Attack Ads of Old #2

The infamous Willie Horton Ad that did much to bury Michael Dukakis in his race against George H W Bush. Yep, it is the one that basically says "vote for my opponent if you want a black man with a beard to come round and rape you." This ad was certainly ugly; the terrible thing is, it was also very effective.

Interestingly, Lee Atwater - one of the figures behind this ad - later apologised for all his negative campaigning on his deathbed. Which is all very well, but the charge of too little, too late could really stick in this case.

Attack Ads Of Old #1

LBJ v Goldwater - an ad that says "a vote for my rival is a vote for the apocalypse..."

Vice-President Palin

Well, that was a genuine surprise.

On one hand, it would be a great choice. Palin is female, and likely to appeal to moderate Democrats who favoured Clinton for the Democratic nomination. She is also a Washington outsider; the only candidate on either of the main tickets who is not a Senator.

Yet... she is perhaps the only politician in the US who can make Obama look highly qualified. No-one in the US has really heard of her outside of Alaska. And she will be the one who is a heartbeat away from the presidency, serving under the oldest President in history who has already had serious health problems. Palin could become President if the McCain-Palin ticket wins in November - and are the American people really going to be willing to take the risk with an inexperienced governor of a small, remote state who could end up as President?

Whatever happens, this much is clear - McCain has take a massive gamble with his choice of Vice-Presidential candidate. It is a far bolder choice than Obama's, and I kind of admire that willingness to take a risk. Whether or not this choice will blow up in McCain's face, though, remains to be seen...

Is the PM a Mentalist?

This story has gone into overdrive this week, with Guido openly talking about Brown having mental problems, closely followed by speculation that Guido himself is a mentalist and that the current mental health problems of a former PM might have interesting roots. There is more (and sweary) analysis here and here.

Whatever you might think of Thatcher, or Guido, or about the mental health of any private citizen, you can always fall back on the knowledge that it doesn't really matter. Thatcher may have dementia, Guido may be a drunk - I neither know nor do I care. Brown, however, is a different kettle of fish. Like it or not (and I fall definitely into the latter camp) Brown is PM - he is in charge of this country, and the head of a very demanding and invasive bureaucracy that controls everyone in this country. He is making laws that affect every one of us. And if he is suffering from major mental health issues - if he is having a nervous breakdown - then it could have major problems for the nation as a whole. I don't care whether you think Brown deserves mental health problems or not - if he is a mentalist, then we should all be very, very concerned.

But there is the problem - if. No-one really knows whether he is having a breakdown or not. Even those closest to him might not know whether he is having mental health issues - such is the general ignorance about mental health in this country. We can all speculate, and note some increasingly odd behaviour, but there is no real hard evidence that Brown is mentally unhinged. However, even if he is technically "sane", I'd argue that he is not in the best mental position to be PM.

Think about the position the Prime Minister finds himself in. He has lusted after this role for decades. For pretty much his entire adult life. He has plotted to get it, lost friends to get it. And he has listened to a narrative for over 10 years that he is the one; the man of integrity who is going to save Labour. That, of course, was shite - and now it is clear to everyone, including Brown. The country hates him, his party are despairing of him and the media are going for his jugular - every day he gets evidence that he is utterly shit at the job he has lusted after for so long. Even if he isn't suffering from a mental problem that could be diagnosed, Brown is still in the wrong mindset to be our Prime Minister. He is broken, bitter and angry. He is Britain's answer to Richard Nixon - destroyed by circumstance and paranoid and ineffective as a result.

Which is ultimately why these gossipy questions about his sanity are a distraction from what is important. Regardless of whether it is an issue of mental health or competence or both, Brown is not fit to be Prime Minister. It is that simple.

Quote of the Day - Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton on Barack Obama:

"Everything I learned in my eight years as president and in the work I've done since, in America and across the globe, has convinced me that Barack Obama is the man for this job," the former president said.

Love it. “The right man for the job.” Not the right person, or the best person, but the right man. Even as the Democrats shout to the rafters about their newfound party loyalty, you can still see it, And still feel it - the slight, bitter rancour that the Clinton faction still feel about their defeat. Obama is the right man for the job; they still feel that the best person didn’t win.

Red Ken, Presidential Advisor

Well, he’s got time on his hands so why not?

I’m expecting a squeal of indignant rage from some right wing blogs, but if Red Ken wants to go help Chavez, let him. Any charges that this represents Red Ken showing his true colours are absolutely redundant – he showed his true colours time and time again, during his years in City Hall. Ken's dubious talents will probably be appreciated in an increasingly dictatorial and left wing state - and if this year has shown old Red Ken one thing, it is that his talents are no longer appreciated in this country and in this city.

The Foreign Secretary

BBC news:

Foreign Secretary David Miliband will visit Ukraine later in an attempt to build the "widest possible coalition against Russian aggression".

Does anyone else feel slightly embarrassed when they read about David Miliband prancing about on the international stage? That this dweeb with a lopsided grin, sticking out ears and general charisma of a snail crushed underfoot is our Foreign Secretary? Whenever I see him gurning away on television, a little bit of me dies. I'm very pleased that I seldom actually hear him speak - I think that his nasal whine, more normally associated with sulking teenagers than international statesmen, would be too much for my frayed nerves.

Seriously, what possessed Gordon Brown to put such an awkward individual into such an important position? Did he look around, realise Napoleon Dynamite was busy, and compromise on Miliband? I know that Miliband was a potential rival and that Brown himself is the very definition of awkward - but seriously, Miliband was the best possible option for Foreign Secretary? Couldn't Pob have been drafted into the role instead?

I know that this basically is a personal attack on a politician, but there is a wider problem with having Miliband as Foreign Secretary. He represents Britain on the international stage. He walks shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Condaleezza Rice and Nicholas Sarkozy (who, like all rampant egotists, is effectively doing both the roles of Foreign Secretary and President for his nation). Whatever you think of their politics, does anyone really believe that Miliband has the gravitas to operate with this individuals? Can you imagine him challenging Putin? I can picture Putin talking to Miliband, and then asking himself "who is this pesky child?" before returning to his bumper book of Cold War strategies.

Having Miliband as Foreign Secretary means that not only is Miliband dismissed on an international level, but so is Britain. With the calibre of the current Prime Minister and the curretnt Foreign Secretary, you can guarantee that the UK is being ignored across the world.

The role of Foreign Secretary is one of the most important roles in government. What a shame that it has been given to the political equivalent of Adrian Mole.

Radiohead - Ceremony

Radiohead play one of my favourite songs - Joy Division's/New Order's "Ceremony". Feels more than a bit odd - like Nirvana covering Wire or something. Still, think it just about works...

Burn a Billion

So, the Olympics are over. I am more than a little proud to say I missed the entire thing. All the events, all the guff, all the celebrations. And I feel all the better missing the whole thing.

The only downside to the end of the Olympics as far as I can see is that sinking feeling that next time the Summer Olympics dominate the TV screens, it will also be on just down the road from me. And I just can't wait.

Now, I don't care if people want to hold and watch the Olympics - just as long as there is no obligation for me to watch them. In fact, people can pretty much do what they like, just so long as they are not spunking money stolen - sorry, earned - through the taxpayer up against the wall. And that is my big problem with the 2012 Olympics. The fucking fortune that it is going to cost me and thee.

So I have an alternative. Clearly, the government is determined to spunk billions of pounds away. So we should let them do it. Just do it in a much less time-consuming way. So instead of crippling London with the Olympics - a massive waste of time that London's infrastructure will simply not cope with - let's instead put £1.5 billion in cash in Trafalgar Square. Then, let's douse it with petrol. And then set light to it. Let's literally burn £1.5 billion. If nothing else, it will make for quite a spectacle. It will also create more of a lasting legacy than the Olympics, since we could use the remaining £7.5 billion for something more worthwhile that a glorified school sports day.

Jamie Oliver: The Wisdom of a Moron

The BBC carries this story about Jamie Oliver:

In an interview with Paris Match magazine, Oliver suggested people in the UK cared more about getting drunk than they did about eating well.

Hm. Now, I'm not a massive fan of Jamie Oliver. In fact, my hatred for Jamie Oliver is nearly matched by my hatred for one G. Brown, presently residing in Downing Street, London. And when I read something said or written (no doubt by a ghost writer) by Jamie Oliver, the red mist descends. I disappear into the sort of murderous rage normally associated with Serbian Warlords, or British Prime Ministers seeking a historical legacy through the medium of war. There is just something about that dumb looking mockney cunt that makes me want to punch a hole in my own head.

