My friend Adam Smith

Adam Smith has added me as a friend of Facebook.

Which is no mean feat when you consider he died in 1790.

Still, despite being a long dead economist, Smith isn't quite the most unlikely friend on Facebook. In fact, it is completely fitting Facebook that a dead man would still be making friends.

You've gotta love the internet.

Doctor Who: Goodbye, David

Although I much preferred Christopher Eccleston, I have to say that I will miss David Tennant as Doctor Who when he moves on from the role next year. Which really is a testament to how that bulging eyed lanky actor has made the part his own.

And as for the choice of who should replace him, I hope they cast the net a little wider than this. David Morrissey is the best bet there, but since he has played Gordon Brown I'm not sure he could ever truly be a hero in my eyes. And as for Sean Pertwee... ha ha ha. Having the son of the third actor to play the Doctor on TV is the sort of wanky idea that appeals only to over-excited fans.

As for my choice. Dylan Moran. No, really. Stop laughing. Why you laughing? Seriously, Dylan Moran for Doctor Who. I think he would be awesome.

And I am perfectly happy to be alone in that opinion.

Barack Obama: A Politician For Our Times

Whilst he has my grudging support, I can’t claim that Barack Obama – despite the relentless, exhausting hype surrounding him – is an inspiring choice for US President. In fact, the only reason why he has my support is because he isn’t running with that self-styled pitbull in lipstick or, as I prefer to think of Sarah Palin, the fundamentalist in borrowed clothing. Barack Obama is the least worst option; and as such, he is very much the politician of our times.

Despite the media spotlight shining on him, Obama has still managed to fail to explain what he stands for. We’ve got a pretty good idea of what he doesn’t stand for – he isn’t like George W Bush, he isn’t like Hillary Clinton, he doesn’t like the Iraq War and he thinks that the current economic crisis is a bummer. However, there is precious little from that candidate on what he does stand for, other than the audacity of hope. Which sounds great, but when you really break it down, it is not unlike a Miss World candidate wishing for world peace. It is a great aspiration, but it would be nice to know how the ruddy fuck we get there.

Obama represents the new breed of politicians - he stands as perhaps the most shining (certainly the newest) example of the dubious line of publicity hungry politicos that includes Blair, Clinton and Cameron. Those politicians who don't rely on ideology or policy details to get them into power. Instead they focus on looking good for the cameras, and grinning in the right company. They remind me a little of used car salesmen - except they actually have nothing to offer, and even the best possible used car salesman needs a product to sell before they can fleece you for your money.

It is often said that politicians will do pretty much anything to get elected. Obama et al stand as a rebuke to this truism. Don't get me wrong, they'll do pretty much anything to get elected but they stop short of doing just two things. They won't tell you what they believe in, or what they plan to do when they actually get into power. That's the audacity of hope, see. You have to be audacious enough to hope that Obama will be good when he gets into power. All he is actually willing to commit to is being less awful than his opponent.

A razor sharp focus on the key issue of the week

Gordon Brown's words:

"My undivided attention is on taking this country through the difficult times as a result of a global problem that started in America."

Gordon Brown's actions:

"The prime minister, Gordon Brown, has become involved in the row over the Andrew Sachs prank calls, condemning Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross's broadcast on Radio 2 as "clearly inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour"."

I think we can all praise Gordon Brown on keeping his word about focussing on the economy, and not allowing himself from becoming distracted by the latest non-story that is propping up the 24-7 media news outlets. His comments on the Brand-Ross story are vital. I for one am glad he has the foresight not to worry about the economy going into cardiac arrest when he is faced with an even more pressing, and unprecedented, crisis - two unfunny TV presenters making crass comments.

Totalitarian States: Fiction, Reality

One of the reasons why I have never rated the film version of V For Vendetta (or at least, nowhere near as highly as I rate the graphic novel source material) is because it fails to be, for me, the ringing indictment of authoritarianism that the original was. To a large extent. V For Vendetta the movie is a superhero film for those who favour freedom and who dislike the ongoing encroaching of the state on every part of modern life. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it fails to really offer insights into what life is like in a totalitarian dystopia.

But to be honest with you, this film is no different from so many other pieces of dystopian fiction – including some classic entries in the niche genre. Take Farenheit 451 a wonderful and justly famous book. But does it really sum up how terrible it is to live under the a dystopian regime? I mean, it seems to be ok as long as you don’t mind watching TV 24-7. And the real horror of the regime comes from the science fiction elements to the novel, like the nightmarish hound. The book burning is a warning sign for any society; but in this novel it comes across as a gimmick.

Which is the problem with other dystopian scenarios as well. They come across as gimmicky. Take Brave New World - yes, it is an oppressive society, but it is one where people are forced to be happy through the ingestion of drugs. It is no more nightmarish than joining a hippy commune – ignoring reality with chemical friends. Freedom may be gone, but no-one cares. Or 1985 - an entertaining novel that really represents nothing more than Anthony Burgess taking the opportunity to rant about two of his political bugbears – trade unions and Islam. The reconditioning centres in 1985, with their mix of lectures and debates, are a universe away from Room 101.

Whereas one of the reasons why the initial version of V For Vendetta is so effective is because of the depiction of life under Norsefire. It is a nightmare world, where a girl is forced into prostitution only to meet with real danger from the men who represent the police. It is a world of concentration camps and absolute control of the people; a world where an autocrat rules through the advice of a computer (that he has a borderline sexual relationship with). And it is a world where the only real hope left is a terrorist – and make no mistake about it, V is a terrorist. This is a bleak vision of the UK, and it shows very well what might happen if the authoritarian likes of Adam Susan and his party achieve power.

And then there is the daddy of all dystopian fiction – the mighty Nineteen Eighty-Four. That is truly a nightmare version of the UK (and, indeed, the world) – one where not just every word is controlled by the state, but so is every thought. The state wishes to completely crush humanity; destroying the concept of love, and ultimately even removing the need to have relationships for the purposes of procreation. And anyone who dissents isn’t just arrested and executed, but is also completely crushed. This is a cold, dark, awful world that should linger in the minds of everyone who favours even an iota of freedom.

However, where I do criticise Nineteen Eighty-Four (and a lot of other works in this genre) is in their depiction, or lack of, how society gets to be so nightmarish. I appreciate that these are meant to be novels and films, rather than clear warnings about how totalitarianism comes into being. But they fail to realistically show how the authoritarian types get into power. Take Nineteen Eighty-Four - the main point of no return was a global nuclear war. Now, war can cause a totalitarian takeover – you only have to look at the fate of Eastern Europe after World War Two for proof. But that was an invasion, rather than a nuclear holocaust. A nuclear war would bring about a horrific world – however it will be closer to the world of Threads than Nineteen Eighty-Four. The truth is that the drift towards authoritarianism isn’t likely to happen in a big or dramatic way. Which is all the more worrying, because unless you are watching closely, you may well miss out on those warning signs.

And I also think that the depiction of those who would drag us towards totalitarianism is far too negative. The simple truth is in that old cliché – that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is one area in which the novel version of V For Vendetta gets it so right (and the film gets it so wrong): the original depicts Labour winning an election and kicking all US missiles off UK land – in theory, a good idea (at least for paid up members of the CND). The result is a shift in the global balance of power, and an ensuing limited nuclear war.

You can see the same in reality. The roots of Stalinism can be clearly seen in much of Leninism. However, Lenin (despite his willing use of force on many occasions) did not want a totalitarian regime, and just before his death warned of the dangers of Stalinism. However, he was forced into taking draconian and illiberal action to counter what he thought were threats to his attempts to build a communist utopia. Therefore, the seeds of Stalinism – one of the most oppressive regimes that the world has ever seen – were not sewn purely out of misanthropy, but rather a misguided attempt to do the right thing for the people. Likewise, Cambodia’s journey into the very heart of darkness under Pol Pot was not solely born of a desire to suppress people and seize power – it was a reaction to centuries of history and circumstances within that state. And we can see a very similar thing happening right here, right now, as some Western governments implement draconian legislation in order to protect the people from a (hopelessly exaggerated) terrorist threat. What so many works fail to show is that freedom is lost mostly through gradual erosion, not a catastrophic meltdown.

