Election 2012:

With just under four years to go before America votes for its next President, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was a little early to start speculating on who will be vying for the Republican nomination next time out. But column inches need to be filled, so we’re going to get speculation anyway. And one such potential name being speculated on is that of Bobby Jindal. To the extent where even The Daily Telegraph has noticed he exists.

Whether or not Jindal would be a good candidate is pretty much irrelevant to me at this point – not just because the decision won’t have to be made for a good few years, but far more fundamentally because he’s already said he won’t run. Sure, things change, but I don’t think Jindal will be alone in deciding to hold off from seeking the nomination in 2012.

In fact, next time out I think the battle for the Republican nomination will be the misfits of the party. Bland, boring candidates like Mitt Romney will fight fruitlessly against the raving Christian lunatics like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. The people most likely to be the next Republican President will hold out until 2016 – Jindal included.

See, Obama is going to be tough to beat in 2012. Regardless of your views on his policies and politics (and I am far from convinced by Obama), I think you have to concede that he is acting with a confidence and gravitas that befits his office. After 8 years of having a slack-jawed ignorant twat in the office, there is someone who looks the part now in the White House. Plus, Obama has the massive advantage of being the incumbent in 2012. Just as Hillary Clinton held off running against Bush in 2004 because he looked hard to beat, I reckon the credible Republicans will hold off until Obama is forced to step down in 2016.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we see Palin taking on Obama in 2012. And also see Palin getting destroyed in the polls. Then, after the Obama landslide, the likes of Jindal will come to lead the party, and take it back to a position of centrist credibility in time for 2016.

Turn the Rage against Labour

We’re still playing the blame game about the credit crunch in this country, with bankers still being placed in the public stocks for merciless criticism and indignant rage. Today’s victim is Fred Goodwin, who is being castigated for having (and admittedly fucking huge) pension. The rights and wrongs of this individual case are quite frankly irrelevant as the amount Fred the Shred will be paid is a minute drop in a mighty ocean when you compare it to the amounts of money that the government is throwing at the financial services sector.

Besides, this controversial pension plan is defensible on at least one level – until very recently, it was government sanctioned. That’s right – in order to get Goodwin out of his bank, the Treasury signed off on this massive pension plan.

There is a lot of anger in this country at the moment – anger bordering on rage. Which I can understand. But I really do think we are directing it at the wrong people. Yes, a lot of bankers were crap. But business people are shit all the time. That’s why businesses fail. And ultimately there is very little we can do to those crap bankers. However, there is another target that is just as responsible for this recession, and a target that we can do something about. And it is the target that frantically tries to distract us with hate figures such as Fred Goodwin. Yep, I’m talking about our government.

Labour was first elected over a decade ago under the leadership of a photogenic, harmless looking chipmunk called Tony Blair. We are now being governed by an unelected egregious grey ghoul of a man whose pronouncements on the economy increasingly resemble the demented mumblings of Jim Jones before the Kool-Aid was passed around. Whatever we signed up for in ’97 – and indeed in ’05 – is not what we’ve got now. In fact, this whole government has been exposed as a massive confidence trick – a fraud designed to con us into spending money that we don’t have.

And, indeed, the government still doesn’t have the first fucking clue about what is going on, but that doesn’t stop the Prime Minister shovelling great big piles of our cash into a cellar in Downing Street and setting fire to it. It doesn’t stop him blaming everyone else for the calamity that he himself helped to create. Gordon Brown is determined to channel the righteous rage felt by so many in this country in any other direction that towards him. But that will only work for so long. Because at some point, Gordon will have to call a General Election.

And then we will see the anger, the rage, and the hatred. Turned against a truly deserving target – the British government. Barring Gordon Brown pulling off something absolutely spectacular, Labour is facing decimation at best at the next election. And you know what? I’m going to relish that bastard and his shitty minions facing obliteration at the next election. For all the lies, the evasions, the corruption, the thieving of the past decade. I predict the petulant rage felt by many British people towards bankers at the moment will be nothing compared to baying of the mob when we next get to vote.

I think Brown et al will learn that Goodwin and his ilk are small fry, once the British electorate gets the much larger and more deserving target of the dog-tired, waste-of-space and utterly incompetent Nu Labour government in their sights.

The Alternative Convention on Modern Liberty

I'm going to try* to make it to this tomorrow:

As some of you will be aware the Convention on Modern Liberty is occurring on the 28th of this month.

The event will take place at the Institute of Education in Russell Square. However, you may also be aware that it is a little expensive to attend.

So to make sure us poorer types don't feel left out we're organising an Alternative Convention on Modern Liberty.

It will occur just around the corner at a pub called The Friend at Hand.

We will be convening from 12pm. Which will also be perfect for those of you attending the real event as lunch begins at
1pm.

This is an open event so whether you're a libertarian or not you're more than welcome to discuss liberalism with us.

Liberalism is a fascinating ideology that you can debate for hours. It informs so much of the political discourse of this country, and, indeed, most of the world. It is now such a broad church that it can encompass everything from the Social Democracy of the Liberal Democrats to the anarcho-capitalism of some Libertarians. Which also then begs the question of whether, given it is so broad, we can still refer to liberalism as a meaningful ideology anymore. It is a school of thought that can be endlessly discussed - and no doubt will be at this meeting tomorrow, so I reckon it is worth turning up if you can.

Plus it is taking place in a pub, which is always cool.

*And that is very much I'm going to try to make it. Owing to a mix of fecklessness, indolence and general lethargy I'm actually very bad at turning up to stuff. And when I do turn up to place, I'm often late. Basically, attendance and punctuality aren't my strengths. But I'm still, with the very best of intentions, going to try to make it to this tomorrow...

The Royal Bank of Scotland, The Government and The Blame

Well, this is good news:

Royal Bank of Scotland came a step closer to full-scale nationalisation today as the bank unveiled a record £24.1 billion loss and plans to raise up to £25.5 billion from the taxpayer.

I’m sure I speak for everyone in saying I for one have no problem with paying more tax to fund Gordon Brown’s lust for nationalisation. In fact, fuck it. I’ll just pay my half my salary straight to the state. Bingo. And they can fritter it away on worthless shares for shitty businesses. This all sounds, well, peachy.

While the Government's shareholding in terms of votes will be capped at 75 per cent, its economic interest in RBS - its claim on RBS's assets - could rise to 95 per cent depending on its future performance.

Right, well, that’s a fucking useful cap then, isn’t it? That makes perfect fucking sense. And what great business sense as well. The government – and for government, read your wallet and my wallet – will own 95% of a business but only have 75% of influence over it. Whoever came up with that plan what’s a good, hearty kick in the balls (or fanny flaps, let’s not be sexist here).