And hearing Jamie Oliver giving advice about the binge drinking problem in the UK leaves me shaking my head with incredulity. We may as well get Bill Cosby to lecture us on the situation on Iraq. Or Bobby Davro to offer us advice on avoiding recession. Oliver is qualified - barely - to comment on food preparation. Anything else is Oliver over-reaching massively, like a retarded infant reaching for the fireplace.

Now, I'm speaking just for myself here, but I can't help but think that the nation's binge drinking problem might be a much less of an issue if there was some sort of incentive for people to stay in of an evening, rather than going out and getting absolutely shitted on special offer booze. Like, say, something good on the television. Rather than an endless parade of talentless TV chefs like Jamie Oliver patronising viewers into believing they are inferior because they have neither the time not the impetus to spend three hours an evening creating a four course dinner. You know, something like hardcore pornography or midgets fighting each other over a steak dinner might be more fun, more educational and more likely to make people stay in with a cup of tea than the latest half-baked culinary "crusade" from Jamie Oliver.

However, whilst I despise Oliver's inane, idiotic dribblings, I will concede it is not his fault. He talks shite; but that will happen if you give a moron a microphone to spout into and a platform to spout from. No, the reason why I hate Jamie Oliver is what he stands for. He is living, breathing, grinning proof that in this day and age, the idiot with the telegenic smile has somehow become worth listening to. Rather than tutting at, and ignoring. The age of the experts is gone; now the general populace seems happy to take advice from a gurning fool simply because of a very minor celebrity.

We need to move on from this ridiculous age when the likes of Oliver are not only encouraged to pontificate, but have their words reported as newsworthy and something approaching the truth. Because Jamie Oliver is about as qualified as my good self to offer advice on binge drinking. And my advice is very different to that of Oliver - I say get pissed whenever you can. Go on, get on it now. Drink until you are utterly fucked. Go the whole hog, and have a bit of a spew at the end. Oh, and if you listen to me you are just as moronic as if you listen to Oliver's advice on anything other that "tukka" - a total tool.

The reason why I would consign Jamie Oliver to Room 101 (and the Orwellian vision of Room 101, not the tedious British TV show version) is not so much because of his personality - although Lord knows his personality makes my teeth ache and my tear ducts bleed. No, the reason why I despise Oliver is because of what he stands for - in the kingdom of the dumb, the fat tongued TV chef is king.

Vice-President Biden

So, Senator Joe Biden is Obama's choice for Vice-President. A man who memorably dropped out of a run for the Presidency over 20 years ago for stealing from a speech by... Neil Kinnock. And he has been added to the ticket by Obama to add political weight. Sheesh. Still, at least Obama didn't cave into pressure and go for the Clinton option.

Right now, it is tempting to go for the historical parallels. And just as many look at Obama and see JFK, so you could look at Biden and see LBJ. A respected, capable and experienced Senator added to a ticket to balance a more photogenic but far less experienced Senator. And on some levels, Obama and Biden might want history to repeat itself. After, the JFK/LBJ ticket won. But that is probably where they would like the historical precedents to stop. After all, JFK was gunned down allowing LBJ to become a briefly popular president, before being utterly destroyed and discredited by the Vietnam War.

Of course, Biden also reminds me of someone else - this time a fictional character. Namely, Chief of Staff Leo McGarry in The West Wing - a hugely influential figure in the Democrats chosen to balance the ticket of the far less experienced Matt Santos. Which is hardly surprising, given who Matt Santos was based on. But again, this comparison might not offer Biden a lot of comfort, given the eventual fate of McGarry in the final season...

One house, 7 houses, it is all the same

John McCain on that difficult business of remembering how many properties he owns:

"I think ... I'll have my staff get to you"

Fair enough. I mean, it is a tough question and we all struggle to answer it from time to time. Think about it; how many properties do you own?

Oh… so you do know. Hang on, yes, it is easy to remember. Unless you are fabulously wealthy and own multiple properties.

Seriously, this could be really damaging for McCain. He has painted himself as the down to earth candidate – one of the people – unlike that elitist Obama. His general attitude and demeanour have helped him to build up a lot in common with the electorate. What will lose him that support from the man on the street is the revelation that McCain doesn’t know how many houses he owns. This revelation is even more damaging when you consider that, at the moment, people are struggling to keep their own single homes. Yes, McCain has a right to own as many homes as he likes and spend his fortune in any way he likes. But to not even know how many homes he has. That reeks of political incompetence and arrogance that undermines his claim to be a man of the people.

But, as it stands, this only *could* be damaging for McCain. Politicians have screwed up before in their quests for the White House and their campaigns have survived. Whether or not this really screws McCain up is down to the response of the Obama campaign. Early indications show that Obama is prepared to use it – but whether it becomes a millstone around McCain’s wrinkled neck comes down to whether Obama truly has a killer instinct

"Britishness" Day

This has been comprehensively covered off elsewhere, but I thought I would throw in my thoughts as well. Yes, the August Bank Holiday - that last burst of freedom before the long slog to Christmas - is under threat from the government. They are going to turn it into a Britishness day:

The August bank holiday could be turned into a "Great British weekend" that would allow people permission to celebrate everything they like about the country, and help frame the "progressive case for controlled immigration".

One of the things I like about this country is that on the August Bank Holiday I can decide what I fucking do. Not my employer and certainly not the fucking government. And I suspect I am not alone in this. Although the polls might suggest otherwise:

“In a speech today Liam Byrne, the immigration minister, will set out the proposals drawing on Home Office research which shows public support for a Britishness day running at two to one… He will admit he encountered some opposition to the British weekend proposal when he floated the idea a year ago with Ruth Kelly, then communities secretary. He will point to suspicion of authority and sponsored celebrations as well as concern at who would foot the bill as factors for this suspicion. But according to the Home Office poll 51% of respondents favoured the idea and 21% were opposed.”

Yes, but what exactly did they favour? Having a Britishness day? Or being forced by the government to give up a Bank Holiday in order to participate in a state enforced Britishness Day? Because I suspect that the latter will be somewhat less popular than the former. Even the most patriotic of Brits would think twice before giving up one of their precious Bank Holidays – for the rest of us, this idea just comes across as invasive, ill thought out and really, really fucking dumb.

Now, there are often complaints that right-wing bloggers complain a lot about stuff, but never really offer solutions. So I’m going to piss on that complaint by offering Liam Byrne a solution. How about using a Britishness Day (St George’s Day would be a popular choice judging by the endless petitions that go around as we near that particular Saint’s day) to give everyone an extra day off? So, Britishness Day is an extra Bank Holiday. And on Britishness (and I am not sure that is even a real word, but hey ho) Day, we can chose whether or not we want to celebrate being British. And we can chose how to celebrate Britishness – be it a street party, a spot o’ binge drinking, sitting around in our pants watching bad films on the TV, or burning effigies of Gordon Brown. So instead of the government hi-jacking a precious Bank Holiday and forcing people to do what they believe is a celebration of being British, they could appear Democratic and generous.

Ha! Like that is ever going to fucking happen!

*************************************************************************************

The Guardian article has another great quote in it:

"British people in essence want no more of newcomers than four commitments: to learn English, to work hard and pay taxes, to follow the law and to make an effort to integrate. That does not sound over the top, chauvinist or reactionary."

Yep, absolutely. I expect that of “newcomers”. I also expect it of the people who already live in this country although sometimes it appears as if the “newcomers” actually make more of an effort to learn English, work hard/pay taxes, follow the law and make an effort to integrate than the people born in this country…

James - Just Like Fred Astaire

North Korea: The Nightmare Society

A new book highlights some of the extreme, awful crimes being committed in this day and age in North Korea. It talks of arbitrary, state sponsored murder. It talks about the murders of the disabled. It talks about eliminating others considered to be substandard by the state:

Even short people were not safe, Professor Kim says. The government gave out pamphlets to thousands of people in Pyongyang describing a wonder drug that would raise their height. Instead "they were sent away to different uninhabited islands in an attempt to end their 'substandard' genes from repeating in a new generation. Left for dead, none of the people made it back home."

