Arresting the Opposition

No, the title isn't a pun about stopping the opposition in its tracks. It is about the government actually having an opposition politician arrested.

And why? His alleged connection to a Home Office Whistle blower. And what breaches of national security did this mole apparently reveal? This:

"(The arrest) follows a series of leaks, including:

The November 2007 revelation that the home secretary knew the Security Industry Authority had granted licences to 5,000 illegal workers, but decided not to publicise it.

The February 2008 news that an illegal immigrant had been employed as a cleaner in the House of Commons.

A whips' list of potential Labour rebels in the vote on plans to increase the pre-charge terror detention limit to 42 days.

A letter from the home secretary warning that a recession could lead to a rise in crime."

So, all stuff that holds the government accountable for their failings. Which, surely to Christ, is the point of an opposition politician. None of the information revealed appears to be a threat to national security; the info is more of a threat to the Labour government. And that's where we seem to find ourselves this morning; in the terrifying position where gaining information that exposes the government and holds them to account is an arrestable offence.

The Prime Minister's New Clothes

There has been a lot of talk recently about the death of Nu Labour and, given the tax ‘n’ spend nature of the pre-budget report, a return to the ways and policies of Old Labour. There is certainly some truth in the assertion that the policies of Brown and Darling are more typical of the pre-Blair Labour party. And there will be those older Labour MPs who will be rubbing their hands with relish that their party seems to be drifting back to the socialism of old. However, I’m not so sure that Brown has gone Old Labour on us. In fact, I’m not so sure that Brown has a plan or any ideological commitments whatsoever. Brown’s priorities aren’t ideological; they are simply based around him clinging on to power for as long as is possible.

Because we can talk about Brown representing a return to Old Labour, but who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the Nu Labourite Tony Blair? Ah, that would be Gordon Brown then. Who was one of the key architects of Nu Labour? That would be Gordon Brown as well. And who argued that John Smith’s economic policies were not centrist enough? That would be Gordon Brown, the man who is currently the apple of the eye of the Old Labour lefties. Even if you do think Gordon is the saviour of socialism in this country, then you have to concede that he is a very recent convert to that movement.

Of course, you could argue that Brown was just waiting until the capitalist pig dog Blair was out of the way before he reverted to promoting the true, pure course of socialism. So, let’s cast our minds back to when Gordon became PM. What was his initial pitch for the role? Was it a full throated, bellowing call for a return to the socialist Labour past? Or was it a half-baked spin campaign to project an ersatz image of Brown as a refreshingly un Blairite, down to earth, anti-spin politician? Isn’t it funny how Brown only really started nationalising, taxing and spending when his popularity was so low that even safe seats in Scotland were heading in the direction of the SNP - when his own core supporters seemed to be turning their backs on the Labour party he leads.

Just look at Gordon’s record in power. Now championing himself as a class warrior frantically working to save the economy, this is the same Gordon Brown as the man who wanted to shaft the poor with the 10p tax debacle. This is the same Gordon Brown who championed the very bankers he now shrilly denounces. This is the same Gordon Brown who was going to put VAT up before he decided to reduce it. There is nothing behind Brown’s policies other than a desire to find something – to find anything – that gets a decent headline in the media and a couple of plaudits for his party.

Gordon Brown and his army of Labour thugs love whacking the Tories with the stick of ideological vacuity. They argue that the Tories have no real policies, no real ideology, and no real ideas for the future. And with this, I would be inclined to agree with the Labour party – I cannot see what the Tories have to offer. But likewise, there are no indicators of what Gordon Brown actually stands for either. His government is twisting and turning like a worn through, paper thin flag in a hurricane. They are not waving, but drowning, and desperately clutching at whatever straws float across their horizons. There is no plan, no blue-print for the future. Just poorly thought-out ongoing knee jerk reactions to whatever crisis is in the papers on any given morning.

This isn’t Gordon the socialist; this is Gordon the would-be populist. He can try to pitch himself as a man of gravitas and substance as much as he likes; the truth is very different. He is a paper politician, blowing in the breeze. He stands for nothing other than the prolonging of his time in Number 10. And as such, the only real difference between Brown and Blair is that the latter had a much more effective spin machine.

It is only a matter of time before Brown is exposed across the country as a vacuous man pretending to be so much more than he actually is. And for the sake of this country, I hope his vacuity is comprehensively and indisputably unveiled to all sooner rather than later.

Death of a Giant

Woolworths, that old, intransigent retail behemoth, has gone to the high street in the sky. Obviously bad news for the employees – if no buyer for Woolies is found, then their plight has an almost Dickensian air to it: losing their jobs just before Christmas. But for everyone else, the demise of Woolworths probably won’t be noticed that much, at least not directly.

Because, if we are brutally honest, what purpose did Woolworths serve? If you were feeling charitable, you could describe their range of products as eclectic. A more realistic assessment would point out that they had an utterly random collection of limited ranges of products that could be found elsewhere, often at cheaper prices. Whatever purpose Woolworths once served disappeared years ago, around the time when it became cheaper and easier to shop online, and about the time that Tesco started offering just about everything other than actual house purchases under one roof in their hideous superstores. Woolworths were offering a service that just has no real relevance in the UK of today. Businesses should aspire to have a unique selling point; Woolies failed to have any selling points whatsoever, unique or otherwise.

Peston’s take on Woolies is quite illuminating for two reasons. Firstly, he points out that the demise of a (one-time) high street giant is going to have a wider impact than it first appears. But the crucial point is the second one – that Woolies was propped up by the credit boom. Woolworths would have gone under years ago if people did not have the credit and excess cash to fritter in their stores. As soon as the economy changes, dog companies like Woolworths were always going to suffer. As people tighten their belts, they will choose where they shop, and factors such as price become more important than ever. Given that, Woolies could never win.

In the final analysis, the collapse of Woolworths was not a surprise. The fact that it took so long to go under was.

The Unplanned Economy

Part of me wants to rant against the increasingly planned nature of the UK economy, what with the claims that unless the banks go back to offering the lending rates of previous years then they could, according to Mervyn King, end up being nationalised:

“…wholesale nationalisation” of the banks, he replied: “In time of financial crisis, it would be a very serious error to rule out measures which may ultimately prove necessary. It would be an extremely brave person who ruled anything out. It wouldn't be our first option, but remember: the Government now has a majority holding of shares in more than one bank. The United States has just acquired a very significant stake in Citibank, the biggest bank in the world.”

So many different comments to make based on that. The US does own a significant stake in Citibank – but just because they do doesn’t mean we have to do the same thing. And what impact do we think the government threatening bank nationalisation have on the share prices of the affected banks? Is the government purposely want to depress the share value of the nation’s banks? Actually, the answer to that might be yes – they seem hell bent on taking control of as much of the financial sector as is possible.

But this is the whole nonsense of the government position. Yes, they can take control of banks to force them to continue lending at the sort of rates that caused this economic downturn, and that the market is now naturally correcting. But that will not solve the problem. This is a natural economic downturn. Boom and bust is part of the way markets work – the government should look to lessen the worst impacts of this downturn, but it cannot prop up an unsustainable boom. This is moving towards the sort of planned economies that worked *so* well in the old Soviet Union.

Yet can we honestly say that our increasingly government controlled economy is really planned? The debacle over VAT shows that there is very little planning actually happening. The government economic strategy could best be described as scattergun. A coherent, focussed approach to help the economy just does not enter into their approach. The government is frantically throwing ideas against the wall, in the hope that some of them will stick. A charitable description might be to describe the government approach as improvisation; a harsher yet more realistic description would be destructively arbitrary.

The economic situation in this country at the moment is dire. We have a government taking control of private institutions at the same time as showing just how little economic capability or understanding they actually have. We have the unplanned economy – an economy increasingly controlled by a government that is utterly out of control.

Secretary of State Clinton

Barack Obama is going through the (no doubt immensely tedious) job of recruiting for his White House team. Amongst the ranks of Democratic party members plucked from relative obscurity to re-enact The West Wing from next January, one name stands out. Oh yes. Hillary Clinton may well end up US Secretary of State.

Not entirely sure why Hillary has been selected. Yes, she has travelled the world - but largely as First Lady. Her hands on, frontline political experience has been as a Senator, and whilst you can argue that New York is a melting pot, it is a big leap to suggest that her experience as a Senator allows her to become Secretary of State at probably the most crucial time since the Vietnam War.

In fact, you could almost claim that Hillary has got her role simply to unite the Democrats. But does Obama really need to unite the Democrats? I'd argue they are more united than they have been for decades, and Obama himself has won the first majority in the popular vote for the Democrats since 1976. Yes, Hillary Clinton remains a rival, and yes, I understand the logic of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. But seriously, Clinton won't be a threat to Obama for a while.

But if Obama really does need to rebuild bridges in the Democrats then why not choose someone with more direct foreign policy experience? Someone who has traversed the globe as a front line, international statesman? Someone who could also help to unite the Democrats?