Mr Hester also gave a strong signal that tens of thousands of job losses are on the way at the beleaguered bank. He said he "wouldn't dissent" from reports that as many as 20,000 jobs could be lost.

Awesome. Well, I suppose we’ll have 20,000 less people on the state payroll (yep, that’s your payroll and my payroll again, ladies and gents) but it does make me question precisely why the state is effectively nationalising this bank. Surely one of the points of the government taking over this bank would be to save fucking jobs, but no.

Derek Simpson, joint leader of Unite, said: "These historic and humiliating losses ring into sharp focus just how reckless RBS's former management team have behaved. The whole country is paying the price through job cuts and repossessions on a massive scale. It is time to take control and fully nationalise this bank."

With you right up to the final sentence, Del Boy. But the last thing we should do is fully nationalise this bank. Sweet holy mother of Jesus, why would the taxpayer want this massive toxic asset on their hands? Why would they want full control of a failed business that – if it didn’t have enforced contributions from the poor fucking taxpayer – would go under?

There will be some who will hold this news up as further evidence of the failure of capitalism. Which is absolutely true. If you are a total fucking moron. What this represents is the failure of RBS. Capitalism is struggling because of the constant government interventions. The market cannot operate properly if the government steps in to prop up business that have failed.

The brutal truth is that given this loss, the market should be allowed to do what it naturally wants to do. And if that involves killing off RBS, then so be it. The government should offer to guarantee any savings in RBS, but not intervene aside from that.

There is so much fucking belly-aching about bankers – including those in RBS – getting bonuses at the moment. And yeah, it sticks in my throat somewhat as well – not least since I will be part funding the fucking bonuses the way things are going. But there are two points to make here – government owns RBS now, to all intents and purposes, so is in the position to stop those bonuses being paid. But far more importantly it is the state leading the likes of RBS in rewarding people for failure. RBS and other banks have failed, and the government has bailed them out. Is it any wonder that RBS et al think it is A-OK to pay their employees for failure when the government throws money at them because of their failure?

Blame the banks by all means, but don't forget to blame the government as well. Not least because, with all this nationalising going on, the two are rapidly becoming the same thing.

Regular readers of this blog will have no doubt about my feelings towards the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, his embracing of the rhetoric of Polly Toynbee was the final straw that ended my membership of the Tory party. But I know I will not be alone in putting aside my feelings today to offer my sympathy to both him and his family.

I'd imagine that there will be some who look for the silver lining in this event. There will probably be some who argue that this might be the catalyst for Cameron becoming a more mature person and a more heavyweight politician. Anyone who thinks that way has never seen someone who has lost a close family member. This is likely to haunt Cameron not just in the coming weeks and months, but for years as well. Whilst ill children do die, there will be no comfort in that realisation for the Cameron family. 

This is a tragedy for Cameron, and for his family. And the only decent thing to do is express sorrow at their loss.

The Wrong Type of Person

There seems to be growing outrage in the country over the issue of MP (and MEP) expenses. The message seems to be finally sinking in that the likes of Derek Conway are not the exception, but rather the rule. Sadly, that outrage hasn't reached a point where people actually do something about it, but I am hopeful that will happen soon. Because the stories aren't going to stop, and we are simply going to here about more extravagant examples of MPs pillaging the public purse in more inventive ways. As DK points out:

Given the amount that our MPs defraud the taxpayer, these revelations about MEPs—whom we have always suspected of living high on the hog far in excess of their national counterparts (and that's saying something)—are hardly surprising.

Depressing?—yes. Appalling?—yes. Surprising?—absolutely not.

Quite. Because - whether you care about the expenses of our elected and unelected representatives or not - the problem here is indicative of a wider problem with our MPs, MEPs and Peers of the Realm. They are simply the wrong type of person to do the job. MPs enter Parliament these days as another, more profitable, stage in their careers. They are there on the gravy train, to milk it as much as possible, before they lose their seat. That's why Jacqui Smith was so outrageous with her second home scam; chances are that after the next General Election, Smith will be looking for another job. 

And even those who do have some ambition - those who seek higher office with Parliament to apparently change things - are vain, egotistical beasts. Brown and Cameron can be united in their belief that they know best, and they need some way of finding their place in the history books. Neither one of them would have any compunction about extending the powers of the state over you - if it fits into their arrogant beliefs that they know best and are guaranteeing their place in history by shafting you. Both men are the same in that they don't actually believe in anything other than their own desire for power. They lack real belief, and real political ideology. Why else who Brown U-turn from policy initiative to policy initiative? And why else would Cameron be so struggling to define himself politically? Because they actually believe in - and stand for - fuck all, apart from themselves.

Even politicians I admire, like David Davis, who make a stand on the issues that matter to them seem to be driven more by vanity that by actual belief. Yeah, Davis resigned over a point of principle. But he's been quiet since then, hasn't he? After the drama of the resignation and of the by-election faded, Davis seemed to fade away as well. Making me think that he enjoyed his moment in the spotlight, and is now content to wait until the Tories are back in power and he can claw his way back into a position of supposed influence in the next Tory government.

And don't get me started on the utterly, utterly pointless Nick Clegg. 

So greedy, vain and egotistical. These are the people who rule this country, this are the people who decide the levels of freedom you are allowed, and which new ones you should lose as Prime Ministers seek their historical legacies. If you are sick of these people - and surely to fuck everyone must have had their fill by now - then there is another way. It is the party that I am a member of, and have just renewed my membership of. LPUK. Go take a look.

There will be vain members of LPUK, and (if the party ever reaches a place of political power in this country) probably some greedy and corrupt members as well. But this is a party set up to fight corruption and greed within this country, and is also a party that sees you as in control of your own destiny rather than a raving egotist preening themselves in the House of Commons. It is your choice, but we don't have to stick with the status quo. There is an alternative. Get the right type of person into power by not voting for the wrong type of person. 

Don't support the status quo.

The Oscars

*Yawns*

I've never really seen the point of the Oscars. Yeah, there are some excellent films out there, but they are celebrated through good box office returns and great reviews. Does there really need to be a ceremony to hand out gold statues to those films and performers that are (somewhat arbitrarily) deemed to be the best?

And why does the media in this country get so excited when a British film manages to win anything? Slumdog Millionaire could be a great film for all I know, but was Danny Boyle really the best director of last year? To my mind, any director would struggle to beat the technical accomplishment of Christopher Nolan for The Dark Knight.

Also, I'd like to have seen Mickey Rourke take Best Actor, because his performance in The Wrestler was outstanding. But again, maybe Penn did deserve to win. I don't know, I've not caught Milk as yet.