Murdering people for being short sounds like satire; yet this is actually happening. We tut at America for Gitmo, we shake our heads at Russia for invading Georgia and yet there is a nation in Asia that is systematically destroying and utterly shaft their own population using a brutal and dictatorial regime. I haven't got the first clue about what can be done about North Korea - a society that is one of the most militarised in the world and may possess nuclear weapons. But the smell of pungent hypocrisy is overwhelming when you consider the ongoing talk about an "ethical foreign policy" against the godawful brutality of regimes like this.

H/T: Link emailed to me by the Moai.

Gary Glitter: The Worst Man In History. Ever. Bar No-one.

I am inclined to agree with the Devil on this one:

Unpleasant though he may be, I have to say that I have found the constant hounding and lurid reporting of Gary Glitter's release and subsequent attempts to go... well... anywhere, extraordinarily fucking distasteful.

Quite. Glitter committed a horrific crime. He has served his time, and he is now a free man. He shouldn’t be hounded to the ends of the earth by the media and by the Home Secretary.

But there will be those who argue that Glitter is still a danger, and may pose a threat to other children. But here’s an idea – a crazy, almost lunatic idea - that just might work: how’s about parents take some responsibility for their spawn and don’t let their kids near him? After all, he couldn’t be any more distinctive*:


This pathetic paranoia about paedophiles would be hilarious if it were not so obtrusive and ineffectual. Constant headlines about the freakish Gary Glitter are not going to achieve anything other than shifting copies of tabloid rags to the hysterical masses. The simple fact is that child abuse is a problem – but creating bogeymen such as Gary Glitter merely hide the fact the most likely perpetrator of child abuse is likely a family member or a friend of the family.

So leave Glitter alone to find a rock to crawl under. He’s served his time; he is known internationally as a monster. He’s been punished for what he did by prison, and will be continued to be punished by his odious reputation. The shrill hectoring of the tabloid press is as unnecessary as it is distasteful.


*Picture via The Daily Mail - your one stop shop for hysterical, hate-filled nonsense!

Fear of Flying and Madrid, 20.08.08

I’ve written before about my fear of flying; needless to say, it has not gone away. However, my new job does require a bit of flying, and in just over a year I have had to fly 14 times. So whilst I am still terrified of the whole crazy activity, now I am more numb to it than proactively shitting myself throughout the entire flight. I’ve even managed to reduce the number of pints I have to consume before I can even consider getting on a plane from four to two. Which is great news – partly because of the impact on my liver, and also because it doesn’t mean that I have to sit, cross legged, gagging for a piss throughout take-off.

I flew back to the UK yesterday after a few days abroad from work and expected the flight to be just about tolerable. Things appeared to be less good when I got into the taxi, and there was a lot of talk about the Madrid plane crash. The driver helpfully flicked the radio station. To another radio station that was broadcasting a report about the plane crash. And so it went on. For a long drive in the taxi (owing to the massive traffic jam) I got to listen to reports of death and destruction in the Spanish Capital. Even after I started listening to my MP-3 Player, I could hear the reports in the background. British Sea Power and The Arcade Fire against the backdrop of a major aviation disaster as I was being driven to the airport. It was, if you can pardon my French and my sarcasm, Pretty Fucking Special.

At the airport, I swiftly consumed a couple of pints, and made my way to the Boarding Gate. The plane was, inevitably, a little bit delayed. But that wasn’t a problem. I mean, I hate sitting on a plane waiting for it to take off. But it was much less of a problem than the person sat on the same row as me by the window.

He looked like a typical business traveller. His behaviour, however, wasn’t typical. He sat down, and started fiddling with his seat. He then started shaking the armrests, as if he was seeing how strong the chair was. After five minutes, a member of the Cabin Crew approached him and asked him to move – as he had managed to sit in the wrong seat. He point blank refused, and seemed to get slightly aggressive when challenged. Fortunately for the steward but unfortunately for me, the passenger whose seat he was in didn’t mind swapping.

Then, as we were about to take off, he started tapping on the window, like an irritating autistic. It was off putting. It was more than off putting. It was, given the circumstances, terrifyingly odd behaviour. I wasn’t sure whether he was testing to see how strong the window was, or whether he was trying to communicate with some sort of imagined gremlin that he was seeing on the wing. He spent a good ten minutes tapping at the window with increasing ferocity. It was reaching a point where I thought I should ask him whether he was ok – but I had no idea how to broach the subject with a man who appeared to be the very definition of mentalist. Fortunately, the man very suddenly fell asleep. And slept for the rest of the flight.

He only really woke up as we were landing. He looked out the window, and seemed faintly aggrieved to be awake again. As if to emphasise this grievance, he went back to sleep. He woke up again as the plane was taxiing towards the terminal. Actually, he was awoken again as the plane was taxiing towards the terminal by the shrill ring of his mobile (which had evidently been on throughout the flight). He answered his phone with a indignant “hello”. Evidently he got no reply, because he hung up his phone and then stared at the display for a moment. Then he peered around him, looking accusing and angry as if he was trying to work out which of his fellow passengers had woken him up by calling his mobile and then hanging up. Realising that no one was returning his glance, he elected instead to rest his head on the seat in front of him like a drunk sleeping against a wall in a train station.

And it was about then that the doors opened, and I was able to get the hell away from that fucking plane and that fucking freak. But as I charged through Gatwick, desperate to get my bag and away from the frigging airport, I was more than a little conscious that my fear of flying had got a lot worse over the course of that day.

I suppose the moral of the story is this – you can’t do anything to stop the reporting of plane disasters. They are tragedies that need to be reported. What you can do, as a passenger on an aircraft, though, is have some empathy for the other passengers on your flight. And with that in mind, it would be best for the sake of everyone on the flight if you didn’t behave like a total cunt.

Prescott On Self-Delusion

Via Mr Eugenides, I see that John Prescott is making a TV programme.

The BBC2 programme, with the working title Prescott On Class, will be a "thought-provoking and very personal exploration of the current state of the British class system" in which the former ship's steward "grapples with political apathy, middle-class syntax snobbery and the wealth gap in modern Britain".

Well that should be a hoot, shouldn't it?

I think we could rephrase the summary, though. Prescott On Class will not be thought provoking; it will be a personal exploration of why everyone hates John Prescott, during which he will blame the class system in the UK. And miss the point that the reason why everyone hates Prezza is because he is a corpulent, obese, ignorant fucking incompetent bastard who sponged off the taxpayer for the best part of a decade doing nothing other than gorging at the taxpayer's and then chucking that food back up in the most unlikely case of bulimia in the history of the human race.

The hatred that I, and many other people in this fair land, feel for John Prescott has nothing to do with class. It is down to the fact that he is, quite simply, gross. Although I would be surprised if that ends up being the conclusion of Prescott On Class...

Big Mouth Strikes Again - The Smiths

He's Back!

So, Gordon Brown is back from his holiday.

*Shudders*

The BBC notes that:

"...the prime minister could be forgiven for having a worse case of post holiday blues than the rest of us. His in-tray is bleak."

Good. Fucking good. The guy is a fucking penis of the highest order, I want his in-tray to be bleak. Hell, I want every part of his life to be bleak. Because he is a morose, misanthropic, incompetent, failed, glowering shit bag of a man. This country would have been better off electing the fucking Child Catcher as Prime Minister. Oh, except, hang on - we didn't elect Brown. He decided he wanted the job and therefore stole it from the elected Prime Minister.

However, this comment about the poll ratings made me smile and think:

"(The polls) might have nudged up by one point since last month, but it's Labour's worst rating in August since the 1980s."

So, with the Prime Minister on holiday, the poll ratings go *up*.

But I don't think this would be just for the PM. I'd imagine the popularity of politicians in general will go up when they are on holiday. And not actually doing anything. Sure, the majority of people will still hate them because they live a life of luxury at the expense of others, but at least we don't have to sit through them foisting patronising, intrusive and unpleasant laws on us whilst they are sunning their flabby bodies on the beach.

Parliament being in recess is a holiday not just for the parasites, but also for the politically aware. I've enjoyed the past few weeks, when there have been no new crass bills to rant against. But mark my words, the rage and indignation will rise again as soon as the MPs get back to their busy work of trying to justify their frankly massive costs through commenting on and trying to legislate in areas they are not qualified in and do not understand. We've got another Brown relaunch coming; make no mistake, it will involve a whole host of crappy crap. No doubt there will be plans to save the nation through reducing pie-eating. And installing cameras in every toilet bowl in the country, to guarantee hygiene or something. We can expect another all out assault on booze, cigarettes, fatty foods - pretty much on everything. And the only thing the government won't touch is the economy. And why would they? After all, the economy is only in freefall!