Why not make Bill Clinton the Secretary of State?

Here They Come! Tax Rises Ahoy!

It has taken a long time for them to do it; and a lot longer than some of the prophets of doom said it would back in 1997. But finally, it has happened, and we have the conclusive proof of what so many people having been warning about for years. Nu Labour have shed the "New" tag, and are going back to the class war rhetoric of old. Yep, it has happened: our skunk faced cunt of a Chancellor is going to raise taxes for the rich.

Of course, this tax rise isn't going to affect me, and hopefully (since it won't take place until after the next election) it won't affect anyone (if Labour lose that election). However, it is an alarming sign that our government is not just going to be high-spending, but also high-taxing.

And make no mistake about this proposed tax increase - this is just the tip of the iceberg. The government has been on a spending spree this year - one that puts their high-spending ways over the past decade to shame - and the simple fact is that you can't buy out large chunks of banks at the same time as promising tax cuts and reductions in VAT without having to find some serious amounts of cash from other sources. And how does the government fund itself? Oh, yeah, that would be through taxation now, wouldn't it?

So this tax increase aimed at the rich will be the first of many. The rich are being targeted because Labour just plain don't like the rich. And mark my words, the other tax increases to come will also target things that Labour don't like. So watch this space for dramatic increases on the taxes on booze, on cigarettes, on high calorie content food, on anything and everything that might not be 100% environmentally friendly. The generosity of Darling, and of his evil puppet-master Gordon Brown, is short term and is going to come at a cost - and what a cost. Labour will give themselves the right to control what you consume using the tax system. The generosity of today will become the sackcloth and ashes of tomorrow. Everyone will end up paying the price for Gordon Brown's economic genius.

Anyone suffering from class or wealth envy today and celebrating the fact that the rich are getting a kicking need to stop, and look at what this tax increase actually means. Today Labour are hitting the rich, tomorrow they will be looking at who else they can extract cash from - and you will be in their cross hairs.

Clarke and Gordon: An Unlikely Conversion

Talk about burying the hatchet - Charlie the Safety Elephant has gone pro-Gordo:

But Mr Clarke has now said that the premier had demonstrated "genuine economic and political leadership at a time when it was both desperately needed and difficult to do"

Mr Clarke is evidently easily pleased, as all Gordon has actually done since the summer is spend government cash like it is going out of fashion and, through a spin operation that would make Alastair Campbell jealous, pitched the highly unlikely case for Gordon Brown being a visionary world statesman. But deep down, Charles isn't interested in what is best for the economy - either national or international - but rather what is best for his out dated, out moded and hopefully on the way out party:

Speaking to the Independent on Sunday and Observer newspapers, he said Labour could now win the next general election.

Great, Gordon Brown can confirm that he has Clarke's vote at the next General Election.

I'm not so sure that Brown should be reading about Clarke's sudden conversion to his cause and be celebrating. After all, Clarke is one of the few people in the Commons who seems to be less likable that Gordo. Clarke is just, plain ugly. And not just his physical appearance, although Lord knows he has a face that is so heinous that it makes a decapitated pig's head in a bath look erotic. Clarke is also a miserable, gruff sulker. He is the sort of bitter, failed politico who should just be put down, both for his own benefit and for the benefit of the country. Clarke seems to feel that he got a rough ride from the Labour leadership when he was in the Cabinet, and still attacks that leadership, even though the man who binned him hasn't been in power for nearly a year and a half.

Gaining the respect of such an unpleasant individual would be something most people could take or leave, I'd both imagine and hope. But give the ghastly nature of Gordon Brown's desperate attempts to be accepted by all, I'd imagine he'll still be celebrating the unlikely conversion of Clarke.

Brown: No Election. Again

Brown dismisses speculation about an early election.

In other news, bears shit in the woods.

The only way we are ever going to see Gordo actually fighting a proper election that puts his so called leadership on the line is when electoral law forces him to have one. The man has all the spine of a paraplegic jellyfish. He is a coward through and through; his reason for rejecting an election again isn't because his focus on the economy, but rather his deep-seated fear that the British public will do what they should have been able to do a long time ago.

They'll tell him to go fuck himself.

I'm starting to think that Paterson Joseph will be the next Doctor - which would be a good choice. Except for one thing. I really associate him with one of his previous roles - that of Johnson in Peepshow. And I'm seriously worried that if he does become the Doctor, I will be thinking of some of the Johnson gems as he plays the Doctor. I mean, I don't want to end up imagining the Doctor saying something like:

Tonight should be a free-fire idea zone. Watch a DVD, eat some pizza, fuck each other. I'm serious. Fuck a chicken if that's what it takes. Watch a chicken fucking a horse. What? You think the guys who invented Google sat around watching Trumpton?

Just wouldn't work as well, would it?

Saving the Country through Needless Laws!

The Moai sent me yet another example of legislating first, thinking later. Oh yes, this time the government wants to have a pop at the punters of prostitutes. For their part in pimping and human trafficking. No, really.

I've no desire to protect those who use prostitutes, but I thought there were already laws designed to put punters off. Like the laws against soliciting. And kerb crawling. Besides, how does punishing the punters really help prostitutes? Wouldn't it be better to have a pop at the people traffickers and the pimps? I mean, there are laws against them as well, but over-legislating has never been a big concern of Nu Labour.

Also, how are this going to work? How are the prostitutes punters going to check whether the whore they wish to spend money on are controlled by pimps or illegal immigrants? Is the government going to issue forms so they can show due diligence when shopping around for a fuck? And - in the highly unlikely events that the punters asked - does anyone think that the prostitutes are going to admit to being pimped or being illegal immigrants?

And since when have these punters been put off touring the streets because of the law? Does anyone think that the Home Secretary adding to the statute books is really going to make your average purveyor of prostitutes stop thinking with their dicks and instead consider the moral and ethical implications of what they are doing?

This new law is typical of Nu Labour - legislating on areas where laws already exist. It is simply the hysterical reaction of the Nu Labour mindset - something is wrong, so let's pass a law! That will make it all ok again!

Except the laws already exist. They just aren't being enforced. And no matter how many laws are passed, it won't change a damned thing. This new drive is about as likely to stop prostitution as ID cards are to stop terrorism. An abject, pitiful, waste of time and money.

If this government had spent as much time enforcing laws as it had needlessly and mindlessly legislating, then we would be in a far better country than the rundown mess that makes up the UK today.

The End of the BNP?

It is ironic that it may end up being an exercise in what is effectively naming and shaming that decimates the membership of the BNP rather than all the calls for tolerance and the arguments against the BNP's barely concealed racism. Because whilst a lot of people seem happy to join the pig ignorant, knuckle dragging BNP, those who aspire to even a basic level of respectability do not want others to know that they have join that happy band of fucktarded bigots.

And the potential devastating impact of this scandal on the BNP membership figures is just dandy with me. Whilst I believe the members had a right to privacy and this list should not have been published, I cannot help but really enjoy anything that damages the BNP. A lot of people will probably leave the BNP after this, and a whole other host of people will probably be put off joining, in case their lackwitted and ghastly racism is highlighted to their family, friends and employers. Sure, some people may join based on the publicity, but those now rushing the dubious embrace of the BNP will be the Tyndall era skinheads that the charmless Nick Griffin is so keen to drag the party away from.

I'd also imagine that there will be some seeing this outing of the BNP members as the beginning of the end for the party. I'm not so sure it is, although the damage to that party could be crippling. But even if it does manage to sink the BNP then it still won't stop the blight of racism on British society. The BNP exist to fill a gap in the market - they are representation for the angry, for the resentful, for those who have a unthinking fear and hatred of those they perceive to be different. These people exist, these views have existed for thousands of years. They are not going to disappear overnight, even if this publication of the list does damage the current main mouthpiece of these people.

So we can condemn the person who leaked this list at the same time as relishing the discomfort of both the leadership and members of the BNP. But in the grand scheme of things this will make fuck all difference. Racism exists; always has done, and probably always will do. The BNP might go the way of the National Front - but if that happens another organisation, just as vile as its predecessors, will come into being.

Strictly Come Dancing: The News Story To End All News Stories

So, a man - whose looks are so idiosyncratic that frankly they defy description - leaves a dancing show. Of his own volition. Because he cannot dance. And somehow this becomes a national scandal that threatens to eclipse the economic apocalypse descending on us all.

I know, as a country, that we lack a sense of perspective. But sometimes it takes an overblown, hysterical reaction to a simplistic populist programme to bring that lack of perspective into sharp relief.

On *That* BNP List

A few points from your humble author on the publication of a membership list of the BNP:

1. It is a breach of the Data Protection Act, and people have a right to privacy regardless of their political views.

2. Anyone sending abuse or threats to those on the list are simply stooping to the level of the BNP. Their members should be laughed at and pitied for being pig ignorant lackwits - to do anything else to them is excessive.