All of this literary criticism does have a point, and it is this: dystopian works of fiction have their place, there is no doubting that. But they are fiction: they do not represent reality. As I’ve already mentioned, the reality of the slide towards totalitarianism is far less exciting, or obvious as it is presented in fiction. Don’t imagine that there will be terrible war before the state takes complete control; they won’t need to do that. And they are not going to utter clear statements of intent, like burning books. The warning signs will be subtle; it will be the gradual erosion of cherished yet mundane freedoms. And by the time the population realises what is happening, it will be too late. There will be no room for manoeuvre, no freedom let to resist or protest.

Unless we start fighting that process now.

The slide towards authoritarianism is happening; right here, right now. The government is slowly taking control of what you eat, what you drink, who and how you fuck, what you can say and what you can eat. It is doing it in a slow, paternalistic way and I believe the politicians think they are acting in the best interests of the nation. But there is no positive outcome if this slide towards total state control is allowed to continue. The best case scenario is that you are allowed to live comfortably as long as you do not dissent; the simple truth is that a continuation of the drift towards authoritarianism means the day will come when you will not have the freedom to think or choose for yourself. The loss of freedom is like cancer; it will spread slowly but surely across all parts of society until our liberty has been utterly eaten away and we are left with nothing but a half-forgotten idea of what freedom was.

There are organisations already shouting about and fighting for a stop to the slow erosion – if you care, if you want to be an adult who can make your own choices and have some freedom in the future, start supporting one of those organisations. Because turning a blind eye will lead to nothing other than waking up one morning and realising it is all too late.

A V For Vendetta Campaign?

Following on from the posts by both DK and Jackart, I've been thinking a lot about how authoritarianism is represented in popular culture. Which leads to a long, ponderous post that I really can't be bothered to write at the moment and is probably a little bit too much for a Sunday anyway.

But another idea occurred to me. I'm not entirely behind the LPUK campaign to send every MP a copy of 1984, but really think it would be good if they all read a copy of V For Vendetta. Seriously, think about it - it has some immediate advantages over other dystopian works:

- It is set in an identifiable version of the UK, and the leader - Adam Susan - is a dour, grey man unable to foster or build any real relationships with other people. For anyone in the Labour party, that piece of characterisation should be immediately recognisable.

- It is a collection of words and pictures, meaning even the more simple minded or attention short of MPs will be able to make it through at least some of the novels

- It is also quite "cool", so the likes of Cameron and the other Vanity Fair leaders of the Tory party might well ready a copy so they can cite it in interviews to show how "down with the kids" they are (and it will make a nice change from them always talking about how they listen to The Smiths in interviews)

- And above all, it would show them what happens to politicians if they allow the slide into an authoritarian dystopia to continue. 1984 ends with the image of a man broken by the state. V For Vendetta shows that people may yet fight back.

I'm not going to start a campaign to get everyone to read this book or send it to their MPs - what with their expenses and free copies of 1984, those fuckers have enough freebies. If you do want to show your friends - or indeed learn for yourself - what all the fuss is about, then pick up a copy of V For Vendetta. And I'd go with the graphic novel, rather than the film. And if you do happen to be in a position of power in this country, go read V For Vendetta. Just see what you make of it...

Isn't it funny how internet con artists get so shirty when you ask them for their bank account details? You'd think they'd be more open minded, what with their steely determination to get your bank account details using a curious combination of broken English and outrageous stories. Back in the day, con artists had far more respect for those who could see through their piss poor attempts at exploitation.

People, eh?

Morons and Facebook

There are privacy issues around this one, and an ethical debate to be had about whether or not bosses should be spying on employees via Facebook. However, I will say this: if your boss on Facebook, then try to be a bit careful, eh? Rather than a total fucking moron:

Kyle Doyle, 21, is currently facing an internal investigation after he called in sick for work then updated his Facebook status bar to read: 'Kyle Doyle is not going to work ... I'm still trashed. SICKIE WOO!'.

Unfortunately for Doyle his boss was also a friend on Facebook and saw the incriminating status report.

Yep, there's not real benefit to being a twat. And particularly then rubbing salt in the wound, as this young fella did when his boss rumbled him:

The manager then revealed that he had seen the Facebook message and said the day off would not be granted. "HAHAHA LMAO epic fail. No worries man," was Doyles response.

It is unfortunate that this man's manager used Facebook to spy on him. It is also unfortunate that Doyle decided to behave in the same way as a 15 year old school kid who has just discovered both Facebook and cider. There does need to be a wider debate about how bosses should use things like Facebook; until that is put to bed, let's try not to total fuckwits, eh?

A week is a long time in politics...

…particularly if you are the leader of a far right Austrian party who happened to have an affair with the previous leader of that far right Austrian party. In fact, a week can pretty much represent your whole career as leader, give or take a few days. That’s the problem with these far right parties; they tend to lack a certain tolerance.

But there is an ironic chuckle to be had thinking that this particular far right party has shown that it is actually so intolerant that it cannot tolerate its own leadership. And it is always nice to see ignorant fools shooting themselves in the foot.

George Osborne and the Adventure of the Billionaire

There is something about George Osborne that reminds me of Harry Potter. Seriously, stick some glasses on his boyish face, scratch a bizarre birthmark on his forehead, and Osborne becomes Harry Potter. Just a boy, with powers he can’t understand or use effectively, desperately trying to make sense of a dizzying world. I don’t rate George Osborne – the Tories I know who have met him don’t either – but somehow he projects this image of innocent, feckless charm which means that he’d be one of the last politicians to be involved in a donations scandal.

Just goes to show how much I know, eh?

I don’t care about who said what at any given point of time. The tedious, playground level of this debate infuriates me, and I don’t really want to acknowledge it, let alone dissect it. What I will say about it is this: if Osborne really did meet a billionaire and didn’t try to solicit money by any means necessary, then he has a lot to learn about modern politics. He should have ignored the legalities and been begging for that loan. After all, that does seem to be the done thing…

What really does get on my tits is this attempt by the Tories to position themselves as the party of the people – more in touch with the man or woman walking down the street than their counterparts. Seriously, what a lot of big hairy bollocks. Osborne is in this position because he was invited onto a billionaire’s yacht. Maybe I just have the wrong sort of friends, but I have yet to meet anyone who has a private yacht and wants to invite me onto it. Osborne can do what the fuck he likes on his holidays; but he can’t then expect us to follow the Tory line that they understand the lives and concerns of the vast majority of people in this country. Frankly, a lot of the concerns in this country at the moment are about keeping jobs and homes. Not what went down on a billionaire’s yacht over an opulent summer holiday.

And before any Labour types start clapping their hands and gleefully shouting “class war!” like the guest speaker at a moron convention, let’s remind ourselves that a senior Labour party figure – and now government minister – was there as well. And this is the same senior Labour party figure who has had issues – resigning issues – with rich people before. And apparently this isn’t his first visit to a billionaire’s yacht under dubious circumstances. I’m sure that there are genuine working class people in the Labour party; those who want to fight for social justice and fairness in British society. To them I say this – look at Mandelson. He is – and pretty much always has been – at the very heart of the Labour party leadership. Look at him, as he swans around on the yachts of the exceedingly wealthy. He is indicative of the Nu Labour leadership, and has precisely fuck all to do with and in common with any socialists in the Labour party.

Oh, and before any Liberal Democrats get excited and start pointing out that their leader wasn’t on the yacht, let me point out that there is not a hope in hell of your boy being invited onto a billionaire’s yacht. He simply isn’t important enough.

This whole shabby incident, that has gone from Osborne gossiping about Mandelson to Osborne being asked serious questions about his conduct, shows just how rancidly corrupt and outrageously self-serving our political class is. Seriously, Osborne isn’t in power because he wants to change the world for the better. If that happens, it is a happy accident. Osborne – and Mandelson, and the vast majority of the turds in the Houses of Parliament – are there for one reason, and one reason alone. Naked self-interest. And this incident should stand as a stunning rebuke to anyone who argues that the Tories will be better than Labour. Ultimately, the Shadow Chancellor was on the same yacht as Mandelson. They are all cut from the same cloth, and their arguments are just a smokescreen for their real intentions. Which is to live off you and me as much as possible, for as long as possible.