But this is the real point. I agree with some of the Oscar awards (Heath Ledger's, for example) whilst disagreeing with others. But I don't care enough to properly protest any of the choices. Ultimately, the Oscars represent Hollywood at it's most self-regarding. Good luck to 'em, but it all leaves me a little cold. 

Gordon Brown on banks:

"(They should be) servants of the economy and society and never its master".

Funny that. I'd say exactly the same thing about the Prime Minister. He should be the servant of the people rather than the master of them. Which makes it a real shame that our Prime Minister is an ego-driven fuck up of the very highest order who is driven by the trappings of office and an absurd believe that he is destined to be in charge of this increasingly crippled nation. Gordon Brown doesn't understand the concept that he should be our servant. His hideous self-delusion means he just does not understand the idea that he should be servant of anyone. For him, it just does not compute. 

Random story of the day

In front of the meat department in Waldbaum’s stupendous grocery, a woman turned to me and said, “My first four abortions were absolute murder.” “Ah,” I said, back-pedaling.

Peter Straub

Selling Out

Has Iggy Pop sold out by doing those insurance adverts? Probably. Do I give the first fuck? No.

People sell out; it happens all the time. I sell out every time I go into work. I'm not saying I don't like my job; in fact, it can be great. But when I was kid the last thing I wanted to do was work in commerce and industry in an office. My vision of artistic integrity was absolute, and my teenage self would be appalled at what I am doing now.

But guess what; my teenage self was a bit of an arse, and didn't have bills to pay. Sure, I'd like to lounge around all day, working on my perfect first novel. But I'd also be penniless, and in return for food, wine, and a roof over my head, I'm more than happy to sell out. And you can bet your life that if I ever was a celebrity, I'd have no issue with doing an advert. Morals and integrity be damned; give me a boatload of cash and I'll endorse whatever crap you are hawking.

And I guess that is what has happened with Iggy Pop - his solo career has not been exactly sky-rocketing of late, so maybe the chance to make some money through advertising was just too good to turn his nose up at. 

If anything, Pop shouldn't be criticised for doing adverts. If you want to criticise him for anything, then it should be the quality of the adverts. Which are, frankly, fucking dreadful. 

Labour's Infighting

So it is starting again. The leadership speculation. The idea that Brown might be bribed from office with some sort of global regulator role, and Labour get a new leader who is hopefully less shite than the incumbent. And given the state of Labour's poll ratings, I wholeheartedly believe that the plotting is ongoing. The fact that Brown denies this only convinces me more.

There are two points to make on this. Why has it suddenly become the norm for retiring Prime Ministers to get cushy international jobs? Blair got some bollocks job as envoy to the Middle East, whilst Brown may become some sort of global regulator. Do we really need to continue to massage the egos of these terrible cunts even after they have left office? When John Major lost the 1997 election, he went to watch the cricket. Far more dignified than pretending to be an international statesman. 

But the second point is that what is happening at the moment is perfectly natural. It has been seen time and time again. Successful governments, who stay in power for too long, eat themselves. They descend into infighting and ill thought-out policy initiatives. They are devoid of talent, they are devoid ideas. All they have left is plotting and machinations. 

The simple truth is that replacing Brown won't save Labour. They're fucked. You only have to look at the calibre of the proposed successors. Harriet Harman? A woman who can offend 75% of the population just by appearing on the TV, and offends the remaining 25% of the population by opening her mouth? They'll end up behind the Lib Dems in the polls. Ed Balls? A man so egregious that he makes Brown look like your best bud? Don't think so. David Miliband - that over-grown, gurning schoolboy who managed to offend the whole of India in his visit as Foreign Secretary? He's out of his depth in the shallow end of a kid's paddling pool. There is no way he could be Prime Minister. And Alan Johnson, a ghastly lightweight who has made his way to the top of the Labour tree because everyone has been consigned, through scandal or incompetence, to the back benches. Don't get me started on Purnell, or Ed fucking Miliband. They all aspire to be Tony Blair. But with worse hair. 

Labour have had their time, now they are amusing themselves with stupid internal wars to occupy the time before they become Her Majesty's Opposition again. Ditch Brown, keep Brown, I actually don't fucking care. Politically, he's dead in the water. Making him the perfect leader for a party that is also dead in the water. 

Jade Goody: Dying in Public

If you've been living under some sort of rock for the past few weeks, you may just have been able to miss this story. Otherwise, you'll know that reality TV star Jade Goody is dying.

Make no mistake about it - she has my deep sympathy. Cancer is a horrific disease, and for a young mother to be struck down by this disease is a real tragedy for all concerned. The grim truth of the situation is that Jade isn't going to make it, meaning that we are bearing witness to her final days.

Which is the problem I have with what is going on at the moment. We - the nation as a whole - is acting as witnesses to the death of this person. The media coverage means that we are effectively watching her die. 

Jade Goody lived in the media's spotlight - she took what little talent she had, seized on a medium that would allow her to project herself on the national stage, and then turned herself into an instantly recognisable celebrity. She was always a fiercely polemical public figure -  a real love her or hate her personality. But she seemed determined to live her whole life with the nation watching. And now she seems determined to die in exactly the same way - with the nation looking in on her. 

Now if I was in her position, I'd be determined to die with as much dignity as the cancer allowed. And that would mean avoiding the media glare at all costs. I certainly wouldn't be doing what Jade is doing, and projecting my final moments onto the national stage. I can't imagine anything much worse than dying with the whole country looking in on me. 

Which is really the point. I find what Jade has chosen to do with her final months cringe-making. But she has chosen to do it. It is her choice to die as she has lived - with a reality TV camera poking in on her. So be it. The fact that I'd go for another way to die is irrelevant. How you die should be just as much a question of personal choice as how you live. I hope Jade is able to take whatever comfort she can in her final few months. 

The Whole World. Coming Together. In Sweet Harmony.

Gordon Brown's latest ramblings on the global economy:

He said: "I think we are fashioning for the future a global deal and grand bargain where each continent fulfils its responsibilities and its obligations and act to deal with what is a global problem."

Have you ever heard hyperbole like it? It reads like the refrain to a hippy song from 1967. Christ on a trike, Brown may as well have started singing "Give Peace a Chance". Or "Blowin' In The Wind."

And I'm not seeing much evidence that the leaders of other countries are really looking for pan-continental solutions to the recession. It doesn't seem to figure in their rhetoric at all. Maybe because they are more interested in governing their countries rather than positioning themselves as global superheroes who have saved the world. 

What Brown isn't saying - and, in fairness, what leaders across the world are desperately trying not to admit to - is that there is very little that can be done at this point to help the world economy. Talk of global deals and bargains sounds very nice, if you are easily convinced by rhetoric and are a bit dumb. But the best governments can actually do is work towards alleviating some of the worst excesses this global recession will have on their citizens. Any attempts to stop the direction of this perfectly natural downturn caused by years of excessive borrowing will only end up being costly mistakes.