3. I've seen the list, but ain't printing a publishing a direct link to it.

4. How idiotic does the BNP look this morning, blaming the leak in a disgruntled former employee and invoking the Human Rights Act? After all, they despise the Human Rights Act, so the irony that they are now hiding behind it makes me laugh. Gleefully.

5. This whole furore shows both that the views of the BNP are unacceptable and that their members are afraid of being linked to the very party they joined. Yeah, part of this is the threat of violence, but there are some days when I feel like punching a Labour party member. Ultimately, if you have political beliefs, you should be able to defend them. And all this incident says to me is that BNP members are not capable of defending their membership of their party.

In fact, even those who try to defend the BNP are capable of defending that party, as this wonderful comment from adam.h at Tim Worstall's place shows:

anyone white who lives in england an does not support the BNP is a complete idiot and i pitty them. i invite anyone to argue with me because i no im right.P.S the only reason we dont express our views pubilically is because we most certainly do not have the right to freedom of speech.

Maybe I'll argue you with you one day, adam.h. But I'm going to wait until you are at least able to spell basic words like "know". And understand basic punctuation.

Gordon Brown: Just. Plain. Ghastly.

Something very strange is happening in this country. Our Prime Minister – who just two months ago was about as popular as genital warts – is undergoing something of a renaissance. Gordon is rapidly being seen by some as the saviour of not just the UK economy, but also the global economy as well.

This image is, of course, palpable nonsense. As Guido points out, Brown’s much-hyped tax-cutting plan is coming months after the stimulus packages in may other countries. Plus, his room for manoeuvre is severally restricted by the massive budget deficits Labour have built up. And make no mistake about it, these tax cuts will have to be paid for – through further taxes. At a later date. From me and thee. All of this makes me quite jealous of Gordon. I would love to be absolutely shite at my job – and sluggish about what work I actually do – and still be praised as a genius.

God knows how this will all turn out. It is conceivable that Brown may actually win the next General Election. And with that he will more from being the least successful Prime Minister of recent history, and may even win a place in history that is something other than being a bad joke.

However, there is at least one aspect of how Brown will be written up in the history books that will not change. I’m sure – and I am absolutely convinced – that Gordon will be remembered as the least likeable person to inhabit Downing Street in recent memory.

Of course, every Prime Minister has those who will dislike them – and some of the dislike will be absolutely visceral. And even Prime Ministers venerated by some still have substantial flaws. Thatcher became increasingly shrill and insane during her time in power, whilst Clement Attlee was a non-descript non-entity. Likewise, even failed Prime Ministers tend to be liked by some. Both Major and Douglas-Home were praised by some as honourable people with impossible jobs to do. Callaghan – despite failing in each of the great offices of state – is also seen by many as a decent, upbeat and friendly character who was great to work with. But regardless of whether Gordon ends up compounding his existing failings or managing to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, I have no doubt that Brown will be recorded by posterity as a thoroughly unpleasant public figure.

His whole person exudes rage, and he spends most of his time glowering and sulking like a particularly resentful teenager. With a hangover. Who has just been grounded. But you know what? I’m happier when our Prime Minister is sulking. Because when a smile cracks his grey face – something that resembles a razor wound in a pub fight – it generally means Brown has fucked someone over. Sometimes it will be the opposition, sometimes it will be members of his own party. But most of the time, he will have fucked us – the taxpayer, you and me – over in some way. That godawful smile means the glowering git has shafted us in some way.

Then there is the complete lack of empathy or any sort of social skills. The evidence is all there - the early morning calls to voters, the rages against Downing Street secretaries, the total awkwardness at all public events. There is nothing to like in the way Gordon Brown operates, and as a national ambassador he is utterly embarrassing. Unless the UK wants to project an image of being angry, bitter and emotionally retarded.

Finally (in this by no means exhaustive list of the failings of our Prime Minister) there is the refusal to allow any objections or any criticisms of the way he operates or what he has to offer. I’ve already discussed this, but at the risk of repeating myself, Gordo seems to resent absolutely anyone disagreeing with him. Even if it is someone like, y’know, the opposition opposing him. This is not the behaviour of an open-minded leader in a democracy; it is the zero-tolerance mindset of a dictator. Hyperbole, maybe, although in fairness we can question Brown’s commitment to democracy. What his ongoing refusal to put his leadership to any meaningful sort of an electoral test.

I feel a revulsion to Gordon Brown that I just don’t feel to the leaders of the other parties in this country. Sure, they aren’t great – Nick Clegg has all the gravitas and use of an empty KFC wrapper, blowing in the breeze. And David Cameron’s leadership is little more than a prolonged ego-stroke for the man himself. But either one of them is preferable to the dour drip. However history judges Brown, I am sure that it will state this – that Gordon Brown is just a ghastly person, and, based on the image he projects to the public, has one of the worst personalities ever to become Prime Minister in this country.

Baby P - consequences, responsibility

I’ve not commented on Baby P too much – other than to berate the way our leaders responded to this horrific killing. One of the reasons for this is because the case stirs up strong emotions in just about everyone who hears about it. And I wanted to think before I recorded my thoughts – which is something or a rarity on this blog.

Let’s make something very clear. The people directly responsible for the death of Baby P are those who tortured him, and those who stood by in the same property whilst that toddler was slowly killed in an agonising way. Those who kill, maim, hurt, torture etc are those who are responsible for their crimes. As my good friend the Moai put it this morning, up to a point, you cannot stop evil people killing children with all the resources on the world.

That said, there were a lot of resources who became involved in this case. One hell of a lot of resources. According to the BBC, Baby P had over 60 contacts with social workers, the police etc over his short life of misery. What staggers me is how so much contact with presumed professionals failed to save this child from the nightmare waiting for him back at his home. Perhaps the most staggering example of this is the doctor who managed to miss the baby’s broken back. Apparently the baby was “miserable and cranky.” I can imagine, having endured a life of sadness, fear and pain, compounded with a broken fucking back, that he probably was quite miserable and cranky.

In this case, the repeated intervention of the state did not work. The council, the police, the doctors did not kill Baby P – but despite all being involved in the case, they failed to stop this dreadful case as it edged towards its ghastly denouement. They did not killthis baby, they did not prevent the death either. And those who failed to prevent the death should be held responsible for their failings, just as those who killed the poor boy should be held responsible for their crimes.
Some will argue that the doctors, social workers etc were just doing their jobs – and they were trying to do so under incredibly difficult circumstances and in a world mired by bureaucracy, assumptions and presumptions. That may be the case, but it does not stop them from being responsible for their actions.

Or, to be more precise, from the consequences of those actions.

On some levels, calling for those involved in this case to resign seems unfair. After all, people make mistakes all the time, and social workers have missed abuse before, but not had to resign over their mistakes. Which is why it is so crucial to understand that these mistakes do have consequences. Sometimes those consequences will be very little. Other times, they will be horrific and should, without a shadow of a doubt, be resigning issues (at the very least).

Take these two scenarios. In the first one, a baby is admitted to hospital with a bruise to the head. A doctor thinks the child was abused. A social worker investigates, and concludes that there is not sufficient evidence to put the child into care. What the social worker does not know is that the father hit the baby. However, the father is so chastened, scared and ashamed of his actions that he never touches the child again, and the baby grows up to lead a happy life. The social worker makes a mistake, and does not get punished for that error.

In the second one, a baby is admitted to hospital with a bruise to the head. A doctor thinks the child was abused. A social worker investigates, and concludes that there is not sufficient evidence to put the child into care. What the social worker does not know is that the father hit the baby. The father is a brutal sadist, who hit the baby for fun. The father goes on physically abusing the baby until the baby dies. There is national outcry, the social worker is fired from their job and is wide open to civil action owing to their mistake.

In both scenarios the social worker makes the same mistake. In the latter scenario, the social worker is punished badly for their mistake, whilst in the former, nothing happens. It may seem unfair to some, but ultimately the consequences in scenario two are far worse and more extreme than scenario one. Actions have consequences, and you are responsible for the consequences of those actions.

You can apply this logic to the polar opposite – where an over zealous social worker sees abuse where there is no abuse, and as a result an innocent family lose their child (even if it is only for a while). Should that social worker be punished? ‘Course they should, because the consequences of these actions are hurting others.

This case reeks of the lack of responsibility endemic within the public sector. The council etc can argue that they checked the right boxes, or that their employees are only human and therefore will make this sort of error. Small comfort for the dead toddler. And there will be those who argue that sacking social workers when they make mistakes will make their jobs more difficult and more stressful. Well, good. They are public servants, paid out of the public purse. The sooner they realise they can and will be held responsible for what they do, the better. It may make them more careful in the decisions they make, and less likely to make this sort of terrible error.

And if people have to lose their jobs to make this happen, then so be it.

Presumed Consent

An independent review is going to recommend that you can still make the choice of what happens to your body after you die. Presumed consent – which is where you are automatically signed up to a database of organ donors – is not right for the UK, according to the review:

However, this review, commissioned by the Government, is hostile to a change in the law and is likely to recommend sticking with the current laws when it is published today. That move will be welcomed by some patients' groups who are strongly opposed to presumed consent.

