Alan Johnson and electoral reform

I've just learned (with all the urgency of someone who doesn't give a fuck about this sort of thing) that Alan Johnson is embracing the electoral reform proposals of a dead man. Literally, the plans of a man who has died. Really difficult to know why this didn't make the front pages everywhere. 

Anyway, sarcasm aside, let's look at what the "Alan Johnson Presents: A Roy Jenkins Plan: Electoral Reform" actually proposes:

The Jenkins plan involved a hybrid system called AV plus. About four fifths of MPs would be elected, as now, for single-member constituencies but on the basis of the alternative vote. AV involves listing candidates in order one, two, three so a winner has to secure a half of the preferences plus one. This is unlike the first-past-the-post system, where a winner just has to be ahead of the runner-up.

Phew! Scintillating stuff, I think you'll agree. As I read those words, my eyes bled with boredom. Seriously, I was weeping tears of bloody boredom. Let's be honest, the technical details around voting systems is about as high on most people's reading lists as reading barcodes on tins of soup. You can argue electoral reform is vital and essential; I've yet to read any account of electoral reform that is in any way actually interesting. Which is kind of the point.

I spent years studying electoral reform; literally years. Not through choice - A-levels and a degree course forced me to. I'd rather have spent the time drinking cider and talking about music, like all good students. Nonetheless, I reached the following conclusions:

1. FPTP tends to create stable, albeit very powerful, governments.
2. FPTP is simple, whereas most other systems require voters both to give a fuck about the electoral system at the same time as understanding the sort of anal technicalities that only really bother geeks of the highest order. 
3. Most people don't give a flying fuck about the electoral system.

And it is the final point that is the most important one. You could find a way to really dumb down all the electoral systems on the back of a post card, and then present it as a referendum and people still wouldn't fucking care. It is dull. FPTP at least has the advantage that people can understand it (it is a race, winner takes all etc). You introduce a referendum to introduce a more complicated system, and people simply won't care. You're going to alienate more people at a time when many people already feel that politicians are completely detached from them. 

Of course Alan Johnson embraces this plan. He is trying to differentiate himself from the aborted, Nu Labour nightmare that is the Gordon Brown cabinet. But, sadly, he fails to grasp that democracy itself is a flawed concept, and that aspiring to reform a flawed system at a time when the people feel alienated from the political process is a bit like introducing a boredom virus to an old people's home. It is absolutely fucking pointless. 

Quote of the Day: Racism

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity."

Ron Paul

Note to newspaper editors everywhere...

Always worth getting someone to proof-read your ads:

(The advert) said: "May Obama follow in the footsteps of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy."

All four of the presidents named alongside Obama were assassinated.

I understand the Secret Service has to investigate this threat, although I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering just how serious it actually is. I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that the most determined of assassins don't obtusely announce their intentions in The Warren Times Observer...

In The Loop

Initially, I shied away from the film version of The Thick of It. When British TV programmes go international, they tend to lose a lot of what makes them great. Whilst I wasn't expecting In The Loop to be as wanky as a Richard Curtis movie, I did think it would end up as a neutered version of the very, very dark original TV programme. Which was something that could endanger the brilliance of the original series. But last weekend, I caught it. And it was pretty much spot on.

The caustic, brutal cynicism and the eye-watering profanity was still there. This was an angry piece of film-making, and it seemed to make few allowances for the international audience likely to be watching this film. As always, I learned about new combinations of swear words that had never occurred to me. And some of the imagery - especially around the horse's cock - nearly had me retching. 

The introduction of new characters also helped the film. The Americans were a varied, complicated bunch when they could so easily have been generic, cliched ciphers rather than actual characters. And the new Minister - Simon Foster - was a wonderfully clueless creation. It would almost be possible to feel sorry for him as he was such a pawn in the games of others, had he not sold his soul and political beliefs at the first sign of a trip to the UN. That said, his bollocking of a hungover aide was a sarcastic person's wet dream. 

There were some standout scenes as well, not least they one where a greasy, arrogant American Assistant Secretary of State actually managed to verbally emasculate Malcolm Tucker. It is the sort of thing you never expected to see, but he did actually manage to shut Malcolm Tucker up. 

Overall, though, the film was more than a little terrifying. It would ludicrous to call it a horror movie - this is the very definition of a black comedy - yet its presentation of how nations go to war was oddly compelling and as a result, very scary. It suggested that the decision about going to war aren't made by noble leaders genuinely believing in the aims of that war. Rather, they are made by arrogant politicians who give no thought to the practicalities of armed, international conflict. By assistants with chronic, mouth bleeding toothache. By hungover aides who don't think about the consequences of what they do. By British Ministers who get erections at the very sight of a motorcade. And by merciless spin doctors - rabid dogs set up to protect and fight for the interests of their masters. And this is perhaps the scariest thing of all. Imagine Malcolm Tucker being ordered to fight on the side of peace. He'd have us committed to pacifism for the next ten years. This film shows that those who make the monumental decisions over things like going to war actually aren't thinking - at least, not in the way you or I would think. Instead, they are pawns in a game that no-one seems to have control of. 

MPs' Expenses: A Witch Hunt?

I caught Newsnight* (ironically enough this morning) and was staggered by the reporting. Now, it seems, we are supposed to feel some sympathy for the poor MPs losing their livelihoods and lively expense accounts. Apparently some of those who are stepping down felt intolerable pressure. Awww, diddums. I'm guessing all rumbled fraudulent fucks and benefit cheats feel some sort of pressure when their ugly little schemes are made public. I feel about as much sympathy for them as I do for these sodding MPs who are being forced out. The word witch hunt is used a lot. Well, big fat hairy bollocks to that. Take the Salem witch hunts - those accused in that were innocent. You can tell because witches don't actually exist. Those accused in this sorry farago of a scandal are guilty of exploiting the taxpayer. It isn't a witch hunt; it is dragging the guilty into the public eye. 

The only charge that Newsnight really made stick was that it wasn't fair that some, mainly unknown backbench MPs, were being forced from power whilst the likes of Burnham, Blears and Darling can still gorge their rampant egos in the corridors of power. Which is true. Don't get me wrong, I think those that have said they are going to go at the next election should go. But there are worse offenders out there, and they seem to be sitting pretty. 

So I'm going to make a suggestion in the interests of "fairness". Rather than scapegoating minor MPs for the sins of most MPs, how about putting all MPs in the firing line? How about making it so all MPs could lose their cushy little jobs and their cushy little lifestyles? And how about making it so the party leaders and the press aren't the ones deciding which MPs should be turfed? Newsnight talks a lot about mob justice, but the mob - or electorate, if you will, the very people these out and out cunts should be serving - hasn't had their say. Give us a General Election, and then the mob, the electorate, the fucking people will actually be able to have their say on this scandal. 

Turns out an immediate General Election is actually the only way to be fair to our MPs. Who'd have thought it?

*At around 13.54, Kelvin McKenzie mentioned MP Stephen Hammond and his little expenses escapade. It isn't one of the worst ones, but it is one that got me incensed. Mainly because, in my wayward and misspent Tory youth, I campaigned for Hammond. He was going up against a dubious Nu Labour type, and was painting himself as the honourable alternative. That didn't last long, did it? Hammond - a wealthy man - has rushed straight to the taxpayer for a quick handout. His hypocrisy, sadly, is typical of that party - and of our ruling class.  *CORRECTION* as a comment at the Kitchen points out, they actually refer to Philip Hammond MP, not Stephen. My bad, my apologies. Need to have my ears syringed. 

Cross-posted at Devil's Kitchen

The Labour Leadership Contest To Lose

From Guido:

Guido’s source cautions that we have been here before and Brown has a knack of hanging on by his bitten down fingernails. Chickens are not being counted. Campaign teams are however being assembled in readiness with the weekend of June 12/13 pencilled in for them to break cover. Miliband’s SpAd Sarah Schaefer has sounded out a team ready to go within weeks, Alan Johnson’s unsuccessful deputy leadership campaign team is also clearing the decks. The game is very much on…

Well, yes, we have been here before. Brown has been on the ropes far too many times for anyone to really be counting him as down and out before he actually is forced from the leadership. But he is running out of supporters and options. We could see some sort of leadership challenge after the Euro/Local elections.

But if it does come down to a Johnson/Miliband contest, then the former gets my support. Not because there is anything in any way good about Alan Johnson, but at least he is that grinning, over-grown idiot of a schoolboy David Miliband. Can you imagine David Miliband on the international stage? We’d be (even more) of a laughing stock with that geek gurning at Obama etc.

But there is one massive factor that means another coup d’etat in the Labour party is unlikely: who’d want it? Seriously, who would want to be Labour leader and Labour Prime Minister now? You’re going to lead the party to defeat, and you’re going to be forced out of office by some preening youngster fuck like Purnell or (good God help us) Burnham. This would be the Labour leadership contest to lose, which is why I think all the likely candidates would be very cautious before forcing it. Brown may survive the coming election catastrophe because no-one else wants his job.

MPs' Expenses: Regaining Our Trust

Michael Martin’s resignation was, of course, a cause for a small celebration. Yes, he was to some extent the victim of circumstance. But some of those circumstances were of his own making. He was a greedy, corrupt figure. And he was the first Speaker to be forced out in centuries, which leads part of me to question whether he really was the worst Speaker we have had in that time.

Truth be told, I don’t know. Sure, his tenure has ended in ignominy, and that hasn’t happened for a long while. But I don’t know enough about the previous Speakers of the House of Commons to make the judgment call about how good Martin was, relatively speaking. That he was dreadful few will dispute. That he was the worst in over three hundred years may be more of an area for debate.

What Martin did do is represent the Commons very effectively in its current incarnation. He was bovine, corrupt, shallow and more than a bit incompetent. Much like so many of the members of the House at the moment. He sums up the zeitgeist, and I do wonder how much he is being punished for that. But if Martin is the worst Speaker we have had in centuries, does this mean the current incumbents of the Commons are the worst we have had for centuries?

It is easy to get lost in hyperbole as we see headlines about our money being spent on massive TVs, moats, toilet seats, damp proofing and manure. The truth is that there have always been corrupt MPs – just take a look back to Mandelson, Hamilton and Aitken if you want some proof. Yet this time it seems to be so much worse owing to the sheer volume of MPs caught with their hands in the till. The number of MPs implicated in this scandal would imply that we are looking at amongst the worst MPs that we have seen in a goodly long time.

They blame the system; which is fine until you realize they control the system. Yet the system is to blame on two key levels – firstly, it does encourage those with a predilection for corruption to run to the taxpayer with their wallet and purses wide open, begging for a bit of public cash. And the ability of MPs to enrich themselves at the expense of those they nominally should be serving does encourage the type of person who is more interested in maximizing personal wealth than public service to enter the Commons. There is no doubt that the system needs changing, both to close down the numerous loopholes and to put off the greedy from pushing so hard to become MPs.

But that is not enough. Every system has loopholes – the corrupt who enter the Commons will expend considerable energy on finding them. And it is not enough that the worst offenders of the expenses scam are being turfed out of the House of Commons. The repercussions for personal enrichment at the expense of the taxpayer must be stepped up. The worst offenders should be investigated by the police and answer, in court, any case that could be put to them. And if they are found guilty, them should be punished to the full extent of the law. Those entering the Commons should know that we expect nothing but the best from our elected leaders, and they should know just how awful it can get for them if they choose to exploit those who they were elected to serve.

We are talking about naming and shaming people here, and we are talking about making examples of those who are found guilty. Pretty awful stuff, but it is worth noting firstly that this is probably the only way we are going to control some of the worst elements of those who seek power in this country. It is also worth noting that MPs, through their greed and piggish behaviour, have forced this sort of conclusion on their constituents.

MPs need to be forced under the microscope a lot more, and their behaviour needs to be monitored and controlled. They need to regain the purpose of their jobs – they are public servants, and the relationship does not and should not work the other way round. Yes, it is a tough message that those in power probably don’t want to hear. But as the British public looks at those in the Commons and declaims them as the worst in living memory, they should remember that their current shaming and the calls for draconian new laws and regulations is down to them and to them alone. They created the system that brought disgrace on them, they exploited it and the refused to reform it. It is their fault that they have to suffer in order to regain public trust.

Eden Lake v. The Children

Last year (I think) there were two films released about children doing some pretty evil stuff. One was called Eden Lake, the other (somewhat unimaginatively) was called The Children. 

Both have some similarities. They both have first half hours that consist of smug middle class people being, well, smug and middle class. They both seem to revel in the visceral violence that dominates so many films in the aftermath of the Saw franchise. And they could both put you off breeding for life.

The difference between the films is in the reasons behind the children turning evil. In Eden Lake the kids are set up from the outset as evil chav scum, and after one of the middle class wankers kills their dog, then the kids turn feral and hunt down the main couple in order to exact a painful revenge. In The Children (which owes more than a little debt to The Midwich Cuckoos) something turns the kids in psychopathic (and ingenious) killers. The later film focuses on subtle menace inbetween scenes of gore, whilst the former is filled with torture, stabbing, pain and general nasty violence. But it isn't just about the levels of violence that makes me prefer The Children.

The Children is a fantasy horror story through and through. It is violent, it is unpleasant, but it is a horror film very much in the tradition of Night of the Living Dead. It *could* happen, but let's be honest, all the kids turning into mentalists because of some unspecified virus or mutation doesn't seem tremendously likely. Whereas Eden Lake could easily happen. Chav kids having a fatal go at a couple that offends them (before being joined by their parents in the attack stakes) could happen right here, right now. Hell, it sounds like a news bulletin. 

Maybe I am getting old, but I prefer horror that engages the imagination on some level, rather than being so close to the truth. So whilst Eden Lake will always be praised by some for reflecting reality, I'd recommend The Children. As insane as it might sound, you'll enjoy that film about killer kids a whole lot more. 

Gordon Brown: The Search For A Legacy

Every Prime Minister, no matter how bad they were in office, ends up with some sort of grudging respect. John Major was an abject failure from the end of 1992 onwards, yet some now speak of his well-meaning nature and point out that he was undermined by a disloyal and self-destructive party. Likewise. Jim Callaghan - surely one of the worst Prime Ministers in living memory - is thought of by some as "Sunny Jim". Failures can achieve some level of success after they stand down from power. As soon as a Prime Minister is no longer a threat, some people start to like them a bit.

It won't be long before some people try to dig through the Brown premiership, looking for the truffles amongst the effluence. But, by God, they are going to have a tough fucking job on their hands. Because, try as I might, I can find nothing good about the time Brown has spent in office. We've seen the "end to Boom and Bust" myth deflated with catastrophic implications for the national economy. We have seen Parliament drown in a tidal wave of sleaze as expenses are exposed. And we have seen Brown drag the country to the point where it is compromised and nearly bankrupt. 

And you can't even look to Brown's personality to find something positive to right about. He is a nasty, vile little man surrounded by nasty, vile little men. He is a bully, an oaf, and is socially incompetent. He is self-serving, paranoid, and afraid of democracy. 

Put simply, there will be nothing positive to write about Gordon Brown on the day he leaves Downing Street. 

Maybe I'm wrong - and if you can think of anything positive that might be pulled from the car crash of his premiership, stick it in the comments section. But when the histories of this era of British Politics are written, they could do far worse than define Gordon Brown using a picture of a particularly vile looking wasting disease. The phrase "Worst Prime Minister Ever" is over-used, but against every available parameter, Gordon Brown must be a contender. 

Random Quote of the Day: Hayek On Social Justice

"To discover the meaning of what is called 'social justice' has been one of my chief preoccupations for more than 10 years. I have failed in this endeavour — or rather, have reached the conclusion that, with reference to society of free men, the phrase has no meaning whatever."

Hero of the Day: John Wick

Round of applause for that man:

Ex-SAS officer John Wick, who passed the data on from an anonymous source, said he had "no regrets" about exposing the expenses system's "rotten core"

He says his actions mean:

"Parliament will be a better place, society will be a better place."

Damn right. But only if the people act on the information he put in the public domain, and cleanse Parliament of the leeches through the ballot box.

Music: Three Reviews

One of the benefits of moving is that I have had some time to actually listen to some new music whilst packing/unpacking, rather than just catching snippets of it whilst commuting. And this past week I’ve heard three interesting new records from established artists. So here you go, music lovers, three reviews:

Journal for Plague Lovers by Manic Street Preachers

The Manics are one of my favourite bands, but I do have to confess that their more recent records have been a little lackluster. Lifeblood was so overproduced that it was just a bit lifeless, whilst Send Away the Tigers could have be written by anyone, even *shudders*, the Stereophonics. But I had high hopes for Journal for Plague Lovers. After all it is the direct sequel to their best album, The Holy Bible, and is based on the lyrics of the missing, probably dead, Richey Edwards.

Of course, the album doesn’t live up to expectations. Although I have to say that the expectations were so high for me that it probably could never have done. But there are a couple of points that stand out as to why it just isn’t as good as The Holy Bible. Firstly, the music just sounds like fake angry, and manufactured rage. It lacks the discipline and clipped tones of The Holy Bible, which it is so desperately trying to mimic. And then you have the lyrics, which veer from poignant to angry to downright absurd. Yeah, Richey’s lyrics were always packed with obscure references. But on this album they just feel unfinished, or like they have been subjected to the cut-up technique that creates so may of Bowie’s lyrics.

The stand out song is the last one – “William’s Last Words”. The lyrics read like a suicide note (which, for all the world, they may well be) and they are rendered and delivered well by the music and singing of Nicky Wire (a phrase I though I would never type). The song provides a neat coda to the work of Edwards, and bring into sharp relief the tragedy of his disappearance.

The album is worth buying – it is a hell of a lot better than a lot of the rest of the dross out there - but it just doesn’t feel as good as it could have been. Part of that feeling comes from the nagging doubt in the back of my mind that if the album is good now, just imagine how awesome it would have been had Edwards not vanished and had it be produced over a decade ago.

Man of Aran by British Sea Power

British Sea Power are another of my favourite bands, so I many be a little biased when I say that this album is awesome.

But it is also a quirky, idiosyncratic album. It is the soundtrack to the re-release of the film Man of Aran, and as such is an album almost completely lacking in words. Instead, it is ambient guitar music that creates a pastoral, yet oddly impersonal effect. It reminds me a little of the soundtrack to 28 Days Later - except this is less manic and far, far better.

It’s a record I greatly enjoy, and think that fans of BSP will enjoy too. However, if you don’t know the band it may be worth checking out one of their more commercial records, then come to this. If you are interested, then check out Open Season first – not least because some of the music on that album resurfaces on this one.

Further Complications by Jarvis Cocker

Jarvis’s album, quite frankly, makes him sound like an old man. Which is fair enough, because he is certainly getting on a bit. But there is a bitterness to his lyrics that wasn’t there before. And the music, whilst pounding and quite compulsive, also sounds very 1970s.

Throughout the album, the lecherous Cocker that was there throughout Pulp’s work is in evidence. But now the lyrics seem to suggest that Cocker knows he is older, and probably less appealing to the opposite sex. The songs don’t sound like the work of an unlikely sex symbol and don’t have the same coy, arch timbre that they used to have. Instead there is almost a weary acknowledgement that he is getting a bit past it.

There is nothing wrong with the album, and it is easy to listen to. But I’m left wondering just how much better it would have been had the songs been polished, adapted and developed by the other members of Pulp. Whether it would have flowed better, sounded more energetic, and less lumpen. Like with the Manics’ new album, I’m left wondering what it would have sounded like had it made a decade ago.

All three albums are worth buying, and if I was going to recommend one, then it would be Journal for Plague Lovers. However, I can’t help but notice that these records show that both the Manics and Jarvis were great artists who are perhaps no longer as great as they were. Whereas British Sea Power are probably at the height of their power.

MPs' Expenses: An Audacious Counter-Attack.

Wonderful stuff from MP Anthony Steen over his expenses:

"What right does the public have to interfere with my private life? None."

Erm, except you have put yourself forward as a public servant, and have fleeced money from your employers (the voters, natch) to fund your opulent lifestyle.

As a head's up, we're not jealous of you, Anthony. We just hate you because you have fleeced us. And if you want us to butt out of your life, then how's about you butt out of public life. Not at the next election. Now. Resign from Parliament. Let the voters choose someone who isn't a troughing cuntrag. Then you can have your private life back, Anthony. I promise.

Reggie Perrin

I'd kept away from the reboot of The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin until yesterday. Partly because it looks a bit cheap, but mainly because it seems like yet another pointless reboot/remake. Do we need another series about the exploits of Reginald Iolanthe Perrin? 

No, not really. And having now caught an episode (well, three) of the new series, I can say wholeheartedly that there is a lot wrong with it. For a start, the title. Reggie Perrin. What was wrong with the original title? Or did the producers think that the population is now too dumb to pay attention to a title longer than two words?*

And some of the backing characters are truly atrocious. Over-blown, completely unrealistic and over-acted. Less can be more; the danger with these hyper characters is the whole thing becomes completely unbelievable. And we don't care about Reggie's breakdown because his world is disconnected from anything even approaching reality. 

Then we have the production values, or lack thereof. Perhaps the producers blew the budget on the primitive title sequence**. Because the rest of the production looks for all the world like the production team went out and robbed the My Family sets rather than coming up with their own. Almost impossibly, this looks cheaper than the original. It probably is. Hell, it probably cost the same as the original. And I'm not talking about figures adjusted for inflation. 

But strangely, it works. Flawed, maybe. But very watchable. And laugh out loud funny in places. And there is one reason for this - much like the original, it is down to the lead actor. Martin Clunes makes this programme work. 

Mercifully, he doesn't try to mimic Leonard Rossiter. Instead, he plays Reggie Perrin in a calmer, less frenetic way. Almost as a man too nice and too intelligent for the world he finds himself in. Whereas the original Reggie Perrin raged against the world and was largely fuelled by frustration, this incarnation is an altogether more earnest creation. You feel as if Reggie just wants the world to be a nicer place, and a place where he is accepted and respected. He's not angry with the world; just a bit disappointed by it and the people in it. Personally, I feel more empathy with this interpretation of Reggie than with the original. 

It is definitely worth a view, even if you are a fan of the original (as I am). And having now seen half the series, I am genuinely intrigued to see what direction they take it in...

*This is probably true. Both that the producers thought this, and that people now are too dumb to cope with a long title...

**The original title sequence was truly iconic. The remake's looks like My First Animation. Something not helped by the funked up remix of the theme. 

From Granita to Desperados

Last night I had a couple of pints with my good friend the Moai. The conversation, as always, travelled far and wide but at one point the Moai mentioned that he used to live near the Granita restaurant, where Blair and Brown worked out their now notorious deal over the Labour leadership. He mentioned the restaurant is now a cheesy Mexican place and rued the fact that if you wanted to visit the potentially historical site, you'd now be doing so over a meal of processed, ersatz Mexican food. 

For me, though, the transition from restaurant where the prosperous future leaders of the country would it to a Tex-Mex place neatly mirrors the decline of the Labour party from once unstoppable election winning machine to laughable wreck of a party. Yeah, that's Gordon Brown's Labour party for you - the cheap, compromised shadow of what it once was. 

Whilst I'm pleased that the corpulent git is leaving office, I can't get too excited about the departure of Michael Martin. As DK puts it:

Still, one down: six hundred and forty five left to go...

Yep. Martin is the tip of the malignant tumour on the face of British Politics; there are quite a few other MPs who need to go before I'll feel satisfied...

Blogging may be a little light...

...As the Nameless Libertarian is moving house. And, in fact, cities.

Yep, after half a decade, I'm heading from London to Nottingham. I doubt that will much change the output of this blog that much - I've heard of other bloggers relocating across the globe and it doesn't seem to have had an effect - other than meaning that posting will be erratic whilst my life is consumed by packing and unpacking stuff and trying to get a decent internet connection. 

Blame-showering the Speaker

I'm no fan of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Indeed, I believe that the porcine imbecile is a living, breathing evocation of the Peter Principle, and I would like to see him doing a job more suited to his talents. Like working in a supermarket warehouse or something. So this post is an odd one for me to have to write. Because I'm going to defend him. Sort of.

That the Speaker should go is of no doubt to me. In fact, he should have gone a long time ago. Partly because he is inept, and partly because he is very, very greedy. But the logic behind some of those plotting his demise is very different to those reasons given above. They talk about him being part of the status quo, of him being a roadblock to reform. Which is true. But I can think of other roadblocks to reform. Such as all the MPs who have failed to reform the system and have exploited it, and only really discovered their zest for reform when the whole system has come crashing down around them.

If the Speaker is part of the problem, then he has several hundred other co-conspirators around him, helping him. This talk of sacking the Speaker is acting as a distraction from the real story - that the Speaker is not alone in warranting the sack, and that there are many people in the Commons just as corrupt and incompetent as the Speaker. He's part of the problem, but getting rid of just the Speaker is not the solution.

One wonders what the person "throat is so itchy i can't sleep and it is making me gag" made of this blog. I hope they found what they were looking for; I suspect they probably didn't...

The BNP: Vile Politics, Vile People

Yesterday I had a pop at the Greens, and explained why you definitely shouldn't vote for them. It should also go without saying that I don't think anyone should even consider voting for the BNP. However, it is always worth saying, particularly since the whole MPs' expenses debacle may yet lead to an electoral coup for that party.

The racism and socialism of the BNP are abhorrent to me - and should be to all right thinking people. But if that is not enough for you, then take a look at this - some of the criminal convictions of BNP members on the website Nothing British*. I've read the list and I have to say that the BNP is pretty thorough - everything from resisting arrest through to mass murder via child molestation. Yeah, it doesn't represent every single member of that party, but it does give you a pretty good idea of the type of people who end up fighting for the BNP.

The BNP represent deeply unpleasant politics represented - as the list above proves - by deeply unpleasant people. Don't vote for them; not now, not ever. 

*h/t Iain Dale.

More MP Whining

Claire Short on claiming £8,000 too much on the mortgage for her second home:

She said it was "an honest mistake", she repaid the sum in 2006 and said the paper was trying to "smear" all MPs.

No needs to smear MPs over this; they are doing a pretty fucking good job of smearing themselves.

And Shahid Malik - who Letters From A Tory notes is no stranger to the expense claim - is also talking about how our MPs being exposed as greedy and fraudulent is in some way bad for democracy:

"I think it's really important that we try to draw a line behind this... the thirst for blood from some elements of the media just seems like it's unstoppable."

Bollocks. Absolute fucking bollocks. The only reason why Malik wants these stories to stop is because this is embarrassing for him and his ilk. But this is not the death knell of democracy. Quite the opposite. This is democracy in action. The people are speaking, and Malik et al are all shitting themselves because the public are now roaring with anger at them. This is perfect democracy, and I hope the public follows through and sends the likes of Malik searching for alternative employment at the first available opportunity.

Don't Vote Green

Here's a new one on me - the scandal around MPs' expenses means we should vote Green*. No, really - this appears to be part of their campaign in the upcoming Euro-elections. Politically, it is a very interesting idea - and does make me wonder why the Greens have moved away from/added another plank to the single issue of environmentalism that has left them to such ferociously useless election results in the past.

I suspect the economy is the answer. Being environmentally friendly, for a lot of people, is something to do when you're feeling economically secure. And Green issues tend to be more prominent in national politics when the economy is doing well. The Greens do better when you can afford to worry about climate change and so on. If you are ever so inclined to worry about such things. 

It follows that the recession will have hit the Greens badly. Note the disappearance of the Green case from the rhetoric of our political leaders. Recently, all Brown, Cameron and Clegg (on the rare occasions when he has been bothered to open his gob) have been going on about the economy and, even more recently, have been trying to out do each other with apologies for the gross abuse of the expenses system. Climate change etc has vanished from their agendas. Because the voters care more about the economy, about taxation, and now about how much they are being fleeced by MPs through their "self-regulated" expenses system. 

So the way the Greens have launched their campaign is actually quite canny, particularly for a group of tree-huggers who normally work hard at detaching themselves from political reality. They are talking about the issue of the moment - expenses. And also talking about how their investment in green industries could create jobs.

Yet, voting Green is still a really, really dumb thing to do. They may be more trustworthy than the three main parties when it comes to expenses; I can't be bothered at the moment to do the research on just how much their existing MEPs have taken from the EU. But when you take a look at their page on Wikipedia (which their own site directs you to) you see some *interesting* policies:

Like many Green parties, the Green Party of England and Wales does not consider economic growth to be the only or the best indicator of progress, as it sees endless growth as incompatible with a planet of finite resources. It is against mass consumption and destructive consumer lifestyles and hopes to encourage an economy built on sustainability and long-term use.

For many people, struggling with recession and desperately hoping for more economic growth to help guarantee their job and ensure that their house maintains value, this must be more than a little wounding. And for those looking for a little more justice in the tax system, well, the Green Party definitely isn't the way to go:

On taxation, the Green Party believes in increasing the top rate of income tax to make the system more redistributive. It is in favour of a more progressive system of corporation tax to encourage small businesses over large corporations. It supports eco-taxes, such as those on packaging and carbon emissions, along the lines of the 'polluter pays' principle.

Old school Social Democracy - worthy of the old school Labour movement. As is this:

Also, the party wants an increase in trade union rights and the renationalisation of the railways and other public utilities.

So, the Green Party wants to increase taxes on the rich and on business, at the same as nationalising things. This all sounds a lot like Labour under Gordon Brown. Or the Labour Party under Michael Foot.

I'm mildly impressed that the Green Party have tried to grab the political moment and try to make the case for them being the real alternative to the main parties. Unfortunately, they aren't that different from the Labour Party of the 1980's and their policies reek of economic naivety. Anyone thinking about voting Green, well, I'd urge you not to. You're not voting for change. On so many levels, you'd be voting for a worse version of the status quo.

*As a heads up, voting for a party in the Euro-Elections will have zero impact on the expenses system. That is created by and regulated by MPs. in order to deal with that, we need a General Election. So on this level - as well as many others - the Green case is very, very weak.

MPs' Expenses: Why They Matter.

So, we have a "political heavyweight" like Stephen Fry arguing that this scandal over MPs' expenses doesn't matter. The Daily Telegraph carries a scathing report on his comments, and whilst the article is rather more scathing about Fry than I would be, I have to say I agree with what it says. 

Anyone who had read this blog over the past few days (and, indeed, the last year or so) should know that I am pretty hacked off with the various examples we have of piss-taking from our elected representatives. I think it is an outrage, and think that people like Fry are, quite simply, missing the point. 

Yeah, the amounts of taxpayers' money splashed down the urinal of life by our MPs are small when compared to the massive sums wasted propping up failed banks. And there is something very small and wince-inducing about hearing about how many bog seats John Prescott and his fat arse have been through. But the real point is that, although the sums are small in the grand scheme of things, they say so much about our MPs and our Ministers. One of the tags on this blog is "They Don't Work For You." And this scandal has brought that into sharp relief. 

Across the board, across the major parties, we have seen MPs rinsing a system they created and they sign off on. They have only responded with repayments and demands to reform the system after they have been caught with their grubby hands in the till. They have taken the money from the taxpayer, and wasted this money on perks, improvements and repairs on their second homes. And some of the sums spent on furnishing second homes are often far, far in excess of the average earnings of a UK citizen. This, perhaps, is the reason why Fry feels the expenses are unimportant - maybe the sums involved don't matter to him as a wealthy man. To a lot of people in this country, though, these are huge sums. 

And what type of person is going to be attracted to Parliament when they know the sums they can earn as a base salary, then expense as much as they can possibly claim for their second homes? Do we really think it will be those attracted by public service and helping the people? Or will it be those wanting to make as much money as possible from the taxpayer? I've argued for a long time that we are attracting the wrong people into Parliament, and this grubby little scandal simply makes the case for me. They Don't Work For You. They want to exploit you. 

This scandal shows that we have the wrong people in power in this country, and that we urgently need to change the component parts of the House of Commons if we want to get a better calibre and more moral type of person into Parliament. Yes, this scandal matters. It is about the future of our country, and who leads us into that future. 

A resignation

Good, good:

Conservative MP Andrew MacKay has quit as parliamentary aide to David Cameron over what the party said was an "unacceptable" expenses claim.

And we even get an apology (sort of):

"Due to an error of judgement in accepting advice from the fees office I have let a lot of people down. I passionately believe in Parliament, in our democracy, and I think it is very important that members of parliament are held in high regard."

He's still in Parliament, though:

He said his error of judgement had damaged Parliament's reputation but it was up to his constituents in Bracknell whether he should continue to be their MP.

Fair enough. I do hope that the voters in Bracknell do voice their feelings at the ballot box, and kick this fucker from the corridors of power forever.

Still, this is a step forward. One down. Several hundred to go.

Cameron Gets Tough On Expenses...

... depending on how you define tough. Young Cameron, with the faux outrage of a practiced political charlatan, displays what he probably believes to be leadership by demanding some members of his party pay back some of the more excessive and outrageous claims they made. 

Well done, Davey boy. Well the fuck done. Because this makes all the difference. He's forced some fraudsters to pay back the money they fleeced from the general public. Big whoop. Like Gordon's apology, this is too little, too late. 

Look at it this way. If you exploited an expenses system, were exposed and brought discredit on your organisation out in the real world, you'd probably lose your job. And a lot of employers would call in the police to investigate. Now, Cameron is the leader of the Tories, and some of those he leads have rinsed the expenses system for all it is worth. So what I wanted to see from Cameron - what might earn him some grudging respect - would be to sack those members of the Shadow Cabinet who have exploited the system. And for those Shadow Ministers and all the backbenchers who have perpetrated these outrages, I'd like to see them deselected. They have abused their positions as MPs; they should not be allowed to run as Tory MPs again. 

Had he done this, Cameron would have shown that he is serious about dealing with these troughing bastards. But, of course, he isn't really serious about it. He doesn't want to rock the boat too much. Like Gordon with his ersatz and ineffective apology on behalf of all MPs, this is a desperate, fumbling attempt to try to draw a line under this scandal and move on. But we, the British taxpayer, shouldn't accept anything less than heads rolling over this one. Those who have abused the system should be removed from the system. And if Cameron and Brown won't do it, then we should do it at the ballot box. 

Norman Tebbit:

"What I am advising people is to show the major parties that it is the electors who are masters and the electors are extremely upset with their employees in the House of Commons and I said don't vote for the major parties."

I'd agree. Not just at the upcoming Euro-elections, but forever. Don't vote for the identikit major parties. Don't vote for the parties that offer more of the same. In fact, you could go the whole hog and actually vote for a party that stands opposed to this terrible greed of our elected overlords.

Just saying is all.

Gordon Brown - Missing The Point. Again

Gordon Brown has apologised for the scandal around expenses:

"I want to apologise on behalf of politicians on behalf of all parties for what has happened in the events of the last few days."

First things first, it isn't the events of the past few days that are the problem. Rather, it is the months and years where MPs have been rinsing the public purse that is the real problem. Gordon - and his odious colleagues - should be apologising for that. What has happened over the past few days is actually a good thing - people are seeing just how corrupt, greedy and fraudulent MPs are. The anger we are seeing from the public over the past few days is a good thing; that anger may lead to things actually changing. 

Brown should apologise for what he has done, and leave other MPs to apologise for their flaws. Except that isn't going to happen - as Letters From A Tory so ably demonstrates, evasion, blame-showering and self-pitying justification are the order of the day from politicians. Sorry really does seem to be the hardest word for them.

I'd like everyone of those MPs who have exploited the system to apologise. Then I'd like them to resign from Parliament, so we can all elect people to Parliament who aren't motivated by greed. I'm not going to be satisfied until that happens. So Gordon's apology is too little, too late. 

Expense Abuse: It Goes On. And On.

The scandal about MPs seems to have taken on one of the supposed properties of swine 'flu - it is highly contagious. And now it has spread to the other side of the House of Commons. Yep, the Tories were silent on this issue for so long for a reason - they were adhering to the old adage that people on glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. Some *gems* from the BBC:

More than £2,000 received by Oliver Letwin to replace a leaking pipe under a tennis court. The shadow minister responded: "I was served a statutory notice by the water company to repair the leaking pipe, which runs underneath the tennis court and garden. No improvements were made to the tennis court or garden."

Right, so no improvements were made - except for the improvements to the leaking pipe under the tennis court. One of the things this scandal has taught me is that MPs don't get what an improvement or benefit is. Because this didn't involve a new goody for Letwin, he assumes it was ok for him to spunk away £2,000. What he fails to take into account is that for those not lucky enough to have scored a seat in Parliament, this sort of expense not only wouldn't net something new, but would also have to be paid for out of the individual's pocket. Fuck off, Letwin. You're so detached from reality that you may as well be in a coma.

And we now have the answer to how many Tory MPs does it take to change a light bulb. Turns out they can't; they need to get a worker in:

Shadow universities secretary David Willetts' claim of more than £100 for workmen to replace 25 light bulbs at his home. "We had problems with our lighting system which had caused many lights to fuse and needed the attention of an electrician," he said.

Now I have very high ceilings in my flat, and I'd like to employ workmen to change the fucking bulbs. Once again, who do I invoice?

Thousands of pounds for renovations claimed by Chris Grayling at a London flat 17 miles from his family home. He said: "In addition to serving my constituents, I have spent several years serving in the shadow cabinet, currently as the shadow home secretary. A second home enables me to meet those commitments." In response to an allegation that he delayed claims to maximise what he received, he said all claims had been submitted "at the point which I received the invoices".

Sure, Chris, sure. I understand you need two homes to do your job. The only problem with your logic is that I bet we could find someone who could do your job far better than you with just one home. And give us a General Election and we'll prove it.

Reimbursement of £4.47 for dog food to shadow Welsh secretary Cheryl Gillan, who said the claim had been made in mistake and would be repaid.

Cheryl charged the taxpayer for dog food by mistake. Seriously, how dumb can you get? What did she think the receipt for something like Pedigree Chum was for? Fucking vital work of the state? If I was Welsh, I'd be fuming that this lackwit is Shadow Welsh Secretary. She probably struggles to open an tin of dog food; she certainly can't figure out that it isn't a legitimate mistake.

Of course, this is the perfect opportunity for touchy feely Cameron to come out looking sincere, and earnest, and mournful. He says:

"(It is) another bad day for Parliament and, frankly, a bad day for the Conservative Party. We have to acknowledge just how bad this is. The public are really angry and we have to start by saying, look, this system that we had, that we used, that we operated, that we took part in - it was wrong and we're sorry about it."

Damn right it is a bad day for Parliament and for the fucking Tories. Their fraud has been exposed. Their exploitation of the taxpayer's purse has been exposed. They have been shown to be lazy, greedy cheats. It is difficult to have a worst day than this.

But all the apologies, all the platitudes are completely fucking meaningless. The MPs aren't sorrow for this shameful scandal; they are sorry that they got caught. Had this not all come out, you can bet your last penny (which the taxman is probably eyeing up to pay for an MP's leaky tennis court somewhere) then the MPs would still be at their trough, gorging at your expense. The system is endemically corrupt; those in power are there simply to line their pockets. Damn right the public is angry - we should be at the gates of Parliament, screaming for mass resignations from the little piggies inside.

Star Trek

Last Friday, I went to see the movie of the moment: Star Trek. Despite being an out and out geek, I'm not a big fan of Star Trek. I've seen a few of the big screen adaptations of Star Trek before now, and they tend to leave me cold. My personal *favourite* is Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Not because it is any good (it isn't), but a film about portly TV stars standing around in the pajamas talking about something called V'ger endlessly makes me laugh. Of course, it makes me laugh for about two minutes, then I get bored. Which is a real shame, because that film goes on for a lot longer than two minutes, without ever picking up the pace. In fact, if that film was any more slow moving, I think that the cast and crew would have had to retire (again) before the final reel. Mercifully, this new version of Star Trek wasn't like that.

It zipped along quickly, and never really required too much concentration. It didn't take itself too seriously, and accepted it was a sci-fi film that ultimately boils down to the good guys whupping the arses of the bad guys. There was none of the endless, trite moralising that - for me - makes so much of Star Trek unwatchable. 

Plus, the two lead characters - Kirk and Spock - were actually interesting to watch. Spock was an angry, anal character - determined to be cold and logical, whilst actually being far more emotional that he wanted to let on. Kirk, in this film, was hilarious to watch - he really was a grade-A cockbag, who manages to get up to being Captain despite being a violent, drunken stowaway with a serious attitude problem.

The film also did some work to tie it in with the continuity of the original series, and the concept of parallel universes (as well as giving an explanation for the presence of Leonard Nimoy) made sure that no-one could complain that it was departing from the original series - the very point of the story meant that the continuity of the film had to depart from the continuity of the series. Plus, there were concessions to people like myself who don't much care about the continuity of it all, but want to see the cliches up there on the big screen. And we had them - the red shirt dying on a mission to Vulcan, Kirk copping off with a green skinned woman and the various catchphrases.

It wasn't perfect; no film is. Scotty was underused - and quite why Simon Pegg would allow himself a Jar Jar Binks style side-kick is beyond me. Chekov was a complete cliche, right down to the godawful accent, and it was a little too much to tell us about the childhoods of Kirk and Spock. There is probably a market for Star Trek: The Difficult Teenage Years but I'm not sure whether it was best placed in this film. 

Yet for me it was a triumph - it was a great Friday night, Hollywood blockbuster. And as such, it was a perfect evocation of the original series. Yeah, some fans will attack the irreverence of this movie, but they forget that - for all of its messages of inclusion and peace - the original series of Star Trek was also about entertaining people. After all, this is the series that gave us The Trouble With Tribbles...

LPUK and The Zeitgeist

The outrage over MPs' expenses has brought into sharp relief what a few of us have felt for quite some time - that our elected overlords are grossly corrupt and out for themselves. And this isn't a problem just for the government - as DK points out, the silence of the opposition speaks volumes. They have had their snouts in the trough, just as much as the government has. Our MPs aren't in power to serve the people. They are they to pursue their personal hobby horses; they are in power to carve out their vainglorious historical legacies; they are in power to line their own pockets. 

So we are at a point in time when the public's contempt for the political class is at an all time high. No party in the Commons can exploit what is going on; they've all been at it, and the few good MPs are the exception rather than the rule. So we are at a point where one party stands aside from the troughing that we have seen from MPs. One party that was actually partially created because of the troughing of MPs. I think LPUK have been handed a gift wrapped moment in history - and I hope they rise to the occasion. 

I don't quite know how they (well, we) could exploit the zeitgeist, although as an armchair political observer, I have some pretty good ideas. From an intellectual point of view, it will be very interesting to see how the party responds to what has happened. There have been other examples in political history where a party has been given an open goal (such as the SDP-Liberal Alliance in 1983 being given a Labour party left wing enough to incorporate Leon Trotsky) and have dropped the ball. It would be great to see a minor party riding the wave, and taking this opportunity to seize the moment and drastically increase their visibility.

And on an emotional level as well I'd like to see LPUK grabbing this opportunity and making the most of it. Not just because I am a member, but because the sorry debacle of MPs' expenses has shown more than ever that there is a crying need for a party that will stand against the status quo, and both articulate and do what is right. LPUK is morally right; let's hope they/it/we can seize this opportunity and make the most of it as a spring board to getting the message that there is another way out there. 

Expense Abuse: Some Case Studies

Seriously, it is getting like The Day Today - the more I hear about the expense claims of our MPs, the more I want to hit the computer screen hard, and then laugh with a curious mix of admiration at the audacity and hatred at the greed of our MPs. Some highlights:

Those featured by the Daily Telegraph include tourism minister Barbara Follett, who claimed more than £25,000 for security patrols at her home.

Who would want to attack Barbara Follett? Prior to hearing that she has billed us £25k for security patrols, I mean. Thinking about it, though, I'd like some security patrols for my home. Who should I send the invoice to?

Another gem:

Backbench Labour MP Margaret Moran also came under scrutiny on Saturday. She has yet to comment on reports she apparently spent £22,500 on treating dry rot at the coastal property she had designated as her second home - which is not in London and is 100 miles from her Luton constituency.

Presumably she has yet to comment because it is a real pisser to dream up an excuse for her behaviour. I don't mean charging the treatment for dry rot to the taxpayer, although she probably needs a sound kicking for that. No, it is more the problem with coming up with an excuse for having a second home that is not in the constituency or in London. I mean, that is pretty audacious behaviour, but presumably Ms Moran doesn't want to tell the truth and simply say "sorry, I was taking the piss. Thought you wouldn't catch me."

And this sort of comment just defies understanding:

Saturday's 11-page report also said care services minister Phil Hope had spent more than £37,000 over about four years on refurbishing and furnishing a two-bedroom south London flat. Mr Hope said: "I claimed the cost of running and furnishing a flat in London, in full accordance with the rules that apply to members of Parliament. The purchases I made were no more than was necessary to live in a habitable residence and replacements only occurred when furniture and fittings were worn out. These items were then disposed of. I have not personally benefited from this process."

Right, so, you spent £37k on a second home in London, and you didn't benefit from the money? How in the name of Sweet Jesus Christ did you manage that? Do you even listen to yourself when you speak? Do you not hear the contradictions in what you are saying? Do you not stop and think that maybe the freeform fucking gibberish spewing forth from your gob like a ruptured sewer in flooding season is actually making things worse?

I could go on, highlighting individual cases. Actually, it is increasingly looking like I could go on and on and on. But that isn't going to help anyone. Instead, I'd just like to point something out to our MPs. We're hearing comments like "we did nothing wrong" and "everything we did was within the rules" a lot. That's fine, no doubt all you fine, fine people did play things exactly by the book. But if that is the case, then heed the calls from those who want all expenses to be published. Now. After all, if you did nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear. Just show us - the people you are supposed to represent in Parliament - what you have spent our money on. That should be fine, shouldn't it? End the drip drip drip method of spreading information, and stop the leaking by telling us straight up what you have spent our money on.

Of course, I could be waiting a while until MPs actually volunteer this information. So I'm going to go make myself a cup of coffee. I realise, though, that this process may take longer than that. But, like many people in this country who want our MPs to actually be accountable for the money of ours that they waste, I'm prepared to wait. Even if it is until hell freezes over.

Gordon Brown and the Misadventure of the Gurkhas

The Moai sent me an e-mail yesterday, suggesting a Vote Lumley campaign. After all, she has been a pretty outstanding campaigner for the Gurkhas. However to me, her success is as much a testament to the failures of Brown et al as it is to the political skills of Lumley, leaving my stone-headed friend to comment:

Brown played the Gurkhas issue soooo badly. The govt could have gracefully backed down and thereby been able to look benevolent and magnanimous, with lots of photo-ops of kindly old GB with his arm around a grinning Nepali pensioner with a chest full of medals, won by pulling Argies heads off bare-handed. Instead, she made them look like mean, slimy penpushers, persecuting British soldiers while wannabe terrorists stream through Heathrow arrivals. So, so badly played. I mean, we're dealing with the one group of immigrants that The Sun actually say nice things about.

Quite. For all Lumley's success in this sphere, the whole disaster could have been prevented if the Prime Minister had even basic political judgment. Further evidence - not that it was needed - that we have a total fucktard in Number 10.

MPs, Expenses, Fraud, Change

Good fucking Lord. 

I am staggered to read about the blatant piss taking over MPs' expenses. I mean, we knew the expenses were going to be bad. But even someone as negative and as cynical as me is actually staggered by the shamelessness displayed by the rancid cuntrags in Parliament. Farcically, it has now reached a stage where you can talk about your favourite expense claim calamity. For the record, my good friend the Moai is incredulous about the 5p spent by one MP on an IKEA carrier bag, whilst I am staggered that an MP managed to spend £2.50 on a fucking KitKat. Seriously, you lazy fucking cunt, walk to the local newsagent rather than taking my money and pissing it away on mini-bar candy. 

That these expense claims are outrageous, insulting and basically amount to embezzlement should be clear to all bar the deeply retarded. But let's see if we can find another side to the argument. Let's see if we can find a way of justifying these expenses.

As far as I can see, there are three ways of doing that. Firstly, MPs could claim that these expenses are just perks of the job. Secondly, they are all obeying the rules, even if the rules do allow them to be outrageous. And thirdly, even if they did break the rules, well, who hasn't exploited an expense system at some time or other?

Ok. First of all, I'd argue being an MP - being elected to represent your fellow citizens and being paid a very good salary for doing so - is enough of a perk for being an MP. By offering opportunities for gross and blatant theft from the taxpayers, you simply attract the type of person who is more interested in lining their fucking pockets rather than actually representing the people. Fuck the concept of MPs having perks - being an MP should be perk enough.

Secondly, the system may allow many of these claims, but that doesn't make them right. As Gordon Brown pays his brother £6k, doesn't he - the conviction politician, the great moralist - stop to think for just one fucking moment that maybe there is something wrong with the situation? As Hoon buys two TVs using taxpayer money, doesn't he stop and think that may his purchases aren't right? And as Jacqui Smith claims for her husband wanking off over blue movies, doesn't she question the system for one moment? The only people who can change the rules that have not been so much exploited as raped are MPs. Their claims that they were only obeying the rules are fine until you think they made up, and maintain, those rules. Labour MPs have got people to rail against bank bosses who award themselves large bonuses, but what else are MPs doing other than awarding themselves large bonuses through the expenses system?

Finally, you could argue that everyone exploits expenses systems. Well, you'd be wrong. I don't. I know other people who don't. Besides, if everyone in the known world raped an expenses system for their own financial benefit, would that make it right? Of course it fucking wouldn't. Just as lots of people committing benefit fraud doesn't make benefit fraud right.

And actually I'd compare the expense exploitation situation to benefit fraud. People exploit the benefits system, so the government tightens up on the rules. MPs exploit the expenses system, and... precisely nothing happens. Even if they do now get round to doing something, it will be because they have been forced by embarrassment into taking action. Our MPs are benefit cheats, they are thieving scum. 

The situation won't change unless we make it change. Those fuckers in Parliament seem to be there to line their pockets, rather than to govern. And that won't change until we vote for real change. For a party that actually has stood opposed to this sort of exploitation since its inception. Yep, you can probably see where this is going, but fuck it. Join LPUK. Support them. I'm a member for a number of reasons; one of those reasons is that they would reform this system. And stop MPs from defrauding the public. 

Gordon Brown's YouTube Moments

So, what is it with Gordon Brown and YouTube? Why does he keep on using a medium that he just isn't suited to? Why doesn't he have aides around him who go "you know what, Gordon? You've got the face and the smile for radio. Let's take that video camera away now..."? Why is someone who should know better allowed to humiliate himself on camera repeatedly?

I suspect the answer is twofold. First of all, there will be limited chances for Brown to address the public as his party enters an election campaign. I can't imagine many Labour party candidates welcoming him to any campaign gatherings. I mean, how would any self-respecting Labour candidate introduce Brown at the moment? "Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce to you our special guest for the evening... he's the man who sums up everything that is wrong with my party and what is so wrong with the country... he's unelected, yet in power, and a dangerous misanthrope at that... Ladies and Gents, please put your hands together for Gordon Brown!" He'd be less welcome than Bush in the last US election - at least Bush had a certain, simple folksy charm, even if the voters did hate him. Brown is about as socially acceptable as a bout of dysentery. 

And that leads to my second reason as to why Brown is now communicating with his people through the YouTube filter. Maybe they know how terrible he is on camera, but also know that is the best possible way for him to communicate with the people. I mean, can you imagine Brown at a campaign event? If a member of the public asked him a question, they'd be literally bored to death by the evasive, non-answer drawled by Brown in reply. And if someone dared to disagree with him, well, they'd be clobbered with a mobile phone round the back of the head. I know I sound like one of those people who speculate on Brown's poor mental health endlessly (partly because I am), but perhaps his aides know that he can't be let out in public at the moment, and that the best way for him to communicate is in a carefully controlled environment. 

That said, YouTube still doesn't work for Brown. Had I seen one of his YouTube broadcasts as a kid, I maintain I would have been freaked out. Seriously, the false smile, the insane laughter, the absolute inability to appear genuine - those YouTube moments for Brown aren't so much funny as terrifying. 

Draper has finally gone and McBride has gone AWOL - to such an extent that even the government can't find him. It probably makes me a bad person, but I can't help but smile at the misfortunes of others in this case. 

There is a lesson to be taken from all this - namely that if you have a government as corrupt, inept, deceitful and odious as Brown's administration then the turds will certainly float to the top of the pile until their behaviour becomes so outrageous that they just have to go. But, of course, this oafish culture will only really change when the person at the top goes. Which means the sooner Gordon Brown is gone, the better. 

Which is a truism, if ever there was one...

Saving LabourList (Seriously)

Iain Dale reckons that everyone's favourite trampy editor is leaving his labour (no pun intended) of love. And there is an interesting (for that site, anyway) article up about what the future holds for LabourList. I'd be surprised if anyone writing for that site ever manages to make their way to this blog, but fuck it. I'm going to offer my advice anyway.

The first thing they need to do is choose who they want to write for that place, and stick to it. They have had pretty much everyone in the Labour movement bar the PM sticking an article on there, and it doesn't work. You never know when you head to that site whether you are going get some (ex) Minister on there who you have less respect for an STD, or someone you've never heard of from the depths of one random section of the Labour party or another. The website doesn't really stand for anything. It doesn't represent anything. It is just a mouthpiece for Labour leaders when they can be bothered to promote their latest half-baked policy, and a forum for everyone else in the Labour movement with access to a PC to bounce ideas around on. And to get those ideas torn apart by more sensible people outside of the Labour movement.

Once they've decided on who is going to write for the site, they then need to let people find their voices. The best blogs out there never really emerged fully formed onto the interweb. It tends to be a long, sometimes torturous process of the author(s) finding their voice. It is only once that voice has been found, then people will start visiting the site regularly.

On the best and/or most widely read blogs, you know what you are going to get. You can log on there anytime, and have a good idea of what you are going to read about and, at the very least, what it is going to sound like. Love him or hate him, you know what you are getting when you visit Guido's place. Likewise, if you head to the Kitchen, you know what you are going to get. The same with Eugenides, the Dude, Manic, Obnoxio, Dale and even Terry fucking Kelly. Like it or hate it, those people have evolved identities and have built up (in some cases) respect and a readership through finding an identity. This whole idea that Draper would be able to bypass this process and come up with The Best Website In The World Ever was always toss. If LabourList actually wants to escape the torturous birth pangs it has gone through and truly become a respected website, then it needs to earn the high regard it has arrogantly laid claim to. As it stands, it comes across as an arrogant gaggle of would-be politicos and bloggers. 

Change you can't believe in

David Cameron:

Tory leader David Cameron has urged voters to tell Gordon Brown "enough is enough" and to "vote for change" in next month's English local elections.

Right, ok. I can see why telling Gordon Brown that "enough is enough" is an important, and valid, thing to do. Particularly if you can't use more intemperate language and tell him to shove his grey faced head up his flatulent arsehole. But seriously, Cameron has some balls in claiming that his party is the "vote for change."

Yeah, I know that - post Obama - everyone needs to talk about change, but with Cameron, this truly is change you can't believe in. What, you actually think that the Tories - a neutered version of that socially conservative party - are actually going to offer change? Because they offer nothing more than the status quo, watered down a bit. Fuck Cameron and his stupid fucking face. Fuck the Tories and their repeated failure to actually act as the opposition. Fuck them. The political agenda is there for the taking, but will Cameron et al do anything with it? Will they cocking bollocks. Simple truth is this: they are afraid of actually offering change.

Vote Tory in the local elections or in the next general election and I will guarantee you this - if you vote for them because you think they are going to instigate change, you will be disappointed. 

Harriet Harman and the Moral Low Ground

I love the way Harriet Harman is touting her supposed yet deeply unlikely loyalty to Gordon Brown as a good thing. Can you imagine any other profession where being loyal to a repeated failure and social misfit is a good thing? Can you imagine a group of pilots getting together and saying "he's very angry, probably drunk, struggling with mental illness and just plain can't fly, but we'll let him take the controls anyway?" Of course not. Just as well Brown doesn't have an important job. Like Prime Minister or something. 

But there is also a moral aspect to Harman's decision to back this horrendous cretin of a Prime Minister. Put simply, backing this government is morally repugnant act. Ironically, this makes Charles Clarke much more of a moral leader than Harman, but choosing to support either one of them is like being asked to choose between a dog turd and a piece of pigeon crap. Given the choice, you'd go with neither. But at least Clarke is ashamed to be part of a party that has the odious Gordon Brown as their leader. It is a tiny step in what would, for Clarke, be a jaw-droppingly long road to redemption. But at least he has made that small step

Harman is backing an unelected Prime Minister who stole the premiership, without recourse to the national ballot boxes, in an ersatz election with no opponent that would make the Soviet Union proud. But it is more than just that. This really is the government of thieves. They have stolen money through stealth taxes and now direct attacks on the bank accounts of the wealthy. They have plundered the national savings and left the cupboard not just bare, but falling apart with woodworm. They have taken civil liberties, and eaten them whole. Seldom before has a government cost its citizens more. To continue to support Gordon Brown - the very pinnacle and poster boy for this malign tumour on the brain of the country - is a contemptible act. 

So there we have it. By being loyal, Harman actually comes out as worse than if she knifed her boss in the back. Harriet Harman is morally repugnant - but we knew that already, didn't we?

It was 30 years ago today...

So, 30 years ago today Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. And something just as important also happened on that day - the Nameless Libertarian was born.

Yep, I turn 30 today. Physically anyway. Mentally, I'm still somewhere between a petulant teenager and a curmudgeonly sixty year old. And I'm quite happy with that, to be honest.

But I wouldn't expect too much posting on this blog today. You only turn thirty once. Unless you are a buddhist, of course...

Quote of the Day - Democracy

The right to vote is a consequence, not a primary cause, of a free social system—and its value depends on the constitutional structure implementing and strictly delimiting the voters' power; unlimited majority rule is an instance of the principle of tyranny.

Ayn Rand

I had an e-mail from Abbey National yesterday, telling me that my online account details have been frozen. It was, of course, a spam e-mail - something that was obvious from the outset (not least because I don't have an Abbey National Account). But even if I did, I think my powers of deduction would enable me to realise this was a spam e-mail (partly because it was in my spam folder). For example, the title of the e-mail was this:

Abbey National Account Security Alert!!!

Now, not being funny, but most banks refrain from using the triple exclamation mark at the end of their security alerts. It isn't really what banks do; that overuse of punctuation is more typical of a teenage girl who has just written OMG.

So message to spammers - at least try to make an effort. You feckless, lazy cunts.

Suicide Watch

An important part of life is having empathy and, on occasion, sympathy, with people in a tough situation. It generally isn't the done thing to revel in the misfortunes of others. Until you read something like this:

The three unnamed backbenchers are said to have been placed on 'suicide watch' by Labour whips, who fear they might break down when the details of their excesses come out.

And why are these leaders thinking about shuffling off this mortal coil by their own hands? Why, because they can't keep their genitals in their pants and their hands out of our wallets:

Three Labour MPs are said to be terrified that the release of their expenses claims will expose them as adulterers and financial cheats.

Hmmm. Make no mistake about this, I don't care who you fuck or how you fuck them as long as it is all consensual. But I do give a fuck when you take money from my already emaciated pay cheque and then use that in your games of hide the winky. 

It is customary on some blogs to point out that all MPs are cunts, and that they should swing from lamp posts for their crimes. The Pink Floyd fan in me can't advocate such violence, I'm afraid. But seriously, if you have some corrupt fucking MP is about to do the decent thing and end their life, you aren't going to find me stood next to them with the number for the Samaritans. 

Boris - one year on.

Summing up Boris Johnson's first year in office is surprisingly easy - meh. People can make claims about what he has achieved but any real steps forward are undermined for me by his mindlessly illiberal banning of booze on the tube and the fact that the transport system is still utterly, utterly fucked.

Perhaps the best thing about Boris Johnson's time in City Hall is the illustration of what we can expect when (and it is when now, not if) the Tories win the next election - mediocrity. Boris has managed not to be as ghastly as Livingstone, just as Cameron will manage to be less of a prick than Gordon Brown. But anyone expecting radical change will be grossly disappointed. The Tories are as bought into the Blairite consensus as Labour and the Lib Dems - they just choose to highlight (slightly) different aspects of that consensus.

After one year of Boris, little has changed. And I expect to be making a very similar point when Cameron celebrates his first year in power.