As Gordon Brown seems determined to prove in this country.

The Police State

Quote of the day, from Stella Rimington, former Head of MI5, on the state of Britain today:

"It would be better that the government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism - that we live in fear and under a police state"

And that is not some tinfoil hat wearing member of the conspiracy brigade; that is the former head of MI5.

Over the past few years we have seen laws come into place that will allow the state to detain you without charge for long periods of time; we've seen them give themselves the right to monitor you internet and mobile communications; we've seen them push a version of thought crime onto the statute books, and we've seen our government act as the lapdog to a US regime that thinks nothing of torturing those it suspects of being terrorists. We've seen innocent people gunned down on the tube and in their own homes, and we've had ID cards - abandoned after the war for serving no purpose - foisted back onto the statute books and heading towards your pocket at a great cost (both financial and otherwise) to you. We have seen the state grow and grow - and increasingly worrying behemoth exponentially enhancing its powers over its people using the politics, language and ideology of irrational fear.

And we have had all the above happen, with more to come. So my question is this: with a increasingly draconian state giving itself power after restrictive power over you, does anyone actually feel any safer?

Gordon Brown - depressing the national psychology

That Gordon Brown has and is continuing to do massive damage to this country and to its economy should be no surprise to anyone. And I'm certainly not going to rehash all the arguments about exactly what Brown is doing wrong. But I think that there is another aspect to the anti-Brown case that is is worth discussing. And that is the damage Brown is doing to the economy simply by staying in office.

I'd argue that a substantial part of economics - as with all social sciences - needs to take into account the human and psychological aspects to both boom and bust. The economy is, to some extent, dependent on how the people within that economy feel about what is happening. What we are seeing today is the manic depression, if you will, of the UK (and global) economy. The boom years were the manic phase of our economic psychology. Now the bust face is that psychology plunging into depression. And our economic psychology will not start to improve until circumstances change. 

Which is why Gordon has to go. He is one of those circumstances that has to change. Psychologically, he is associated with the ersatz boom phase that the economy went through. He was Chancellor - his policies led to the current meltdown. And he is presiding over the economic freefall. He is associated with ruining the economy, and doing nothing other than wasting money on deeply flawed attempts to turn that economy around. Everything about him reeks of a deep and destructive failure. 

A good many things need to happen before the economy picks up again. The removal of Gordon Brown from office is one of them. He is associated with economic failure and if the nation is going to get the confidence back to start spending again, then it will be under a different Prime Minister. 

Put simply, our economic psychology ain't gonna get any better until we kick the Gordon Brown habit that we have had for over a decade...

Random Quote

"I think that happiness resides somewhere between the extremes of personal, religious, and political. I think happiness resides where we understand someone else's point of view and needs. Happiness resides where we are not lost in the solitary dream."

Roger Waters

The Next Superman Movie

The options from a poll in The Times* about a new Superman movie is worth looking at, (especially if you are a comic book geek like me). If only because the options are so awful.


Just let the big guy rest a while. No Superman movie for a few years.
Yeah, whilst this may be the best option offered by this poll, it just isn't going to happen. With the massive success of The Dark Knight and Iron Man, anything that comes from a comic book is in vogue and will probably get the greenlight to go ahead by the money-hungry people in Hollywood.


A straight follow-up to the Singer/Routh movie.
One small problem with this idea - the Singer/Routh movie was dull. It was really, really boring. I never realised just how boring Superman could be until I saw that movie. Even Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (as pious and crap as it was) managed to be entertaining. Not so much Superman Returns. Long before the end of that movie my attention was not just elsewhere, but anywhere other than on the movie I was meant to be watching.


A big screen outing for Smallville.
That series only just works on the small screen. There is no way, particularly with all the years of continuity behind it, that it would work in cinemas.


Darkness in Metropolis. A Chris Nolan Superman.

No. Don't be dumb. Darkness works well for Batman - he is, after all, a vigilante with post-traumatic stress disorder. But Superman is a light hearted superhero. Making him dark is to completely miss the point of the character and what has made previous Superman movies so enjoyable.

Which, for me, is the point. A Superman movie should be big, brash and dumb. Forget the darkness, forget making it worthy or realistic. Just make it fun. It is about a man who can fly and who has a stupid kiss curl in his hair. Intellect and worthiness are not good matches for a Superman movie. It needs to be fast-paced, enjoyable and light-hearted.

So a memo to the makers of the Next Superman movie: make it fun**.

*Can't seem to get a direct link for it, but it is attached to this entertaining article here.
**And if you want someone to write the script for you, I'll do it. For a very reasonable rate. I've got an idea for it and all.

Huhne on freedom of speech

The Hideous Huhne has written a remarkable article in which he tries to position himself as a champion of free speech at the same time as, well, advocating the restriction of freedom of speech:

Freedom of speech is our most precious freedom of all, because all the other freedoms depend on it. The decision to stop people from exercising this fundamental right must never be taken lightly. Neither should a decision to ban people from visiting this country.

It is an audacious start – freedom of speech is crucial, yet it is ok to suspend it. It is a bit like saying the heart is essential to a human being functioning, but it is ok for it to stop working every now and again.

And I’d have thought that if freedom of speech was so important to Huhne, he would be less quick to suspend it. But there we go.

As a result, I have in the past defended people with some particularly odious views, such as the recent case of the Australian Holocaust denier Dr Frederick Toben.

Great. So Huhne has defended freedom of speech in the past. Big whoop. Shame he can’t manage a certain level of consistency with his views, though.

In a civilised society, however, there has to be a dividing line between the right to freedom of speech and when it topples over into incitement to hatred and violence.

No. In a civilised society, there should be the prevention of violence. You cannot stop people inciting that violence and you cannot stop them from hating. People can experience whatever emotions they want. And they have the choice as to whether they commit violent acts or not. People are adults – I really don’t see people as being so easily swayed by films or the opinions of others.

In my opinion, Geert Wilders' revolting film Fitna crosses this line, as its shocking images of violence and emotional appeals to anti-Islamic feeling risk causing serious harm to others.

Which is a matter of opinion. Which is not so much creating a tyranny of the majority, but is actually creating a tyranny of the Huhne. You can say what you like, as long as in the opinion of Chris Huhne is that it won’t create any risks on society.

The key liberal principle was enunciated by John Stuart Mill in his essay "On Liberty", in which he stated that the only legitimate reason for coercing someone against their will was to prevent harm to others.

Coercing Wilder not to speak and not to enter the country doesn’t prevent harm to others. Wilder didn’t come to this country to harm anyone – he came here to speak about his film. The sentiments of his film are wrong, but that doesn’t mean that it actually harms anyone. Huhne’s invocation of Mill is irrelevant.