Whether or not that actually becomes the government’s line is open to question, though:

Mr Brown himself voted against adopting such a system in 2004 but, earlier this year, indicated he had become more favourably disposed towards it.

Now, there is a case to be made for presumed consent, as Professor Sir Liam Donaldson points out:

He said: "People are dying, people are suffering and many people are living on a knife-edge of despair waiting for a phone call that never comes. My view has always been that we need to act with solidarity, generosity and humanity to give these people a future."

Absolutely. However, if people are forced to join a donor database, that is not solidarity. It is not generosity. It has very little to do with humanity. And, on a semantic point, it is not presumed consent. It is enforced, government coerced consent.

Don’t get me wrong, once I have shuffled off this mortal coil, anyone is welcome to any of my organs. I’d steer well clear of the liver and the kidneys, though – I think the booze will have made those less attractive as potential donations. But I have no qualms about any part of me being given after my death. I am not precious about it. However, I know other people are – for reasons or religion, or vanity, or being squeamish or whatever. And this system of presumed consent removes choice, as it pressurises people to object to being donors rather than people volunteering to be donors. And the whole point of charity is people chose to give, rather and being tacitly forced to give.

This system of presumed consent isn’t a million miles away from becoming an organ tax – you have to give your organs and any other part of your body after death to the state for redistribution to others. Presumed consent is a stepping stone towards that system. As far as I am concerned, though, the one thing you should be able to claim ownership of is your body and its contents – both pre and post mortem. You can chose to become a donor, you should not have to proactively choose not to be a donor and any attempts to move in that direction should be opposed.

And rather than adopting this presumed consent system, how about starting a campaign not just to advertise organ donation but also to educate people about why organ donation is so important. Explain to people that it saves lives; use empathy to help people understand how it would feel if they, or one of their loved ones, was on the waiting list for a organ transplant. And then let people chose, rather than telling them what choice has been made on their behalf. Let’s try to be persuasive, rather than just being coercive.

The review got it right; let’s hope that the government hears what they are saying and, for once, actually do the right thing themselves.

UPDATE: As I was writing this post, Brown intervened in the debate. And guess what? If he doesn't get the result he wants, then he will legislate. Let's look at his words:

"The proposal is that we double the number of volunteers to 50 per cent. If we can't get there quickly, then we will return to the proposal I have put forward, which is a presumed consent system."

So, if Gordon can't get what he wants through blackmail, he will do so through legislation. I struggle to think up anything that sums up Nu Labour better. "Do what we want, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. Or we will pass laws to force you to".

Freedom of choice over such fundamental issues as what happens to your body after you die are irrelevant to these people. You have the right to choose. As long as you choose what Brown wants.

A New Brown Strategy

So here we have the new Gordon Brown strategy. Whenever the opposition disagree with them, Gordo will tell them that their opposition is unhelpful and that they should unite behind the government in difficult times. Be it the outcry over Baby P, or the economic meltdown.

The implication is clear. If the opposition dare to oppose, then they are being obstructive and are damaging the attempts to rescue the economy and, the bastards, may actually be putting the lives of other kids at risk. It is not a million miles away from the same sort of strategy and the same rhetoric that allowed Bush to suppress any opposition to his policies in the aftermath of 9/11. If you opposed Bush, you were unpatriotic. And if you oppose Brown, then you are unpatriotic. And are damaging the country.

Which is, of course, palpable nonsense. Ignoring (for the sake of brevity) the fact that Brown is wrong over pretty much everything, let's instead note what the point of Her Majesty's Opposition. It is to oppose. And the Tory opposition does precious little actual opposing, so they should be praised when they do. See, when someone opposes Brown, they actually have a different opinion from him that is not right, not wrong, but just different. It is the totalitarian arrogance of Brown that allows him to claim any deviation from his supposed orthodoxy is unhelpful and wrong.

I've no doubt that Brown, if challenged, would argue that these are unprecedented times and that the Tories should get behind him. But are they really unprecedented? Babies have been murdered before. The economy has nosedived before. And the opposition they... well, they still opposed. After all, did the Labour party completely stop opposing the Tories during the recession of the early 1990's? If memory serves, they weren't - to say the least - that supportive. In fact, the last time there was geniune unity between the Labour party and the Tory party - to the extent where opposition stopped altogether rather than there being agreement on some issues or on some laws - was back in World War Two. And whilst things aren't great in this country at the moment, things certainly aren't as bad as back in the dark days of 1940, when Britain faced a real threat of invasion by a brutal, totalitarian dictatorship.

Brown's attitude towards anyone daring to oppose him is typical of Nu Labour arrogance. They have some solutions that they believe (wrongly) will help the country. They are so detached from reality, and so believing in their own hype (and the hype that the rest of the country stopped believing years ago) that anyone who does not agree must be being deliberately destructive. Rather than just someone with a different opinion.

The Tories might... might... lose. Oh.

Guido comments on a doomsday scenario for the Tories - one that sees them narrowly losing the next election to Labour, based around the failure to offer tax cuts and the unprecedented economic climate and builds up a completely unreal version of reality - one where Gordon Brown actually appears to be competent.

There is some credibility to the scenario, I think. Labour are highly unlikely to be able to truly claw back the resounding lead the Tories have consistently built up. However, if they are, then it will be down the current economic climate. The Tories increasingly appear to be floundering when it comes to the economic crisis, whilst Labour project this image of being far more capable and decisive than they actually are.

It remains deeply unlikely that the electorate will return that glowering, gurning git to Number 10 when he finally allows us to go to the polls. But for the first time in the best part of a year, we have to entertain the prospect that Cameron might not be the Blair of the Tory party, but rather the Kinnock. And as such, I've actually started to think about how I would feel about another five years of Labour after the next election.

Truth be known, I don't think I really care. My preference is - marginally - for Labour to lose and for the papers to bang on about a new dawn under Cameron. Nu Labour is tired and old, broken and corrupt. It would take a Tory government a good few years before they are able to get themselves in a similar situation. After all, last time out, it took them about 13 years before they became dog tired as a government.

But, to quote the Smiths, what difference does it make? It makes none... Deep down, it really means nothing. Tory, Labour; there is going to be no real change if Gordo or Hug a Husky becomes Prime Minister. Labour have no new ideas, and are purely a reactive government now. Every policy, every move they make is simply down to try to keep their head above water in the national opinion polls. On the flipside, there is the problem that the Tories have boxed themselves so far into a corner as they desperately try not to be the nasty party. For fuck's sake, we actually have a situation where both Labour and the Liberal Democrats actually seem to be offering more radical that the Tories. The Tories are still battle scarred by 1997, 2001 and 2005. They are afraid of being bold, they are terrified of being radical. At the very time when they should be pitching the case for genuine conservatism in this country, they are trying to be a centrist, friendly party. And as a result are coming across as shallow, vacuous party of no real worth on close analysis.

The choice at the next election will be neglible, which is why the Tories are so vulnerable to Labour u-turns and gimmicks. I'd rather the Tories won than Labour, but as a Libertarian who wants radical change for this country, I don't care enough to support either party.

Libertarians and The Lib Dems

On my travels across t’interweb, I’ve come across a blog with an address that includes the words “reluctantly Lib Dem”. Now, I can understand why Liberal Democrats might be reluctant members of their own party – hell, Nick Clegg appears to be one of those reluctant members, and he is leading the party! But what did surprise me about this particular blog is it is written by a self-proclaimed Libertarian Liberal Democrat.

Now, there will be some members of the LPUK who will appalled by the concept of a Libertarian being in the Lib Dems. However, I have some sympathy with this position. After all, I am a Libertarian – part of being that is being both a Liberal and a Democrat.

My real problem with the Liberal Democrats, though, is that they are neither Liberal nor Democratic in anything other than name. Even the more Liberal wing of the party – the authors of the fabled (in some circles) The Orange Book - are statist politicians through and through. Take Nick Clegg’s position on the EU. He correctly identifies many of the EU problems, including the lack of accountability and the failure of the EU to communicate exactly what they exist for and what they are spending all of our money on. But rather than advocating withdrawal – or even just a more aggressive stance towards the EU – he wants a leaner, meander, extra supra-national level of bureaucracy with influence over this country. His instinct isn’t to reduce the levels of national and international government; rather just to reform them. This is clearly at odds with the natural instincts of a Libertarian.

Likewise, Vince Cable – Lib Dem media darling and the stand-up comic of the House of Commons – argues for less regulation and points out the inherent contradictions in having bodies created to manage the transition of companies from the public to private sectors now offering careers for life. I’d agree – the number of regulators in this country is astounding. But the point of departure for me from Cable’s view is down to the solution he offers – he argues for a super-regulatory body to supervise the work of the other regulatory bodies. Who regulates the regulators? Why, yet another regulator, of course! Cable’s inherently contradictory position shows the Liberal Democrat instinct is to deal with any problem that occurs through state intervention, whereas a Libertarian viewpoint would be to reduce the scope of government wherever possible.

