Monday, August 31, 2009

Friday the 13th: The Remake

As some may know, I'm not the biggest fan of a lot of the horror remakes we're currently seeing. That said, I struggle to resist the temptation of watching such remakes. After all, they could be really good, as the remake of Battlestar Galactica showed so well. With that in mind, I watched the remake of Friday the 13th last night.

It wasn't necessarily a bad film. But it certainly wasn't that good either. It felt more like a sequel that a remake. Although if it was a remake, it felt more like a remake of Friday the 13th Part 3 than the original picture. Which is the first problem with the film. It lacks anything even approaching ambition. Sure, it is probably wrong to look to a Friday the 13th film - a franchise itself that was a rip-off to begin within - and expect clever plotting, intricate story-telling and any sort of originality. Yet this film is so formulaic that I was left wondering whether there was some sort of requirement for a certain percentage of the film's run time to be given over to acts of jarring violence. And a further percentage of the film needed to be given to boob shots. And, just to make sure of winning over the target audience of teens, anything left of the movie's run time was given to drinking, drug taking and lust. Just to make sure that this film truly resembled Jason Voorhees Meets American Pie.

Yet it isn't the crass plot or flaccid direction of the film that makes it truly disappointing. After all, those are pretty much the trademarks of the preceding pictures in the series. What really struck me about this film was the level of the violence. Even for a film franchise that depicts a masked killing machine - a sort of zombie Terminator - cutting his way through hundreds of people, this film is unusually gruesome in depicting violence. It has no compunction about showing an arrow through someone's head or a woman being slowly roasted in her own sleeping bag. It makes the previous films in the franchise look almost innocent. The visceral, sadistic violence of this picture made even this seasoned horror movie fan in me wince more than once.

Of course, a horror movie without a horrific element is bit like an Adam Sandler comedy (that generally don't contain anything that's funny) - a bit pointless. Yet gruesome violence is not the only way to make a horror movie. In fact, if you look at some of the best horror movies, they actually contain very little violence. Halloween is a great example of this. It pretty much created the whole masked killer genre that this installment of the Friday the 13th saga is still milking. Yet Halloween contains very little actual violence, and shows nearly none in any detail whatsoever. Instead it creates a horrific atmosphere through careful use of music, atmosphere, clever camera work and subtle direction. It doesn't need to show a skull being cleaved in two by a machete in lingering - almost loving - detail. And whilst Halloween is still highly regarded decades after it was made, I can't help but think that this remake of Friday the 13th isn't going to curry any particular critical favour in 31 years time.

In his non-fiction book on horror, Stephen King wrote:
“I recognize terror as the finest emotion and so I will try to terrorize the reader. But if I find that I cannot terrify, I will try to horrify, and if I find that I cannot horrify, I'll go for the gross-out. I'm not proud.”
The problem with the remake of Friday the 13th - and of those other remakes of horror classics - is that they aren't proud either. But unlike King, they don't try to terrorise or horrify. Instead, they simply go for the gross-out. As a result these films aren't terrifying. They also struggle to be in anyway interesting. Violence alone can't sustain a film. Sadly, all that the 2009 Friday the 13th has to offer an already moribund franchise is a higher level of violence than the previous installments. It won't be enough to sustain the franchise moving forward - it was barely enough to sustain this film for its run time.

Labels: ,

Obviously not the Mayor of Baltimore

Alex Hilton has written an explanation of his little joke that has created such controversy. It makes for a good read, if only because it shows just how no-one should have fallen for this joke. It appears the intention was to be a mild rebuke for Chris Grayling. Although the end result of this little jape seems to have been anything but embarrassing for the Tories.

What Hilton has done is simply - and accidentally - turned what was a mildly embarrassing comment by the Shadow Home Secretary into something that has embarrassed vast swathes of the left-wing media and blogosphere in this country. Instead of exposing the hyperbole of Chris Grayling, instead Alex Hilton has shown the naked eagerness of left wing journalists to print anything and everything that might in anyway discredit a Tory. Even if the story does actually stand up to even the most basic of fact-checking.

Hilton writes:
And if any part of this bit of fluff made you smile, or made you critically analyse a politician's hyperbole, then it achieved its aims.
Well, it did make me smile. If only because it highlighted that fact that the left-wing media have nothing useful to report on - like constructive policies that could make a difference in Britain. Instead, they are grasping at bit of straw - or fluff - that could be used in any way to discredit the Tories. Regardless of Hilton's professed aims for this joke, I can't help but think that he can't be tremendously pleased with the way it has turned out. Against any available parameter, this little jape has ended up being a massive own goal. He wanted to expose the Tories; instead, he did much to show up the left wing at the same time as getting on the wrong side of many people he needs - as a Labour PPC - to get support from. Nice work, Alex. With you out there, the Labour party doesn't need enemies.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Quote of the Day

"Making the rich poorer does not make the poor richer, but it does make the state stronger—and it does increase the power of officials and politicians, power more menacing, more permanent and less useful than market power within the rule of law. Inequality of income can only be eliminated at the cost of freedom. The pursuit of income equality will turn this country into a totalitarian slum."
Sir Keith Joseph, 1918-1994

Labels: , ,

Saturday, August 29, 2009

The Tories and the NHS: Still not got a fucking clue.