It is precisely the prevention of harm to minorities that justifies the restrictions to Mr Wilders' freedom of speech.

Wilder – and I have no time whatsoever for his views – is expressing an opinion. He is not harming anyone else. If you start restricting his right to communicate his abhorrent views, then guess what. You give yourself the licence to shut up anyone else you think has abhorrent views. And that – right there – is the start of the slide to towards being totalitarian.

If you disagree with Wilder, make the case against him. But let his voice be heard, and argue why people shouldn’t listen to him and why people shouldn’t respond to his message with acts of violence. Anything else is totalitarian and is going to achieve nothing other than making our society a little less free at the same time as making Wilder into a martyr.

Chris Huhne, defender of free speech, has revealed his true colours with this piece. And his true colours show that he is perfect for the Liberal Democrats because – as I have said before – they are neither liberal nor democratic.

h/t Guido.

This I don't understand:

There had been reports that 10,000 Muslims were ready to protest against the film but the press screening in Westminster passed without incident.

So, to recap - we ban an (admitedly crass and ignorant) elected official from the country because of his controversial film. And then we show the film anyway... Eh?

I don't get this whole suppression of free speech thing, but I do have to say that this seems to be an unusually ineffective way of banning free speech. Since the message that was supposed to be suppressed by the state got out anyway.

I'm not sure why Wilders had to be deported from the country. Maybe the government was afraid that, because he'd been invited by a Lord, that he was going to try to bribe a government official in order to get his views into the law. What I do know is that had the government not bothered with their deportation, then this film and its maker would not have got a fraction of the publicity that had dominated so much of the media for the past 24 hours.

Lookin' Good!

I'd imagine being Prime Minister is a stressful job - just look at how it aged Tony Blair. But seriously, Brown is taking it to a new level. In every picture now he looks fucked. Grey, jowly, depressed, over-weight - sometimes he looks hungover, peering at an unfriendly world through narrow, drink soaked eyes. I'm not saying he is a drunk, or is having a breakdown, or is very unwell. But I suspect that the pressure is destroying the Prime Minister. And the irony is that the job Brown sought for so long is also going to be the job that breaks and destroys him.

There will be some who feel sorry for the Prime Minister, and will point out that he is dealing with extraordinary pressure that would break many better men. To them I say "bollocks." Brown wanted this job, and is (to a large extent) the architect of of the cirumstances that are creating so many problems for him. I don't believe in karma, but it is so tempting to see the grey-faced ghoul lurking in Downing Street as being the victim of karmic retribution. And if what goes around truly does come around, then, Mr Brown, you're fucked. And thing's ain't going to get any better for you.

Picture - the BBC

Blaming the Bankers

"Yesterday, whilst appearing in front of a House of Commons select committee, the former Managing Director of Woolworths apologised for the collapse of his company. He said "Yep, I can only but apologise to everyone who lost their jobs and for any damage done the wider economy and community as a whole. We really dropped the ball. We just didn't think that having the same busienss plan as the one we were using in the 1980's might create problems for us, but it turns out that people just don't want or need a store that sells a curious combination of pick 'n' mix, cheap plastic toys and radiator keys on their high street anymore."

Of course, this didn't happen - the only people apologising to Parliament (which itself is an organisation that has more that its fair share of apologising to do to the British people) were bankers. And yet there isn't a whole lotta difference between those bankers and those people running Woolies. They all had shit business plans, they all suffered because of that. And because of those flawed business decisions, people lost their jobs, other companies were damaged* and the economy as a whole arguably suffered. Why are one group of people called to Parliament, and the other group not?

The answer is down to how we perceive the banking industry in this country in this day and age. Put simply, your average banker today ranks somewhere between an escaped, drug addict convict and a paedophile in the eyes of many people. They are the nation's new dog to kick.

Don't get me wrong, I know a few bankers, and at least 50% of them are utter wankers. But then again, I know a lot of other professions where at least 50% of them are utter wankers. However, I don't think the real reason why bankers are so hated at the moment is down to the propensity of some bankers to behave like they are second only to God. No, the narrative of the hour is that the bankers caused the financial downturn that we are currently lumbering our way through.

Which is, in part, true. Bankers played a role in the financial downturn, and both national and international economies have suffered from banks collapsing and/or being taken into public ownership. But guess what - many bankers responsible for this will have already suffered for their mistakes. Some will have lost their jobs, others won't be getting their bonuses - which in the financial services sector often makes up a substantial part of their annual remuneration. God help any bankers who have been paid in part with shares in their organisations if those institutions have been part-bought by Gordon Brown et al.

However, others also played a part in crippling the economy. What about the private citizens who borrowed to the hilt, and saddled themselves with massive amounts of debt that they just could not afford? And what about those politicians who fuelled the rush of both banks and citizens to credit they could not afford with talk of the "end to boom and bust?" All those calling for more regulation of the banking sector should take note that this sector is already crippled with regulation, and that regulation - according to the narrative of the governments that created the regulation in the first place - did not work.

Maybe it is a natural part of humanity - that when things turn bad, you lash out and blame an unpopular group. But looking at the cold, hard facts shows that this scape-goating achieves nothing, and makes no real sense, other than fulfilling a base and craven desire to blame someone categorically for negative events.

*The collapse of Zavvi can be traced back to the failure of Woolies.

Children of Earth

A limited amount of Doctor Who this year means I am, as a shameless geek, also liable to get over-excited about Torchwood... Go here for the preview...

Fraud v. not being open

LabourList has an article up accusing Guido Fawkes of not being entirely open in his dealings with the Centre for Open Politics:

"He is also, in fact, rather hands on, answering the phone himself today to several journalists. While admitting he is behind the group if asked Guido doesn't make it clear even on his own blog (see right). Come on now Paul, I thought you were in favour of transparency..."

So, Guido doesn't make it clear on one blogpost but does confirm if asked that he is linked to the Centre for Opek Politics and answers the phone on the behalf of the Centre for Open Politics. Maybe he isn't being entirely open, but - let's be honest - he's not exactly hiding the fact either.

Besides, Draper's real gripe is not about Guido, it is about Guido/Centre for Open Politics going after Jacqui Smith. Draper writes:

"...the so-called independent "Centre for Open Politics" which is trying to stir up trouble for Jacqui Smith is none other than a front organisation for.... Paul Staines, aka Guido Fawkes."

Except, just to remind everyone, Smith is being accused of a pretty serious fraud against the taxpayer - the very same taxpayer that Draper was *defending* just last week. Besides, which is worse - Smith defrauding the taxpayer, or Guido not stating in a post his links to the Centre for Open Politics? Only a devout Nu Labour drone could ever argue it is the latter rather than the former...