Even for those more right wing members of the Liberal Democrats, the state will remain the answer to all problems. It is the bedrock of the part. You only have to look at the history of the party to see that. They were created by a merger of the Liberal party and the Social Democrats. The Liberal party were the equivalent of the Labour party in their heyday, and it was the Liberals, under Lloyd George, who began the whole process of creating the monolithic and bureaucratic Welfare State in this country. The SDP was created by the Gang of Four – a group of typical Labour party members who fled that party as the could not stomach the sixth form socialism of Michael Foot. Yes, there were less radical that the 1983 vintage Labour party. But they were in the Callaghan Labour government – an administration that had no issue with the expansion of the state.

So the ideological and historical background of the Liberal Democrats is fundamentally state-centric. I can understand why a Libertarian might be tempted to join that party, until you subject that party to close analysis. The Lib Dems are no more Libertarian than Labour or the Tories, and no-one is ever going to be able to change the state-centric outlook of Britain’s third party.

It is time for me to slip into broken record mode again, but there really is an alternative to the statist main parties in this country. Yep, time for a plug of LPUK. And I’m sure that some people will read this and think “well, LPUK is a tiny party.” And you know what? They’d be right. But one of the key ways in which LPUK will grow is through Libertarians actually joining that party. For me, it is a no brainer. On the one hand, Libertarians have parties they can join and where they will forever have to compromise their views and be in a small minority. On the other hand, they can join a party in alignment with their views and help to build up that party. No-one is going to convert Labour, the Tories or the Lib Dems to the Libertarian cause. The best way forward is to grow the ranks of the tiny Libertarian party in this country. By actually joining it.

Putin: "I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls"

An insight into the minds of certain world leaders:

“I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls,” Mr Putin declared.

Mr Sarkozy thought he had misheard. “Hang him?” — he asked. “Why not?” Mr Putin replied. “The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein.”

Mr Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: “Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?” Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: “Ah — you have scored a point there.”

So... Putin has no problem with hanging the rival leader of a rival country - I can't think, at this point, that anyone is really surprised by that. What really fascinates me, though, is the logic used by Sarkozy to dissuade Putin. He doesn't make a moral case, he doesn't talk about the ethical issues of hanging someone. No, his logic is all about not being unpopular.

And, judging by Putin's reaction, that logic seems to have worked.

It is hardly new to speculate that world leaders are vainglorious sociopaths obsessed by popularity and the perceptions of others. However, it isn't often that we get such a stark indicator that such speculation is actually reflected in reality.

Whilst I was walking home tonight, past pub after pub half filled with people indulging in the Great British hobby of getting wrecked on a Thursday evening, laughing and grinning their way through the evening, it occurred to me that the easiest thing to do would be to go in and join them. To stop worrying for a while. To stop thinking for a while. To resign myself to apathy, and bury my head in the sand and not think about the country and world around me. After all, it works for other people, so why not me?

Perhaps I'm retarded in some way - I certainly feel like I have Asperger's Syndrome a lot of the time. But I just can't do it. Don't get me wrong, I go out to the pub, I enjoy myself, I live a life. But I just can't bring myself to ignore the wider world around me. I just have to open a newspaper, go online, turn on the TV and I see something else that riles me. Or something that makes me shake my head. Or something that makes me worried about where this country is going and why the increasingly bovine masses fail to see what is happening.

We live in a country fighting two wars against fundamentalists. People are still dying in far off countries, the body bags are still coming home, but the oh so vocal protests that heralded the war have now faded into oblivion - ironically they disappeared at about the same time as the reason for the Iraq War was shown to be based on a sham. Don't get me wrong, I think that if you join the army you have to entertain the possibility that you will go into conflict, and you may not come back from that. But fuck me, couldn't the vast majority of people in this country actually care when the latest kid gets his face blown off by a car bomb in Iraq or murdered by a militant in Afghanistan? Shouldn't that be slightly more of a news story than Strictly Come Dancing?

And what about the economic situation? The economy is royally fucked, and the government is blundering in every way as it tries to help. Yet Brown's nationalising, his clumsy interventions and his idiotic preening are being hailed as a shining examples of what the state can do to help. Why aren't people questioning more, and actually asking where this crisis came from? Because Gordon fucking Brown has just as much responsibility for the meltdown in the financial services sector as those reckless bankers and those careless people who took 125% mortgages.

We live in a society where the cruel murder of a baby is met with point scoring in the House of Commons. We watch mutely as our civil liberties are eroded, placidly accepting the empty rhetoric of a War on Terror that can never be won as it never existed. We let the government come and take our money, to piss away like there is no tomorrow, and we see nothing in return. Our leaders all look the same, and spout the same crass platitudes. There is no progress, just more of the same.

Sometimes I look at this country, and see a broken and muted populace that is content to muddle through, as long as the beer doesn't get too expensive, the TV still shows free form populist shite and there's a KFC at the end of the road. I despair of where this country is going, but cannot understand why the population is stood in front of the Commons, screaming for real change, and screaming for an end to the murky, incompetent consensus ruling this country but offering nothing more than what has gone before.

This is an incoherent, impotent howl of rage from someone who wonders what will happen next and fears the worst. I would love, I would love for people to wake up and start thinking about what is really happening. And then to start protesting it. I would love for people to stop trusting the state that rapes your wallet, that bickers endlessly as people die, that eats away at your freedom at the same time as sending soldiers away to die in unwinnable wars. But tonight, as I look out at this country, I wonder whether it will ever actually happen.

Maybe it is time to turn off my brain, head to the pub, then bury my head in the sand. You know what? If I could, I would. But I can't.

So whilst this endless sorry farrago of political divas and ideological vacuums rules this country through a deceptively bland but actually deeply destructive consensus, there will be one little voice of dissent shouting away here. It may not be a lot, and it may never end up achieving anything. But I'm not going to shut up, and I'm not - as tempting as it may be right here, right now - to give up. It ain't much, but it is what I have to offer.

The Future of the Republicans

From an old edition of The Economist, just before the last US election:

"Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan's party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-friend moralism."

Couldn't agree more. And if the Republican party really wants to get back on its feet, then it needs to look for a genuine, reforming character within its ranks to energise both moderate and devoted Republicans. The likes of Palin and Huckabee simply won't cut it. They will appeal only to the loony Christian elements of the party, and those sort of candidates will alienate as many centrist voters as they will energise the Christian fundamentalists so well deployed by Karl Rove.

A genuine, reforming Republican leader is required - someone who wants to strip back the state, cut taxes, and instincively follow the limited government model followed by some Republicans. Rather than pandering to the limited outlooks of the Christian Right.

The Republicans tried Christian fundamentalism in the form of George W Bush. It broke the party, helped to destroy the candidacy of the far more moderate John McCain and did substantial damage to the country. The last thing they need to do is go further down the root of fundamentalism. The Republican future lies in pursuing a very different agenda.

Arguing over tragedy

There are tragedies, there are horrific murders; this is a terrible mix of the two. And with all events like this, there will be lessons to be learnt and ways to try to prevent a repetition of this. I'm not quite sure what the best way is for people to establish what those lessons are. But what I'm pretty fucking sure of is that Gordon Brown will not be providing those answers. And, I suspect, nor will David Cameron.

Take this exchange from the Commons:

1214 Mr Cameron is clearly very angry with Mr Brown's claim about party politics. The Speaker tells MPs not to shout. Mr Cameron says he is not guilty of party politics and again says the PM should withdraw his accusation that Mr Cameron was playing party politics. Mr Brown says the whole House should agree that the government is doing the right thing in relation to the Baby P case.

So we have one politician calling for the house to agree with him, without really offering any reason why people would agree with him. And then you have another politician asking the first politician to apologise for accusing him of making a party political point about the case; and in doing so making it into a party political point. And whilst I have more sympathy for Cameron than for Brown in the exchange, I have to say that neither politician actually gets to the heart of the matter and really talks about what can be done to prevent a repetition of this case.

What happened in the Commons today was two men making snide comments at each other, whilst their minions bayed each other like randy farmyard dogs. This had nothing to do with trying to find out what happened, and learning the lessons from this case. It had to do with pride, it had to do with bruised egos and desperation to be popular. And I found the whole thing utterly distasteful.

Don't get me wrong, I have no idea what could prevent this sort of thing in the future either. But I am prepared to hold up my hands and admit to that. I can think of lots of different ideas, many of which contradict each other. And, as terrible as it sounds, I don't actually know whether there is something than can actively be done to stop this sort of thing from happening again. But what I would have liked to have seen today is both Brown and Cameron, backed by their parties, standing up in the Commons and admitting that they do not know how to deal with this tragic event. And I would have liked to have seen them have a debate, a discussion, about this death and the implications. Chance would be a fine fucking thing, I know. But it would have been a slightly more edifying picture in the Commons this afternoon that what actually happened.

Which could be best summarised as two petulant divas having an irrelevant row with each other.

