases to be governing this country.

This scandal has shown the Tories to be inept; but they have nothing on the absolute catastrophe that is the Gordon Brown Labour party. So, Hazel, put your own house in order before you carp at others. You chipmunk faced twat.

Robyn Hitchcock - Brenda's Iron Sledge

Hideous jacket and deliberately obtuse lyrics but... somehow, it works.

Dead Man Ruling

More stupidity for a Friday afternoon - this time from the town that has elected a dead man mayor. In an article ripe with stupidity this comment stands out as perhaps the most idiotic:

"I know he died, but I don't want change," one villager told Romanian TV.

Don't want to see negative, but the guy is dead. Change is now going to happen whether the villager likes it or not.

Still, I do have a bit of sympathy for the guy who lost the election - it really says something if people would rather have their village run by the dead rather than by you.

It is Friday, I can't be bothered to write anything intelligent or ranty or both.

Instead I'll go with something silly and childish.

Check out this link - detailing the winner of the 2007 Young Investigator Award. What was the topic that won it? Infertility research. And what was the name of the person who won it?

Cadence Minge.

Perfect.

Wanted*

Last night I went to the cinema to see the film Hancock. For petty reasons that defy understanding, I actually saw Wanted. And what a very mindless film it was too.

Oh, and spoilers ahead.

The film could best be summed up as The Matrix Simplified. The action from The Matrix is kept intact; any of thay messy philosophy or reality bending antics went straight out the window. The film concerns a thousand year old fraternity of assassins (of course!) who have no respect for law and order, each others' well-being or even the laws of physics. They beat the living shit out of each other, and carry out unlikely assassinations from the roofs of trains using bullets that bend because the killers do a funky kung-fu move before they fire their guns. And why do they carry out these assassinations? Because of a loom. Because of a supposed prophesy from a fucking loom. That is not so much unlikely as absolutely insane. How pissed off would you be if someone killed you because of a missed thread from a loom? I for one would be livid, as I spent the rest of eternity stewing in my own rage in whatever passes for the afterlife.

And then there were a whole host of twists and turns, each one less likely but somehow more predictable than the last, to cover the many glaring plot holes and to give Angelina Jolie even more time to pout whilst posing. Then the film thankfully ended.

Every review you read of Wanted that suggests that it is an experience where you should leave your brain at the cinema door is spot on. If you try to think about the plot at all, you'll become irritated and want your money back. If you switch off your brain and simply look at the swirling action like a lobotomised chimp then you'll be fine.

But one final point, before I go back to what this blog should be about**, the message of Wanted seems to be insane in the extreme. It seemed to suggest that unless you were a mass murdering assassin, you are a boring loser who should be judged. Harshly. To give you an example of this, right at the end of the film, the hero breaks the fourth wall and asks the audience accusingly "well, what have you done recently?" And I thought I would answer that question for him.

First of all by detailing everything I haven't done. I haven't told my fat boss to fuck off, before smacking the teeth out of the face of a work colleague's face with a key board. I haven't murdered strangers in unlikely ways based on the prophesies of a fucking loom. I haven't shot my father in the chest as he tries to save my life, nor have I inadvertently caused a train accident that looks like it would have killed hundreds. And I haven't murdered my colleagues with a curious mix of bombs, rats and peanut butter.

What I have done is accidentally watched a tedious film that would have been far better had it not seen fit to patronise me because I lead an ordinary life.

*The right frigging tickets!

**Tedious review of Doctor Who and calling Gordon Brown a cunt, in case you were wondering.

Crime Rejection

Over at Comment Is Free there is a slightly whining article from someone who had an offer for a place at Imperial College withdrawn. And bless the poor little soldier, he did so well at school:

“…imagine my delight in achieving the best GCSE examination results in the history of the school and then going on to get four A-levels all at grade A.”

However, our really not very humble scribe had already had his heart broken:

“It was only a few weeks before receiving my results that Imperial College London wrote to me, withdrawing their offer of a place on their medicine course; the news was devastating.”

And why did those nasty people not take our budding swot on? Oh, he had a criminal conviction:

“I was duped into entering a property - aged 15, it's not hard to make the wrong decision. How I regret not asking more questions when some people who I thought were friends invited me in to their new "chill out pad". Within minutes of entering the property, I was arrested and confined to a police cell for the first time in my life.”

And, despite being duped, he pleaded guilty:

“Despite my innocence, I had no option but to plead guilty to the charge of burglary dwelling - I had to spare my mother the cultural shame of accompanying me through the courts.”

Uh-huh. So our author committed a crime and pleaded guilty to it. That is why Imperial rejected him. Which seems fair enough to me.

The comments section to the article is full of people supporting the would-be doctor, with a few people coming through with (probably very sage) advice like “apply to another university” and “try a different career”. Throughout, though, the tone is that Imperial have done something wrong. Well, frankly they have done nothing wrong at all. It is their choice who they let into their institution, and they have rejected someone on the very reasonable grounds that that person is a convicted criminal.

You’d have to have a heart of stone* not to feel some sympathy for Majid. His crime was a while back now, and he has worked hard both in school and outside of school to make up for what he has done. He seems to have done a fair bit of voluntarily work as well (although that was largely done for self-serving reasons it appears). But I stand by my original assertion – Imperial were perfectly within their rights to reject him.

Imperial will get hundreds, if not thousands, of applications a year. Some of those will be from people who have top grades and who have done lots of work to support their application. And somehow Imperial will have to decide which of those applicants get a place, and which don’t. Basing that on whether people have a criminal record or not seems to me to be a good way of deciding to me.

This is a harsh choice for Majid, but it is based on a shitty choice he made a few years ago. Actually, two shitty choices. First of all, allowing himself to be duped into a burglary, and then for pleading guilty when he believes himself to be innocent.

Some people seem to be suggesting that Majid is a role-model for his community. Well, maybe the rejection from Imperial could be part and parcel of that. Despite his grades and his dedication, he isn’t getting what he so desperately wants. Perhaps the community as a whole could see this story as a clear example of what an impact breaking the law can have on someone’s life – not just the victim (someone not considered really at all in the article, btw) but the criminal as well.

*Contrary to what some of the more misanthropic moments on this blog might suggest, I don’t have a heart of stone.