Brown et al will always be more popular when they are on holiday. I can't be alone in thinking that they should see what the polls are telling them, and take an extended holiday. It's recommend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year for them. It would make them more popular and do a hell of a lot less damage to this country if they simply never came back to work.

BarackBook

Ladies, Gentlemen, I give you BarackBook.

Now, I'm not one hundred percent convinced that it is as funny or as clever as it thinks it is, but it does at least represent the Republicans going with something approaching gentle satire. Rather than vicious, personal jibes. Although if you click into some of the *friends*, it does get quite near to the bone.

What does make me smile is the comment at the bottom:

Paid for by the Republican National Committee. Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate's Committee.http://www.gop.com/

Copyright 2008 Republican National Committee

BarackBook.com is a parody of Facebook.com

I'm pretty sure that John McCain genuinely didn't authorise this site. After all, given his knowledge of the internet, he probably doesn't know what Facebook is.

Brown v. Miliband

Apparently, Labour's problems are just down to Gordon Brown:

When people were asked to choose the best prime minister between Cameron and Brown, or Cameron and Miliband, the Tory leader beat both men by the same 21% margin.

To anyone with half a brain cell, this should be obvious. Brown is not the problem, he just acts as a figurehead of the problem and a lightning rod for the rage people now feel towards Labour. The reason why people prefer Cameron is because they are utterly sick of Nu Labour. Sick to death of over a decade of broken promises, empty spin, preening ministers, endemic corruption, gross incompetence and blatant theiving from the people by the treasury. Brown isn't the problem; he just personifies it at the moment. And whoever you put at the head of the Labour government will come to personify that problem. People are tired of the arrogant, patronising and utterly crass Nu Labour.

Supporters of other possible contenders in a Labour leadership contest, including Harriet Harman, Alan Johnson and Jon Cruddas, will view the poll as demonstrating that Miliband cannot portray himself as an instant solution to Labour's electoral woes.

Of course Miliband isn't the answer to their electoral woes! Seriously, what the fuck? That geeky, gormless man who still looks like a bullied school boy despite holding one of the most important roles in the UK government? He's the answer to your problems? Fuck me, if you seriously think that Miliband - a man who can't physically grin and mistakes a toothy gurn for a smile - is the answer to your electoral woes, then you are absolutely fucking fucked.

The real answer to Labour's electoral woes is a good decade in opposition, so people can forget how bad they really are and grow to hate the other party again. After all, it has worked for the Tories.

And if anything, Labour should be happy about this poll. Because it shows that what they need to turn around their electoral woes is coming. After the next election, they will get to begin their long spell in opposition...

So, you're at a hotel. Strange city, perhaps you've never been there before. Obviously, you want to go and have a look around and get to know wherever you are staying. One thing I would advise you do, though, is look out of your hotel room window. See what is opposite. And if there is a building opposite - say, an office block - then for the love of Jesus close your curtains before you get changed.

Don't make me tell you again!

A wonderful headline from The Guardian:

Russia warned: withdraw from Georgia, or else

The phrasing is great. It reminds me of an angry parent with a reluctant child. “Look Russia, I’ve already told you once, and I am not going to tell you again! Pull out of Georgia or else! I’m serious! Stop bloody laughing at me! Why you… Don’t make me come down there!”

Of course, that isn’t quite what has been said:

Nicolas Sarkozy of France threatened the Kremlin with an ultimatum for the first time, warning that more delays in a pullout "would have serious consequences on relations between Russia and the European Union".

Putin, with his massive army, huge supplies of oil and massive arsenal of nuclear weapons, must be shitting bricks after Sarkozy’s threat. He must be crying himself to sleep every night. Probably crying with laughter, mind, rather than with fear.

The world needs to redress how it deals with Russia. The invasion of Georgia is illegal an unacceptable, but there is precisely fuck all that anyone can do about it. Russia is a sleeping giant showing the first signs of awaking. It will probably do something very similar to the Georgian adventure very soon, and will continue to do so until it encounters a foe that really fucks with them – just as the Soviet Union did when it invaded Afghanistan. In the meantime, the rest of the world should stop this inane posturing. Unless the EU, or the US, or whoever wants to get aggressive with Russia, all this talk of “serious consequences” means the square root of fuck all. Let’s cut the bullshit. Any real attempts to restrict the Russian behemoth will lead to, at best, a Cold War. At worst, the consequences are unthinkable.

More People Than Swansea

Via Open Europe, I see that the EU now employs more people than the UK army:

In total there are far more people working for the EU (170,000) than in the UK army (107,000).

That's good. I mean, the EU needs to employ more people than the UK army. The UK army does next to nothing, aside from fighting in hostile war zones under great pressure. The EU, however, has a vast, monolithic and basically unaccountable bureaucracy to run. I know which one I would want to employ more people.

Open Europe also notes another interesting stat:

Swansea, for instance, has roughly the same number of inhabitants as the EU employs.

I went to Swansea once for a night out. Waiting at the bus stop having waded through McDonalds wrappers to get there, surrounded by people who believe binge drinking is not just a right but a duty every Saturday was pretty fucking special. However, I think there is a case to be made for making the inhabitants of Swansea the people who run the EU. After all, the decision they make could hardly be any more arbitrary, pointless and intrusive than the current employees of the EU manage.

Quote of the Day - Anthony Burgess on the State

"But think - the State is only an instrument. Everything depends on who has control of that instrument, which can so easily be transformed into a weapon. It's unwise to assume, even with our heightened wariness of tyranny, a continuation of a tradition of liberalism. A new Hitler could arise in Europe and be overjoyed by a civil service thinking in the old terms of restraint and democratic rights. Undoubtedly the computers of the new world will have Jews neatly listed, as well as dangerous intellectual free-thinkers."

Batsui v. The Dark Knight

Watch this video after you have seen the new Batman movie. And marvel at just how far Batman has come as a fictional character...

Quote of the Day!

Those of you who read Devil's Kitchen will probably be aware of Dirty European Socialist - a curious mix of internet troll and illiterate moron. I'm not quite sure what to make of DES - sometimes I think he is just a fuck ignorant dick. Other times I believe he must be a spoof - a piece of political performance art that is deliberately trying to be as outrageous and mindlessly cliched as possible. After reading this comment, I rather think DES is the latter:

The tories will not win. The evil slave trading tories must never win another election,. It is obviius to even the biggest fool, Thta if the tories win they will back slavery and kill all balcks.

Even the most passionate Labourite surely can't see the Tories as "slave trading" and believe that they will "kill all balcks"... If DES is a parody, then it is quite a funny parody. If DES is real, then he/she/it needs sectioning...

Libertarian, Not Tory

Let’s settle this once and for all. The Tories and not Libertarians. Libertarians are not Tories. In the same way that an aardvark is not an ape. They are different – instinctively and ideologically. Any Libertarian currently supporting the Tories is going to end up massively disappointed. The next Tory government will be just as quick as Nu Labour to suppress freedom, just in different ways.

The Tories have got some support from Libertarians simply because they are less dictatorial than the Labour party. That doesn’t mean that the Tories are Libertarian. The main link between Libertarians and the Tories is a hatred for Gordon Brown and contempt for Nu Labour. Well, I predict that after a few months of Prime Minister Cameron, the Libertarians will be united with Labour with their dislike of the incumbent government.

There are differences between Labour and the Tories. The former like to restrict economic freedom, believing that total control of the economy will lead to increased fairness (whereas it leads to stagnation) and also want to catalogue their populations (through ideas such as ID cards). The Tories are different, but still willing to restrict freedom. They tend to restrict social freedom; looking at your personal life, and if it is not 100% conventional, then they tut at you at best. At their worst, they legislate and they restrict the way in which you can live your life. Don’t look towards Libertarian Tories for examples of what that party is like ideologically. Instead think about the constituency party chairmen in the shires. The people who read The Daily Mail and take it as the truth. The prudes. The reactionaries. It is those guys who fuel much of the Tory ideology, and it those guys why will get there way in the end when/if Cameron is elected.

Whatever policy differences there are between them, Labour and the Tories (and the fucking Lib Dems, come to think of it) all have one key theme running through their ideologies – they believe the state is the solution to almost all of societies ills. And that is why a Libertarian will always end up disappointed by a Labour government or a Tory government. Libertarians believe the state is part of the problem for much of society’s woes, not the solution.

Election 2008: Obama and the polls

So the polls are narrowing, and it looks as if the decrepit McCain is gaining on the empty Obama. And as far as I can see there is one clear reason for this - the Obama World Tour!

Yes, travelling the world like he had already become President won him a lot of plaudits. However, it won him a lot of plaudits outside of the US. And being a popular Democrat outside of the US in this day and age is not difficult - frankly we would support a dribbling, screaming infant for President as long as it claimed to be a Democrat rather than a Republican. And Obama's strategy becomes even more flawed when you consider he is courting support from non-US nationals - ie those who can't vote. In the meantime, people in the US will be understandably confused as to why one of the candidates for President is not trying to get their support, and instead is already behaving like he has won. If I was an ignorant redneck in a Mid-West state, I would be fucking enraged*.

The election is still months away, and the polls (that are generally still seeing a slight Obama lead) could shift again, and there is every reason to think that they might shift in Obama's favour as there is to think they might shift in McCain's favour. But there is one big problem that Obama faces - namely, that he is running as the candidate for *change*.

*Change*, as totally nebulous as it might be, is a great thing to be supporting - if you are running against a candidate of the status quo. The problem Obama has is that change will happen anyway come January 2008. McCain, should he win, will be (mercifully) different to Bush. Change is coming, regardless of whether people vote for Obama or not. Obama needs a clearer reason for people to vote for him - it can't simply be a case of change, because if McCain was canny enough, he could run as the candidate of change too.

Looking at the Obama campaign, it seems to me that they haven't quite twigged yet that they are not running against George W Bush. Yes, if Bush was standing for President again, they would be whuppin' his sorry ass! But he isn't. They are up against the far more moderate McCain. And the constant moves by Obama to the right are strategic misfires - he needs to be distinguishing himself from McCain, not making himself more like his rival.

This being a high-profile election means there will be no shortage of armchair pundits offering their half-baked advice on what Obama should so to guarantee his victory come November. And given that, I'll throw my half-baked opinion into the ring as well. World Tours may be nice boosts to the ego, but they are going to mean the square root of fuck all to a voter in Arkansas or Delaware, who has never been abroad and doesn't really approve of the idea of there being a world outside of the United States anyway. The Obama campaign would be far better served by having their candidate making the case for why he should be President, and what he can offer the voters. It sounds like a really basic piece of advice; yet it is one that the Obama campaign seems to be in need of.

*Of course, if I was an ignorant redneck from a Mid-West state I would be fucking enraged anyway - not least at God for making me an ignorant redneck.

The girl at the Olympic ceremony mimed. And some of the fireworks may have been faked.

Oh my God! Lies, fraud and deception from a Communist State! Unprecedented.

Seriously, this is meant to be news?

Shit happens.

Understanding Putin's Success

Whilst the “Georgian operation” (what a wonderful euphemism for an all out military assault) is coming to an end, the world is looking at Russia and feeling a bit twitchy. This shouldn’t be a new feeling. After all, it was pretty much the status quo between circa 1948 and circa 1990. Talk of a new Cold War is premature, but it is difficult to look at the situation in Georgia and not feel deeply concerned by what is happening. Russia does not tend to fight wars with restraint and a desire to avoid collateral damage. Their mindset is not about controlling rebels or bringing order to a particular region. It is about crushing the opposition. Brutally and unmercifully.

There is more than enough commentary on what has caused this conflict, and what it means for Georgia and the rest of the world. I’m not going to rehash all that. But there is a simple reason why the Russian people will support Putin in his brutal and violent suppression in Georgia. Putin is the leader they want – not least because he is prepared to do things like this.

Before we look at why Putin is the leader Russia wants, let’s clear up a point of admin. Medvedev maybe the President of Russia, but he is very clearly Putin’s puppet. To claim otherwise is hopelessly naïve. Putin remains the leader of Russia, even though he has the technically subordinate position of Prime Minister. In fact it is entirely conceivable that, for the Russian Federation, the position of Prime Minister will become the true seat of power rather than the President – just as the post of General Secretary in the Soviet Union superseded roles such as Premier in the Soviet Union.

So, having accepted that Putin is the real leader of Russia, let’s take a look at why. Yes, part of the reason is because he rigs election. But there is still a groundswell of support of Vlad the dictator. And part of that reason is because Putin is steeped in the history of the Soviet Union, and partly because – despite the numerous screw-ups – he is also restoring some national pride to a nation that, since 1989, has been suffering some sort of national breakdown.

Let’s look at both of those reasons in turn. Firstly, Putin – who famously is an ex-KGB agent – is steeped in the history of the former Soviet Union. And he looks and acts like a capable, Soviet leader in the years before they became decrepit, dying, obese and increasingly bovine. He inspires confidence as he appears to be on the ball, intelligent, and capable or making both quick and difficult decisions. He was also part of one of the few areas of the Soviet state that actually worked efficiently: the KGB.

And it is important to remember that the majority of the Russian population are also steeped in the former Soviet Union. It has been less that twenty years since the Soviet Union vanished into the history books – and some people might hark back to the relative security of the totalitarian Soviet state next to the relative anarchy that came with the introduction of democracy. They also might look back with rose-tinted spectacle on the former Soviet Union for another reason: at the height of the Soviet Union, Russia was respected and feared internationally. Putin is recreating that aura.

Russia is again acting swiftly and brutally to quell opposition. Georgia is just the latest example. Putin is making Russia a strong, and terrifying, international superpower again. He knows the US will do nothing to challenge Russia, and that the country – by dint of the sheer size both in terms of land mass and nuclear arsenal – can do pretty much what it likes without any real threat of retribution. Invade a satellite nation, surpress democracy, kill a political opponent in London; Putin can do it all, because we need Russia, and are slightly afraid of it as well.

So Russia is becoming a superpower again – and for those who remember the Soviet Union as a global force to be reckoned with and feel proud about that can take some comfort from Putin’s bellicose and aggressive behaviour. Russia is a key player in international politics; it has a clear identity. Putin is responsible for much of that.

Above all, what Putin has managed to do is recreate some elements of the Soviet Union – strong leadership and international renown – without recreating the stagnant, bureaucratic mess that the Communist State became. He is offering the best of both worlds, so it is no wonder that many people in Russia respect and support him.

Please note I am not advocating the former Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a brutal, corrupt, monolithic and hopelessly bureaucratic dictatorship. It was destined to fail for two reasons (ignoring the utterly stupid political philosophy it was based on). Firstly, the purges removed anyone with any talent from senior roles in the state on a regular basis. Secondly, the Five Year Plans were never reached but because people lied about achieving them new, even more ambitious Five Year Plans were put into place. So you had the farcical situation of the less talented people trying to realise a Five Year Plan based on the unrealistic goals of a previous Five Year Plan that was never actually achieved. It is no wonder the Soviet Union fell apart. Had it not been for the brutal suppression of debate and free speech, the Soviet Union would have fallen apart far earlier than it did.

Nor is this a love letter to Vladimir Putin. He scares the living hell out of me. He has the zeal, the determination, and the stare of an ideologue and a madman. He wants the best for Russia, and will get it whatever the cost. He is a dangerous man to have in charge of Russia, and his ongoing grasp of power will have serious ramifications not just for Russia, but for the world as a whole.

But it is worth noting just how Putin has managed to stay in power for so long, and why people in Russia do support him. We can (rightly) complain and protest as much as we like about Putin and his actions, but there is a method to his apparent madness. And unless we understand the mindset of the Russian people – which is mired in some of the most turbulent historical changes if recent memory – we won’t understand why things like the Georgian conflict, or the murder of Litvinenko, or the war in Chechnya happen.

Democracy came to Russia in the corpulent and corrupt form of Boris Yeltsin. It is a bit like the British people getting their first taste of democracy through someone like Michael Martin. So the Russian people can be forgiven for looking to a strong figure steeped in the past for real leadership – even if the ramifications for those in Russian satellite states and potentially further abroad are terrifying. And until the Russian people get offered something better that Putin and his ilk, they will continue the support the steely eyed, neo-totalitarian leader who is able to restore something resembling national pride to what once was one of the world’s superpowers.

Rape: The CICA Blames the Victim

This is staggering:

"In the past year 14 rape victims - 1% of rape-related applications - were told they would get less money because of alcohol consumption, the CICA confirmed."

To further emphasise just how insane this is:

One woman, who believes she was raped after having her drink spiked, told the Guardian it "felt like a slap in the face" when she read that the standard award of £11,000 would be reduced by 25% in her case, to £8,250.

You go out, you have your drink spiked, you get raped. Yet, to some extent it was your fault. So you'll get less compensation. Drinking is evil, see? And if you do drink, well, the CICA isn't saying you deserve you get raped but... you know, you have kind of asked for it, on some levels, haven't you?

This sort of mindset is typical of a prudish bureaucrat, sat in an office somewhere, judging people because those people do not adhere absolutely to the narrow mindset and tedious lifestyle of that bureaucrat. Such bureaucrats are, of course, cunts of the highest order. But therein lies the problem. They are cunts of the highest order with power. They can decide, after you have suffered a horrific and terrible crime, that you are less deserving of compensation than someone else who didn't have a drink.

According to the article:

"In a second statement, issued later, the CICA said a mistake had been made in Helen's case and its policy was not to reduce awards to rape victims on the basis of alcohol consumption."

And a justice minister comments:

"This stance supports our view that a victim of rape is not in any way culpable due to alcohol consumption. It is never an individual's fault if he/she gets raped; regardless of how much he/she has drunk."

Which is all very nice, but would be a much more credible couple of statements if the CICA hadn't reduced 14 compensation awards because the victims were drunk.

The government frequently complains about the difficulty of getting rape victims to come forward, but it is hardly surprising given this story, is it? Not only will a rape victim have to relive one of the most horrific experiences of their life whilst undergoing invasive medical procedures and tests, but if they've been drinking then guess what? They're going to be judged!

Rape is the fault of the rapist, not the victim. It would be nice if the CICA could acknowledge in what they actually do, as well as in their rhetoric.

John Edwards and Privacy

Another day, another scandal descending on a politician – this time in the US. Via Guido, I see that John Edwards, (twice) failed candidate for the Democrat nomination for President and failed candidate for the Vice-Presidency, has admitted to having an affair. The world should emit a deep sigh of ennui at the revelation that a politician can’t keep his winky in his trousers.

As far as I am concerned, who really cares? This is a private matter for Edwards and his family. He had an affair, he hurt his wife, he hurt his kids. He should be allowed to deal with it in his own way outside of the glaring limelight of the media glare. This, fundamentally, is a private matter.

That said, I do think there was something very naïve in Edwards believing he could run for President without this affair coming out. Seriously, in this day and age the media will find out. And by thrusting himself into the (inter)national spotlight he will have had everyone digging into his past, desperate for any potentially salacious story. How he thought this wouldn’t come out is utterly, utterly beyond me. It has all the hallmarks of a great story – photogenic candidate for President, having an affair. A potential love child in the background. How could this not become a major news story?

It is a bit like Mark Oaten running for the Lib Dem leadership a few years ago. It could not fail to be the sort of news story that the News of the Screws loves, and their readership devours. Yes, you could argue that Oaten, Edwards etc have a right to privacy – and I would be inclined to agree with you. And I think one of the reasons that many capable people do not run for government is that they do not want to put themselves or their loved ones through the harsh, searching eyes of the media. However, that media glare is there. So whilst I feel for Oaten, for Edwards, for all the others, I also wonder just how the hell they thought they would be able to get away with running for high office with such media friendly skeletons lurking in their closets.

Olympic Opening Ceremony, China, 2008

And so it came to pass that the eyes of the world turned to the east, and a great peace descended across the planet. Suddenly, there was a feeling of contentment. The wars of yesterday were forgotten in the face of some dancing. The gross abuse of human rights were forgiven because the world could see some festivities through the choking smog. The execution wagons ceased to matter as people waved ribbons. And because we got to see some fireworks, we forgot about the crushing of Tibet and the awful violence of Tiananmen Square. Even the most unforgiving of people, the terrible cynics of the media, decided to let bygones be bygones as editors everywhere realised they could all use the headlines “Let the games Bejing!” And humanity realised that it was pretty much willing to sacrifice anything in return for a bit of a party.

Yep, I am being cynical. And probably naïve. But this gushing praise for a brutal, totalitarian Communist regime simply because they were able to put on a bash to celebrate the start of the Olympics really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I understand the argument that if we engage China, maybe they will become less extreme and actually start implementing much need reform in their country. I also think such logic is hopelessly flawed. China is using these Olympic games to bolster their international image and develop their national ego. Nothing more. The fact that they have managed to put on this glorified school sports day will change precisely nothing within China. And it is disappointing that the coverage of the opening ceremony has so comprehensively failed to acknowledge that.

The Stamp Duty Farce

Fresh from his guest star billing at the Angry Baby Man's blog, The Moai has sent a couple of interesting links to me. To quote one of them:

'..Estate agents suggested yesterday that buyers might step away from sales amid the uncertainty over stamp duty, stalling the market between now and when any such decision is taken, which could be as late as October...'

The Moai says: It astonishes me that, through dithering, GB's govt is making things even worse, even when they try to help.... can they get ANYTHING right?

Any regular readers will know my answer to that question. No.

But seriously, just how fucking dumb is this government and the badger faced turd who represents it? I posted yesterday about how this policy probably won't work - now it becomes clear that not only might it not work, but it is actually fucking up the very market it is trying to help. Fuck me, how fucking stupid is that?

To say this government is incompetent is a massive, massive understatement. They are the shittest government in living memory; the very definition of utter crap. We would literally be better off with having a brain dead person as Chancellor. A brain dead person cannot, by very definition, do anything. Whereas Darling can - and with his inverted Midas touch, everything he goes near turns to absolute shite.

So a plea to Darling, and Brown, and any other cockwad in the Cabinet who is thinking about announcing or implementing a policy - don't do it. In fact, don't do anything. Please, for the sake of the nation, stop doing stuff. Every time you do, it goes wrong. The country will be better off if you stagnate and literally don't do nothing.

And you'd probably be more popular if you do fuck all, as well.

Being banned from the pub is punishment enough

Not quite sure what to make of this story:

A judge has told a Glasgow pensioner that stopping him going to the pub was a "more meaningful" sentence than a prison term for killing his wife.

My gut reaction is this – surely the judge could stop him going to the pub by, y’know, sending him to prison?

There is justification for restricting this man’s chances to go to the pub, though:

"You still go to the pub where you went with your wife. That must annoy her relatives.”

Yeah, I’m guessing that would annoy the relatives. Probably not as much as the murder peeves them, though. I’d imagine that the murder is considerably more of an annoyance than where the killer drinks. Maybe I’m wrong; I’ve never had to deal with a murdered relative. Or had to worry about where the killer gets shitted.

Still, there is a reason why this man is not going to prison:

"I have read and considered a number of reports from experts. It is plain to me that if I were to impose that sort of sentence you would be released in a very short time because prison would not be able to cope with your condition.”

So, a murderer isn’t going to prison because prison can’t cope with his condition. What are we going to do, free people when their health problems get too much? Free Peter Sutcliffe if he gets cancer? Let Dennis Nielsen go free if he has a dicky ticker? Let Ian Brady leave prison because he has seen better days?

Make no mistake this man is unwell:

"There is a clear diagnosis of dementia setting in. It is a progressive condition and ultimately he will need 24-hour care. I am deeply conscious there has been a death here, but this man is very unwell. He was always willing to plead guilty to culpable homicide, but this was flatly rejected by the Crown and that is why a trial was necessary."

Dementia is a terrible condition, and will lead to this man’s terminal decline. But he still killed someone. If he committed the murder consciously, he should be imprisoned. If he committed it because of mental ill health, then he should be confined to an appropriate medical institution. Letting him go free, despite taking a life, is a staggeringly awful decision.

Banning someone from the pub is the sort of punishment you might give to a wayward teenager – not to a grown man who has committed murder.

Cameron: Meet the new boss...

William Hague on David Cameron:

"I can see him as prime minister and I think he is now ready to be prime minister."

Frankly, I can't see why Hague would say anything different. This would have been more of a news story if Hague had said "he's not quite ready yet" or "you know what, he's an ok choice - but I think I would be a better one."

But how, precisely, has Cameron shown himself to be ready for the job of PM? What has he done? He's popular at the moment, but that in itself is not a great reason to claim to be ready for the job of PM. The Artic Monkeys are popular; no-one is suggesting that they are ready to be Prime Minister. Cameron's popularity is based purely on not being Gordon Brown; which is a bollocks reason for making someone PM. You may as well make Cameron PM for not being Peter Sutcliffe.

However some would argue, including Hague, that is it also Tory policy that has caused the change in the party's fortunes:

He said Tory plans to raise the inheritance tax threshold, abolish stamp duty for first-time buyers and scrap the ID card scheme had helped towards that "switch".

Good policies, but, fuck me, it is hardly a radical, bold argument for the Tories, is it? A couple of tax cuts and the summary elimination of ID cards is hardly the radical solutions that modern Britain is in need of.

After over a decade of patronising, oppressive Nu Labour rule, this country is crying out for a Libertarian government. But, as Guido and DK note, freedom doesn't seem to be on the Tories' agenda. In fact, with unmitigated bollocks like Gove's attack on lads' magazines, the opposite seems to be true. At a time when they have the popularity and the opportunity to fight for social as well as economic freedom, they are shrinking in their ambition, and are becoming the sort of tedious social conservatives whose moralising would be better placed in Victorian times rather than in 21st Century Britain.

The sales exercise of making the Tories warm and fluffy is over - people trust them again, people no longer see them as pure evil, they no longer feel they eat babies for fun in the corridors of power. The Tories - particularly given Labour is currently about a popular as herpes in a nunnery - can afford to be bold, and could offer real change. But they won't.

Because, fundamentally, they don't want to. The party is innately conservative - it doesn't like change. The thought of being radical is alien to them. They will tinker with the Nu Labour legacy, and perhaps remove some of the worst excesses of this illiberal incumbent government. But there won't be a major change. Things will stay, in the now very likely Tory government, pretty much the same.

Which is why I am the member of a party who, if they can truly get off the ground, actually offer a substantial departure to the status quo. And I know that those who have fallen under the spell of Cameron and neutered Tory party will ultimately end up disappointed. There is nothing radical on the horizon; just a more photogenic Prime Minister and minor tinkering with a system that is clearly, and obviously, corrupt, fucked and rotten to the core.

Getting Gordon fit

Every now and again, I see a story that makes my heart sink. A story that completely misses the point, and simply shows just how out of touch - and frankly insane - our elected leaders are. This is one such story:

"Gordon Brown has hired a personal fitness trainer to get him into shape over the summer holidays... "

Yeah, we've hit the nail on the head there, haven't we? Gordo's problems are all down to him carrying an extra couple of pounds. It is down to him being a bit of a fat chuffer. Rather than him being an incompetent, unpleasant and odious man. Getting fit will solve all of Gordon's deep personality flaws.

It is a sign of the desperation that pervades every aspect of this abortion of an administration that they are seriously considering this to be a potential selling point. Fuck knows what they will go with next. Maybe announcing that Gordon is seeing a faith healer. Or that he has had an enema. Actually, the last idea probably wouldn't be a bad one. At least Brown would be less full of shit.

Oh, and Gordo doesn't need a personal fitness instructor as much a fucking good psychotherapist.

Gordon's Relaunch #5,067,215

Another month, another announcement of a relaunch for Gordon Brown. Man, I thought we were still implementing the last relaunch. And how many relaunches does one man need? There’s probably a whole industry to be built up here – relaunching Gordon Brown. Hundreds – if not thousands – could be employed as relaunch consultants, working hard on making the premier as loved again as he was when he first moved into Number 10; before people realised what an incompetent fuckwit he really is.

Still, this relaunch comes with some practical policies designed the save the failing UK Housing market:

Stamp duty on properties worth up to £250,000 could be suspended as part of an aid package for the housing market that will be central to Gordon Brown's attempt to relaunch his premiership this autumn.

Ministerial sources said the chief aim of any "payment holiday" would be to show the government was on the side of home buyers at a time when property values have slumped and sales stagnated.

Nice, good to know that the government is on the side of home buyers. Slightly worrying that things have deteriorated so much for this government that they have to clarify that they are on the side of the electorate, but there we go. And on paper this looks like a great policy, even though I doubt there has been any attempt by the government to cost it out. However, there is just one problem with this plan. Have you worked out what it is yet? Yep, the problem is the plan is bollocks.

Officials believe, however, that suspending the duty for up to 12 months is unlikely to reverse the housing slump, and may end up proving more symbolic than galvanising.

And how do we know this?

A similar move by John Major in the early 1990s did not have an impact, and did not halt falling property prices.

Great. So both officials and historical precedent show this plan does not work. And, thinking about it, why would it? Stamp duty is just one of the costs involved with moving. Yes, it is a fucking substantial one, but it is still just part of the huge cost of buying a home. And with banks very reluctant to lend money anymore, how exactly are people going to afford to put themselves in a position to need to pay stamp duty?

Furthermore, the economy as a whole seems resolutely fucked, meaning people are going to be less likely to splash out on expensive items like, you know, a new bastard house. The housing market will have to wait until people start to feel some confidence in the economy as a whole. And something that would help regaining that confidence in the economy would be a little less doom-mongering from Brown himself. On the one hand, he is encouraging us to buy property. On the other hand, he is telling us not to waste food because the apocalyptic food shortages. The message is, shall we say, a little “mixed.”

The housing market slipped out of control. It became a feeding frenzy, encouraged in no small measure by institutions offering loans that made little economic sense in the good times, and make no economic sense when the economy faltered.* The housing market will recover, but there is going to be some pain before it does so. And during that period, people will, most likely, stay put. No matter what the government does with stamp duty.

So Gordon’s relaunch is based around a policy that won’t work. Magic. I look forward to his next relaunch in a few weeks time. Which will probably be centred around a plan to find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

*And we are still bailing out one of those institutions. At a great personal cost to the taxpayer.

Madeleine McCann

Of course, you have to feel deep sympathy for Kate and Gerry McCann. To lose a child must be absolutely horrific; to not know whether that child is alive or dead must be heartbreaking. And, of course they are going to continue to investigate their daughter’s disappearance. You shouldn’t expect anything less.

But does the fricking media have to report every single Christing story like it is the most exciting and important news in the history of mankind?

Investigators for Kate and Gerry McCann are probing claims that a girl calling herself "Maddy" was seen in the Netherlands after their child vanished.

Of course, this could be Madeleine McCann. More likely, it is a young girl with blonde hair who called herself something like Maddie. After all, Madeleine McCann is not the only young girl in the whole world, is she? So whilst this lead could come off (and I doubt it will) it seems to be highly unlikely.

So why is the media reporting it to the world? Are we going to report every single sighting of a blonde haired girl who may or may not have been Madeleine McCann for the rest of eternity, or at least until we all die of terminal boredom? Because I saw a girl who could have been Madeleine McCann on the walk to work this morning. I mean, could have been if you squinted a bit. And could have been if you had a hyperactive imagination. And were desperate for the incredibly minor celebrity status that comes with latching yourself onto a high profile criminal case.

Rehashed stories about Madeleine McCann are rapidly replacing rehashed stories about Diana as the most pointless waste of time in the media. There is nothing new to report, and there won’t be until the McCanns find out what happened to their daughter, one way or another.

In the meantime, how’s about the media shuts the fuck up about it and covers something else instead?

Saying What They Mean

It has become a cliché: whenever the government further encroaches on our freedom, right wing blogger will criticise the move, and describe it as Orwellian and/or part of the slow move towards the dystopia of 1984. But like many a cliché, it also happens to be true. But I’m not going to hark on about any particular policy and how it will take us toward the nightmare Orwell wrote about – though not doubt the opportunity will arise before too long.

However, as I was re-reading the book last night, something struck me. An essential part of the dystopia presented by Orwell is the corruption of language. Newspeak represents a simplification of the English language to minimise the likelihood of independent thought. And we have something similar in society today. In order to make the slow erosion on freedom in the Western world appear less threatening, language is corrupted and contorted to make what should be concerning instead appear neutral or even welcoming.

Take the Patriot Act in the US – the onslaught against civil liberties that occurred after the murders of 9/11. It is utterly audacious to claim that to be patriotic you have to support a power grab by the state. Yet by titling the act in that way, the proponents of the Act could claim anyone who does not directly support it is in some way a traitor to the nation.

Likewise, in this country we have a whole host of misleading titles for repressive legislation. Take “42 days detention”. We all know what that means – the state can imprison and interrogate you without charge for 42 days. Yet the use of the word “detention” is interesting. It doesn’t really capture the horror of being imprisoned – without charge – for 42 days. “Detention” makes it sound like a punishment at school; nothing more sinister than that dealing with unruly kids. The reality – of spending 42 days in a cell whilst facing interrogation from the authorities, is very different from the way the government describes it.

Then we hear phrases like “stop and search”. Who could object to that? But what stop and search fails to capture is the humiliation of being stopped in a public place by a policeman and being searched. It fails to capture just how intimidating that could be. And it also fails to show the undertones of racial profiling that occurs with “stop and search.”

We hear about “CCTV cameras”, when “spy cameras” would be a far more accurate description. After all, they record everything. Not just the crimes they are designed to prevent. They spy on the innocent, guilty and everyone inbetween. The term “CCTV cameras” really fails to capture that.

And the *wonderful* phrase “war on terror”; a phrase that seems stuck on the lips of everyone seeking political power in this day and age. But what exactly are we fighting? Terror? What is that? I’d support a war on terrorists, but increasingly the war on terror looks like a war on the freedoms that politicians suppose terrorists use to commit atrocities. But that description is less catchy, isn’t it? And more likely to provoke criticisms.

Which is the point. These neutral terms are designed to stifle debate and minimise the potential criticisms from those who value freedom. “42 days detention” is simply selling “42 days imprisonment at the hands of the state without charge” in a nicer way.

I’m sure some people will agree with me; others will denounce the definitions above as hysterical. Fine. But think about what you read and what the terms used are actually telling you. We need to question more, rather than blindly accepting the

I started on a cliché, so I’ll end on one as well – the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And part of that vigilance is making sure that we are able to see through the bullshit terms that those who wish to expand the state use to hide their true intentions.

Bill Clinton on Gordon Brown:

"The only advice I would give him is that he has got a big brain and a good heart - he just needs to apply them both to working through these issues as best he can and trust the politics."

Brown needs to rely on a big brain and good heart to survive? Man, Brown's really fucked.

Boris: 100 days in

There’s an interesting article in today’s Times about Boris’s first 100 days in power. I didn’t realise that Boris had been in charge for as long as 100 days. Mainly because Boris is one of the first people to achieve a key elected government position and use it as a change to reduce his public profile. In particular, the article compares the influence and power of the two:

David Cameron
Annual salary: £132,317
Staff: 258 at Central Office
Budget: Party has debts of £7.75m
Powers: Constitutional duty to hold Government to account, appoints Shadow Ministers
Mandate: elected by around 290,000 Conservative members

Boris Johnson
Annual salary: £137,579
Staff: 800-plus in Greater London Authority
Budget: £11 billion
Powers: planning, development, transport, culture, environment
Mandate: directly elected by 5.4 million London voters

Make no mistake about it, Boris Johnson is the most powerful and influential Conservative in the country right now. I don’t doubt that statement would hurt Cameron’s flaccid ego, but the facts and figures speak for themselves. And if you wish to see what the likely Conservative government is going to do once they get into power, then look no further than Boris Johnson’s London.

Now, don’t look at what Boris says – the guy always has spoken a lot of crap, and always will do. And don’t look at those tedious scandals involving his aides that have damaged Johnson. He just needs to learn to tell his aides to keep their traps shut sometimes and also needs to learn to vet those who come to work with him. No, instead look at what he does. What policies he implements.

So far, we’ve not seen a great deal of policies from Johnson. In fact, his first 100 days in power, his most striking policy has been a small yet significant reduction in the freedom of those who live in and visit London:

He highlighted the alcohol ban on public transport as a key achievement, claiming it was popular with most Londoners, despite protests by many young people. “It took Margaret Thatcher quite a long time before she earned the honour of having tens of thousands of young people hurling execration in her name. It took me only a few weeks.”

So, with the London Transport network utterly fucked each weekend, and with teenagers knifing each other to death against the backdrop of the spiralling black hole of taxpayers’ money that is the 2012 Olympic games, Boris’s proudest achievement is banning booze on London Transport. Instinctively, it seems, Johnson is socially conservative; not pragmatic, nor liberal, nor libertarian. And if you extrapolate his first 100 days in power to what Cameron would do in his first 100 days in power, it doesn’t look good. We’ll see the sort of socially conservative policies that appeal to portly, old Tory party chairmen being implemented at the same time as seeing the new administration avoiding the real issues that scream for attention.

With the Labour government falling apart faster than a whore with leprosy, it is vital that we start to look at what Cameron’s Conservatives will do when they get into power. Johnson’s administration will be a good sign of what that government is likely to do. And based on Johnson’s first 100 days, it will be a mix of empty rhetoric and the banning instinct that is meant to achieve nothing more than positive column inches in hate-filled, reactionary tabloids. The Tories run the risk of doing exactly what Boris has been doing – thriving on the fact that he is better than the Labour alternative without really aspiring to offer the radical change we need after years of Labour rule.

Holiday Loyalty and Holiday Snaps

So, despite the muted opposition of Robin, the Boy Blunder, the vultures are being seen off by the support of perhaps the greatest politicians in the history of the world:

Alistair Darling, Harriet Harman and John Denham have declared their support for Gordon Brown.

At least Gordon can rely on the support of an incompetent, skunk faced cunt, a woman who if she was not able to define herself as a feminist would cease to exist altogether and a minor minister who no-one really gives a fuck about anyway. With supporters like these, who really needs enemies?

But I predict that the speculation about Brown will die down a bit. Mainly because everyone (at least in the political mainstream) is on holiday. And even Gordon Brown, perhaps the most incompetent politician in living memory, will struggle to fuck up whilst he doesn’t have to do anything. And consequently it will be far easier for Darling et al to support Brown whilst he can't actually fuck up. The speculation will begin again once he is back from holiday, and he gets to illustrate just what an uber-cunt he is on a daily (and sometimes hourly) basis.

However, even whilst on holiday, the Labour leader still manages to appear awkward and somehow almost inhuman. This is one of his holiday snaps:


I mean, seriously, who wanders around, by the water, wearing a grey jacket? Could he look anymore awkward? Could he look any less like he wants to be on holiday? Every photo that has been taken on Gordon Brown whilst he is on holiday seems to show him as a man who just can’t stop being formal. In everyone of his holiday snaps, he looks like the bastard offspring of Alan Partridge and Mr Bean. What is worse is that these snaps are clearly photo opportunities. Even when Brown stages the event, he still looks completely inhuman and out of place.

Compare those photos with young Hug A Husky Cameron’s:


Yes, he falls into the trap that all men who wear shorts fall into – he looks like a total tool. But at least he looks like a man on holiday, and a man who wants to be there. You get the impression Cameron likes being on holiday, and likes every now and again not having to work. You don’t get the same vibe from Brown – he looks like someone who has been forced to go on holiday, and is hating every second of it.

Which is Gordon Brown’s tragedy. He is a workaholic who is quite simply shit at his job. If the man wasn’t such an out and out tosser, I would almost feel sorry for him. But since he is a cunt of the highest order, I genuinely hope he has a miserable holiday and a miserable return to work. And until he stops burdening the country with his pasty white face and his egregious, misanthropic outlook, I hope every day is fucking misery for him.

The Irish: Still Happy

Good news for anyone who believes that the pinnacle of future human achievement isn't further immersion in the stifling, bloated Euroepean Union. The Irish have shown that, despite the protestations of some, they are happy with their referendum and don't need to vote again:

Fifty-four per cent of those polled said they were happy with the result, while 34 per cent were unhappy, and 11 per cent were undecided.

And why would they want to vote again? Nothing has changed, another vote would be a waste of time. In fact, this expectation that Ireland would vote again because the leaders of the EU didn't like the result is staggering. It is the politics of Robert Mugabe - if the vote doesn't go their way, then everyone concerned can damn well vote again until they get the right result. Can you imagine the outcry if the Tories had said in 1997 "yep, we know you've voted, but you need to vote again as you've voted for the wrong people?"

At a time when the international zeitgeist is towards increasing national and regional autonomy the European Union should be making their case for a vast, bureacratic monolith as the future for the member states. This pig headed approach of "keep voting until you get it right" is not good enough. It is indicative of the arrogance of the EU that they believe such an approach is ok. And it is the same arrogance that led to the Irish Referendum result. The sooner the EU realises that in democracies you have to make a case before you can expect a vote, the better.