Fear of the 'Flu Jab

The annual ‘flu jab is a bit of a chore for me. I’m really not fond of needles. It is no longer the rip-roaring phobia of my youth, but I’m still wary of someone sticking a needle into me and infecting me with small amounts of a disease or illness. However, I’d rather be jabbed than have the ‘flu. After all, a small injection is a lot nicer that influenza, right?

Well, maybe, maybe not. See, when I had a ‘flu jab earlier this week, I learnt that there may be a major downside to the injection.

The nurse administrating the jab went through the usual warning chat about how sometimes people get ‘flu symptoms for about 48 hours after the injection. I hear the same think year after year. However, this nurse had some further advice for me. Advice I had not, mercifully, had before.

“If you get a rash in the first half hour after the injection,” she said calmly, “Come back and see me, immediately.”

“What sort of rash?” I asked, frowning.

“Oh, just a sudden rash. That flares up all over your body. Oh, and also head back at once if you get breathless.”

These were not the most comforting words to hear, but I could cope with both a rash and/or being breathless. A lifetime of asthma and a childhood of eczema assists with that.

But the nurse had something else in her arsenal of worry.

“Oh, and you also need to come back at once if your lips go numb.”

There was something in that statement that freaked me out. In all my life, across a whole load of illnesses, I have never experienced numb lips. No matter how much I have drunk.

At this point, it became imperative to find out why this nurse was warning me about all these symptoms.

“Why do I need to come back so quickly if any of that happens to me?” I asked.

“Oh,” said the nurse, conversationally, “If you do get those symptoms I need to stab you in the leg with another needle. To give you adrenaline.”

And there was a moment’s pause before she delivered her piece de resistance.

“Otherwise you’ll die.”

At this point, I was seriously wondering just how bad the ‘flu could possibly be – and wondering whether the risk of the ‘flu seriously warranted risking death to avoid it. However, the nurse was happily going about preparing the needle and in a moment it was stabbed into my arm.

And as she inject me, there was an audible hiss. It sounded a lot like she had injected air into me.

It struck me as ironic that she had described the risk of death through anaphylactic shock but hadn’t touched on the risk of death by air bubble causing an embolism. Ironic and scary.

I waited for a moment, half expecting an air bubble in my blood stream to hit my brain but (as you can probably tell given I am writing this) that didn’t happen. I made the assumption that the hiss was normal – perhaps the feature of a new super new hypodermic. Whatever it was, I wanted to get away from the nurse as soon as possible. She had given me a ‘flu vaccine that could kill me, so I did not want to run the risk of her injecting my nose with formaldehyde to prevent future colds. Or try to prevent me going blind in the future by putting leeches on my eyes.

So, as a message to any medical professionals reading this: it is good to inform people of the risks of any medication being administered. However there are ways and means of delivering that message, and there is such a thing as too much information...

Barack Obama Will Fail

There are few guarantees in life, and it is next to impossible to predict the future. However, what I can guarantee is that Barack Obama will be a disappointment. And not just to jaundiced, cynical types like me - he'll be a disappointment to pretty much everyone.

And do pipe down, Mr and Mrs Ardent Barack Obama supporter. Because that disappointment will hit you too. At some point over the next four years, he will disappoint you. And it will be more heartbreaking and crushing for you than for others, as your passion for the President-elect is so strong. In fact, Obama will go on to create as much cynicism in the future as he has created hope at the moment, when people realise he is not as great as the shameless hype has made him out to be.

I've read quite a few comments in the past week comparing Obama in 2008 with Blair in 1997, and that is a solid comparison. Blair will have created a lot of disappointed people as his promised era of change became just more of the same. But is it not just Blair who has done this. There's also, just in the UK, Eden, Wilson, Callaghan, Brown, Major and - so some extent, even Thatcher and Attlee. Any politician offering change through state appartus seems to end up being a massive disappointment.

To some extent, this is the fault of the politicians seeking election. For example, Gordon Brown promised an end to spin; one of the many reasons why people are so fucked off with the Gordo is because he promised something that he had no intention of delivering. And Obama has promised change, without explaining what change is. And how much will he really be able to reform anything, given his statist ideals are going to be constrained by the current economic climate and by the two wars that the US is currently fighting? Politicians invite disappointment from their supporters as their colossal egos make them promise things that they could never possibly deliver on.

But it is also our fault - the supporters, the voters. We* fall for the sales pitch. We buy into the latest new hope for the nation. We believe the hand of history is going to make the likes of Obama great. We go for the rhetoric, the hype, the self-promoting nonsense. And we fly in the face of history, by ignoring the disappointing precedents. We set up politicians to fail, but having expectations that are clearly beyond the abilities of politicians and their administrations to deliver on.

Which is one of the reasons why I am a Libertarian. Most politicians come to power with some bold, if not insanely optimistic, promises of what the state can do for its citizens. They are looking to leave their mark on history, like a dog wanting to leave a scent on a lamp post. However, your Libertarian candidate should not - and generally isn't - seeking power for the sake of an ego-massage or to find their place in the history books. Rather, they are looking to limit their powers from the outset, and once people have had power from the state returned to them, a Libertarian government will aspire to nothing more than running a capable, limited and almost minimalist administration. Far from promising what the state can do under Libertarians, they will talk about what the state will no longer do.

In theory, the only truly radical and historical Libertarian government will be the first one - the one that returns power to the people, that allows people to become responsible for themselves again rather than giving up responsibility for themselves to the state. Deconstructing the welfare state, reforming the tax code, restoring civil liberties and the justice system - there is a lot to do and therefore it might take more than one administration to do it all. But the unique nature of a Libertarian government is that the reforms would remove government power and reduce the scope of the state. Rather than tinkering with the apparatus of the state and making the basic mistake that state intervention is the answer to pretty much every national issue.

You know you can have genuine hope in a politician vying for high office when they use phrases such as "there is nothing government can do about that" or "this is not an area that requires government intervention." Obama and his ilk are destined to fail because they promise that the state can deliver more than it actually can. A Libertarian government can only fail if they do not start to fight against state intervention, and start to allow you rather than the state to choose what is best for you and for your life.

*Not everyone, obviously. But there were enough people to vote Blair into office. Three times.

Monkey: Journey to the West

Theatre/musicals/operas are odd beasts, and generally speaking I try to avoid them like a particularly virulent form of plague. They tend to be performed by drama school dropouts and also-rans; the sort of people who cannot act and cannot sing and are on the stage solely because of their heightened but utterly misplaced belief in their own talent.

That is not to say you will never find anything worth seeing that fall into one of the above categories. And so, when I head about Monkey: Journey to the West; a mix of music, drama, myth, martial arts and animation, I was intrigued. In fact I was so intrigued that by the time I walked into the theatre I was almost excited.

Actually, it is a bit of a lie when I say I walked into a theatre. It was little more than a tent, crudely constructed in the grounds of the O2*. Not only did it look like like a budget version of a tent a rock festival, it seemed to struggle against the elements of the November weather. As the wind picked up, the tent walls were buffeted and the entire structure looked immensely precarious. The whole thing started to remind me of an Irwin Allen disaster movie. And the sad truth is that a catastrophic tent collapse would not have been top the detriment of the show; in fact it would have made the whole shamelessly shite farrago a little bit more interesting.

It is difficult to describe all that was wrong with the show. Mainly because there was so little that was actually right with it. Even the moments that were dangerously close to being interesting were undermined by another element of the performance. All the great acrobatics and martial arts were completed destroyed by the moronic elements to the show. Like the crotch-scratching Monkey and the tone-deaf Pigsy.

The music was puerile, childish and silly. It was a cliched version of what Chinese music should be - if you have got your understanding of Chinese music from terrible, second rate Western cartoons. The lyrics, in keeping with the source material, were in Chinese - and the subtitles were projected onto the canvass on either side of the stage. Creating a problem whereby if you wanted to understand what people were singing, then you had to look away from the stage. And the subtitles were also just crude PowerPoint presentations - something that became very clear when their computer had a moment and the character on stage suddenly started to sing (according to the subtitles) "Click to add title." Mind you, given the calibre of the rest of the lyrics, that might be what they were singing. The lyrics were the very definition of trite and shite. Seriously, they were stomach-churning and facile. They made the average Girls Aloud song sound like Joy Division.

And the characters were dreadful - if you can actually call them characters. They had all the depth of a half-empty paddling pool. Take the lead (and best developed) character - Monkey. In the old TV show, the nature of Monkey was irrepressible. In this show, the nature of Monkey was intensely irritating. The performer playing Monkey seemed to assume that everyone would find his character charming; the reality is that his character was less Monkey and more Ratboy. His constant scratching of his crotch, for example, was less showing a carefree and irrepressible character and instead came across as a character with a bad STD.

Finally, the animation was just crap. It looked, stylistically, like an episode of ThunderCats. And the detail of the drawings would only really be acceptable if it had been done by someone in a nursery. For blind children. With no arms. Seriously, if you took that sort of animation to, say, Walt Disney, he would have not just thrown you out of his office, but also have cut your face for good measure. It really was that bad.