If there isn't already, then there should be a LabourList Watch style website up*. Just to highlight some of the worst excesses of the increasingly shrill and demented world of Derek Draper et al.

*I'm sure there would be no shortage of volunteers to write for it.

Hypocrisy? Insanity? Delusion? Nu Labour.

Peter Hain on The Electoral Commission:

"I do think the Electoral Commission does need to be much more accountable and needs different leadership from what it has had in the first stage of its work. I must say, and I won't go into detail, I found it to be incompetent, dysfunctional and unworldly, politically."

Let's rewrite that to be a comment on the current government:

"I do think the Labour government does need to be much more accountable and needs different leadership from what it has had. I must say, and I won't go into detail, I found it to be incompetent, dysfunctional and unworldly, politically."

Honestly, I don't think Hain gets the irony of what he is saying. But is anyone knows incompetence, it is him.

At the top of the shit heap

In amongst all the time spent shouting about the fuckers in the Commons who rinse our wallets dry in return for sitting in a position of power and privilege in the our government, it is worth praising any member of that now utterly compromised legislature who does not indulge in expenses excess and/or fraud:

But at the bottom of the allowances league table - on £44,551 - was Philip Hollobone, Conservative MP for Kettering in Northamptonshire.

Good ol’ Phil. He’s not ripping us off. He’s one of the good ones…

Except… is he? His base salary is above £60k. With his expenses, he costs the taxpayer over £100k. His job is a backbench MP – effectively a spokesperson for his constituency. In return for his work as a constituency MP, he claims over one hundred thousand pounds for a taxpayer. Not being funny, but that does strike me as slightly overpaid for a spokesman for Kettering.

And I would love to know exactly what you could spend £44k on in terms of expenses, I really would. There is a fair bit of travel and international travel involved in my job, yet last year my expenses were less than £1k. £44k sounds like a fuck load of expenditure to me, even given the no doubt arduous job of spokesperson for Kettering. Lord alone knows how some MPs manage to spend more… except, we know that they do find a way. Legally or otherwise.

It is also worth considering the issue of value for money. I for one would not mind MPs being paid a lot for what they do; if what they did actually was worth the money they were being paid. Sadly, there is not just a gulf but rather an ocean between what we pay MPs and what they actually offer. This Hollobone character is probably the cheapest MP we have, yet he still costs a small fucking fortune.

Just because he’s the best of a bad bunch doesn’t actually make him any good.

Emotional Intelligence

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd commiserating with those who have lost so much in the Australian wildfires:

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown looking angry over bankers who dare to be pair bonuses:

Can you see what the difference is? Yep, Rudd is responding emotionally to events. Brown looks like he is stifling a fart.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not that into the concept of a touchy-feely Prime Minister and I know that Rudd is far from flawless, but seriously, does Gordon Brown have to come across as quite so emotionally flawed? He seems incapable of showing any emotion other than unwarranted smugness at in appropriate times. Watching Gordon Brown communicate anything other than dull stats is a wince-inducing process; he comes across as the sort of person who you would pay money not to talk to. God help us if there is a national tragedy whilst Brown is still PM - we will have the awful sight of Gordon, wearing a business suit, stiffly shaking hands with distraught survivors in the rubble.

Pictures from the BBC.

Another Random Quote of the Day

Making the rich poorer does not make the poor richer, but it does make the state stronger—and it does increase the power of officials and politicians, power more menacing, more permanent and less useful than market power within the rule of law. Inequality of income can only be eliminated at the cost of freedom. The pursuit of income equality will turn this country into a totalitarian slum.

Sir Keith Joseph

And your humble author would like to say that seldom has a truer word ever been said. Despite Joseph being a Tory, this could very easily be a defining slogan for any Libertarian Party.

I can't help but think that some people who arrive at The Appalling Strangeness end up a little disappointed, at least based on the search terms leading people here. At the moment the key search terms are:

- Gordon Brown wets himself - I conclude that he probably didn't here. 

- Obama will fail - I actually argued that he has and will fail to manage/live up to expectations, which I suspect will disappoint any rabid Republicans coming to this blog to find evidence to diss their new President.

- Extreme Porn - sorry, don't have any.  

Still, since this blog is primarily about political commentary, it seems only fair that people are led here with false promises, and that the reality of what they find fails to live up to what they saw in their minds. 

Accidentally quoting films

I've no idea whether those accused of the Meredith Kercher murder are guilty or not.* But this comment struck me as quite interesting. From Raffaele Sollecito,:

I'm not a violent person... People who know me know that I find it hard to kill a fly.

Which reminds me of the end of the original Psycho, and the words spoken by Norman Bates after he has gone completely mental and has become his dead mother:

I'm not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching... they'll see. They'll see and they'll know, and they'll say, "Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly..."

Either Sollecito is innocent and has no idea about film history, or he is guilty and has a very odd - and arch - sense of humour.

*Except for the guy who was found guilty. I think he's probably guilty. 

Clarkson on Brown

Jeremy Clarkson - the kind of man I would cross the street to avoid, even though the size of his head means he'd probably be taking up both pavements and the width of the road - has got himself into a spot of bother with his comments on Gordon Brown. He said:

"[In the UK] we've got this one-eyed Scottish idiot."

Which is technically correct. Gordon Brown does only have one-eye, he is Scottish, and he sure as fuck is an idiot. But it seems, more than anything else, the first part of his phrase that has got Clarkson into trouble.

I can't claim to be an innocent here - if you were pre-disposed, I think you would be able to find some sort of reference to Brown's missing eye in the archives of this blog. But I will argue this - to insult Gordon Brown because he lacks an eye is to miss the point of what is wrong with Brown. He could have 20-20 vision and he'd still be shite. His eye-sight is irrelevant - it is his gross incompetence that is the real issue here.

And Clarkson's comment about Gordon being one-eyed (and the casual racism inherent in his citing of Gordon's home nation) is really, really counter-productive. He should be standing up and saying Gordo is shit; his add-ons to his opinions have meant that his obvious (yet, for some people, oddly alien) statement has been swamped by a storm of protest.

The One Meets The Dark One*

No doubt this will be seen by some right wing bloggers as yet another reason to despise Barack Obama. After all, he is meeting with Cunto di Tutti Cunti himself - Tony Blair. 

Personally, I'd be reluctant to bitch slap Obama too much for this. After all, Blair - Good God help us - is somewhat of a hero in the US. And however much Obama might get on with Blair, it will be nothing compared to the macho love-in that went on between Bush Junior and Blair. 