There is an alternative; an alternative that has such a long journey to go on and needs as much support as possible. But if you are sickened by the behaviour of all parties in the self-perpetuating oligarchy that rules this nation, then I urge you – I absolutely urge you – to take a look at the Libertarian party. Yes, they will be tested on their bold claims if they ever attain political power, but at least they are willing to start from an open and honest standpoint that seems to be an anathema to any of the major political parties in this country:

“...they (LPUK politicians) will not accept offers of hospitality, travel junkets or similar freebies, which could be seen as an attempt by any individual or organisation to gain influence or favour”

I’m not just using this issue as a plug for LPUK as I am a member; rather, I am sick to the back teeth of the opulent corruption of the ruling class, and I know that change will only come from a new party committed to fighting that corruption. If you are waiting for the main parties to put their own house in order, then you are going to be waiting in perpetuity. It ain’t gonna happen.

Gordon does something good!

Albeit unintentionally.

As has widely been reported and promoted elsewhere, there is a campaign going on at the moment to raise enough money to get a slogan on the side of a bus that suggests that God doesn't exist, and that we should all just get on with enjoying our lives. The neutrality of the message has won me over as a supporter - I can't be bothered with militant atheism (I can't be bothered with anybody who is shrilly evangelical about any belief - believe what you like, just shut up about it when you are around me) but the message is a nice counterpoint to the increasingly ubiquitous Alpha course and other demented religious advertising. If you want the atheists to have their say and are also sick of Christian advertising and evangelicals, then you can sign up here.

And whilst you are there, take a look at some of the totals. As I write the campaign has made £55,288.90 - the target was a mere £5,500.00. And, best of all, the Gift Aid stands at £13,039.22 - that's right, over £13k of government money is going towards the promotion of atheism.

I wonder how Gordon Brown, who was raised by a minister of the Church of Scotland, feels about that?

So this campaign is pissing off evangelicals at the same time as probably pissing off Gordon Brown. And as such, it is one of the most worthwhile causes I think I have come across for a good, long time.

Name Change

So, any eagle-eyed readers of this blog will note a slight change to your humble author's title. After a couple of years of being The Nameless One - a name I never liked as it reminds me of a monster in a Sylvester McCoy era Doctor Who adventure - I'm changing my title to The Nameless Libertarian. On the grounds that, y'know, I am a Libertarian. Also because I used to (before the Cameron era in the Tory party meant that I despaired of that party actually being useful in anyway, shape or form ever again) be The Nameless Tory. So it is more natural that I should be The Nameless Libertarian - since it ties in with both my ideological beliefs and the name of the party I support - than the pretentious The Nameless One.

Plus, on those rare occasions when someone links to this blog, they'll now be using the word Libertarian whenever they use my blogging alias. Which means that word - which so few people are aware of and even fewer are actually aware of what it means - will be projected just that little bit further. And maybe, just maybe, someone will read the word, wonder what it means, and do some research. And then realise that the Libertarian ideology is actually the only way forward for anyone who does not support the ever growing malignant cancer that is the government in this country...

Gordon Brown: Spend, spend, spend!

Gordon Brown:

"We will bring the same focus and determination to the task of safeguarding jobs and homes and small businesses, as we have done to avert the threatened meltdown of financial systems."

That's us fucked then.

Despite some of the spin that continues to float around like the odour of rancid feet, Gordon Brown is no economic genius. In fact, he would struggle to hit the level of economic lackwit. I reckon I know more about sensible economic policies that Gordo, and you could sum up what I know about those policies on the back on an envelope. You know, one of those really small envelopes that come with those tiny cheap Christmas cards that you send to those relatives you never really see and don't really like.

Of course, the big problem isn't that Gordon is an economic incompetent. In fact, he shares that dubious accolade with a whole host of other people in this country who failed to take into account the simple economic law that you can't spend more that you actually have in funds without something going wrong at some point. The big problem is, though, that Gordon is using the national purse to pursue his absurdly inane economic travesties. Yep, when he talks about spending his way out of this downturn, what he means is we'll be spending our way out of this economic downturn through our taxes. Whether we like it or not.

I'd have less of an issue with this if Gordon wasn't so shite. Unfortunately, I have as much confidence in Gordon to manage the economy as I do in that piss stained tramp I saw in St James' Park this morning managing to get through the day without buying some super strength lager. Seriously, as soon as Gordon tries to do anything it goes down the toilet. He has the touch of the reverse alchemist - give him a bar of gold, and he will turn it into water. Politicians make good calls and bad calls; Brown is unique in pretty much only being able to make the latter. We may as well have that piss-stained tramp in St James' Park this morning as our Prime Minister. The tramp is probably more socialble.

Look at what happened with the banks that Brown half-nationalised. Their share value has plummeted, and the position of those banks will get worse as the government uses its influence to try to manage those banks. Gordon took billions of pounds to buy substantial shares in those banks; the sagacity of his investment (of our money) can be seen in the share prices of those organisations. So what do we think will happen when Gordo spends even more of our hard earned cash trying to spend his way out of a recession? Fuck me, forget about recession; we'll probably be in in a depression by the end of the week.

But Gordon has to do something; his usual strategy of sitting still in an angry panic is no longer applicable in the current economic climate. People are screaming for action; even Gordon can't ignore that. The problem is that Gordon doesn't really understand how to alleviate the problems of the coming recession. Like the *good* socialist he is, he thinks the only way to save the country is by spending money like it is going out of fashion. However, the real solution that might help to kickstart the economy is a tax cut. A tax cut in an area that would allow consumers to regain some confidence and start spending again (even if that tax cut needs to be balanced with a tax increase in another area). The current economic slowdown is caused in part by a complete lack of confidence on the part of the people. A tax cut might help to persuade them that the government isn't going to use this crisis as an excuse to rob them of every single penny they earn, and might allow them to get enough confidence to start spending again.

However this idea will never, ever be taken up by the likes of Brown. The concept of tax cuts is alien and scary for Gordo, and the idea that the people might be able to spend the way out of this recession themselves is just insane in Gordonland*. Brown will never look at the facts, like the role the government played in creating the current economic situation or the inept way in which they have tried to handle it. Instead he will repeat the mantra "government knows best, government knows best, government knows best" as he heads to the bank with the taxpayer's credit card in his hands.

Forget the spin, forget the rhetoric - ignore anyone who states anything that contradicts the simple indisputable truth that Gordon Brown is an economic incompetent. And ignore anything that says that Nu Labour are solving the current economic crisis. The policies that Brown's government are pursuing are the equivalent of poking an angry bear with a stick: it is going to make things a whole lot worse before they get any better.

*A horrific place where nightmares come true...

1984 - Don't encourage them

DK is advertising a campaign to send a copy of 1984 to our elected Lords and Masters to remind them of just how atrocious a totalitarian regime actually is, and in the process hopefully get them to arrest the slide of the UK towards the nightmarish Oceania. However, whilst I have a lot of sympathy for this campaign, I cannot in good faith sign up to it. To explain, I'll use DK's words (emphasis mine):

1984 is not an instruction manual... as we all know. However, it seems that our lords and masters are unfamiliar with the book's contents—or alternatively, of course, they are very familiar and are actually using it as an instruction manual.

At the risk of sounding very, very paranoid, I kind of suspect that 1984 would open their eyes to a whole host of new shit that they can dump on the heads of the cowed, restricted and near broken British public. Put simply, I don't think they need any encouragement. Rather, I think they need something to make them more liberal, something to inspire them to be less dogmatic, illiberal and totalitarian.