The whole show came across as being created by media darlings with grossly inflated egos effectively masturbating in public over how great they think they are. I'd imagine that the creative "geniuses" behind this sorry shower of shite were surrounded by yes men telling them how great this patronising pile of crap was. Whereas what they need was someone to call them dickheads and tell them to shut the fuck up.

Throughout the whole thing I was thinking of Nathan Barley. That is what is felt like - two twats who managed to convince themselves that they have far more talent than they actually have. In retrospect, it is a lot to expect a second-rate artist and the author of a couple of half-decent 3 minute pop songs to come up with a spectacular operatic version of a myth. It is also astoundingly arrogant of them to think that they could actually achieve such a spectacular. And Monkey: Journey to the West stands as a stunning rebuke to that astounding arrogance. They tired to create an opera from a classic piece of writing. And, boy, did they fail.

*I'd never been to the O2 before. Now I have, let me say this about it; it is an execrable abortion of a structure - a testament to just how shoddy, unimaginative and limited human beings can be sometimes. And in all honesty, it is the perfect testament to the Labour government that built it.

Glenrothes: Fleeting Victory

My word. My word. Gordon's only gone and won a bloody by-election.

This must be an exciting new feeling for him. Glenrothes could have been the gallows for his premiership. Instead, this election represents a shot in the arm for him; a syringe full of morphine that eases the pain of his slow decline towards total defeat.

Of course, you could argue that it really isn't a massive achievement to win a seat that is in the Labour heartland and is a safe seat. Frankly, there should have been no doubt that the Labour party would be able to retain this seat, and their vote is down a third on 2005. But for Gordon Brown, anything other than abject failure is to be treated as an out and out triumph. And I don't want to rain too much on Gordon's parade - let him have his happy day. After all, this by-election is a single, fragile shard of light that has illuminated, however briefly, a life clouded by resentful gloom.

What does stick in my throat though is some of the coverage for this win. Probably my own fault for reading The Guardian on a day when Labour have actually managed to do something right, but still:

Labour pulled off a stunning byelection victory in the early hours of this morning, defying predictions to retain the once safe Labour seat of Glenrothes in the first indication that Gordon Brown's heightened international standing and handling of the financial crisis has translated into improved electoral fortunes.

Three points:

1. A stunning by-election victory. That would be where Labour retained a safe seat with a diminished majority. I know that Labour set expectations low for this by-election, but seriously, this is far from a stunning victory. Next thing you know we'll be reading about how McCain won a stunning victory in the US Presidential election. In fucking Wyoming.

2. Gordon Brown's heightened international standing. You what? You fucking what?! Heightened internation standing? How the piss Christ has Brown's international standing been heightened? Because he hasn't soiled himself at an international conference? Because he hasn't had a complete mental breakdown and started sobbing in public squares? Because he hasn't punched a baby in the face during one of his temper tantrums? And Gordon Brown's international standing will have a very limited impact on the Glenrothes by-election. Unless Sarkozy and Merkel have secretly and illegally registered to vote for Brown's arse kissing by-election candidate. But no, I'd imagine this "heightened international standing" has something to do with Brown's response to the credit crunch.

3. Handling of the financial crisis. So Brown's victory is about him nationalising banks. With tax payer funds. Seriously, what Christing fuck? I've no idea whether the voters of Glenrothes have voted for Labour because of Brown's hard-on for spending public funds implementing the 1983 Labour Manifesto, but this praise of Gordon for propping failing banks with billions of pound of our money needs to be stopped from being touted as a success. Seriously, if this is a success, then what in good God's name is a failure? Piling every ten and twenty pound note in the country into Parliament square and then setting fire to them?

Brown is a failure. He is the worst British Prime Minister since Anthony Eden, and given the competition for that post include Callaghan, Wilson, Douglas-Home and Heath, that is no mean feat. Brown's party may have won this by-election, but this result does not change the simple truth that Brown is an incompetent, ignorant, misanthropic, jaundiced, bitter, raging cunt of the very highest order. And it also does not change the fact that Gordon Brown is not fit for the high office he managed to steal from the previous PM.

Cameron, Brown, Obama; Peas In A Pod?

So both David Cameron and Gordon Brown have used the election of Barack Obama to try to boost their popularity. A truly desperate attempt on behalf of our leaders to get some of the reflected glory from Obama's triumph. But then again, what would you expect from two shameless publicity and popularity whores?

Besides, Obama has achieved something neither Cameron or Brown has achieved (and at least one of them is destined never to achieve) - Obama has won a national election. There are, of course, some other areas in which both Cameron and Brown aren't that similar to Barack Obama - as The Daily Mash nicely points out:

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the president-elect said: "Mr Cameron strikes us as the sort of person who would have owned Michelle's great-great grandparents. "

And as for Gordon Brown - we are nothing like him. Nothing. Like him. At all."

He added: "I want to hear you say it."

Satire, maybe; but those words are probably not a million miles from the truth - assuming that Barack Obama actually bothers to follow Prime Minister's Questions. Which, given what has happened to him over the past 24 hours, seems a little unlikely.

Glenrothes by-election

By-elections are completely irrelevant when a government is popular and/or has a large majority. But as soon as a government starts to be hated, or has a vulnerable majority, by-elections become far more fun. They become the chance for the voters to send occasional hate mail to our elected leaders, and remind them that they are only in Parliament at our whim and we can, in theory, kick their bloated asses out onto the street.

And as Glenrothes goes to the polls I'd imagine that a large proportion of those voters are readying themselves to tell Gordon Brown to go fuck himself. Which is always a thoroughly worthwhile cause.

What is interesting, though, is how governments respond to by-election results. If Labour lose today, then Gordon won't comment on the result. No, instead he will send some poor Cabinet minister out to the media wolves like a lamb to the slaughter. If Labour lose, then we will have the joyous spectacle of Alan Johnson or Hazel Blears frantically trying to explain how the latest electoral "fuck you" to the Labour party is actually good news for them. They will also play down the importance of by-elections, stating they are protest votes or no indicator of how people will actually vote in the a General Election.

But if Labour win today - which is within the realms of possibility - then suddenly this by-election will become, in the eyes of the Labour government, as pretty much the most important thing to happen. Ever. It will be compared to the Second Coming of the Good Lord Jesus Christ - or the election of Barack Obama, as that event is now known in the USA. And Gordon Brown will be leading the charge, claiming a resounding victory for his abortion of an economic policy. Fuck me, we may even have the terrifying prospect of Gordon Brown smiling, which, as we all know, is about as attractive as a Gorgon's face when they fart.

Yet if Labour do win today... if they do win, then maybe it will give Gordon the confidence he needs to do something that is, for him, absolutely unprecedented. Maybe he will go to the national polls. And so I almost hope Labour do win today, and then call a snap election. Mainly because Labour will lose that election. Make no mistake about it, I would find little joy in a Tory victory. But fuck me, it would be nice not to have the unedifying sight of Gordon Brown jumping on every bandwagon going for the next two years, like a randy dog trying to find relief and satisfaction by humping the leg of any passing stranger.

Arresting Guy Fawkes

So, some citizens in a democracy decide they are going to carry out a stunt in keeping with the anniversary of the day. They do nothing more than go outside, in a public place, wearing the mask of a long dead criminal. Seems the polite thing to do, if you don't agree with them, is to ignore them.

But no. Instead they are arrested and searched.

Seriously, since when did wearing a mask in public become a criminal offence? If it is an offence, then how come there weren't mass arrests at Halloween? Did the police seriously think that a group of bloggers wearing V For Vendetta masks were a threat to national security? Or was there some sort of confusion, and there were mistaken for a Catholic who was executed centuries ago?

Of course not. The reason why they were arrested is because they were carrying out a very obtuse protest. And as we all know, you can only really protest if you do so in a government approved way, and a long way away from politicians.

It is a sign of a healthy democracy when people can protest in any way they want as long as it does not threaten the well being of others; be it in an intense way, an obscure way or in a completely arbitrary way. What does it say about the health of our democracy when a group of ten people are stopped, searched and arrested for nothing more than wearing a fucking mask?

Simultaneously pathetic and worrying.

President-elect Obama

One of the things about the US getting a new President-elect is it allows for massive speculation about what might happen in the weeks, months and years after that President-elect takes the oath of office. Of course, any sort of speculation is tempered by the realisation that the future predicted might just be plain wrong. So as I round off today’s trio of posts about the US election, I’m going to hedge my bets and offer three different routes that the Obama presidency might take. And I’m going to cite historical precedents as well, to add some much need gravitas to my speculation.

As far as I can see, it could go one of three ways:

The failure: Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter came from nowhere, won the Democratic nomination and was helped to the White House by the actions of a disgraced Republican President. Barack Obama came from nowhere, won the Democratic nomination and… well, you get the picture. We have to hope though, that Obama does not follow the rest of the example laid down by Jimmy Carter.

There are real dangers that Obama will be a failure. He does lack experience, he seems to function best in a well-organised cocoon and he is going to be going up against massive problems for the US without really having a plan or tangible policies. Offering change is no longer enough – people are going to want him to start making relevant changes for the better as soon as he gets into the Oval Office. He has several weeks to work out what the hell he wants to do; unless he comes up with plans for both home and abroad, Obama could fail like Jimmy Carter. And let’s remember what happened to Jimmy Carter in 1980 – he was consigned to the dustbin of history by a grinning, bequiffed Republican.

Long on rhetoric, short on action: John F Kennedy et al

There have been lots of comparisons between Kennedy and Obama; certainly both gents could make a great speech. But when you actually look at the Kennedy administration, he achieved very little. Many of the policies and changes assigned to Kennedy – such as Civil Rights – were actually implemented by Kennedy’s successor, LBJ. The reason why Kennedy is so lauded is because he was murdered – allowing his supporters to argue that he never had the chance to put his lofty ideals and unfulfilled eloquence into practice.

I can’t imagine that Obama wants to be assassinated, so he needs to be wary of the Kennedy precedent. Unless he can find a way to put his words into action, he may well end up like another Democratic President who came to the White House as the inheritor of the Kennedy mantle, only to leave that building after eight years with a decidedly mixed historical legacy and very little to show for his years in office. Yep, Obama might end up like a certain William Jefferson Clinton.

Actually quite good: Franklin Delano Roosevelt

FDR was elected in tough economic times, and managed to transform his country. Whilst his (long) time in office was far from flawless, on balance FDR had a positive impact on the USA. He was an activist President, who used all of the resources at his disposal to bring into play the changes he felt that the USA needed to not just survive, but also to flourish.

Certainly, Obama will be facing serious challenges both at home and abroad. Whilst the economic situation in the US is nowhere near as bad as it was in 1932, there are some parallels. Furthermore, given the situation in Congress, Obama will be well placed to implement any policies that he thinks will help. He is in perhaps the most powerful position of any recent President; if he has an agenda, or solutions to the current crisis, he could do far worse that to use FDR as his benchmark.

Whether he chooses to act or not will be the question, though. FDR took risks – some of which worked out, some of which did not. And Obama has shown himself to be quite risk averse…

I suspect that Obama will not be an out and out failure, nor will he be a stunning success: he will end up as the middle option – full of wonderful phrases but not actually being able to practically implement many of those phrases and platitudes. And I suspect many of those who are seeing Obama as salvation for America will end up bitterly disappointed as the President-elect goes through his term in office. But whatever happens, Obama is in a dizzying place right now. He has the support of a majority of the Americans who could be bothered to vote, and he has a plethora of goodwill coming from across the globe. His presidency is a blank canvass – he can create whatever he wants. And at this point, it would be churlish to wish him anything other than the very best of luck.

But that’s enough about the US election; it is over now, and I can’t see anything dramatic happening between now and the Inauguration of President Obama. This may be the last post about our American cousins for a while. So this blog will be going back to* normal*. Oh yes, there are posts to come dissing Gordon Brown, the Liberal Democrats and explaining why history isn’t quite as simple as some would make it.

John McCain: Why He Failed

Amidst all the jubilation of the Democrats and, in particular, the Obama campaign, spare a thought for an old man. An old man on his last hurrah who has had his hopes dashed. An old man who has given a great deal for his country, yet was beaten in the final analysis by a much younger and less experienced man. Although a younger guy with better hair. Yes, spare a thought for John McCain. Regardless of whether he thought he could sneak a victory in at the last minute or not, the past 24 hours have been shitty for Senator McCain. And the disappointment won’t be going away any time soon.

Make no mistake about it, this was the last chance saloon for McCain. Pretty much all the other candidates in this election could have another go for the Presidents – Clinton, Palin (*shivers*), Huckabee (*retches*), Romney, Biden (possibly), maybe even Edwards (if people can get over his inability to keep his pants zipped up outside of his marriage) – these people could all have another shot at the Presidency. Had Obama lost, he certainly could have done (and, I reckon, would have done). But for McCain, the game is up. He’s 72 now; the next time the Presidential Election circus comes to town, he’ll be 76. He’s not running again. His White House dream died at 4am this morning.

But I’m not going to spend too much time wailing on behalf of John McCain. His real time – the moment when he should have won the nomination and then the presidency – was eight years ago, but he lost it to Bush. This time he looked more than ever like a man in the wrong place at the wrong time. But he really didn’t help himself, and his defeat has as much to do with his own actions as with the man he was up against.

There are some things that McCain just could not help. He is in the same party as a deeply unpopular, and also hated, President. That party has also developed political schizophrenia, torn between fiscal conservatives and rabid, Christian fundamentalist loonies. And McCain worked hard to distance himself from his President and from his party. But ultimately he is Republican, and this year was perhaps the worst year to run as Republican since 1976.

Events also seemed to conspire against Senator McCain, and it never helps when the economy tanks and you are representing the incumbent party. Yet here, there is more McCain could have done. Yes, events are unpredictable, but politicians have complete control over how they respond to them. And as the US economy slipped into a critical state, McCain’s choice of at first denying there was a problem, then noticing the issue before suspending his campaign to look presidential looks in the cold light of day like a not just a strategic blunder, but actually a campaign calamity.

He also dropped the ball by going very negative on Obama at a late stage in the campaign. Whilst he stopped short of doing the cut throat character assassination himself, all the talk of Obama being a pal of terrorists, and the rumours about Obama not being Christian or being a Muslim were not just untrue, but also showed the level of debate that McCain was aiming at. Yeah, Obama’s lofty sentiments about change were (and are) completely intangible, but at least they sounded positive. To attack an opponent during depressing economic times adds to the sum total of misery within a country, which is never going to go down to well.

But for me, the real blunder was the choice of Vice-President. At first, Governor Palin really seemed to help the McCain campaign. However, in the final analysis the only real ways in which she gathered praise was by being female, and being able to read from an autocue at a national convention. As soon as the razor thin Palin façade was scratched, it became clear that America was being asked to put an out and out, fundamentalist winker a heart beat away from the Presidency. After eight years of having a out and out, fundamentalist wanker as President. And given his health problems and age, McCain’s choice of vice-presidential candidate took on an even more urgent and important tone.

And it wasn’t just the person who was the issue with McCain’s choice of Vice-President. After all, Biden is a twice failed Presidential candidate and Kinnock plagiarist. He also has a tendency to have what you might call foot-in-mouth disease. But Biden was a dull choice, uninspired, but safe. Palin was a gamble – a massive, scary gamble. And McCain has made it clear for everyone – when you gamble, things can go wrong as well as right. Ultimately, though, he should have known just how much of a risk Palin was. He should have done the leg work, he should have met with her more than twice, he should have her had her properly vetted. And had he done all that, he might have seen that Palin would end up as a millstone round his neck rather than the life jacket he so desperately needed.

McCain comes across as someone who has fought his whole life. The sad truth for him is that he lost his final battle. And when you look at it, the failure was down to him as much as it was down to anyone else.

Obama's Victory

Well, he won.

There’s lots to write about today, and there will be websites and column inches filled with hyperbole and a combination of both wonderful analysis and mindless rhetoric. This blog will be no exception. And expect to see the word “history” banded around a lot this morning. After all, things become even more important if you stick the tag “historical” on them. But fuck me, Obama’s victory probably warrants that tag like few other events do.

Before I go into the business of autopsying the McCain campaign and looking into my crystal ball to see what Obama’s presidency may be like, let’s just stop for a moment, and look at what Obama has actually achieved. Regardless of whether you think that Obama is a combination of Jesus Christ, John F Kennedy and Luke Skywalker all rolled into one great package, or whether you think that Obama is an evil lefty ally of evil terrorists everywhere, you have to concede that he has achieved a great deal. A year ago, he was a candidate on the periphery of the Democratic primary season. 4 years ago, he was elected as the junior Senator for Illinois. 8 years ago, no-one had heard of him. Now, he is President-elect of the United States.

And in his brief time in American politics, he has managed not just to climb to the top of the tree, he has also managed to build up a formidable election machine. An election machine that manage to slowly wear down the might of the Clintons, and destroy the widely held assumption that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. And he also managed to comprehensively beat the Republican election machine that has seen off, in the past eight years, a Vice-President and a highly experienced and (in some circles) respected Senator. This time last year, the Obama candidacy looked like he was placing a marker down for future Presidential elections. Now, he is president-elect. It is pretty good going, all told.

Also, Obama has managed to do all this without really committing to anything other than supporting change.

But not is not the time for casual snipes about Obama – they’ll be enough time for that over the next four to eight years. And whilst I am far from sold on Obama, I don’t think I will be alone in admiring what the man has achieved. Circumstances and the actions of his opponents played their part in his victory, but a lot of the credit has to lie with Obama.

Put simply, the boy done good.