What is it with Tory MEPs and the NHS at the moment? We've got another one wanting to throw his ideas into the mix. Perhaps they want to be helpful and offer some advice to Cameron, whose policies on the NHS could best be described as non-existent beyond platitudes like "the NHS is good".

Personally, I have some sympathies with the comments of Hannan. The same can't be said for Dr Chris Tannock and his fucking stupid ideas for the NHS:
"I would be totally in favour of small co-payments, small payments being made if you turn up to things and perhaps small fines being levied if you do not."
Right. So you would need to pay to use the NHS, and pay even more if you are unable to make an appointment you have already paid for. Which would be fine, if the NHS was currently free. However, it isn't. It is only free at the point of service. The NHS has already been paid for by every taxpayer in this fucking country. Under Tannock's plan, you would pay once for the NHS through your taxes - whether you use the fucking thing or not. You'd then pay even more to see someone you have already paid for through said taxes. And then, if you don't make an appointment, you get fined. Which means that the British tax-payer could pay three times and still not see a doctor. I can see this idea being less than popular...
"I know they are controversial but I don't think people who are in a job would be against say spending £10 to see their GP or being fined £10 if they don't show up to an out-patients, so that's the sort of thing I would like to see."
What a wonderfully circular statement. As a small question around the logic of this statement, why would it be controversial if people aren't against it? And if people did object to it, would Tannock drop the plan? If so, why doesn't he oppose it because, by his own admission, it is controversial?

Tannock's words show just how detached he is from the day to day reality of life in this country. I think people who work hard to fund the NHS through their taxes (whether they want to or not) would seriously resent having to pay £10 each time they want to access a service that they have already paid for. It is like ordering something online, paying for it online, going to the store and paying for it again when you pick it up. Of course people would object to this! It is ripping them off, and then rubbing their face in it.

Besides, we all know that the abilities of GPs vary considerably. What would happen if you paid £10 to see a GP, and they couldn't do anything to help you? What if they refused you medication when you believed you needed it or when you had got it in the past? Would you be able to ask for a second opinion? Would you have to pay another £10 for that second opinion? Or would you be entitled to a refund? Because I know that if I got shitty service from a restaurant or another service provider, I'd ask for (and normally get) my money back. And I wouldn't already have been funding that restaurant through my fucking taxes!

To summarise Tannock's suggestion on GPs - you pay even more for them. Let's all give Dr Tannock a round of applause. Don't worried if you're feeling too tired to applaud effectively with both hands; this is the sort of proposal that begs for the sound of one hand clapping.

Still, fortunately the Tory in charge of not doing anything different with the NHS, Andrew Lansley, is on hand to dismiss these ideas:
He added: "Charles may say 'oh well £10 to see a GP' - well that would not make any difference to hospital care and frankly, if you tried to put in such a system, by the time you have done all the bureaucracy of raising the money and levying some fines, you would not be raising any money for the NHS anyway."
I just want everyone to take a moment and digest Lansley's response. Staggering, isn't it? At no point does he raise an objection to the idea of people paying even more for the NHS, and at no point does he talk about value for money for the poor fucking consumer. The poor people who the NHS is meant to be serving. No, the problem with Tannock's plan is that it wouldn't raise any more money for the NHS. Good God above, give me strength!

The NHS gobbles up money like a fat man with a hungry tapeworm gobbles up pies. It isn't going to make a blind bit of difference if you spend more money on the NHS. It will consume the money, not change in any way whatsoever, and then ask for more money. Any policy that advocates the same level of spending or more for the NHS is stillborn; it is destined to fail. If nothing else, Nu Labour has proved that conclusively in the 12 years they have been in power.

Tannock needs to get a grip. Lansley needs to get a grip and a fucking policy. Cameron needs to get a vision on the NHS that accepts the need for radical change. In about nine months time, these people are going to be running the NHS. And as things stand, they have nothing that will help the people the NHS is meant to serve get the level of service they have already paid for and deserve.

Labels: , , , ,

NEWS FLASH: Barack Obama NOT to meet Nick Clegg

Via Iain Dale, I came across this humdinger of a post. It starts by asking one of the great questions of our time in the title:
Is it time Obama met Nick Clegg?
It is going to have to be a really imaginative and outrageously good argument to convince me that it is time for Obama to meet Nick Clegg. Because, let's face it, as President of the United States of America Obama probably has better things to do that meet the leader of Britain's failed third party.
After the news that Nick Clegg has met President Zardari of Pakistan, I have some issues that I want to raise. First of all it’s great to see that Zardari even realises that the Lib Dems are the best party for the Pakistanis in the UK.
Does Zardari really believe that the Lib Dems are the best party for Pakistanis in the UK? Where's the evidence for this? Simply having a meeting with someone doesn't mean you think that they are the best party. After, Clegg has met with Brown in the past, and doesn't feel Brown's party is best. In fact, a post on the same blog (albeit by a different author) details Clegg's meeting with Zadari. But does not make the claim that Zardari sees the Lib Dems as the best party for Pakistanis in the UK. Maybe Zardari has said this. But it would be nice to see a link to it.
Now let’s return to my campaign to ask Obama to meet Nick Clegg, if the President of Pakistan believes that the Lib Dems play an important part in UK politics and has wanted to meet Nick Clegg then I think Barack Obama should as well.
This is easily the most stupid and facile argument I have encountered in quite some time (and I've been reading a lot of LabourList recently!) Just because the President of Pakistan thinks or does something doesn't mean the President of the United States needs to think or do the same thing. The quickest way to dismiss this idea is to revert to the old teacher retort of "if the Pakistani President jumped off a cliff, would the US President have to do the same thing?"
The problem is Barack Obama is too focused on a relationship with Cameron, and personally I think that could be bad for Obama.
Now, why might Obama be focused on a relationship with Cameron? What might happen in the next 12 months to Cameron that might encourage Obama to form a strong relationship with him? Oh yes, this time next year, David Cameron will almost certainly be Prime Minister. Perhaps that's why Obama is focused on Cameron. And you might argue that it is bad for Obama to have a strong relationship with Cameron. But I'd imagine it would be worse for the President of the United States not to have a good working relationship with the man who is poised to become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Cameron didn’t support Obama as a candidate; he doesn’t care the slightest about Barack Obama and his career and he is the leader of the party that has politicians giving a negative image of the NHS to the USA. Clearly its time Obama met Nick Clegg?
No, Cameron didn't support Obama as a candidate in an election Cameron had no real influence on or a vote in. I don't know whether Cameron cares about Obama or his career - although I'd imagine that Cameron does want to have some knowledge of a man who, this time next year, will be one of his fellow world leaders. And what does Dan Hannan's comments about the NHS have to do with Cameron's relationship with Obama? After all, Obama himself doesn't want to go with the NHS as a healthcare system. If Obama is aware of Hannan's comments, I'd be surprised if he associated them that much with Cameron or even cared.

So is it clearly time for Obama to meet Clegg? Why, precisely? Other than a Lib Dem blogger wanting some of the supposed Obama glory to rub off in Clegg, what possible reason could there be for the President of the United States of America to meet with the a party leader who is never going to be Prime Minister?

In short, Ahmed's wonderful, ludicrously demented post bears no connection with reality and also possesses no real coherence. With champions like this, it is no wonder that the Liberal Democrats are going to struggle to get any political influence in this country. Let alone get real influence on the international stage.

Labels: , , , ,

Despite Labour's best efforts, Hannan Still Fails to Embarrass Cameron...

Reading about the latest "scandal" to hit the media about one Daniel Hannan, MEP, I have been wondering about the state of the left in this country a lot. It now seems that much of the left-wing seem to think that political figures can only be supported if they are utterly beyond reproach. Thusly no-one should back Enoch Powell because of his (admittedly extremely crass) views on immigration. Which is fine until, as the angry baby man suggests, you look at some of the heros of the left. You can berate Hannan as much as you like for his views on Powell. But if you see Castro as a hero and have a Che t-shirt in your closet, then you are wide open to the dual charges of being a hypocrite and a moron. After all, the actions of one Fidel Castro have done far more to destroy lives than the words of Enoch Powell. There we have it - the state of the left in Britain today. So lost in their own desperate rhetoric that they fail to see when they leave themselves wide open to the charge of hypocrisy.

However what is really interesting about this "story" is the timing of it. As Guido points out, this interview happened about a month ago. It has only been pushed to the top of the agenda after Hannan created controversy with his opinions on the NHS. It is almost as if the Labour party are now hunting for any sort of controversial comments from Hannan to highlight to the national media. Which does beg the question: "Don't the Labour party have anything better to do than to constantly highlight the comments of one Tory MEP who is on the fringes of his own party?"

The answer is clearly "no". Despite being in control of the whole country, the actions of the Labour party shows that they don't seem to have anything better to do that trawl the web for the wit and wisdom of Daniel Hannan. I can sort of see why. After all, it can be an effective way of slamming your political opponents. It is the Obama strategy towards Sarah Palin - the Obama campaign didn't have to attack John McCain. Instead, they could point to the comments and actions of his ludicrous Vice-Presidential pick, and use her as a weapon to bash him. Labour want to do the same with Cameron. Nothing is sticking to young Hug A Husky at the moment, so instead they seek a member of his party with non-mainstream views and try to use his comments to attack Young David. It worked for Obama; ergo, it should work for Brown and his Labour drones.

Except there is a key flaw with this strategy. Put simply, Hannan is no Sarah Palin. In three crucial ways.

Firstly, Hannan is an eloquent, intelligent man who can defend his own views, comments and actions. Palin - for whatever the reason - never seemed able to do that. Cameron doesn't have to defend Hannan because Hannan defends himself. Whereas during the last Presidential campaign McCain had to defend Palin time and time again, because she just didn't seem able to do it herself. Also, it is worth noting that Palin consistently managed to put her foot in her mouth. The Labour party is now having to go hunting for potentially embarrassing Hannan comments. Palin was the gift than just kept on giving for the Democrats. Not so young Mr Hannan for the Labour party.

The final flaw with the idea that Hannan can become some sort of Palin-esque albatross for Cameron is Hannan's position within the Tory party. He is an MEP on the fringes of the Conservative party. Cameron can very easily hold Hannan at arm's length, and dismiss any controversial Hannan comments as those of a fringe party member. McCain could have done the same thing with regard to Palin... if he hadn't made her his Vice-Presidential choice. You're only really going to be able to embarrass Cameron with a character close to his inner circle. And Hannan isn't anywhere near the dizzy heights of the Tory hierarchy occupied by Young David. It would be like trying to embarrass Tony Blair in 1997 with the comments of Tony Benn. Blair would have shrugged his shoulders and said "nothing to do with me, guv." Just as Cameron did with Hannan's comments on the NHS.

Maybe the Labour party can find someone to use to consistently embarrass Cameron. Unfortunately for them, they are flogging a dead horse with Hannan. He isn't the one.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, August 28, 2009

The Wire, Midsomer Murders, and the Nu Labour Journalists Who Will Print Anything

This story makes me laugh. A lot. So many journalists so easily fooled by a basic hoax. One wonders what Recess Monkey wanted to achieve with this; I guess he has shown that left-wing journalists will print anything if they think it embarrasses the Tories. Although quite why he would want to show that is beyond me.

Guido details some of the reasons why no journalist should have been caught out by this story:
The fake press release was riddled with clues – the British spelling, the jokey references and of course the copyright notice at the bottom (R Monkee Esq).
For me, though, the clearest clue is in the choice of programme. Midsomer Murders. Does anyone really believe that the Mayor of Baltimore - who has real problems of her own - sits at home watching that pile of sub Agatha Christie trash? It is a massive leap of faith to believe that she knows or cares what the Shadow Home Secretary of the United Kingdom thinks about her town. That she should care enough about Grayling's comments to research John Nettles' post Bergerac career should stretch credulity well beyond breaking point.

Labels: , , ,

Labour's Worst Case Scenario

John Major did his party a major (pardon the pun) favour in 1997. Sure, he led his party to a crushing defeat in the polls. But once the votes were in, he resigned as Tory leader. As a result, he relieved his party of having the stigma of such an unpopular leader, and he also gave them a chance to choose not only a new leader, but a new direction for the party to take them back towards popularity and towards winning power again. It isn't his fault that the Tories abjectly failed to take advantage of the opportunity Major presented them with.

I know there will be members of the Labour party thinking along similar lines about their coming wipeout in the next election. Yes, they're going to lose power. Yes, they're going to see some key Labour figures suddenly deprived of their seats in the House of Commons. But the activists are going to get the chance to reshape the party and move in a new direction. They're going to get the opportunity to distance themselves from the deeply unpopular Brown administration and create a political movement suitable for the future.

That, of course, assumes that Brown will follow the example of John Major and step down after the next election. But the more I think about it the more I realise that Brown may decide to fight on.

Increasingly, our Prime Minister resembles Baby Jane Hudson; a demented, delusional figure who believes in a largely fictional reading of a past where he was far more popular than he is today. Brown believes he is doing the right thing, and that he is secretly popular. Anything that goes wrong is either the fault of someone else or is something that Brown refuses to acknowledge. If - sorry, when - he loses the General Election, he may decide that it wasn't his fault. Perhaps he'll blame the media, or other people in his party. Maybe he won't be able to admit to himself that he actually lost. He coveted the job of Prime Minister and of Labour leader for decades. The voters can decide whether he keeps the former job or not; it may be far from easy - especially in the aftermath of an electoral defeat - to get him to stand down from the latter job as well.

And there it is - the worst case scenario for Labour after the next election. Not only will they just have been through an electoral wipeout, but they could also be stuck with an grossly unpopular leader with a track record of one General Election fought, one General Election lost. At that point, they have to consider the very real possibility of removing Brown from his position as Labour leader. And a potentially divisive leadership contest would be made ten times worse by having to kick out the incumbent leader as well as dealing with the warring factions within the party.

John Major left his party with a clean slate to start again after 1997. Gordon Brown may not do the same thing for his party. And any Labour bloodletting to come after the electoral wipeout could be made so much worse if Brown does not step down. The dawning of a new Labour era could be signposted by the party having to commit political euthanasia against its last serving Prime Minister.

Labels: , , , , ,

Total Politics Top 100 Right of Centre Blogs

Apparently this blog is at number 49 in the list of Top 100 Right of Centre Blogs. Now probably isn't the right time to point out that I'm only right of centre in some areas. In others, I am very much left of centre. It also probably isn't the right time to point out that I reject the political model that talks of right and left, mainly because the extremes of both the right and the left are largely identical. No, I won't point out either of those things.

Instead I'll just say thanks to anyone who voted for me.

Labels: ,

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Speaking Ill of the Dead: Teddy Kennedy

Ted Kennedy, the last of the that fabled trio of brothers who once looked set to dominate US politics, has died. The fact that Teddy Kennedy managed to outlive his brothers is perhaps yet another example of the ongoing tragedy of the Kennedy clan. Because, at the risk of speaking ill of the dead, he was the least effective and least able of those brothers.

If you support social democracy and what the US incorrectly dubs as liberalism, then I suppose you can point towards some sort of a legacy from Ted Kennedy. Yet anyone who was in the Senate for as long as Kennedy should be able to point towards a substantial legislative legacy. And besides, it may be carping a bit but it is instructive to think just how he was able to run for the Senate and stay there for so long. Daddy's wealth and the high profile of his brothers meant that this Kennedy had a head start that few others could ever dream of. For all those talking about how Teddy Kennedy represents the Liberal dream in the US, think again. Those who came from nowhere to achieve great things are truly indicative of the American dream. It is Harry Truman, LBJ and Barack Obama who truly show what ability in the USA can do. All Teddy Kennedy showed is what you can do if you have a boat load of cash and a respected name behind you. And that is sit in the Senate for decades, representing a very liberal state.

Of course, no obituary of Teddy Kennedy would be complete without a reference to Chappaquiddick, which surely remains one of the worst political scandals of all time. Nixon helped to cover up a burglary, Clinton smoked a dubious cigar; Teddy Kennedy killed someone. Yeah, read that again. Teddy Kennedy left someone to die. If you want a good description of the full horror of what he did, read this extract from a Guardian article that tries (and fails) to show how Kennedy overcame the stigma of his killing:
Kennedy chose to flee the scene , leaving the young woman to die an agonising death not of drowning but of suffocation over a period of hours. Incredibly, it was 10 hours before Kennedy reported the accident, by which time he'd consulted a family lawyer. The senator's explanation for this unconscionable, despicable, unmanly and inexplicable behaviour was never convincing: he claimed that he'd struck his head and was "confused" and "exhausted" from diving and trying to rescue the young woman and had gone home to bed.
So... Teddy leaves a party with a woman who wasn't his wife, crashes his car into water with her inside, and then leaves that woman to slowly die. This probably cost him the chance of winning the presidency. Can you imagine what it would have cost someone who wasn't part of the Kennedy family? For this sort of thing, the average person in the street would be looking at a lengthy prison stretch. Kennedy got two month's probation. Why? Because of his family name. And because of his family connections. Daddy's wealth and the good name of his brothers saved him from having to take the full punishment for his utterly reprehensible crime. I know I won't be alone in asking why so many people are mourning Ted Kennedy - reasonably competent legislator and killer.

The true success of the Kennedy clan - and where they have proved to be most effective - is in creating an aura, a mystic, a cult around themselves that just does not match up to reality. Nonetheless, people had faith in JFK. And then in RFK. Because of what those two were perceived to stand for. And when both of those figures went to their early graves, the only person left to carry on the dream was Teddy. He didn't earn that position, and the only reason why he became such an icon to so many people is because of his surname. So it goes. Inheriting titles, wealth and power is a part of human society, and always will be. Yet I can't help but think that, outside of his circle of family and friends, most people are mourning the death of the Kennedy name, rather than the death of this particular Kennedy.

Labels: , , , , ,

Bye Bye Big Brother

Big Brother is set to end. I have to say I am surprised. I didn't realise it was still on.

I can't imagine that there will be many who mourn the passing of a programme that became increasingly outrageous and increasingly desperate. And as a result, became utterly irrelevant Ultimately, what is the legacy of Big Brother? That would be elevating Jade Goody to stardom, then relegating her back to the status of hate figure after her appearance on the Celebrity edition of the show.

Ultimately, Big Brother destroyed itself. Instead of maintaining its initial format of seeing how normal people respond to being under surveillance 24 hours a day, it decided to become a tabloid pleasing "persecute the freak" show. Which was fine, until the rest of the TV world caught up with it. Now there is no shortage of "persecute the freak" style shows. Britain's Got Talent, The Apprentice, Wife Swap - nowadays, there's no shortage of ways for the voyeuristic British viewer to get their fix of human detritus on the small screen.

Bye bye Big Brother. The reason why you're going is because you won't be missed.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

The Plan, And How It Doesn't Go Far Enough

The Plan: 12 Months To Renew Britain has been greeted by some with a mix of rapt applause and not inconsiderable relief. After all, it represents a couple of Tories actually coming up with some interesting ideas to change Britain for the better. For those people who tire of the risk averse Cameron and the ideological vacuum that makes up his leadership, The Plan makes for happy reading. It shows that there are some Tories who still have balls and have clear ideas on how they would change this country for the better.

There is little in the book that I could possibly disagree with. Generally speaking, the two authors speak sense and understand that the future of this country is best served by a contraction of the state rather than an expansion of it. Yet for a Libertarian such as myself, what is missing from the book is a true sense of ambition. The reforms proposed are timely, intelligent and interesting. They are also lacking in ideological gravitas and the scope to truly renew Britain. Ultimately, this is a plan to make things a bit different and at the same time improve Britain. It isn't a fundamental challenge to the status quo and the vision used to run Britain today.

Take the issue of taxation. Quite rightly, the authors are keen to make tax an issue, and with their proposals on both VAT and council tax, they seem keen to reduce the tax burden. They also want to make it more transparent, and more open to democratic evaluation. They even quote the Laffer Curve. Yet at no point is the fundamental nature of taxation even questioned, and it is seen as a necessity rather than necessary evil. And reading their proposals on tax left me with a feeling that they wanted to reduce tax, yet don't want to take responsibility for doing so directly. Their policies are a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it is only a baby step.

Likewise, the book advocates localism. Admirably - particularly for members of a party who will be in power after the next election - they wish to reduce the size and the scope of central government. Yet I get the feeling that this is simply about the transfer of power from one government body to another. Yeah, they do talk about reducing the size of the state. Again, though, they don't go anywhere near far enough with their rhetoric or their proposals. They are right to challenge Central Government, and right to point out the inefficiencies inherent in having a centralised government. Where they drop the ball is in failing to fundamentally address the issue of how much government control we actually want or need in this country. To talk of localism acts a smokescreen for the real problem - which is dealing with balance of power between state and personal control. A balance that at the moment is hopelessly and depressingly in the favour of the state.

As always, it is optimistic to look to the Tories to be Libertarian. Carswell and Hannan are Tory radicals, but they are still Tories. As great as some of their solutions are, they will always be limited by the party they are in. The Tories are not Libertarian, their policies are not Libertarian, and their party is not suitable for Libertarians. These radicals are only radical because they are in the Tory party. And their ideas are only innovative because they exist within the Cameron's neutered, PR driven, post-Blairite Tory party.

Congratulations to Mr Hannan and Mr Carswell for offering the Tories some real policies. It is just a shame that they don't go far enough, in my opinion. And the bitter irony is that whilst I'll criticise them for not going far enough, they are clearly too radical for Hannan and Carswell's own party. Because whilst Cameron may play lip service to their ideas with a primary in Totnes, his stance remains a long way off embracing their far more crucial policies on the NHS or on Europe.

The Plan is an admirable if muted call to arms from two members of a political party not ready to consider their ideas at the moment. To those whose horizons have been limited by the post-Blairite consensus, The Plan may well be a radical document. For me, the true radicalism comes when you are willing to fundamentally redress the balance between state and individual, and come down firmly in the favour of the latter. And The Plan just doesn't do that.

Labels: , , ,

Via DCF on FB, I have a website that details the diet of one John Prescott. I don't know what it says about me, but some of those menu ideas actually make me hungry!

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

The Tories, Britain and The Wire

So, a Tory has created a whole bag of controversy by trying to be a bit hip and referencing highly acclaimed US TV programme The Wire. LabourList asks whether anyone's street really resembles The Wire. I'm guessing that Mr Grayling's street probably doesn't, what with him being an MP and all. As for my street, well, I can't comment on whether it resembles The Wire or not. I would say that sometimes it resembles The Shield. Albeit without the *aggressive* policing.

You can make what you will of this storm in a crackpipe teacup. Old Holborn points out that parts of Britain are worse than Baltimore, which is where The Wire is set. And Guido does something that politicians of both parties seem reluctant to do - actually offer a solution. And his idea - decriminalising drugs - would actually do a great deal to make our streets less like The Wire and more like... oh, I don't know, I don't watch enough US TV to make a valid comparison. But the sort of place where people don't get shot in the face owing to drug-related crime.

Labels: , , , , , ,

The Government's Got Its Banning Hat On!

Now, if I wanted to suggest an increase in government efficiency and a decrease in the number of ministers, I'd strongly argue for centralising all the government departments responsible for banning stuff. Seriously, you could really thin down the Cabinet and make it more efficient. You could have the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, a Defence Secretary, an Education Secretary and the Minister for Banning Stuff. Your one stop shop Minister for all of your banning needs. It would be a busy ministry, though. Particularly since the Labour government now seems to have abandoned any pretence towards having a legislative agenda, and instead is mistaking the implementation of bans as being the sign of an activist government.

Today sees the announcement of the banning of legal highs (guess the manufacturers will have to think of a new category for their products now). Clearly the rip-roaring success of drugs prohibition has encouraged them to add more drugs to the roster of illegal substances. But, like a lot of the government's knee jerk banning, there is a sob story behind this. Listen to the words of the mother of someone who died from one of these soon to be illegal highs:
"I'm delighted. I think the Home Office is moving in the right direction.

"We need to tell people that GBL plus alcohol can equal death. Hester hadn't had that much alcohol and then later on that evening an old friend of hers gave her half a dose of GBL which he said was safe.

"So the two mixed together just sent her into a coma and she didn't wake up.

"She was studying molecular medicine but she was clearly unaware that it was dangerous and I think that is the key message to get across to young people, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe."
It is obvious that Hester's mother has suffered an appalling tragedy. But that doesn't mean that her opinion - which, quite naturally, will be anything other than objective under the circumstances - holds any more weight that any other citizen's opinion in this country. It doesn't give her specialist knowledge about GBL. Plus, her assertion that this will raise awareness about the dangers of mixing booze and GBL seems an irrelevance since it has now been made illegal. And finally, lots of stuff is less safe after you've had some booze. Including going up the stairs. Yet no-one is calling for a ban on going upstairs after a few beers.

What is really at the heart of this - and why I object so strongly to the banning of a substance I have never used and never plan to use - is the assumption that adults can't look after themselves and the mistaken idea that banning something is the same as educating people about it. Read these words from the Home Secretary - a man who is, lest we forget, an expert in nothing and is effectively just an over-promoted post man:
"Legal highs are an emerging threat, particularly to young people, and we have a duty to educate them about the dangers.

"There is a perception that many of the so-called legal highs are harmless, however in some cases people can be ingesting dangerous industrial fluids or smoking chemicals that can be even more harmful than cannabis."
These legal highs may be dangerous. They may be more dangerous than dope. And maybe you can make a case for educating people about them. But by banning something, you are not educating people about it. Education should allow people to make an educated choice. You remove that choice when you ban something.

That's what I can't stand, and that is what everyone in this country should be protesting about. It isn't just about the banning of these legal highs. It is about the government assumption that prohibition is the same as education, and deciding what the private individuals in this country should and shouldn't have a choice about. All these sort of decisions mean is that someone like Alan Johnson knows better about what is good for you that you do. And I am not dumb or bovine enough to allow such decisions to pass by without some sort of comment and protest. No longer does nanny know best; this modern state presupposes that a government minister - the most temporary of appointments based more on loyalty than competency - knows what is right for you. And such an idea makes me feel utterly sick.

Labels: , , , ,

Poll: We *Heart* the Tories on the NHS

Bad news for Labour:
Labour has lost the August battle on health, with more voters thinking the Conservatives would improve the NHS than think the party would make it worse. While 48% think healthcare would be better under a Tory government, only 41% agree with Labour warnings that it would be worse. Even 24% of current Labour voters think the Tories would improve the NHS.
Hmmm. So the Tories are winning on healthcare, even after the controversial intervention of a certain MEP. Labour's relentless attacks on the Tories and their NHS policies appear to have backfired.

Basically because the Labour party have put themselves squarely in the position of backing the current state of the NHS. And with the best will in the world - even for the most NHS loving optimist - the status quo is also not great. We have dirty hospitals where people go to be cured but wind up dying. We have waiting lists for crucial operations, and we have a massive, wasteful bureaucracy that denies people potentially life-saving drugs. Those who signed up to the "I Love The NHS" campaigns in the wake of Hannan's comments probably love the concept of the NHS. Yet it is a fairly deluded fan who can love the current state of the NHS. Which is, of course, what Labour represents. The - extremely crappy - status quo.

Once again, Labour have been outflanked by a very simple strategy from Cameron. Cameron has positioned himself as a champion of the NHS, but one who is going to spend the vast sums of money to improve it rather than simply maintain it. Now, I don't think Cameron will succeed and that any further spending on the NHS will be largely money wasted. But in terms of the politics of the situation, Cameron has played a blinder. He has set himself not just up as the defender of the NHS - a position Labour has traditionally held - but also as saviour of the NHS.

And so there we have it. The Labour had an open goal after Hannan's comments. It managed not just to fail to kick the ball into that open goal, but instead have charged up to the other end of the pitch and scored an own goal. Really fantastic stuff, and yet further confirmation that Labour are facing electoral wipeout when we next have the chance to go to the polls.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, August 24, 2009

The Discriminating BNP

The Equality and Human Rights Commission seems to have clocked the blindingly fucking obvious - they've noticed that the BNP might discriminate:
"The BNP's membership criteria appear to restrict membership to those within what the BNP regards as particular 'ethnic groups' and those whose skin colour is white. This exclusion is contrary to the Race Relations Act.

"The commission believes the BNP's constitution and membership criteria are discriminatory and, further, that the continued publication of them on the BNP website is unlawful.

"It has therefore issued county court proceedings against party leader Nick Griffin and two other officials."
That the BNP is against particular ethnic groups should be beyond obvious. It is what they exist for. But it is difficult to work out quite what the Commission hopes to achieve in pursuing the BNP. They're not going to be able to stop the BNP from being ignorant and racist - after all, blatant racism is the BNP's reason for existing. Besides, are there really complaints from those who are affected by the BNP's membership criteria? Are there really people from ethnic minorities that want to join the simian knuckle-draggers in their little clique of hate?

This won't stop the BNP and won't get them to change their ways. All this will do is build on the BNP's persecution complex, and make shriek about their paranoid theories even more. These court proceedings are a stupid waste of time, and simply hide the fact that the way to defeat the BNP isn't by picking on them. Instead, their repugnant ideology needs to be taken head on, and thrown into the gutter where it rightly belongs.

Labels: , ,

Interview Project

For those of you who like the work of David Lynch and who like little pocket sized slices of American life, take a look at Interview Project.

Labels: , ,

With the arrival of David Cameron in Number 10 less than a year away now, there are all sort of questions that will be asked and need to be answered. But perhaps the most pressing one is what will Private Eye run as part of their ongoing Prime Minister parodies. Any suggestions in the Comments section, please. Although I rather think that any satire might involve hefty reference to the PR side to Cameron's success. Perhaps young David as the trendy new CEO of a PR company...

Labels: ,

Sunday, August 23, 2009

The Whole Foods Debacle

John Mackey, the Chief Executive of Whole Foods Markets in the US of A, has landed his company in hot water over his comments about Obama's healthcare reforms.

In fairness, it does appear that Mr Mackey - who has made Gerald Ratner style comments in the past - does seem to be a bit tone-deaf when it comes to building strong relations with his customers. Certainly, the sort of people who shop in Whole Foods Markets are generally going to support Obama and shun articles quoting one Margaret Thatcher. Which is probably why they are all boycotting the already struggling chain and - horror of modern horrors - have formed a Facebook Group to slap Mackey and his business in the face.

Yet... Mackey has simply expressed his opinion. He hasn't made his opinion that of the whole chain, and he hasn't tried to force his opinion on anyone else. And, let's be honest, his brand has fuck all to do with healthcare anyway.

Which is where these protestors lose my sympathy. Sure, yeah, they have a right to express their opinions. Just as Mackey has a right to his. They are his customers; they buy stuff from him. They are under no obligation to adhere to or even listen to his political opinions. And vice versa. But the thing that really gets on my tits is the idea that these people are called and called themselves liberals, even though they campaign so hard against any opinion that isn't their own.

Liberals my arse. Petty little ideologues who need to get over themselves is a more accurate tag than liberals.

Labels: ,

Quote of the Day

So far as I can see, all political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome.

George Orwell, writing yesterday in 1944

Labels:

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Memo From Libya: Thanks, Gordon

Regardless of what you think of the safety of his conviction, this is still mightily embarrassing for our Prime Minister:
The Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi has thanked Gordon Brown for the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

Col Gadaffi said the UK prime minister had "encouraged" the Scottish government to take what he called a "courageous" decision.
Gadaffi - terrible cunt that he is - is given a resounding rendition of that age-old political trick. He is turning a thank you into a fuck you. Because Gordon Brown is now being thanked by the leader of a former member of the Axis of Evil for his part in releasing a man convicted of murdering 270 people. Even for a man as used to dropping the ball as much as Gordon Brown, this is embarrassing. 

Labels: , , ,

Agreeing with Ann: The "A" List

I'm in the odd position of agreeing with Ann Widdecombe - a woman who normally makes me want to shake my head in tetchy irritation. