An A-level in Creationism

Sometimes, I just despair:

The National Recognition Information Centre (Naric) in Cheltenham, which advises universities and employers on the rigour of lesser-known qualifications, has ruled that the International Certificate of Christian Education (ICCE) is comparable to courses such as international A-levels, the Times Education Supplement has found.

What is the ICCE, I hear you ask? It is some sort of creationist, dipshit Christian fundamentalist pile of bullshit. And if you think I am being OTT, take a look at this:

One of the textbooks tells pupils: "Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie,' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.

"Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all."

Ngggh. For fuck's sake. They are using Nessie - a most likely mythical beast - to disprove a misleading reading of evolutionary theory and prove that the fictional character God designed everything. It reads like a Chris Morris spoof of Christian fundamentalism. This is the sort of bollocks that gives the God-botherers and the Sky Fairy worshippers a bad name. It is insulting to everyone with any sort of grounding in reality. And this is meant to the equivalent of an international A-level? Nggh!

It leads me to conclude that either:

• International A-levels are worthless
• Or Naric are insane
• Or the whole world has gone mental and no-one told me. 

Whatever. I despair of this sort of thing, I really do. And I just wish that the people who came up with the ICCE would embrace evolution. If only so they could evolve into more intelligent, less bovine people. 

H/T: link via Asquith on Facebook.

Barack and the Beer Summit

Barack Obama loses it:

The meeting, dubbed the "beer summit" by the US media, saw Henry Louis Gates Jr and James Crowley of Cambridge police sit with each other in the presence of Obama and Joe Biden, the vice-president.

Now, for those of you not in the know, Gates Jr was arrested by Crowley for trying to break into his own house. Gates cried racism, and Obama - involving himself when he really should have known better - agreed. Except as it turned out, everyone came across as a bit of a wanker in this scenario, leaving Obama in the position of having to "walk back" his comments. 

And this is how he does it. Through a beer summit in the White House. 

This, truly, is the politics of Gordon Brown. Obama involved himself in a dispute that has bugger all connection to the Presidency. It is like Brown commenting on Jade Goody, or Susan fucking Boyle. And how does Obama try to solve the problem? A beer summit? A crap photo shoot at which no-one - bar Smilin' Joe Biden - looks comfortable at? Jesus Christ, get a grip.

Obama is meant to be the President of the United States of America. The leader of the Free World. And here he is, having beers with people he doesn't give the first fuck about because he stuck his oar into a debate that had nothing to do with him. He has got himself into a dumb situation simply because of his refusal to say "sorry, I should have just kept my mouth shut." It comes across as pretty pathetic. 

ID cards and Union Jacks

Apparently, ID cards won't have the Union Jack on them:

The Union Jack has been left off the UK identity card because of fears that it may upset members of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland

I think we're supposed to care about this. I think we are supposed to get worked up and excited about the lack of a Union Jack on the cards. But I struggle to care. Because, lest we forget, there are one of two other problems with ID cards. Like:

• they are a gross breach of civil liberties
• they are creating a database state, where an individual is only as important as the information the government holds on them
• critical and personal information being given to a government that is incapable of looking after secure information under any circumstances
• the cost of ID cards, which will be paid for by taxes and by the surplus charge incurred when the ID card is claimed
• the fact that ID cards will do the square root of bugger all to prevent terrorism. Although will create a new growth criminal industry in forging ID cards.

So, you'll forgive me if I couldn't give a short, sharp fuck about the absence of a Union Jack on ID cards. What worries me is the amount of information that will go on them, and the amount of information we will be expected to give to the government. Frankly, the cards could have Donald Duck on them quacking away happily for all I fucking care. No matter what the government does put on the ID cards, it won't stop them from being a bad idea. Or, to put it slightly more strongly, a fucking shit idea. 

TV Debates... Yes, Please

The televised debates in the US Presidential elections are great. Seriously. At their best, they give you some classic TV. Like Gerald Ford in 1976 claiming that Eastern Europe wasn't under Soviet Domination. Or Ronald Reagan neatly turning age into an advantage in his debate with Walter Mondale in '84. And how about that classic - Nixon sweating like a paedophile in a playground moment back in 1960? Even Vice-Presidential debates throw up some classics - like Sarah Palin winking like a used car salesman in 2008, or Lloyd Bentsen pointing out to Dan Quayle that he really wasn't like JFK back in 1988. Magic stuff, for a political geek like me. 

And now there is a flurry of excitement around the idea of a debate between Cameron and Brown. It won't happen, because basically Brown isn't that dumb. Whilst Iain Dale sounds a note of caution, I think Cameron would whup Brown's sorry, fat arse. This isn't the Cameron of 2005, when he lost a debate to David Davis; this is a Cameron used to debating in PMQ's, and used to selling the Conservative brand. He can debate, he is energetic and he is open to the idea that he might have to persuade others to win them over to his viewpoint. Compare him with Brown - a man pathologically unable to answer a question. A man who believes he is right, and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong and a little bit evil. Cameron would destroy Brown, and we'd see Brown glowering in impotent rage during any televised debate. It would be the final nail in Labour's coffin at the next General Election. That's why Cameron would want to debate, and why Brown is trying to bury it deeper than a barrel of nuclear waste. 

Now, I'm for the idea of a debate between party leaders at the next General Election. But not just at the next election, but at every General Election. I'd like to see the parties give control for the debates over to an independent committee - one that can organise debates between the party leaders at each election and make sure they are fair. And that they actually happen. 

Because that's the problem. The Tories are now happy to have a debate, because they are pretty sure their fella will win. But rewind to 1997. There was no way in Hades that the Tories would have signed up to a debate, because their boy would have been bitch-slapped pretty well by Tony Blair. Now the tables have turned... just as surely as they will in the future. In ten years, in fifteen years... it will be the Tories running from a debate with the party of opposition. 

Debates are great. Partly because they favour one party over the other, and partly because they are a test of the party leaders' ability to communicate their messages. Let's have them in this country, but let's do it in such a way that those party leaders can't hide from them when they are simply too scared to take part...

Antichrist: A Review

A review, for those who might be interested, of the controversial film Antichrist. Be warned, there are spoilers ahead, and for those of you who might still want to go and see this picture, then I would advise you read this article after you have done so. 

On the surface, Antichrist is a very simple film. It deals with a couple trying to cope with the tragic death of their baby son. The husband - "He" - is a psychotherapist. And "He" decides that he will treat his wife - "She". This includes facing her fears - which is in part a remote log cabin in a place called Eden. She does face her fears, and as the Three Beggars approach, there is a disintegration into viciously violent psychosis. 

The film is very well made; at times it comes across like a misanthropic David Lynch picture. It is positively poetic in places, despite the way it ends. Yet this film is the latest target of the censorship brigade. They abhor it because of the sex and the violence. And they want to see it banned.

Of course, I don't think it should be banned. I believe that adults should be able to make up their own mind about which films they choose to see and which they don't. But it is more than that. As challenging as this film is, there is actually nothing in it that warrants the draconian and illiberal response of banning it. 

I'll break it down into the two objections and explain why I don't think it should be banned. 

Sex

There is a bit of sex in this film. And it does also show an erect phallus. Now, this shouldn't be a news flash to many of my readers, but sex between a man and a woman often does involve a phallus. And adults do fuck. Why is there this prudish reaction to a film showing what adults do?

It isn't done for the purposes of titillation - there is nothing erotic about the screwing in the film. The fact that the main characters are played by Willem Dafoe - who looks like he is all teeth and highly pronounced wrinkles - and Charlotte Gainsbourg - a women who some people see as beautiful but who I think looks like a horse who has undergone major reconstructive surgery after a road traffic accident - helps to prevent the sex from being erotic. I am aware that ugly people have sex. That's how the Royals spawn new generations, and how the estates fill up with chavs, but I don't find ugly people fucking in any way erotic. 

Plus, the sex in the film isn't generally shown to be fun. The only time when "He" and "She" are shown to enjoy humping is in the Prologue, during a scene that is filmed in black and white and resembles one of those pretentious old Guinness commercials. And that scene leads to the death of their child, and the start of the descent into madness. After that, the sex becomes angrier and less loving. Almost desperate in places. And it is an attempt to fuck that brings on the horrific violence of the final reel. 

Compare this film - which contains joyless, if detailed, depictions of intercourse - with Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen - a film that goes to great lengths to show Megan Fox in simultaneously skin tight and revealing clothes. Which one is using sexuality for titillation? And which is using sex to sell the film?

Violence

Now, I'm a fan of horror movies, and have a strong stomach when it comes to cinema violence. Nonetheless, I found certain scenes in the film very difficult to watch. I'm not going to detail what happens to the main characters, but make no mistake about it: it is brutal. And the violence is shown in graphic detail. 

Graphic violence is a part of modern cinema, and a hallmark of the "torture porn" genre. Perhaps the difference with this film is that the violence is shown - explicitly - to be against the protagonists' genitals. I certainly haven't seen some of the images in this film depicted before, and they do linger in the mind somewhat after the end credits have rolled. 

Yet this isn't a reason to ban the film. Rather than breaking down society's morals, this film simply challenges the viewer by breaking down another (albeit fairly unspeakable) taboo. And - crucially - the implications of the violence are just as graphically shown as the violence itself. This isn't the clean-cut (pardon the pun) violence of the slasher movie. And it isn't the titillating violence of a torture porn flick. This is gruesome, painful violence that forces the viewer to watch not just the violent acts, but also the consequences.

Now, I personally found the level and intensity of the violence distracting. I struggled to reach any conclusions* after watching the film because I found both the violence and the aftermath of the violence deeply troubling. But part of me thinks that is how violence should be portrayed if we want to people to understand what effect it has. Violence here isn't fun, and it has serious consequences.

Ultimately this is a horror movie, and it will horrify all bar the stoniest of hearts and the strongest of stomachs. It isn't a film for everyone; in fact, I'd imagine only a small minority of people will want to see this film. However, there is nothing contained within it that warrants a ban. There is no case to be made here for censorship. Particularly by those who haven't even seen the film. 

*I've reached them now - the film is the story of Adam and Eve in reverse. By the end of the film "He" - Adam - is returned to innocence through being effectively emasculated. And "He" is alone - "She", or Eve, is dead. It's why the woods where the "action" takes place is called Eden. See?

Bercow's Pay

Following up from this post, I note that Bercow did actually stick to the pay cut organised by his predecessor. Well, good. Although over £140,000 does sound an awful lot for the chair of a glorified debating society. 

But it does make me wonder just why he was so reluctant to reveal this information. Think about it - if you are employed by someone, then they know how much they pay you. They decide your pay after all. They also know how much they pay you in expenses, should you incur any. It seems fair enough that the relationship on pay should be transparent. You know how much you earn, and your employer knows how much they pay you. 

Except in the relationship between MP (employee) and voter (employer). MPs know how much they suck from us like obese leeches earn. Yet if we want to find out how much we pay them, then we need to use the Freedom of Information Act. Or rely on leaks to The Daily Telegraph. We have to fight to get the information we should have anyway in an open democracy. The information that we need to assess our MPs, and see whether they give us value for money, is hidden from us by our employees.

Yet that's it. That is what they are afraid of. They're scared we'll look at, say, John Bercow, and decide he isn't worth £141,647. They're scared we'll say that he isn't even worth £40,000. 

Transparency derails their gravy train. That's why they are so scared of it. 

Esther Rantzen's Electoral Crusade.

Can you see what's missing from Esther Rantzen standing in Luton South? It isn't the fact that she might lose badly  - I couldn't care less whether this ends up being a failed vanity exercise. Besides, she might win. After all, there is a precedent for that. And it isn't that she herself is the sort of person who sets my teeth on edge - although she is just that sort of person. But rather, it is the fact that her standing is completely pointless. 

Her campaign pitch appears to be this - she's not Margaret Moran. Whilst I have no time whatsoever for the moronic Moran, I'd also have to point out that the Tory and Liberal Democrat candidates in the Luton South constituency won't be Moran either. Sure, the Tory and Lib Dem parties have been implicated in the expenses scandal as well. However, what about the UKIP candidate? The Green candidate? Hell, even the BNP candidate won't be Margaret Moran, and the BNP - despite their many heinous flaws - aren't locked into the expenses scandal. And if LPUK field a candidate, then a party formed partly in outrage at the expenses scandal will also be running in that constituency. All these people who - like Rantzen - aren't Margaret Moran. But who actually have an ideology, and a further point for running. Unlike Rantzen. 

The Opposition in the House of Commons has very little chance of limiting the impact of a strong government. Independent MPs have very no chance whatsoever of impacting on a strong government. So even if Rantzen was elected to Parliament, she wouldn't achieve anything. Just as Martin Bell had, on balance, sod all impact after entering the Commons in 1997. 

History shows that, more often than not, a vote for an independent - particularly a media darling like Rantzen - is a wasted vote. Not just because they might not win. But also because they achieve fuck all if they are elected. That's what's missing from Rantzen's bid for election in Luton South. 

The point.

Political Bruisers

Since British politicians have ceased to form any useful function - they don't make decent laws, they don't represent their constituents, they don't do anything other than milk the teat of the taxpayer's purse - I've been thinking about how they might become more helpful. Specifically, I've been thinking about who'd be best to have on your side in a pub fight.* Bear in mind this is a list comparing ten political leaders; I'm not saying that this is a list of the ten best fighters in politics. If it was, then Miliband certainly wouldn't be in the list...

10: David Miliband: Possibly the wettest politician in living memory, Miliband looks not just like someone who was bullied at school, but is still bullied to this day. Not just by his brother, but by everyone in the Cabinet. He looks like an earnest, wetter version of Adrian Mole. And he is the only man who can stand next to a banana and make the banana look harder than him. 

9: George Osborne: Everyone knows he is David Cameron's bitch, which is a pretty unflattering position for any politician to be in. Yet he is still a little less of a geek than Miliband, hence the higher spot in the list. And he is in better shape than his pudgy, out-of-shape party leader. 

8: John Prescott: Oh, yes, he punched a voter. Ignoring the fact that in most real democracies punching a voter would be frowned upon rather than being turned into a fucking folk tale, go take a look at footage of Prescott punching that man with a mullet. He doesn't really punch him; instead, he gives him a hearty man-slap. Prezza doesn't come across as a bruiser in that footage - he comes across as a petulant diva throwing a hissy fit. Prescott isn't as hard as he makes himself out to be.

7: Nick Clegg: I have no evidence that Clegg would actually be good in a fight; but let's face it, he's a crap leader of Britain's third party. He can't talk eloquently, he can't debate well and he can't win by-elections. He's got to be good at something, so I'm taking a gamble and reckon that his one talent is fighting. Or, failing that, being a little bit harder than David Miliband. Plus, in the interests of balance, there probably should be a Lib Dem in the list, and aside from the positively professorial Cable, he's the only one I can remember off the top of my head. 

6: Charles Clarke: He is so resentful that I reckon he is a ticking time-bomb of rage. He's been itching for a fight since he was sacked from the Home Office; I reckon that if you set him on the right target, then the curiously inbred looking Clarke would take them out in next to no time...

5: William Hague: I can't imagine he is any good at fighting, even if he has claimed in the past to be a mighty drinker. But both his appearance and deeply irritating voice would be great to have on your side in a fight - if only because your opponents would concentrate on beating him into a fine pate rather than you. 

4: Ed Balls: For similar reasons to Hague: he's so deeply unpopular and generally unlikable that people would rather punch him than you. Plus, he looks like such a nasty piece of work that I reckon he must be good at fighting. He certainly has the sort of air to him that suggests he likes punching other people on a regular basis. 

3: John Reid: A man who created an image around being a bruiser, he looks like a man who wants a fight, 24/7. Yet he's not going any higher because of the suspicion that he is actually a bit wet beneath his carefully constructed facade. He's the one who couldn't cope with the Home Office, and he's one of the people who bottled a battle with Gordon. 

2: David Davis: Of course, he's the angry, slightly scary, impetuous Tory who has still managed to keep a backbone during the Cameron neutering project. Yet he doesn't quite make it to the top spot because he was in the Territorial SAS rather than the real SAS. Yes, that is a harsh judgment - particularly from someone who would avoid any sort of involvement with the military like the plague - but this is a harsh list. 

1: Gordon Brown: To paraphrase an iconic 1970's movie, Gordon Brown is a big man, but he's out of shape. Yet there is something terrifying about Gordon Brown. It is probably the fact that he looks positively unhinged these days. He looks like he wants a fight, and he also looks like he would fight as hard as possible to destroy whoever he identifies as his enemy. He's like Begbie; you might not like him, and he might not look like the best fighter, but Jesus - you'd want him on your side rather than coming at you. 

As always, other options/comments/agreements/disagreements in the comments section. Oh, and the political death match I would like to see is Clarke v. Brown. It be the ultimate grudge match...

*I'm not a fighter. I don't like fighting. Not because it is ungentlemanly or anything like that, but simply because I'm not any good at it and am a bit of a coward when it comes to physical violence. So the people I class as being good in a fight are those who could either fight for me, or distract the enemy whilst I run away. Not that dignified, I know. But at least cowardice means I get to maintain my handsome good looks...

On A British Presidency: Joanna Lumley

I'm torn on the idea of Britain having a President. Whilst I am no fan of having the monarchy as Head of State, I've yet to be sold on the idea of having a President in that position. 

Of course, all the arguments for and against are hashed and rehashed time and time again, and I'm not going to rehearse them here. But I'd like to put an end to one objection to Britain having a President right here, right now. And that is the "dangers" of having a President who might also be a celebrity. 

The argument goes like this. On the one hand, we are pretty much guaranteed King Charles under the current state of affairs. On the other hand, if there were open elections to become Head of State, then we might end up with a highly identifiable celebrity instead of King Charles. Just imagine it! President David Beckham!

Of course, you could argue that David Beckham - a talented man who took the money made from that talent and turned himself into a multi-millionaire - is a far better choice for Prime Minister than a born rich, eco-loon mummy's boy like Prince Charles. Personally, I wouldn't want either one to be our Head of State. But here's the thing - if we did have a President, I don't think Beckham would run. And I certainly don't think he would be elected. 

There is, of course, a possibility that a celebrity would end up President. However, it would have to be a canny, politically aware celebrity. Someone capable of winning the trust of a major party, and then fighting a disciplined, targeted campaign. And - crucially - it would also have to be someone who gives a fuck about politics. Right there is where you would lose the likes of David Beckham and, perhaps, even Charles Windsor. Instead, you would get credible contenders to be President who might not be coming from the corrupt, self-perpetuating oligarchy that is the ruling elite in the House of Commons. Which could be no bad thing. 

See, much has been made of Ronald Reagan's pre-political career of being a Hollywood Actor. Of course, the reality is that Ronald Reagan was a B-movie actor who never made it big. But from his days as an actor, he could communicate well. Very well. And he also proved to be a sage political operator long before he first sought the Presidency. He was a canny political personality, which is why he was arguably the most successful President of the modern era and certainly since FDR ruled America for over a decade. 

A British equivalent to Ronald Reagan would be similar - someone who had been a celebrity, learned how to communicate and had shown they had political ability. It wouldn't be David Beckham; it would be more likely to be someone such as Joanna Lumley. 

Think about it - President Lumley. An eloquent advocate for her chosen political cause. An instantly identifiable figure in this country and, arguably, abroad. And someone who managed to run rings around Gordon Brown with an ease that sometimes eludes David Cameron, and constantly eludes Nick Clegg. 

It is unlikely to happen - and is certainly premature to talk about candidates for a British Presidency when such a Presidency is neither in existence or even on the agenda. But all this goes to show is that a celebrity President is not necessarily something to fear. It is unlikely that you will end up with a Head of State worse than Prince Charles, and there is every likelihood that a celebrity President might be much better...

Resurrecting the dead.

Death is always a difficult thing. If you lose someone close to you, or learn of the death of someone you respect, then it may be as difficult to come to terms with that death and the many hurtful feelings that hit you in the aftermath. Some people, of course, use the death of some important to them to change things. You might try to change the law. Or you might campaign to let people know about a particular hazard or lifestyle that you feel contributed to the death. However, campaigning for the return to life of a dead person seems to be a little silly. Particularly when that person is fictional. 

Yeah. Ianto Jones was a friendly, nice character. He was designed to be. And his death was very moving. Yeah, it was designed to be. But really, don't people have better things to do than try to argue for the resurrection of a main character of an apparently moribund TV show? I mean, the sun is shining outside the window (here, briefly), so perhaps they could go for a walk or something. 

Of course, it is far easier to achieve the resurrection of a fictional person than a real one. You'd have more chance of getting Adric back into Doctor Who than Patrick Troughton. Sadly. But, whilst this campaign is having a positive side effect, it would destroy a lot of the drama of Children of Earth if Ianto Jones came back from the dead. 

Perhaps I should start a campaign named "Leave Ianto Jones Alone". But even I have better things to do with my time...

Quote of the Day

From a fictional character on The West Wing:

"Free trade stops wars. And that's it. Free trade stops wars, and we figure out a way to fix the rest. One world, one peace. I'm sure I've seen that on a sign somewhere."

LPUK Moving Forward

There's a bit of an autopsy a debate over at the LPUK blog about the crushing defeat suffered by the party in the Norwich North by-election. Now, I've already commented on this, but I think there may be some validity in offering some further thoughts on it now it has the chance to sink in. And, more importantly, offer a personal perspective on how the party moves forward.

Now you might ask why I, the most passive of LPUK "activists", sees fit to comment on the electoral future of the party. And what do I know about politics and, in particular, fighting elections? Well, I've got a background in politics. I have a A-level in the subject, a degree in it and will be starting an MA in it in September. And I also have practical exposure to the process of winning elections in this country - back in the dark days when I was a Tory party member, I was part of the campaign to successfully elect two Tory MPs in the hostile days of the 2005 election. I didn't manage those campaigns or play a senior role, to be sure. But I was on the ground with my eyes and ears wide open. I wasn't at Norwich North but I have an idea of what it was like, and what successful candidates need to do to win not just there but across the country. 

So - and feel free to disagree - this is what I think LPUK should do to move forward from this poor result. But before we talk about that, let's take a look at what the party shouldn't do. 

Negative Actions After Norwich North

It is tempting for any party who has suffered an electoral blow to turn in on itself. Just look at what the Labour party - the party that has been in power for 12 years and is a formidable election machine - is doing this morning. But there are some things that LPUK shouldn't do:

• Deny what happened. We lost, and we lost badly. No amount of spin can change that, and it will only disillusion those members who were hoping for a much better inaugural result.
• Play the blame game. It wasn't Burridge's fault, it wasn't the fault of the ruling elite. I have an idea of what caused this defeat, but blaming the part-time candidate and the part-time leadership of the party is both counter-productive and a bit of an insult to the people who give up their free time to fight for the Libertarian cause.
  
• Get lost in ideological arguments. As we will come to see, I don't think the people of this country really know what the Libertarian message is. So if one thing is going to alienate them further, it will be watching the fledgling LPUK turning in on itself and arguing over its own identity. All parties contain people who aren't ideologically identical; constant arguments over those ideological points are electoral bromide.
• Under-estimate just how long it is going to take. For LPUK to get into Parliament will take years, if not decades. Pisser, isn't it? But unless we strike it really lucky, we are going to have spend a long time doing the grunt work. And Norwich North would seem to suggest that we aren't going to strike it lucky. 
• Forget we are right, and that Libertarianism is worth fighting for. We lost. Badly. Yeah, but we still have the right solutions for this country. Now we need to go on with the battle to communicate those values and win votes. 

In summary, as others have pointed out, LPUK needs to take it's electoral kicking on the chin, and learn from it. At least we contest elections now. We just need to work out how to do it well. 

Identity, Internet and the Media

Identity: no, I'm not going to talk about "what is a true ideological Libertarian" or anything else like that; as I've already said, it is beyond counter-productive to get lost in such debates. No, we need to get some sort of identity out to the British people. Because, as harsh as it sounds, what Norwich North shows is that few people know us, and even fewer care. 

Now we can blame this on different things. It is difficult to explain to a population used to the main party consensus what being a Libertarian means. It is difficult to get a distinct public profile when another party calls itself Libertas. And it is definitely difficult to overcome the bias of the media. But guess what? If we are going to succeed, we need to be able to do all of that. 

If there is one thing that LPUK seems to be good at, it is the internet. LPUK has a much higher profile on the internet than anywhere else. Hardly surprising, it is a party that was formed on the internet and has grown through astute use of that medium. And if you need to get a hundred Happy Warriors for LPUK, you can find them on the internet, all ready to go. Yet the internet is a limited medium when it comes to fighting for votes in individual constituencies. The internet is still mainly used for shopping and porn; choosing a vote isn't the main reason for people to log on. 

There is a role to play for the internet, in terms of identifying and communicating with supporters. But it can't be our primary tool if we want to get better known. 

Getting a higher media profile is crucial. The difficult thing here is exactly how to do that. The media barely has time to report properly on the main parties who have a chance of reaching triple figures in the polls; it is never really going to focus on those who can't even reach that level. The reason why we were beaten by the Monster Raving Looney Party - a party that is the very definition of pointless - is because they have been around for far longer. As a result, they have a far larger media profile. People have heard of the Monsters, which is why some idiots vote for them.

Unless you get a high-profile candidate on board - and witness Kilroy-Silk's impact on UKIP for how badly that can go - then it is the long haul with the media. You will only win them over when you start winning votes. Which is where the real grunt work comes in. 

Individual Constituencies

If this was a presidential campaign, then LPUK could use its internet presence to get more leverage and more support. Problem is, Britain is divided into individual constituencies, effectively neutering this advantage for LPUK. I could link to well over 36 UK Libertarian websites very easily; when the party started in Norwich North, it had 2 members. 

Which is what I mean about the grunt work. Winning elections doesn't start when the election is called; electioneering starts far earlier. In fact, it never, ever stops. The Tories who I observed win in 2005 were out every Saturday morning and selected evenings in the week canvassing and leafletting for the four years before the election. People knew about them because they went to community events, and campaigned about local problems. We can have a national identity, but we also need to explain why, on a local level, people should vote LPUK. 

Chloe Smith won in Norwich North not just because of her by-election campaign, but also because of the campaigning she did before that election was called. 

The reality of British politics is that next Saturday, Thomas Burridge and the LPUK members of Norwich North need to go out and start knocking on doors. If they wait for the next election campaign, it will be too little too late. Getting support is an ongoing process. And guess what? When parties start getting interest from the locals, they will start to attract the attention of the local media. And it snowballs from there. 

Selecting the Constituencies to Fight

Unless I am very wrong, then LPUK can't fight in every constituency in the country. Instead, it needs to select where it wants to concentrate its firepower, and where it wants to do the grunt work of building a local profile and gaining, bit by bit, local support. 

I don't know quite how to select those constituencies, but a few things do seem obvious to me. Firstly, constituencies where there is a credible, local candidate to fight seems like a good idea. Also, where there is some sort of a local party machine, ready to give up some time, is another important consideration. Finally, we need to assess where might be most receptive to LPUK's message. 

The party cannot, and should not, choose whether party members can run for Parliament. However, they do have to make the harsh choices about where the resources go. Even the main parties don't fund some election campaigns to any great extent. My experience of the Tories shows that they threw far more money and effort into Wimbledon than Southwark. Because they had sod all chance of winning in the latter constituency. 

Also, the party should encourage people to run in local council elections. It is a great way to get local support, and far easier to get people elected. Plus, it is a great litmus test of whether resources should be ploughed into a particular area. If you can't win locally, then you have to wonder whether you can win nationally. 

Conclusions: Being Professional

The above won't be news to some, and the party leadership is welcome to take or leave the advice as they see fit. But I reckon that, whilst there is nothing to celebrate in the Norwich North result, then there is no reason for despair either. The result is part of the process of passionate amateurs becoming credible election winners. 

Norwich North should be a case study - Thomas Burridge and the local party should campaign as much as possible for the next year for the General Election, and win several hundred - at a push, several thousand - votes. Then they push one after that election, campaigning all the time, making the case for LPUK locally. And then - in several years time - they come to an election where they are credible candidates for power. It could stretch into decades, but unless LPUK wants to give up the fight right now, it needs to realise it will take a long time to win national seats, let alone national elections. 

The Incompetent Gordon Brown

Charles Clarke - a man who seems to hate with a passion anyone who isn't Charles Clarke - is rounding on Gordon Brown again. See, Gordon Brown lost the Labour Party the Norwich North by-election. And Clarke wants everyone to know about it. 

For what it is worth, I don't Gordon Brown actually lost his party that particular election single-handed. That said, he is a hefty, weighty, rotting albatross for his party. Which is probably the reason why he is kept away from the voters as much as possible. Fuck knows what is going to happen when when the General Election comes, but this could be the first national election where the Prime Minister doesn't campaign. But there were other factors that led to Labour's defeat in Norwich North. That said, it is worth noting at just how much of a role Gordon Brown played in creating the latest perfect storm that is descending on his premiership. Labour were never going to win a by-election in this point of their freefall, but that only tells half the story. 

Let's look at the what caused this by-election. In order to save some face and secure his leadership in the face of the expenses crisis, Brown offered the press and the people some token scalps. One of those was Ian Gibson. Gibson wasn't the canniest of choices, in retrospect. Since his constituents liked him, despite finding his hands in the till. And that, rather than clinging on after knowing he couldn't stand again, Gibson decided to leave Parliament, forcing an unwinnable by-election for Labour. And, of course, Labour lost. Meaning Gordon Brown's position as Prime Minister is again under question. It is wonderfully circular, isn't it? Gordon Brown tries to shore up his position in the face of one scandal only for Labour to lose a by-election. Leaving his position in doubt. 

The concept of the teflon politician - the one who can do no wrong - is often cynically noted. Yet Gordon Brown is the diametric opposite of that teflon politician. He can do no right. And it isn't just hype; I genuinely struggle to think of one action that Brown has taken since he became Prime Minister that hasn't blown up in his and/or our faces. Gordon Brown failed even at scapegoating his own politicians. That sums up his complete lack of ability perfectly.

LPUK and Norwich North

The votes are in and counted. And, let's be honest, Norwich North was not a good result for LPUK. To come 11th out of 12 with just 36 votes makes me wince slightly. Actually, it makes me wince a lot. 

Yet, realistically, this sort of result was inevitable. It wasn't down to the candidate - who proved to be an eloquent spokesperson for the party. It wasn't down to a lack of funding, or poor organisation. Sure, there will be things that the party can learn from this defeat, but in retrospect the result does have the air of inevitability to it. Basically because an untested and - outside of introverted and introspective world of blogging - largely unknown party was contesting an election with an absolute plethora of candidates. As brutal as this sounds, I reckon the results show that few people in Norwich North knew who we are. And of those that did know us, even fewer cared. 

So LPUK looks at a steep, uphill battle to not just win Parliamentary elections, but to actually overcome the first hurdle of becoming credible candidates in those elections. Norwich North suggests that the party isn't going to be allowed any shortcuts, and it will be the long haul if it wants to become a player on the national stage. Which kind of makes sense as well. After all, it took the Tory party - the dominant force in UK politics throughout the 1980's - nearly a decade to become a credible alternative to Labour after the Tory defeat in 1997. And how long did it take for Labour to go from fledgling socialist party in the valleys of Wales to the landslide winning behemoth of 1945? Yeah, Norwich North and the lessons of history show that it is going to take some time before the UK's Libertarian Party becomes a credible political force in this country. 

But you know what? It isn't just bad news for the party. Because whilst bugger all people in Norwich North put their "x" in the right box for LPUK, it is still a massive step forward for the party. Before now, we were a party that hadn't fought a Parliamentary election. Which is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard. Now, we are a party that has done very badly in a Parliamentary election. Soon enough we'll be doing ok at a Parliamentary election. And so on. Until we are actually in a position to win one of those fucking things. 

Baby steps in the long road to power, to be sure. But fuck it. As small as those steps are, at least the party has started to move in the right direction. 

John Bercow: How NOT to be transparent.

John Bercow whilst campaigning to be Speaker of the House of Commons:

"It is high time the house was run by professionals on a transparent basis, ensuring that we are accountable to the people who put us here."

John Bercow's office now he is Speaker of the House of Commons:

"These questions are not answered because it would imply we are offering judgment on decisions taken by the full parliament"

And what is the issue that his office is refusing to comment on?

A spokeswoman for Bercow said it would breach parliamentary "protocol" to say whether he had stuck to a wage freeze agreed by his predecessor, Michael Martin.

So, we have the Speaker elected to clean up the House of Commons refusing to comment on whether he has kept to a pay freeze that his predecessor - a man who stood down, in part, owing to his ability to rinse the public purse - opted to take. We have a Speaker who campaigned on his desire to be transparent refusing to be transparent literally weeks after being elected. I don't know, but this just doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Maybe I missed a memo or something, but my understanding of transparency is very different to that of Mr Bercow. In fact, I would say that Bercow's actions are the very opposite of transparent. 

Now, I *get* that he has to be neutral. I also think that maybe he should lead by example. So if the House needs to be more transparent, maybe the Speaker should defy convention and be transparent. Except there's that nagging doubt, isn't there. That doubt that Bercow isn't actually concerned with standing in judgment on the House. No, I suspect he can't be transparent because of what that transparency would show. I suspect that he didn't stick to the pay freeze, and is embarrassed to admit it. 

I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But that would be my challenge to Bercow - prove it. Prove that I am a cynical fuck by revealing that you didn't take the pay rise. Fuck convention and, on this issue, fuck neutrality. Give the House of Commons some much needed leadership and tell us the truth. Because the longer you hide behind your office and the excuse of protocol, the more clear it will be to your critics that you are just the same as what went before. 

LabourList: Defending Gordo

LabourList has one of those articles up that they sometimes almost seem to have to put up every now and again - the type of article that seems to grudgingly praise Gordon Brown. And the article reads like the standard hyperbole of someone who is disappointed with Brown but is also trying to make the best of a piss-poor situation. But this paragraph is an almost textbook case of moronic Nu Labour hyperbole:

However, the reality is that Brown is here to stay. Nothing in his past or his personality suggests he will step down voluntarily – and he will not be challenged by a serious contender for the leadership. It may not be ideal for all, but Labour’s only hope is that Brown’s intellect and magisterial grasp of the one area that will most determine the election result – the economy – will save the day. Meanwhile, Brown must urgently find a radical constitutional agenda that incorporates electoral reform, to bring leftwards the centre of gravity in British politics once and for all, and – less nobly – attract the Liberal Democrats in the wake of a hung Parliament.

Really, just so much wrong with the paragraph that it is unbelievable. It is so wrong that there is something jarring in every sentence. So let's break it down and take a look at why it is so wrong. First up:

However, the reality is that Brown is here to stay.

Until the next election, yeah. But believe me, after that he will be swept out of Number 10 and out of the Labour leadership. Brown isn't here to stay at all - he'll be gone at the first electoral contest he has to face, be it within the Labour party or at the hands of the British public. 

Nothing in his past or his personality suggests he will step down voluntarily – and he will not be challenged by a serious contender for the leadership.

No, because when you think about it being Labour leader is a pretty rubbish job right about now. Any one taking over from Brown can be sure of one thing - losing the next election. So for the power hungry members of the Labour party, it is worth waiting until Brown has lost the next election and is stigmatised by that failure, leaving whoever the next Labour leader is with the task of starting to rebuild the party. 

It may not be ideal for all...

Particularly not the millions of people in this country who oppose Brown but have never, ever been allowed to say whether he should be Prime Minister or not.

...but Labour’s only hope is that Brown’s intellect and magisterial grasp of the one area that will most determine the election result – the economy – will save the day.

What? What? Oh, that is brilliant, priceless fucking comedy, right there in the phrase "Brown's intellect and magisterial grasp of the... economy." That would be the Gordon Brown who claimed to have ended Boom and Bust just as one of the worst recessions since World War Two descended on the economy. That would be the same Gordon Brown who propped up failed banks with taxpayer's money, thus restricting his ability to fund other sections of the economy and saddling at least a generation of people with a crippling debt. That same Gordon Brown who was Chancellor for the 10 years when the banking sector - with the backing of the government - mortgaged their own future and at the same time the economic well-being of the whole country. Yeah, that Gordon Brown. Either the author of the piece has no idea of economic reality whatsoever, or they are being deeply ironic. Knowing LabourList as I do, I don't doubt it is the former. 

Meanwhile, Brown must urgently find a radical constitutional agenda that incorporates electoral reform, to bring leftwards the centre of gravity in British politics once and for all

I've said it before, but constitutional reform is the last refuge of the politically damned. It is effectively the sight of a government realising they won't be in power after the next General Election, and so their best chance of having a legacy is trying to fuck the incoming government as much as possible. Constitutional reform certainly isn't a vote winner, since most people in this country rightly couldn't give two short sharp fucks about what happens with the constitution. Unless, of course, that there is another reason for the sudden lust for electoral reform:

...and – less nobly – attract the Liberal Democrats in the wake of a hung Parliament. 

Ah, and there we have it. The ultimate nobility of the Nu Labour project - a readiness to whore themselves out to Britain's perpetual third party in the desperate attempt to cling to some sort of power. 

And there we have it - Labour's best hope is the worst Prime Minister since Anthony Eden. He should do whatever he can to stay in power, including fucking up the constitution. Still, if Brown does follow the advice of this article and fight the next election on his *success* in economics, we can be sure that he will lose that election by not just a few seats, but by a landslide. 

Norwich North Labour - Vote LPUK

Now, I don't have a vote in the Norwich North by-election. Mainly because I live in Nottingham. But if I did, you can be sure that I would vote for the Libertarian Party. 

Looking at the line-up for Norwich North, it seems to me that there are no shortage of candidates to vote for. In fact, this by-election has brought out 12 candidates for this one seat. So how can I be sure that this one candidate - an 18 year old running for Parliament for the first time - is actually the best option?

Well, I'm a member of the same party as him, which is a good start. But it is more than that. I've followed the campaign in Norwich North* and have to say that Burridge has come across as the most eloquent and open candidate. Mainly because he is the only one with something new to say. 

The messages from the independents - when they have been allowed to be heard - never quite overcome this deep-seated feeling I have that they are running for Parliament for the sake of their own egos. And the other smaller parties - we've heard the comments from UKIP, from the Greens and the odious racism of the BNP many times before, and unfortunately - for those movements - it doesn't get them anywhere. 

So onto the three main parties. The messages from all the other recognised parties have been heard time and time again. And of the three main parties, all of their messages seem to mean nothing when they get to power. Lest we forget, this by-election has been forced by the outrageous behaviour of our elected representatives in power. Yeah, the person in this case was Labour - but members of all parties have been caught with their hands deep in the till. 

A vote for LPUK is a vote that says that the behaviour of our elected oligarchy has been despicable, and will not be tolerated. It is also a vote for a refreshing ideology within the UK - one that will give more freedom, more responsibility and more money back to you. So for me, the people of Norwich North have a choice - they can either vote for the bland messages of the main parties and get the status quo, or they vote for something new. 

*Remotely - sorry, I'm very bad at doing real-life campaigning for LPUK, which I'm sorry about. But if there are any Libertarians in the Nottingham/East Midlands area who want to get in contact then my e-mail address is thenamelesst [at] yahoo [dot] co [dot] uk. 

Silly Week Is Coming!

An idea - via James Higham - from Man in a Shed:

Personally, I think it is a grand idea. Political stories in this country will be going on holiday with our "hard-working" MPs, so this might be the perfect time to break out with a little silliness. After all, it was writing silly posts for a friend that first got me into this blogging lark...

Nadine Dorries: We're All Going On A Summer Holiday!"

Nadine Dorries, on "form":

I am taking August off, as I do every year. The truth is that MPs of all parties work very hard on behalf of their constituencies and work very, very long hours in a stressful pressure cooker.

I think a lot of people who don't work in the extraordinary environment of Parliament would love a full month off each summer. But because their employers won't allow it, they can't do so. However Nadine appears more than happy to ignore her employers - her constituents - for a good month each year. If I was one of her employers/constituents, then I would be looking at replacing Nadine with another employee, who perhaps is less willing to take a solid month off each summer. 

And all this talk about long hours and the pressure cooker environment would create more sympathy if MPs didn't choose their life style. They choose to run, they choose to enter the Commons and they choose to stay in government. If it is really that bad, then Nadine and the other whiners should just stand down. You won't find too many people mourning the loss of such politicians either...

Would you ever see a newspaper headline ‘teachers take six weeks summer holiday? Never, because there are too many teachers who buy newspapers, not a good commercial move.

You might not see that headline, but it doesn't stop people from making comments about it. Besides, it was my understanding that the best teachers work hard both in term time and over the holidays. During the latter period they do lesson plans etc. Interesting, though, that Dorries notes that criticising teachers is not a good commercial move. Because her words could be construed as an attack on teachers and their holidays - something that can't be an astute political move on her part. 

I will be away all of August, like I am every year and unlike every other year, this time I won’t be phoning the office twice a day as I have for the last four years. Those days are over.

So, in the year when your expense claims are dragged into the spotlight and you are criticised heavily for the way you have behaved, you announce publicly that you are going to have no interaction with your constituency for a whole month? Smart move, there, Nads. Hopefully it will be noted by your constituents, and - combined with your more outrageous expense claims - will make the case for your constituents electing someone else at the next opportunity extremely strong.

The Left-Wing James Purnell... Just So Nu Labour

James Purnell seems to be having something of a meltdown. Having quit the Cabinet, he is now trying to lurch to the left like Tony Benn in the 1970's. He's written an article on LabourList detailing his beliefs and explaining what he believes. The problem is that article not only fails to make the case for left-wing beliefs, but it ends up not only revealing just how right-wing Purnell is and and therefore how opportunistic his "conversion" to the left is. 

I'm not going to fisk the whole thing; instead, let's take a look at some of the "highlights" of the piece. 

Purnell on Labour Success

Britain is a fundamentally better place than it was in 1997 and Labour has lots to be proud of over the last 12 years.

Yeah. Like rapidly diminishing civil liberties. Like a ruined economy, and near bankrupt government. Or how about the War in Afghanistan, where troops are dying because the government won’t give them decent equipment? And what about the political class – corpulent, corrupt and odious? Yes, yes there’s lots to be proud of, Purnell. You twat. 

But even if you are proud of the shitty and shameful legacy of the first 12 years of Nu Labour rule, why the hell did you resign from the Cabinet? Yeah, I know that Purnell had issues with Brown, but if you are going to credit Nu Labour with anything other than failure then you have to give Brown some of the glory. So if Labour has so much to be proud of, why did Purnell resign from the Cabinet and nearly sink the premiership of someone who has been at the heart of the Nu Labour project for so long?

Purnell names his contributors

You can read the views of a number of high profile left wing figures, including Jon Cruddas, Billy Bragg, Polly Toynbee and Peter Hyman

Why on earth would you want to announce a lurch to the left using those faux class warriors and champagne socialists? I mean, Polly Toynbee? Polly fucking Toynbee? Someone who has jumped on the bandwagon of every half-baked Social Democratic leader since David Owen? The fangirl of Gordon Brown and David Miliband? You want her to help to launch your lurch to the left? Good God, man. You're fucked from the start. 

Purnell on the first distinction between right and left

First, the Right tolerates inequalities that the Left hates. I’m on the Left because I worry about inequalities of capability - some people have it very easy in our society, others far too hard. The goal of policy should be to correct these inequalities in power. This is partly but not only about redistribution of income.

Ahhh, and there we have it. Good, old-fashioned socialism. Redistribution of income. Equality of outcome (which is what “inequalities of capability” actually seems to mean). Exactly the sort of views that strangle society, and create equality through dragging everyone down with punitive taxation and a culture of dependence on the government. The Right doesn’t "tolerate inequality" – rather, it sees it as part of a free society.

Purnell on the second distinction between right and left

Second, I believe that governments succeed more often than they fail. People on the Right are more sceptical of government’s effectiveness. The Right also worry that more government crowds out society, whereas we think that government helps communities be more active and individuals more powerful.

Government – when it is being interventionist and trying to graft concepts of community and equality on to the people – seizes power from the citizens. It suffocates community and emasculates individuals. Government has to be minimal, in order to maximize freedom. It is only then that they are truly effective.

Purnell on the third distinction between right and left

Third, I’m utopian. People on the Left tend to have a vision of what society could be like, and believe it’s the role of democracy to try to make that a reality. People on the Right are more likely to value the status quo, believing it represents the tested wisdom of previous generations.

Well, the point of democracy if to reflect the views of the citizens in that democracy. So, democracy can only make that blueprint a reality if the voters want it. And I hate to point this out, but they have consistently rejected socialism since 1979.

And if people on the Right do reject utopias, it may not be for the classically conservative reasons detailed by Purnell. It could be that some people just don’t think it is possible to build a utopian society. And such people can point to the Soviet Union and the attempts to build an agrarian utopia in Cambodia under the Khymer Rouge as proof of just how badly utopia building can go.

Purnell on education 1

So, I would be in favour of having profit-making companies running state schools – as long as it increased equality of capability

Amazing. Actually amazing. Purnell's pitch for a lurch to the left includes a policy that would be to the right of the incumbent Tory leadership. The effective privatisation of the schools? That is the start of your lurch to the left, James Purnell? Jesus Christ, you'll be lucky if you don't end with genuine left-wingers burning you in effigy over that gem. 

Purnell in education 2

What makes me most angry about Britain today is that some children’s chances in life are restricted by their circumstances of birth. That’s why I would say the change that would do most to transform our society for the better would be ending child poverty and every child being well taught.

What makes me most angry about Labour today is when they belly-ache about the problems of this country despite the fact that they have had 12 fucking years to sort those fucking problems out! Honest to God, if you haven’t sorted those problems by now then the chances are you never fucking will.

Purnell on his inspirations

When I consider the future of the British Left I think we should take inspiration from the Swedish social democrats. They combined pragmatism and idealism over a long period to shift the political reality in their country, entrenching social democracy as both morally right and electorally irreversible.

I worry about some of those phrases. How can you make something "morally right" other than to subvert existing morals? It sounds a lot like trying to control the moral codes of private citizens. Which is a lot like trying to control their thoughts. And “electorally irreversible”? That isn’t democratic. It may be that people reject policies that have gone before. By making something “electorally irreversible”, you take away their democratic right to reject something that has gone before. Which leads me to conclude that when Purnell calls earlier in the article for “effective democracy” what he actually means a limited democracy that rubber stamps what he deems to be right...

Anyhow, Purnell's bid to be the leader of the new left is undermined by a few key points:

1. He doesn't understand what it means to be left-wing. All he can do is spout a few easy to refute platitudes.
2. He is actually far too right-wing for his own party, let alone the left of it. Privatising schools? Jesus. Even the Tories at the height of their privatisation lust stopped short of that!
3. There is nothing other than naked opportunism in his lurch to the left. He thinks that if Labour moves to the left, then it will be more popular. And he thinks that if he positions himself on the left, then he'll set himself out as a future leader for his party. There is no genuine belief in his article, mere naked lust for power. It is the pathetic political positioning of someone who regrets leaving Cabinet. 

The irony is that Purnell would have more luck in becoming an influential politician if he lurched to the right rather than the left. His article - a desperate attempt to suck up to left of his party - is going to convince precisely no-one. He would do better being honest and pushing himself to the right of Gordon Brown. Or swallowing his pride, and crossing the floor of the Commons and joining the Tories. 

Regardless of what you think about Purnell's views, he's the consummate Nu Labour politician. He will literally say anything to win power, and his bitter cynicism means that political beliefs are just a stepping stone for his own personal gain. 

LPUK Radio Interview

You can listen to an interview with Libertarian Party candidate Thomas Burridge here. As a member of LPUK, I've got an obvious bias. But if I was a voter in Norwich North, he'd get my vote. Because he represents - as LPUK does - a sane alternative to the status quo.

And if you are in Norwich North and are wondering who to vote for, then you could do far worse than listening to this radio interview. 

Hillary on the Sidelines

Accurate yet not surprising:

There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton’s star has significantly waned since January. Hugely overshadowed by a White House that dominates US foreign policy, the former first lady rarely makes headlines on policy questions. She has gone from fiery senator and presidential contender to increasingly marginalized run of the mill bureaucrat.

Of course Hillary has been marginalised - why else would Obama have made her Secretary of State? He is an interventionist, energetic young President. He leads policy in his administration - domestic and foreign. The various secretaries and other Cabinet members are there because the Constitution demands it; not as policy leaders. 

Obama knew that Hillary's vanity meant she wouldn't be able to resist the position of Secretary of State, but also knew that by tying her so closely to his administration she would have to be loyal to him, and couldn't set herself up as a potential rival for the Democratic nomination in 2012. Of course he didn't offer it to Clinton because he likes or respects her - the Clinton v. Obama primary battle was arguably even more bitter than the General Election campaign against McCain. No, Obama made her Secretary of State because, for all his flaws, he is a savvy political operator. He's using the age-old advice of "keep your friends close, and keep your enemies closer."

In fact, he did something similar to Smilin' Joe Biden when he offered him the Vice-Presidency. Two of the leading lights of the Democratic party are now part of the Obama administration - they cannot oppose him or run against him without destroying their own careers by appearing disloyal. 

As I've noted on several occasions, the Republican Party doesn't seem able to offer a credible alternative to Obama. And Obama has managed to neutralise many of the potential Democratic alternatives who haven't managed to neutralise themselves. At this rate, he is going to coast to renomination and re-election in 2012. 

So of course Hillary Clinton has been marginalised. She became Secretary of State precisely so she could become a footnote in the history of the Obama Administration. It is what he had planned for her from the moment she accepted the job. 

Banning What You're Never Seen

Via Leg-Iron at Old Holborn's place I see there is a classic film review at The Daily Mail. A classic example of panic and ill-thinking hysteria, that is. 

It is about the film Antichrist - which looks marginally interesting to me, albeit in a depressing way. It doesn't so appeal quite so much to The Daily Mail's reviewer:

A film which plumbs new depths of sexual explicitness, excruciating violence and degradation has just been passed as fit for general consumption by the British Board of Film Classification.

And that's just the starter. From there, our reviewer tears into the film, calling for it to heavily cut and/or banned. Partly because it will one day be released on DVD. And parents might allow their kids to see it despite the 18 certificate. Although as a head's up, and 18 certificate doesn't make it open for general consumption.

Now, you could quite happily tear apart this sorry sack of shit bit by bit - which is pretty much what Leg-Iron does. But for me, the reviewer nicely demolishes his own argument with this statement:

I haven't seen it myself, nor shall I - and I speak as a broad-minded arts critic, strongly libertarian in tendency. But merely reading about Antichrist is stomach-turning, and enough to form a judgment.

Right, so by reading about a film that he has have no intention of seeing this "Libertarian" decides that it should be banned for all. Libertarian he sure as fuck ain't. Nor does he come across as broad-minded or even intelligent. Ignorant, ill-liberal twunt is probably a better description. 

Memo To Boris Johnson

Boris,

It is true - we live in the age of the politician as celebrity. You only have to look at the rock star status of the incumbent President of the United States of America to see that. And you also are both politician and celebrity - and it was probably your celebrity status (best illustrated by the Have I Got News For You team mocking you relentlessly on their programme) that helped you to become the most powerful Tory since John Major left Number 10 in 1997. 

It must be a difficult balancing act as you work out which opportunities to take up and which to turn down. But since there seems to be some confusion with you, let me just point out that appearing on EastEnders - a programme as depressing as it is terrible - is not an appropriate thing for a supposedly credible politician and serving Mayor of London to be doing. In fact, it is the sort of stunt that exposes you as a fame hungry lightweight, and plays right into the hands of your still jealous rival - that terrible piss midget, Ken Livingstone. 

So let me summarise this memo for you: get a fucking grip or fuck the fuck off. 

Not sure what to make of the new Doctor Who costume:

It looks for all the world like someone going to a fancy-dress party as a mad professor. Or the sort of thing that Rick Moranis might have worn in one of those godawful eighties movies back in the days when he was, for reasons that defy understanding even to this day, a star. It certainly couldn't be described as modern, and may not blend in as well as the most recent Doctor Who costumes. 

Mind you, I'm probably not the right person to comment on costumes. If I was playing the Doctor (and, God willing, I will be one day) then I'd insist on a costume that consisted of jeans and a T-shirt. And even though I think the new costume is not great, it is still far superior to the all time nadir of Doctor Who's dress sense. And for those of you who don't know what I am talking about, may I present the Sixth Doctor's costume. In all of its eye-wateringly bad glory:

Purnell Preaching For The State

James "Workhouse" Purnell has had time to think since he resigned from the Cabinet. Unfortunately, thinking doesn't appear to his strongest ability. Since he comes up with platitudinous crap:

"People on the right are very sceptical about the state but people on the left believe the state is a good thing."

So, for lefties like Purnell, the state is automatically a good thing. Probably why Purnell and others who identify themselves as left-wing try so hard to expand it. But was the state under, say, Stalin a good thing? Is the massive state apparatus in North Korea a good thing? And fuck it, let's have a bit of Godwin's Law and ask whether the Nazi state was a good thing?

The people who Purnell puts on the right-wing are sceptical about the state, and with good reason. The state can be a good thing, but only if it is closely controlled and governed using the basic principle that the state should serve the people and not the other way round. And anyone who can say something as stupid, simplistic and wrong as "the state is a good thing" reveals a crucial truth about themselves - they are too dumb to be in government. 

Three Directors Who Should Never Be Allowed To Make Another Film...

...but probably will.

Joel Schumacher: an obvious choice, and most people would centre on Batman And Robin. And with good cause – it is an appalling movie. Not even so bad it is good. But actually so bad it is atrocious. The script is piss-poor – beneath even the old Adam West series – the puns are awful. The action was pointless and pedestrian, and the film buried the film franchise for a good decade. Yet was the preceding Batman Forever actually any good? The answer has to be a resounding no. Two-Face is a second-rate Joker, dressed by a colour-blind moron. Jim Carrey as the Riddler is the epitome of stunt casting, whilst Val Kilmer as Bruce Wayne and Batman manages to be simultaneously wooden and irritating. All Batman Forever manages to be is better that Batman and Robin - which is much the same as saying normal 'flu is better than swine ‘flu. But even going outside of Schumacher’s offerings to the Batman franchise, he’s pretty shit. He made Brat Pack movies – films that instantly dated and became cliches as they hit the silver screen. And 8mm? A film that teaches you that S&M is bad at the same time as showing that monsters look like us – if you are a fat balding man with a fetish for gimp masks or a flamboyant porn film director. And worst of all, it has the relentless attempts of Nicholas Cage trying and failing to act. Schumacher is capable of wrapping films up efficiently; he doesn’t seem capable of making them any good.

Mick Garris: You might not know who Mick Garris is. He seems to be a friend of Stephen King; he certainly seems to get to adapt a lot of King’s work. Yet, if I was Stephen King, I’d be pretty hacked off with Mick Garris. Because he takes Stephen King’s work and makes it deeply pedestrian. Remaking The Shining was always going to be a bad idea, but Garris managed to take a great novel and translate it to a bland mockery on the screen. Slack, flat, overlong and awful – it still manages to be the best of Garris’s adaptations. Desperation is the worst. Pathetic in every regard, it looks and feels as if everyone concerned just shouldn’t have bothered. Watching this adaptation makes me never want to read the source novel again. And then there is The Stand - one of King’s best novels turned into a cosy catastrophe story. Gone is the apocalypse followed by the epic struggle between good and evil – instead we have a group of nominal good guys who are just Hollywood B-list actors who can’t find any other work and the leader of the bad guy – the Devil himself – looks like he should be fronting a Country & Western band. And, lest we forget, Garris also made Psycho IV: The Beginning that ends the classic film series with a story that focuses on a radio phone in. Terrifying. As in terrifyingly bad.

Michael Bay: The cream of the crappy crop. Currently having another hit this year with the no doubt awful Revenge of the Fallen, Bay is Hollywood Gold. In that he can make money. But his films are mindless popcorn dross. They are devoid of any artistic merit whatsoever. Transformers was one of the worst films I have ever, ever seen. It managed to make a slightly bland cartoon series from the 1980’s into a generic hotch-potch of what should make a blockbuster movie, at the same time as making a film that is close to unwatchable as I have ever had the misfortune to endure. And Pearl Harbor – scathingly eulogised in a song from Team America: World Police - is an insultingly stupid movie, and the less said about the turgid Armageddon the better. The sole selling point of Michael Bay is that his films are popular – but as history shows again and again, something being popular doesn’t make it any good. Remember Nu Labour, people. Remember Nu Labour.

Anyway, those are the directors I’d never allow back on a film set. If anyone has any other options, then stick 'em in the comments.

Quote of the Day

Self-aggrandising quote of the day from Ottmar Hoerl. Hoerl has got himself into trouble after one of his gnomes - doing a Nazi salute - was put in a public gallery and thus fell foul of the harsh anti-Nazi laws in Germany:

"With my gnomes I'm highlighting the danger of political opportunism and right-wing ideology."

Really? Are you? Maybe I'm missing something, but when I look at those gnomes, I just see... well, a garden gnome doing a Hitler salute. Not perhaps worth a criminal investigation, but I also don't quite see these gnomes as strident alarm ringing out against the twin "evils" identified by Hoerl...

Your Top 10 Blogs

Via DK, I see that it is the time of year when Iain Dale asks you to vote for your Top 10 political blogs. The details are here. And the details of how to boycott it are here. 

I'm not going to tell you whether to vote or boycott. In fairness, I think the readers of this blog are intelligent enough to work out what they want to do by themselves. However, I will make this observation - for the first time, I think I would struggle to come up with just 10 blogs to vote for. Not sure whether this is due to an increase in the quality of UK blogging, or just whether I have got better at finding the pearls amongst the dross of the blogosphere.

Which reminds me - I need to update my sidebar as there are some great blogs that I haven't linked to...

More Swine 'Flu Hysteria

I've never really understood news sources that spend so much of their time warning their readers that they could be about to die. Personally, I don't want to spend half my life reading about what infections could, in theory, kill me. Clearly some people do, though, as the media is droning on about swine 'flu being the end of everything with mindless repetition. 

The latest update in apocalyptic infection comes via Yahoo news:

Chief Medical Officer for England, Sir Liam Donaldson, said figures being used by the NHS to plan its services show that a 30 per cent infection rate among the population could possibly lead to 65,000 deaths.

Scary figures. Although even the most basic read of the paragraph shows that a lot of that is hypothetical. If 30% of the population are infected the 65,000 people could die. Likewise, if 40% of the population are infected, then 13 people could die. And you end up with a fun game of mindless predictions. Here's my go: I predict that if 23.7% of the population are infected, then swine 'flu might come round to your house uninvited, drink your beer, diss your mother and look at your kids in a funny way. 

The one certainty in life is death. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that the life that goes before that certain death would be a whole lot more enjoyable if we didn't have to read endless hysterical articles about theoretical threats to us with tedious regularity.  

President Tony

Don't make me laugh. Bitterly:

Tony Blair is a contender to become the first president of the EU with the full backing of the British government, the new Europe minister said today.

Yeah. That's just what we need. The grinning, preening cunt who we offloaded as PM a few years ago back as President of the largely unaccountable EU. That would be Blair's revenge. The political equivalent of Blair pissing on the British people from the lofty heights of the EU.

Still, good old Glenys Kinnock still comes up with some wonderfully idiotic statements:

"Blair is seen by many as someone who has the strength of character, the stature," Kinnock said.

"People know who he is, and he would be someone who would have this role and step into it with a lot of respect and I think would be generally welcomed."

Blair has the strength of character that you might associate with a jellyfish with a spinal disorder. And any respect, any goodwill that Blair might once have had from the EU was spunked away when he decided to side with the moronic George W Bush rather than Europe over Iraq. If Kinnock genuinely thinks that Blair would be welcomed by the British people, the EU or by the Blair-hating Brown government, then she is even more delusional that on the day she said "I do" when stood next to that graceless ginger wanker. 

Still, we shouldn't under-estimate the ability of the EU to be contrary, and give a position of power to a washed up old political leader from a member state. But this could be the time for the EU to stand up and be counted. It is the time for the EU to show that it does have some ability, some political savvy, and some use. And it could do all that in one moment - by telling Tony Blair to go fuck himself. 

The Norwich North "Debate"

Norwich North candidate Craig Murray has got himself into a tizzy about not being invited on to a BBC debate between the "main candidates" in the Norwich North by-election:

The local BBC are broadcasting a live TV debate between the "Four Main Candidates" - none of whom has anything interesting to say - on 22 July at 22.15. I am excluded lest I say something voters might actually care about.

Of course, there's nothing quite like a would-be parliamentarian being slightly petulant to win the voters over. I wonder what Mr Murray will do next - perhaps sit in the corner and rock back and forth, muttering that they are all against him.

However, despite the tone of Murray's post, there is a real problem highlighted by Murray. Firstly, out of 12 candidates, the BBC have selected four to be the main candidates. Why four though? Why not five? Or six? And what selection criteria did they use? Something about past and present electoral history in the area. But what if Labour wasn't in the main four parties most likely to win this election? Would they not be invited to the debate? And what if the BNP or UKIP were one of the four parties riding highest in the polls/electoral history? Both scenarios are a possibility in some areas, but I suspect that Labour would still be in the debate whilst other parties wouldn't get the invite. 

Because these aren't the "Four Main Candidates". These are the representatives of the Four Established Parties. The Four Mainstream Parties. Three of those parties represent a simple maintenance of the status quo with minor tweaks, whilst the Green's represent a mad yet strangely fashionable combination of communism and environmentalism. They are not the future - they represent the past and the really rather crappy present. Whilst the focus on these parties might discount the loopy candidates, it also discounts other small parties who have a valid point to make and who are just starting to contest elections.* Besides, in the interests of free speech, shouldn't the loopy candidates be able to have their say in debate as well?

The grudging concession on the BBC precis of the programme that there will be "comments" from the other candidates in the broadcast does nothing to dispel the gross favouritism shown to the parties of the status quo. You could argue that the BBC is in charge of its own programming, and therefore can decide what to stick on our screens. But the BBC is a public service funded by those who pay the licence fee. And their clear bias in their "debate" creates the perception that there are only four real candidates contesting this election. The reality is somewhat different, and if the people of Norwich North really want a change, then the BBC should be prioritising the views of the lesser known candidates rather than burying beneath the bland statements of the parties of the status quo. 

*Yep, I'm talking about one party in particular here. Obviously. 

Saving The Children Through A Database

Another case of the database culture and the pathetic "won't someone think of the children!" mentality actually creating problems rather than solving them:

A group of respected British children's authors and illustrators will stop visiting schools from the start of the next academic year, in protest at a new government scheme that requires them to register on a database in case they pose a danger to children.

Philip Pullman, Anne Fine, Anthony Horowitz, Michael Morpurgo and Quentin Blake all told The Independent that they object to having their names on the database – which is intended to protect children from paedophiles – and would not be visiting any schools as a consequence.

I'm not surprised, really. And it is not just registering on the database. You have to pay £64 for the privilege. Yeah, a lot of those authors - particularly Pullman - could pay that amount without batting an eyelid. But that doesn't answer the question of precisely why they should have to. Unfortunately, they are the victims of a paranoid society that increasingly seems to believe that anyone who wants to interact with children will spontaneously turn into a leering paedophile if they happen to be left alone with a child. It is as much an insult to common sense as it is to the individuals being asked to pay to be put on a government backed database.

But it is this comment that further shows just how outrageous these ideas are:

Anthony Horowitz - author of the popular Alex Rider series - wrote in a comment article for the paper: "In essence, I'm being asked to pay £64 to prove that I am not a paedophile. After 30 years writing books, visiting schools, hospitals, prisons, spreading an enthusiasm for culture and literacy, I find this incredibly insulting."

Quite. Ultimately, the assumption now is that if you work with children, you are guilty until to have paid to be put onto a government database to prove that you are innocent. It strikes at the very heart of British Justice, and shows what 12 years of Nu Labour rule has turned this country into: a paranoid, self-doubting and self-destructive mess.