And besides, there is another reason why right thinking blogger should celebrate Obama meeting with Tony Blair - because Blair is the first leading UK politician to meet with The One. Yep, Tony Blair. Not David Cameron, not David Miliband and - best of all - not Gordon Brown.

Can you imagine just how much that pisses off Gordo?

*For the sake of clarity, the Dark (as in Evil) One is Tony Blair; the title isn't meant to be a racist jibe against Obama. 

Bale Swears

So Christian Bale was caught on audio having a bit of a moment. The cheeky wee chappie certainly seems to be a tad irate in the clip. I mean, I guess it would be irritating if you have your job interrupted by someone who is meant to be working with you. I'm not quite sure whether it warrants the avalanche of profanity unleashed by Bale.

Also, Bale isn't actually that good at swearing. He lacks an essential creativity. He's very focussed on the word "fuck" - which is fair enough, but as any decent swearer will tell you, a bit of variety is essential in the profanities. The sign of a truly developed is mixing and matching the swear words to create a mix of anxiety and humour. Sadly, Bale fails to be truly good at swearing. 

The reaction to his little outburst is interesting. Some people are appalled, some people wonder what this will mean for the new Terminator movie. But the broad mass of people on this planet probably don't care.

Seriously, a Hollywood star behaving as spoilt, angry prima donna really isn't news. Bale was the star of the biggest movie of last year (and the second biggest movie of all time) - of course he is going to have an ego. Plus, he is that curious breed of actor who seems to see their work as a craft, rather than as acting. Or playing, as we all used to call it when we were younger and less pretentious. As soon as something goes wrong, of course he is going to blow his top. And since he is now such a big star, no-one is going to really challenge him for fear that we will make good on his threat and walk off set.

An actor ranting is no different from a musician demanding a stupid rider, and a politician lying. For all the smirk value of Bale's *moment*, I struggle to really this is as news and deserving of all the attention it has got by the media across the world. 

Avoiding Taxes

There is an interesting little spat going on between the TaxPayers' Alliance and Derek Draper's increasingly irrelevant LabourList. Draper seems determined to paint the TPA as an evil organisation that will force you and me, the casual taxpayer, to pay more money to the government. He writes:

If government spending stays the same and tax revenue stays the same (I understand you would prefer they don't but they are going to, at least for now) and companies engage in the tax avoidance schemes outlined in the Guardian, corporate tax levels would decrease and so the burden on individuals would have to rise?

This is in response to the TPA's comment of:

"Far too many companies are being driven abroad by this country's punitive and complex tax system. As a result, our economy and our public finances are losing out. The Government should be doing all it can to bring business back, and the best way to do this would be to lower tax rates and make the system much simpler. We can't expect companies to bring investment and job opportunities to Britain if the only thing they get in return is excessive bureaucracy and high tax rates. Lower taxes would tempt business to Britain, and help ordinary families to pay the bills at the same time."

Can anyone spot where Draper makes his glaring mistake? Yep, it is in the phrase "I understand you would prefer they don't but they are going to, at least for now". Because therein lies the problem, and nicely highlights the utter inflexibility of the Nu Labour position. They refuse to consider reducing taxes or reducing spending - even though, as the TPA points out, this could have a knock-on positive impact on the economy as a whole. The real insanity of their position is that Labour are in a position to implement this positive change, but are refusing to even consider it. Draper reveals the mindset of Labour very nicely - spending is high therefore taxes are high; therefore, everyone must be made to suffer equally.

There is a further interesting point made by the TPA, in response to Draper's angry phone call to them, on the issue of tax avoidance:

When asked to make clear whether he was talking about tax evasion (illegally dodging tax) or tax avoidance (an emotive term designed to sound like the illegal practice of evasion, but in fact meaning legally choosing to live or work in such a way as to minimise your tax bill), he confirmed he was talking about the legal practice.

Closely followed by:

Corporate tax avoidance is a rational response to an overly complex and burdensome tax code. With Britain having fallen behind other OECD countries, and now imposing a higher than average corporate tax rate, companies face a significant incentive to avoid that burden if they can within the law. We now also have the most complicated tax code in the world, having recently overtaken India, which encourages and enables firms to find loopholes. With that in mind, Draper’s approach to the issue misses the point. If we want businesses to stop avoiding the tax system we need to make it less onerous and simpler so there are fewer loopholes and fewer incentives to try and find them. As I pointed out to Derek – when he wasn’t shouting at me – there is physically nothing that you can do to force companies to register in Britain rather than abroad, so the best thing to do is to cut taxes and simplify the rules to entice them back.

So tax avoidance is legally minimising the amount of tax you pay - every business would want to reduce tax, because it is a cost that will either impact on their profits or (more likely) be a cost that will have to be pushed onto their customers in the form of higher prices. In fact, I'd argue tax avoidance is a perfectly natural thing to do - it is just reducing the amount of money we have to give to a wasteful and demanding government. Another way in which Labour could reduce tax avoidance would be to piss less money away - lower spending could lead to less tax.

Of course people are going to avoid paying tax if they can; the government is the equivalent of a drug-addicted relative - they will beg, borrow and steal money from you and then come back to demand more to spend on their expensive habits.

From the BBC:

There is no suggestion councils did not do their jobs properly.

Really? You fucking what? Even if you are a fan of the councils, you have to concede that some are suggesting that councils did not do their jobs properly. Like me. I think, on balance, that the councils - with a hefty amount of help from TFL and the fucking training companies - showed themselves to be utterly incapable of doing their jobs properly. The absolute farce that came after just a little bit of snow can be blamed squarely on those institutions that failed to act on the repeated warnings that a cold snap was coming.

But nothing quite beats the mindless, self-serving justifications of those in local councils. The chairman of the Local Government Association Environment Board, Paul Bettison, is on grabbing onto the excuse making part of his role with both hands:

"The claim that it is local authorities' fault that they cannot run services needs to treated with a huge pinch of gritting salt..."

Oh, ahahahahahaha. Gritting salt. How fucking topical. Shame you couldn't stick some of the gritting salt on the roads rather than just using it as a punchline for a joke that Roy "Chubby" Brown would turn his nose up at.

Bettison goes on to claim that local governments did all they could to take the edge of what TFL were euphemistically - and pretentiously - calling "adverse weather conditions", but they were hampered by the snow continuing to fall. I sorry, but did they not consider for one moment that the snow might continue to fall? And that sometimes the snow can get inches deep? Where the fuck was the contingency plan?

The snow fall was never going to make life easier for people to get around, but the inaction of local governments and transport companies really did help to turn a snowy situation into an utterly crappy one for swathes of people across the UK. And they fucking wonder why we complain about ticket prices and about council tax...

Anyway, enough ranting about the snow for me. Let me summarise with my thoughts on all those who turned my daily commute into an arduous, frustrating trek in the freezing cold in a city that is supposed to be a world leading modern metropolis. They are a bunch of cunts. 

I'm way behind everyone else on this one, but in tribute to TFL's decision to pull every fucking bus from the streets of the Capital yesterday after smattering of snow, I give you:

Derek Conway: still missing the point

Derek Conway has apologised again for being a corrupt fuck and spending the taxpayers money on his own family. However, he still doesn't seem to get it:

He also suggested to the station that his case had attracted particular scrutiny because Henry was gay and had a "flamboyant" nature.

No, Derek - your case attracted particular scrutiny because it was an outrageous fraud blatantly committed against the taxpayer. Nothing to do with your son's sexuality or his "flamboyant" nature. He wouldn't have been dragged into the public eye at all, btw, if his father hadn't roped his son into his petty fraud.

The best defence Conway has is that everyone in the Commons (and, it turns out, the Lords) has their fat faces in trough. But that is a pretty shabby defence, and leads to the conclusion that Conway was just the one who was dumb enough to get caught. Corrupt and dumb. Not the best of mixes in a legislator.

But the argument is right - the UK Houses of Parliament are an outrageous excuse for the members to live the high life at the expense of those who pay taxes. There is another way; it is down to you to choose whether you want to go with it, or go on meekly accepting Conway and the current status quo.

I despair of this stupid fucking country sometimes, I really, really do.

We have a little snow, and the whole country comes to a shuddering halt. Getting to work this morning was an epic trek that made Hannibal's trek across the Alps look like a stroll in the park on a summer's day. The tube station was closed, because there weren't enough staff. The tube network was struggling, because there were some trains stuck in the depot. As for the overground trains; don't make me fucking laugh. Not a hope of getting on one of those; mainly because they were kept in their sheds today. And how does TFL respond to the creaking of the transport network of out capital city under the weight of a bit of snow? They pull all the buses as well. So the only way of getting around this fucking town this morning was a shafted tube network. Good God alone knows how I will get home - perhaps I'll be able to find a sled and some huskies.

We don't need terrorist attacks or economic problems to cause this country to collapse. A bit of snow seems to do the trick.

So is Gordon Brown actually mad?

From Guido Fawkes:

A rumour went round after Monday's disastrous press briefing that Gordon had wet himself. Guido didn't report the story because he was unable to substantiate it from the video evidence. That it was even rumoured and given any credence whatsoever shows that people in the Westminster Village think he is a man close to the edge of total breakdown. The humiliating truth is that Gordon Brown is not mentally fit for purpose.

Now, whether or not Gordon actually wet himself is pretty unimportant as far as I am concerned. On balance, I don't think he did. This is like the story about John Major tucking his shirt into his underpants; it is comedy, it is quite funny, it is sort of believable; but I don't think it is reality. The real point is the one Guido mentions at the end of that paragraph. That Gordon Brown might not be mentally fit for purpose.

Making any sort of diagnosis of Gordon's mental state is problematic for me; I'm not a psychiatrist or a psycho-therapist, and I have only second information on Gordon's mental state through the media. But there are some tell-tale signs that all is not well for Gordon, and he looks like a man on the brink of a breakdown. As times, Gordon almost comes across as positively psychotic - something backed up by the talk of bullying and violent (at least towards mobile phones) rages. Gordon may be suffering from depression, he may be on the verge of a breakdown and he may be mentally ill; however, I don't think any of these should really matter.

Mental illness is far more prevalent across society than many realise. People function with depression, they have breakdowns but survive and get better. Very successful politicians have suffered from mental illness. Famously, Winston Churchill was a depressive. And some leaders have had breakdowns, but have still gone on leading. Stalin, for example, appeared to have a complete mental breakdown after the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. Yet he recovered, and led his country to victory in that war. Gordon may be suffering from some sort of mental illness; that doesn't necessarily mean he should be forced from office. 

The real issue with Gordon isn't mental illness, but it is something relating to his mental state. He has become completely detached from reality. He has listened to his own hype, his own spun, for too long. He was destined - according to his own prophecy - to be the man who would take Labour from the shadow of Tony Blair and be a more honourable and decent leader. Britain was crying out for him, and he had been forced to keep us all waiting. And when the credit crunch started to bite, it became more and more clear that Gordon was the man to lead us from the shadows into the light, like a Winston Churchill for economically difficult times. In the world of Gordon Brown, he is the hero. He is our salvation. And those who do not back him are being difficult, unpatriotic and have, quite frankly, are standing in the way of history. 

Of course, as anyone with half a brain cell will tell you, that is all palpable nonsense. It has no connection whatsoever with reality. Yet Gordon has absolutely bought into a myth that he created in the first place. And this is the problem we have in this country today. We are facing serious problems, we need to have a government with a consistent and realistic view of what is happening and what should be done to deal with it. Yet our Prime Minister has no concept of what these serious problems are, and does not understand that they have to be dealt with in an effective way as soon as possible. In fact, the PM seems to resent reality interfering with his carefully constructed facade of a life. His problem isn't mental illness, it is a fundamental refusal to connect with reality on any level.

Which makes Gordon a very dangerous man to have as Prime Minister. He has the power to cripple this country financially as he pursues his insane agenda to make his self-created vision of himself and of his destiny into a reality. He could bankrupt this country in his vain attempts to fulfill a prophecy that he has created and is important to him, and him alone. We should all be worried, very worried, by the arguably delusional status of our Prime Minister. He is pursuing a selfish agenda utterly disconnected from reality. And is dragging each and every one of us with him as he does so. 

Recession and Racism

Recessions aren't just questions of economics, of poor growth figures and rising unemployment stats. There is a human element to the global economic recession, and such periods can bring out the best in people. They can also bring out the very worst in people as well.

Take the protests that spread across the UK on Friday. You know the ones I mean. The racist protests. Because make no mistake about it; these were racist protests. If you are calling for British jobs for British people, you are being racist. It is a pretty depressing state of affairs; that just months into a recession and people are already turning to racism. The BNP must be loving it. The very fact that Gordon pissing Brown has used such a slogan in the past, and that the placards in these racist protests were praising his wise words, is further proof of Brown's complete unsuitability for high office, rather than offering any legitimacy to this crass campaign.

Companies must be able to choose whoever they want as employees. Regardless of race. The slogan of British jobs for British people is fundamentally racist, and is typical of a knee-jerk reaction to difficult economic times. This rhetoric has more in common with the politics of the far Right in Germany back in the 1930s. It is depressing to see it alive and well in the Britain of 2009. 

The only acceptable slogan is "the best people for jobs in Britain" - anything else is pandering to ignorance and unthinking fear. Anything else is playing right into the hands of the BNP.