I've no idea what, though, since the current crop of MPs could watch It's A Wonderful Life and turn it into some sort of dystopian nightmare. But perhaps a few copies of The Road to Serfdom or On Liberty might turn the tide. Assuming, that is, that our MPs are actually cerebral enough to be able to read a book that isn't printed on waterproof, chewable card with big letters and lots of pictures painted in primary colours.

There's Always Someone Looking at You!*

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the Credit Crunch or Banking Crisis or Complete Meltdown of International Capitalism Based On Spurious Socialist logic or whatever you want to call what is going on in the world economy at the moment generated a conspiracy theory. And here it is, based on the government’s (frankly draconian) dealings with Icelandic banks:

Is it possible that government or corrupt officials have been running for the past 10 years a massive money laundering scam with taxpayers funds through NGO's, Quango's, Local Authorities, Charities and 'Registered Companies', a scam so big that the financial crisis was going to scupper and expose it, that the beneficiaries were going to lose the money or even worse get found out, or was it that receivers and auditors would be able to unravel it, and that only Nationalisation and the use of terror legislation could keep it under wraps.

It is possible, yes. But I’d also say it is deeply, deeply unlikely. Probably on a par with someone finding out that I am secretly Superman. Which I am not. No, really, I’m not. I know you never see Superman and I together in the same place, but don’t read anything into that.

See, I can’t be doing with conspiracy theories in general. I believe JFK was shot by a loner as he was driven slowly in an open top limo in a state that pretty much hated him. I believe that Diana was killed when a drunk driver drove her car into a concrete wall very, very fast. I believe that both the CIA and FBI screwed up in the months before 9/11, meaning that a group of surprisingly amateurish terrorists were able to cause an unprecedented level of destruction in the US. And I believe that something really similar happened here on 7/7.

It comes down to this, I think – your perception of human nature. You either believe that people are fundamentally corrupt, evil, and conspiring 24/7 to fuck you and the rest of the world up in some way. Or you believe that people – even important people who are running countries and everything – are often lazy and incompetent, and then a minority of determined and evil and/or demented people take advantage of that. I’m firmly in the latter camp.

The evidence is all around us, if you care to look. See that set of roadworks, the ones that have been going on forever without any progress being made. That’s down to people being lazy. And incompetent. Likewise, when you spend half an hour waiting to speak to your bank on the phone, only to find that they can’t help you in anyway and actually seem to faintly resent you calling them – that’s incompetence. With a healthy splash of needless, mindless bureaucracy thrown in for good measure. And when the tax office takes too much money from you, that’s down to laziness, bureaucracy and incompetence. It might feel like something more, and it might be pretty gutting and ire inducing. But it is just people being, basically, people. In other words, it is people being a bit crap.

So apply that to, say, the Kennedy assassination. What seems more likely – that the Secret Service was arrogant and unthinking when they let the incredibly vain Kennedy drive around in an open top limo just to boost his ego, and a lone nutter took advantage of that? Or that there was a conspiracy, involving Cuba, and the Mafia, maybe even LBJ in cahoots with the FBI and CIA, to kill a President in plain view of the world? Since the average group of people aren’t capable of organising a piss up in a brewery – even if the brewery is offering an events manager – how likely is it that any group of people could actually organise the murder of a President and keep the conspiracy covered up for decades?

I mean, the one time there was a genuine conspiracy – and I’m talking about Watergate here – it was based around an administration trying to cover-up the pointless burglary of a Democrat office by loopy members of Nixon’s campaign team. And how long were they able to keep it all a secret for? It was just months before the truth started to emerge, and the whole *conspiracy* was uncovered by a couple of hacks. Watergate shows how conspiracies would operate in the real world – they would be ineptly put into place and oh so easy to uncover.

So what seems more likely – that Gordon Brown panicked and wanted to posture, so invoked terrorist/security legislation against Icelandic banks, or that Gordon Brown has been at the head of a criminal conspiracy for the past ten years to launder money on an international scale? Maybe I’m lacking in imagination, but to me it is clear that it is the former.

I could be wrong, and hopelessly naïve here, but I can’t help but think that the most likely explanation is that people are stupid and incompetent, rather than conspiring away with the sort of ability and intelligence that just ain’t seen in the real world. The banking crisis – and the response to it – is caused by greed, panic and stupidity, not by criminal elements secretly controlling the world. Frankly, the criminal elements wouldn’t be able to agree on what the conspiracy should be, let alone how to put it into practice.

*A special prize for anyone who can name the song I am referencing in the title.

Sex on the beach

There are some crimes that warrant prison terms. There are some crimes that practically demand them. Shagging on the beach, however, wouldn't be one of the ones that really stands out. After all, if such as law was introduced in, say, Ibiza, then their prison population would quadruple overnight. However, not everyone agrees with this stance on public shagging. At least, not the authorities in Dubai:

A British man and woman have been sentenced to three months in jail in Dubai after being found guilty of having sex on a beach.

Three months for a fondle on a sun lounger seems draconian; but when I think about it, I have very little sympathy for these people. Ultimately, they should have known better - not least because a police officer told them to stop what they were doing before their arrest! Even if they are going to plead ignorance of the law, or that they weren't actually playing hide the chipolata, then a police officer telling you to stop what you are doing should be a pretty good indicator that it is time to stop what you are doing and move on to doing something else.

Ultimately, though, it should be obvious that other countries do have different ideas about what constitutes acceptable behaviour. As a heads up, people, countries with a strong religious foundation are generally going to be less permissive than that Club 18-30 that you went on a couple of years ago. You might not agree with their religion, you might not agree with their laws. But whilst you are in their country, you need to obey their laws.

Post of the Day #2

From the Moai (who is e-mailing me from a public library, as a useless aside) I give you this appraisal of Sarah "In No Way Am I Compellingly Loopy" Palin. Made me laugh out loud, if only for this quote:

It takes gumption and spunk and other made-up words that hearken back to another time - a realer time - a whiter time - back when men were men and women were men and great big hairy-chested frontiersmen of the plains wrestled oxen and caribou and the savage Injun Man in their mighty conquest of the West before succumbing to explosive amoebic dysentery! And with the help of God and millions of dollars in energy industry donations, Sarah Palin will give us that dysentery again!

You know, I reckon a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for dysentery. So vote Republican if you like having the shits!

The Lives of Others

Every now and again you see a truly great film. I had the fortune of seeing one such film on Sunday - The Lives of Others.

It is an extraordinary film in so many ways. For those of you who don't know it (and, as a heads up, there are spoilers ahead), it tells the story of a couple in East Germany who fall under the watchful, malevolent glare of the Stasi. It then depicts the slow unravelling of one of the main characters, and the malign methods used by both the Stasi and by Communist government ministers to achieve what they want.

This genre of film - dealing with totalitarian regimes - often lends itself (understandly) to dwelling on the brutality and emotional hysteria attached to life under a dictatorship. The Lives of Others does not take that route at all. The *crimes* against the state are very minor - taking unprescribed prescription drugs, writing an article about the hidden suicide stats - rather than this being a tale of revolutionaries trying to bring down the nation. The methods of the Stasi are more underhand and psychological than physically abusive or sadistic. And the end of the film - when a Stasi officer realises that sacrificing his career to protect the man he was spying on has been realised and subtly, but very publicly, acknowledged - is played out in a clever, moving and utterly fitting way.

However what was most striking for me was just how the Communist state was depicted. The film steered well clear of the cliched view of totalitarian companies so often shown on the big screen. Rather, life in the former East Germany was shown to be grim. Whatever freedoms were on display could be revoked at any time by the state, and there were gross government ministers who had absolutely no issue with using and abusing their power to settle grudges, break people and get laid. Finally, the Stasi operated completely without compunction - they were happy to invade people's homes, search those properties destructively over and over again, and bribe and blackmail just about anyone to achieve what they wanted to achieve. Betrayal and broken people were depicted as the norm under this Communist regime, not the exception. And the state came across as far more nightmarish as a result.

The Lives of Others is definitely worth watching - both as an example of excellent film making, but also as a reminder of how grim life is under a totalitarian and dictatorial state, and why every failure by the government in their attempts to expand their powers should be celebrated.

42 Days... All Hail The Lords!

Good:

"The government's plans to extend terror detention limits to 42 days have been heavily defeated in the House of Lords. Peers voted to keep the current 28-day limit on pre-charge detentions by 309 votes to 118 - a majority of 191."

Now. I've got a crazy idea. Now the notion of increasing the detention limits has been rejected, let's really think outside the box and instead look at a crazy alternative - let's reduce the pre-charge detention period... but I can't see either the Tories or Labour rushing to embrace that policy, whatever the merits...

*That* Rescue Plan

And, as banks throughout the world failed and floundered, the nation looked for a new sort of hero. The right type of man for the situation. Some sort of true hero for difficult, trying and testing times. And at the point, from a dark corner in Downing Street, the least likely hero stepped forward. A shrivelled, contorted angry shadow of a man came blinking into the media lights, his wallet bulging, and he gurned his face into something vaguely resembling an arrogant smile. And he started to spend the money in his wallet, believing this was the way to save the banks, and therefore the market, and therefore the nation, and therefore the world.

And so, Generous, Gallant Gordon was born.

You could be forgiven for reading some of the headlines over the weekend and coming away with the thought that Gordon Brown has pretty much – single handed – stopped the crisis currently gripping the financial sector. The truth is somewhat different. This plan is nowhere near as philanthropic as it first appears. Which is hardly surprising, given it comes from one of the most controlling British governments in recent history. It also might not end up being as good as it first appears for Gordon, although the vast majority of this country don’t care anymore if Gordo suffers a wee bit. And finally, it really isn’t the perfect reason for further state control, despite the ramblings of the likes of The Guardian and its *columnists*.

The Plan

Here’s how it works. The government offers a shed load of cash for struggling banks to prop up their balance sheets. Therefore the banks don’t go out of business. Magic. Crisis averted?

Well, maybe, but there are a couple of points I’d raise at this point. First of all, let’s be clear on this. This is taxpayer’s money being spent on the banks. This is your money. The government is essentially being superficially philanthropic with your cash. Some people will favour the government using billions of our money, others won’t. But let’s be very clear on this. It is your money being spent here.

And whilst the government is pretty dumb, it is not quite dumb enough to go into what is effectively a business deal without gaining some sort of concessions from the banks in question. So they will gain shares in those banks, and will also gain influence. Over what those banks do, over whom they employ, and over how much those employees get paid. The banking market is already highly regulated; this plan is allowing the government to buy an even larger stake in the financial sector.

You can argue that the government had to take some action to shore up British banks. However, don’t be naïve about what this plan means. Effectively the government has taken a substantial amount of your money and bought itself a large stake in the banking markets. For anyone who questions the efficacy of the government at the best of times, this will be a deeply concerning move.

The Impact on Gordon

With the likes of Polly Toynbee rushing to hug Brown again, you can probably forgive our Prime Minister (at least a little bit) for feeling quite smug this morning. He is playing up to the Labour loyalists with this plan, and is earning gushing praise from Old Labour. But after weeks of being about a popular as a leper at a child’s swimming pool with everyone in the country, Gordo is probably relieved to be getting praise from some sections of Britain. However, his attempts to buy a large stake in a number of banks with someone else’s money may yet come back to haunt him. Here are (come of the) reasons why:

1. Banking decisions: The government will win influence in the banks it helps to subsidise. Which means that, even if they don’t have an impact on the day to day lending decisions that the banks make, there will be a perception that those banks’ decisions are made in tandem with the government. So when the man on the Clapham omnibus doesn’t get his mortgage, or his loan, or to get to open a new bank account, he will not just be railing against the bank, but also the Brown.
2. The anti-bonus rhetoric: So, when the government buys a stake in a bank, there won’t be any bonuses paid. Some would argue that this is fair enough. But only some people within those banks will be responsible for the decisions that have put their institutions on the government breadline. Which means that those working for the banks part owned by the government will suddenly be being paid one hell of a lot less than those who aren’t partially in government employ (and therefore can still offer bonuses). The problem should be immediately obvious – talented people within the banking industry (who let’s face it don’t work for love of the job, but for the cold, hard cash) will go where it is most profitable. Which means that as government buy into banks in this country, they may well be forcing the best of people in their banks into the employ of the competition. And sending talent to the competition never makes business sense.

3. Taking the flak for the good times: Gordon has been very quick to criticise the banks now the shit has hit the fan. But for many years, the banks took risks and paid out big bonuses. Their lending decisions kept the property market afloat, and the economy booming. The bonuses paid out helped shore up the coffers of the Treasury. All of these elements, now being declaimed by the government as a “bad thing”, were either ignored or tacitly condoned by the government for over a decade. And who was the Chancellor in those years? Let me consult my Ladybird book of Chancellors… hang on… hang on… just skipping past the badger Chancellor… hang on…. oh, wait, it was Gordon Brown. Gordon maybe right to legislate and regulate now… but where was he when the seeds of this banking crisis were being sewn? Oh, he was loving the revenues and the economic boom, and wallowing in the fortunes heading in the direction of the Treasury like a pig wallowing in seven different shades of shit. Gordon had better be careful that none of his newfound cheerleaders scrutinises the causes of the crisis too much, lest they work out he is partially responsible as well.

Finally, I’d love to hear where the billions being spent to support the banks are actually coming from. As far as I was aware the government doesn’t have tens of billions of pounds hanging around in bank accounts, waiting to be spent. So, Gordo, where does the money come from? It will be less than popular if it becomes clear that the money is going to come from crucial government projects. It is going to be about as easy to swallow as cyanide if it becomes clear that taxes will have to go up to pay for this rescue plan.

Intervention isn’t the answer

There will be left-wingers crowing on for quite some time about how the government had to step in to rescue part of the private sector, and how such interventions could and should be the future. The reality is somewhat different.

The government has bought itself a massive stake in a number of previously much more autonomous organisations. The government has bought itself a massive stake in private organisations that were struggling. There is no evidence that this part-nationalisation will lead to an increase in profitability for the organisations in question, and no evidence that it will be that easy for the government to recover its money. In fact, government run organisations if anything tend to be less efficient (and therefore less profitable). Left wingers hoping that this government share grab is going to make the case for more government acquisitions in the private sector may end up being very disappointed. Historical precedent would suggest that this is not going to make the case for government intervention, but rather illustrate just how much money the government can waste when it sticks its oar into the private sector.

Ultimately, we need to be very clear on what this rescue plan is and what it means. It is a power grab by the government into the financial services sector using taxpayer’s money. It is going to mean an increase of regulation and government intervention into a sector already struggling to stay afloat. There is no real evidence that this rescue plan will save those organisations who take advantage of it, or make those organisations more efficient and profitable. Rather, this feels like an oppressive and draconian move by an increasingly socialist government to buy influence in a sector it fundamentally dislikes. It is like a doctor trying to remove an ingrown toenail by lopping off the patient’s foot. I don’t know how this rescue plan will end up playing out; I do know there is a lot to be concerned about as billions of pounds worth of our money is being spent like it is going out of fashion.

Gordon isn’t a saviour – he wasn’t when he was Chancellor, he hasn’t been whilst he's been Prime Minister, and he certainly isn’t now. The fanfare around this rescue plan shouldn’t disguise the fact that there is no guarantee of qualitative success, or that this plan will make financial and political sense for those who have paid for it (yep, you and me) in the future.

In Praise of Michael Howard

A quote from a comment from the wonderfully named David Cameron's Forehead on Michael Howard:

The man is an absolute bellend, & I'd like to hear why you think otherwise!?

Which is a fair enough request, but the answer is probably worth more than burying in the comments section of a post completely unrelated to the former Tory Party Leader.

See, I do like Michael Howard. I admire and on some levels respect him. I have no hesitation in saying he was the best Tory leader since Thatcher - although some of the competition is not that fierce. And whilst I still have serious issues with Howard, I still reckon he was one of the few politicians in recent political history who actually warranted any proactive political support.

Let's deal with some of the problems with Howard. First up - and there is no way from getting away from this - there is the small question of his presentational issues. Anne Widdecombe - a woman who resembles a baggy, damp duvet in a bad wig, so there are element of pot and kettle if we take her comments on presentation too seriously - famously described Howard of having "something of the night" about him. It helped to lead to the cliched view of Howard as some sort of vampire. However, I'd argue that this sort of synopsis of Howard's image is actually hideously inaccurate. Painting him a a vampire makes him sound far more glamorous than he actually is. If he is a vampire, then he is a vampire who has let himself go and is in need of a serious influx of new blood. Ultimately, Howard looks like exactly what he is - an old man who has not aged that well.

And yes, he doesn't sound very good when he is talking. There is something in his voice that just doesn't work. He sounds slightly strangulated, like he is sitting on his own scrotum and as a result the pitch of his voice is all over the place. And his complete inability to say the world "people" is a big flaw in a politician who seemed to want to use that word in every sentence. I can't have been alone in being confused every now and again in wondering what exactly these "peepell" were that he constantly cited.

Yet I refuse to dismiss a politician - any politician, of any party or ideology - because of the way they look and they sound. We've experimenting with a photogenic Prime Minister who speaks well, and we've should all now understand after a decade of Blairism that looking OK and sounding posh are not good enough qualifications to make someone Prime Minister. Yes, you can note that Howard both looked and sounded incredibly awkward; you should also concede that Churchill was no looker himself, and Thatcher had a voice that could liquefy concrete.

Some of the political opinions of Howard are far more of a concern for me. As DCF points out:

I should have thought he'd be on your shit list, as his opinions are straight out of the Daily Mail, as represented by the shite he brought in as home secretary

Yes, Howard did implement some deeply restrictive and illiberal measures whilst he was Home Secretary. And he probably was the most right wing Home Secretary in recent memory, if you ignore Straw, Clarke, Reid and Smith. But whilst I am not making excuses for him, Howard was simply doing what the Tory party do when they are in power and the polls aren't going the way they want them to go. He was playing to the blue rinse brigade, and implement the sort of socially conservative policies that would have pleased retired Brigadiers everywhere. Watch this space; Cameron's Home Secretary will do very similar things as soon as the shit gets anywhere near the fan.

Likewise, some of Howard's rhetoric as Tory leader worried me. The posters stating "It isn't racist to talk about immigration..." were technically correct, but a colossal misjudgement. The Tories at the time were still being dismissed as racists, and as the "nasty party", so why the hell did Howard think it was a good idea to spout that sort of line on billboards across the nation?

So, he didn't look or sound great, and he had some ideas that were deeply troubling for me. Why on earth did I (and do I still) support Howard?

First of all, he was the first Opposition leader since Blair went into Number 10 who actually understood what opposition was about. Hague gave the impression of being apologetic for being Tory leader, whilst Ian Fucking Duncan Fucking Smith may as well not have bothered. In contrast, Howard took the fight to Blair and actually seemed to understand that it was his job to oppose that grinning homunculus of a Prime Minister.

And as a result of actually acting like an Opposition leader, Howard made the Tories a recognisable political force in the UK. For the first time since 1992, the 2005 General Election presented a Tory party actually willing to fight for power, rather than just surrender when the election was announced. I'm no fan of the Tories, but actually having some opposition to Nu Labour was (and is) a good thing in this country.

Finally, Howard actually gave the impression in believing in what he was fighting for. He actually was that "conviction politician" that so many leaders bleat about trying to be but fail to be as they are more interested in poll ratings than policy. At the height of Blairism, Howard was a breath of fresh air - a politician who actually believes in something. It was novel at the time, and would still be unique amongst main party leaders if it were repeated now.

Michael Howard - the best major party leader when he was in power, and better than any of the trio currently running one of the major parties in this country right now.

Yep, I'd vote for Obama

Of course, I don't have a vote in the US election. And I'd imagine that this blog has precisely zero influence on the US. But that doesn't stop me from having an opinion, and since this blog is pure (often unfiltered) opinion I'll give my opinion on who I would vote for if I had a vote in the Presidential election. And it would be for Obama rather than McCain.

Let me clarify my position. I don't like Obama, and I am far from being an Obama fan. His bellicose talk about US troops in Pakistan was idiotic, and I am distrustful of both his inexperience and his complete lack of any real policy proposals. His constant talk of the audacity of hope cannot make up for the paucity of policy. He has been described as the empty suit; I'd agree with that.

The problem is that there is very little to distinguish Obama from McCain. Obama would attack Pakistan; McCain would bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran. McCain has been unable to come up with any real policies to distinguish himself from either Obama or from President Bush II. The only real distinction between Obama and McCain is that the latter is seriously lacking in charisma. That isn't the reason why I favour one over the other - I'm a fan of Michael Howard, and Lord knows he has about as much charisma as my right shoe - but McCain's presentational problems help to highlight that he is not really offering anything at all.

So it isn't policies or presentation that has made me plump for Obama. No, it is the choice of Vice Presidential candidate that worries me. Obama's choice of Biden is as uninspired as it is boring. However Palin is not just a bad choice from Vice-President - she is fucking terrifying. As Iain Dale (in a post also supporting Obama) writes:

And then there is Sarah Palin. As regular readers know, when she was chosen I said she would prove to be an inspired choice or a car crash. The initial evidence leant towards the former. Latterly, though, we have all seen too much evidence of the latter. I defended her against the appalling media onslaught against her, which I found sexist, insulting and worse. I simply could not bring myself to believe that a Republican presidential candidate could have chosen someone so ill-equipped for the job. But I was wrong, and I now accept that. McCain has not been a well man. He is 72 years old and has had cancer four times. His whole demeanour indicates that he might well not live through a whole four year term. Yet despite the intensity of the vetting process, he still chose Sarah Palin, a woman whose charisma temporarily masked her complete unsuitability to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

I'd go a bit further than Iain. I'd say that Palin is not just completely unsuitable, I'd say she is such a mentalist that she could compete with George W Bush in the "Who Is The Insanest Village Idiot?" competition. She is as mad as a rabid badger with a serious personality disorder. A gun toting, god bothering, self-styled pitbull in lipstick - she is pretty much the last person you would want in the White House after eight years of a cowboy boot wearing, god bothering shaved ape in a suit residing in that particular address. And, as Iain rightly points out, she really could end up in the White House if McCain is elected. Yes, the Veep is only a heartbeat away from the presidency at anyone time, but with McCain that heartbeat is far older and in a far more rundown body than any other President since Ronald Reagan retired. The choice of Vice-President is always important; for McCain it was more important than ever. It has become the deciding factor, as far as I am concerned, about whether McCain should win the keys to the White House or not.

And he fucked it right up.

So Obama gets my support - for what it is worth*. And he wins that support using the method that so many politicians now seem to rely on to get elected. His ticket is the least worst option. "The Audacity of Hope" my hairy arse - it is fear of the mad woman that gets my support and may yet see President Obama become a reality.

*As discussed, Senator Obama, my support is probably worth very little. But you're still welcome to it.

Punish Them! More!

Gordon Brown on those who have helped to *create* the current banking crisis:

"Our economy is built around people who work hard, who show effort, who take responsible decisions, and whether there is excessive and irresponsible risk-taking, that has got to be punished."

Ignoring the fact that our economy is also built on those who do take some risks, and that risk taking can be a very profitable and useful part of capitalism, who exactly does Brown mean when he is talking about the irresponsible risk takers? Because, sure, some banks have been taking risks that are just plain stupid. But then again, so have members of the public. Taking on a mortgage that you can ill afford and that you end up defaulting on is a massive risk. Is Brown talking about punishing these people as well?

And aren't those who took irresponsible risks - be they banks, bankers, home owners, who-the-fuck-ever - already being punished? Banks are going out of business, bankers are losing their jobs. Surely to fuck that is enough? Or does Brown want to shit on them further? What the fuck is his problem? Can he only satisfy himself by piling on the crap for those already suffering? Is he looking at the City and not seeing enough bankers on the roof, before asking himself what he can do to make the situation fucking worse?

Make no mistake, Brown is loving the current financial crisis. It allows him to flex his socialist, anti-capitalist instincts at the same time as posing as a statesman dealing with a major crisis. But the above comment serves to remind everyone in this country about the one, great Gordon Brown thunder.

He is a complete cunt.

On the current economic crisis

From the ever amusing Daily Mash:

Julian Cook, chief economist at Corbett and Barker, said: "The government will give your money to the banks so the banks can start lending you that money, probably at around 7% APR. Thanks to all the interest you're paying on your own money, the banks will make billions of pounds again and normality will be restored. After a few years of this the government will cash in the bank shares it bought with your money and use the profits to build a huge fucking dome somewhere." He added: "In case you hadn't already worked it out - the entire global financial system is predicated on the assumption that you're an idiot."

I'm not saying it is fact, but there is a certain ring of truth to it...

Election 2008: Let's all go debatin'

The second 2008 US Presidential debate happened. Actually, saying it "happened" makes it somehow sound much more dramatic than it actually was. So let me rephrase that - the second 2008 US Presidential debate kind of took place. I think.

Obama won - although he didn't have to do much more than turn up to secure his victory. Increasingly, and as the polls turn against him and his campaign, McCain resembles a grumpy, tetchy old man with chronic constipation. He seemed to treat the debate like he is treating his entire battle against Obama; as an inconvenience that shouldn't be happening to a Senator of his calibre.

Whilst Obama won, however, a lot of the coverage seems to be saying that he failed to deliver a "knockout blow". The closest he got was citing McCain singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" again. But then I got thinking about it. When do people ever really deliver a knockout blow at these sort of things? Most of the really famous debate moments are not so much one candidate kicking the other in the teeth, but rather one candidate saying or doing something immensely stupid. Take Jerry Ford claiming that Eastern Europe wasn't under Soviet domination in 1976. Or the reprehensible Jimmy Carter in 1980 claiming that his daughter was crucial to his decision making process about the bomb. Or there is my personal favourite - Michael Dukakis responding to a question in 1988 about the death penalty and a theoretical scenario about the rape and murder of his wife like a particularly emotionally cold replicant. None of these examples was really about what those candidates' opponents did - they are simply foot in mouth disease, through and through.

And where does this talk of "knockout blows" come from anyway? These are debates, not boxing matches. Talk of knockouts creates images that are far more exciting than the boring, tepid reality of a US Presidential debate. In fact, calling them debates is probably pushing it. They are far more polite, structured and meaningless that Prime Minister's Questions in this country. Watching a US Presidential Debate is effectively watching boring people, being boring, about boring things, at a boring venue somewhere. The talk of "knockout blows" and other associated hype comes from the media, who are so desperate for something other than endlessly repeated stump speeches that they make these debates into something far more exciting than they are or, indeed, ever could be.

However, the media hype means that these *debates* are important, and will help to decide the outcome of the election. And as it stands, Obama is winning both the debates and the election. Barring an October surprise or a real turnaround in the next debate, President Obama - once just a pipe dream of the more naive US Liberals - is rapidly becoming a reality.

Media and the Credit Crunch

As the economy disappears down the shitter quicker than dinner in a dysentery ward, we can be sure that the world media are focusing on the right stories. This, for example, is essential stuff that everyone must know.

But it is not all hairy lipped hearthrobs. The Daily Mail, with customary disregard for reality, is offering some *meaningful* tips on how to deal with the Credit Crunch and after you have watched your savings disappear into the abyss. Tip 2 made me wide-eyed with incredulity:

On your walk in the park, why not watch children play their impromptu football games? It's often more entertaining than their professional counterparts. And you'll never see a bad or violent tackle.

So, that's The Daily Mail - one of the most hysterical papers in the country, saying you should stare at kids in the park. Normally such behaviour would have a tabloid journalist hunting you down like a dog and burning "PAEDO" into your head with a red hot branding iron. Because the banks are having a bit of a shitty time, suddenly staring at kids in the park has become, in the compellingly demented world of The Mail, "ok". Because, you know, it is free.

I always knew that The Daily Mail would have a complete breakdown and disappear into its own hate filled arsehole; I never thought it would be over tips to survive the Credit Crunch.

"See, some of my bestest friends are..."

So, some priest or other has got himself into hot water over some comments he made about homosexuality. The BBC sums up these comments really nicely:

He suggested in his internet blog that homosexuals should have their backsides tattooed with the slogan: "Sodomy can seriously damage your health."

Apparently these comments were meant to be satirical. Hmmm. I love a bit of satire. But these comments appear to be more grossly offensive than satirical. I'd like to say that there is a fine line between satire and rampantly homophobic ignorance. Unfortunately, there isn't.

Still, his "satire" allows me to propose my new scheme, which is tattooing the words "Believing in a invisible, fictional sky fairy can seriously damage your common sense and tolerance for others" on the foreheads of Christian bigots everywhere.

And the Rev Mullan has some other thoughts on homosexuality as well:

In the same blog, Mr Mullen called for all gay pride parades, which he branded "obscene", to be outlawed.

So not just branding gay people, Mr Mullen also wants to suppress them. Although in fairness his desire to suppress gay people was also clearly demonstrated by his idea of tattooing them.

But what gets to me - what really gets to me - is this classic justification for his atrocious views:

"I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion."

Oh, bless you, Rev Mullan. Bless you. I haven't heard this justification used (in an apparently serious way) for a good long time. But it really is the classic excuse for pig ignorant comments. There is no difference between Rev Mullan's comment and a member of the BNP saying "I have nothing against immigrants, some of my best friends are immigrants..." Or the redneck in America stating "I have nothing against black people, some of my friends are black people but..." Or even a Nazi concentration camp guard stating "I have nothing against Jews. Some of my best friends were Jews, but..." And all I have done with those phrases is adjust them slightly; the sentiment is the same. As is the response to all such statements - having friends who are gay/black/immigrants/whatever doesn't stop you from being an ignorant prick. If, you know, you are an ignorant prick.

I don't know the Rev Mullan, but judging by his comments he comes across as the sort of nasty little bigot who is hiding behind his prayer book and church frock. And in being bigoted, he is missing perhaps the key teaching of his Messiah - "Love Thy Neighbour". And to clarify for the Rev Mullan and his knuckle dragging ilk, that is love thy neighbour. Not love thy neighbour unless they are gay, in which case you can tattoo them and suppress them.

Still, it would be wrong to brand all Christians as bigoted little shits based on the words of the Rev Mullan. It is only some of them who are bigoted little shits. And I can say that with a good degree of confidence - see, many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion.

Mandelson - Third Time Lucky

I haven't commented on Mandelson returning to the Cabinet, mainly because everything that needs to be said has pretty much already been said. That fucker has more (political) resurrections than Lazarus on speed during a zombie epidemic; however, given his total inability to avoid resignation issues, it can't be that long before he is returned to that political grave where he appears to be most at home.

That said, I can't help but hope that Mandelson does manage to make it until 2010, and Labour's seemingly inevitable kicking at the feet of the electorate. There would be something wonderfully cyclical and karmic about watching Mandelson, who was there at the beginning of the Nu Labour dream, also being there when that false dawn finally unravels completely and passes into the dustbin of history. Mandelson was one of the architects of Nu Labour - I really hope he is there, on site, at the very heart of both the Labour party and the Labour government, when it finally gives up the ghost and the edifice crumbles away into nothing.

Shock! Horror! Cameron is a Tory!

There has been some incredulity about the revelation that David Cameron is not a Libertarian. As Jackart points out, this really shouldn't be a surprise as Cameron is, y'know, a Conservative.

So to anyone who thinks that the news that Cameron is not a Libertarian, I have some more shocking news for you. He isn't a Communist. Oh no. And also, he isn't a Liberal Democrat. Also, he isn't a card-carrying Trade Unionist or a member of the Labour Party. Shocking, isn't it? Actually, no, of course it fucking isn't. Cameron is a Conservative through and through. And even in this era of political mendacity and duplicity, it must be pretty clear to everyone that Cameron is a Tory. Look at all of the little of signals he has sent out that would indicate that he is a Conservative. Like joining the Tory Party. And working for a former Tory Minister. And then becoming a Tory MP. Before becoming the Conservative Party leader. Let's be honest, he is a Conservative through and through.

And as a result, if you are a Libertarian, you are wasting your time if you support Cameron. In fact, and at the risk of repeating myself, if you are a Libertarian who supports the Conservative, you are part of the problem, not the solution. Seriously, the Conservatives are not that different from the Labour party. As soon as the shit hits the fan after they become the government, the Tories will show their socially conservative ways. Deep down they are no more Libertarian that the Labour party - it is just that their disregard for freedom takes on a different tone to that of the Labour party.

So, Libertarians across the land, don't set yourself up for disappointment. Don't support Cameron and the Tories. It will only lead to bitterness and resentment. Cameron has point blank said that he is not a Libertarian - if he isn't to be trusted to implement policies he has promised to follow, why the fuck would anyone expect him to follow an ideology he has expressed disdain for?

There is an alternative. Yes, LPUK is a tiny party with a long way to go before they get anywhere near being a real political force in this country. Yes, it make take years - if not decades - before they are in a position to form a government. And yeah, there is no chance of them being the opposition (let alone the government) after Brown finally concedes to go to the electorate in 2010. But you know what, if you a Libertarian and support the Libertarian party you have just as much chance of their being a Libertarian government after the next election as you do if you support the Tories - precisely zero. However, if you support LPUK you have the chance for a real Libertarian party in the future. Whereas if you support the Tories, you can guarantee two things - the crushing disappointment of the social conservatism of the Tories combined with the maintenance of the statues quo.

A Libertarian future could be really bright, but a Libertarian future definitely happen under Cameron or the Conservatives.

That'll be a penny please, sir.

So, WH Smith have followed in the example of Marks and Spencer by charging for carrier bags. Although for some reason Smith's bags are 4p cheaper than M&S. Still, at least we know which company offers value for money.

There will be some that praise the decision of various retail outlets to charge for carrier bags, and praise this as an increasingly common example of companies becoming environmentally responsible. Now, I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but the reason why shops have started to charge for bags isn't because they have been won over to the environmental cause. No - the reason why they have done this is to make money.

Think about it. By pursuing this policy - a muted nod in the direction of the environmental movement - large companies may be able to win over some people who might not normally shop at their stores. Let's be honest, the Friends of Swampy probably don't spend a lot of time and money at M&S normally. The charging for carrier bags may help to make more money because it may attract new customers.

Furthermore, as someone who was a retail manager for over four years, I can tell you that carrier bags cost money. Believe it or not, carrier bags don't appear free of charge in M&S and co. They are bought - and whilst the cost is not debilitating, it still represents a substantial cost that hits the bottom line of the P&L. By reducing the number of people who want bags, you reduce this cost - and make your business more profitable. Also, you reduce the costs of storing the plastic bags - 200 boxes of bags takes up a lot of space in a store warehouse - space that could be used to increase product availability and therefore increase the amount of sales.

So, by charging for carrier bags, stores may win new customers and will reduce costs. It isn't so much surprising that some stores have stated charging for bags; what I find more amazing is that it has taken them so long to do so, and that more haven't jumped on this bandwagon.

Still, at least WH Smith have managed to do something positive by charging one pence for carrier bags. They have managed to find a use for the increasingly redundant 1p coin. And that should be a blessing to anyone who wants to spend their pennies on second rate carrier bags in a second rate newsagent who would have gone out of business a long time ago has they not got such an unlikely stranglehold on this nation's station platforms.

Ruth Kelly, Former Minister

I was expecting that whilst I was away that I would miss out on a lot of high profile, crucial stories that practically demand the second hand opinions and mild swearing of this blog. I was completely wrong. Basically, whilst I was away, nothing really happened in the news.

Perhaps the biggest story for me as I trawl through what has happened over the past week and a half is the news that Ruth Kelly has stepped down from the Cabinet. And may I be the first to offer my heart felt congratulations. Her departure from British Politics is most welcome and a definite step forward.

My dislike for Kelly isn't based on the way she looks - although Lord knows she represents a stinging rebuke to all those who claim that modern politics is based on looks. Kelly dresses like a slightly stressed bag lady, and would not look out of place walking round a park, mumbling to herself about whatever incoherent thoughts go through the mind of a bag lady as they do their daily stroll around the park. She is also not the most attractive of people, resembling a Picasso rendering of those two upside down faced people from Everything But The Girl. But we can't just judge our politicians on how they look; I retain a sneaking fondness for William Hague, but will concede that he looks and sounds eminently punchable.

No, my dislike of Kelly comes from her religious views. Don't get me wrong, you can pretty much believe anything you like as far as I am concerned. That lizards rule the world, that the Holocaust didn't happen, that everything is at the whim of a temperamental invisible sky fairy - your beliefs may make you an absolute fucking idiot, but you can still have them if you like. Even if you are a member of the deeply conservative (which for the Catholic Church - arguably the most conservative organisation ever created - is really saying something) and, frankly, deeply strange Opus Dei.

The problem comes, though, if you are a member of a deeply strange Christian cult and are made Minister for Women and Equality. Because for a member of Opus Dei, equality is something dangerous and should be feared. After all, those who don't believe what you believe are wrong. Those who dare to have sexual relations (especially with members of the same gender) for any other reason that procreation, are evil and should be judged. Again, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong (if you wish to be an archaic moron) with holding these views - it only becomes an issue when your beliefs directly oppose your ministerial brief.

Now you could argue that it is not Kelly's fault for being made Equality Minsiter - that decision was made by Prime Minister Blair. I would argue, however, that it is her fault for accepting the role. What on earth stopped her from saying "actually, Tony, I've had a think and my religious views probably mean that equality will never be one of my priorities, so I will have to turn down the kind offer of being Minsiter for Equality"? Actually, I can take a guess at what stopped her - the Nu Labour obssessions with ministerial posts, ego boosts, and big salaries.

Which is why I am glad that Kelly has gone from the Cabinet - the decision to make her Minsiter for Equality sums up the contempt that Nu Labour seem to feel towards their ministerial roles. Kelly's beliefs made her unsuited to the position she held - fair enough, but it didn't stop her boss from putting her in charge of equality or from her accepting the role. Kelly can believe what she likes, but she shouldn't then be hypocritical enough to accept a ministerial job that flies in the face of her absurd religious beliefs.

But I'm calling for Nu Labourites not to hypocritical - the very definition of a waste of time. I'm going to do something more productive now, like build a perpetual motion machine or command the tide to turn back.

Sir Ian Blair resigns!

At last! Fuck me, he held on. He clung onto power in an utterly shameless way that made even his namesake look dignified.

But why did "Sir" Ian Blair resign?

"Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair has announced his resignation, blaming a lack of support from London mayor Boris Johnson."

Thank fuck! Finally, Mayor Boris manages to do something right!

An Observation

Back in the UK, but am jet-lagged and have about a million different things to do today. So blogging will be light.

But for anyone who is in the highly unlikely position of having missed this blog whilst I have been living the high life across the pond, I'll offer a quick observation. There are many differences between the US and the UK, and some similarities. One of the similarities is the state of our incumbent political leaders. The US has a gormless, redneck fucktard whooping around the White House, whilst we have a dour drip who increasingly resembles a septic sore on the face of the country in Downing Street. Let's face it, we both have morons for leaders.

However one of the key differences is that there is some hope for the US. Be it Obama, be it McCain - change is coming. And whilst neither one of those candidates would be anyone's dream President, they are both likely to be a fuck of a lot better than Bush Junior. Here in the UK, there is no hope on the immediate horizon. We have Brown until 2010 - despite his gross incompetence, there seems to be little chance of unseating the unelected social and political cripple for over a year.

And the cause of this difference between the UK and the US? Term limits and fixed dates for elections. I'm not an advocate for either; however Gordon is making me actively reconsider my position...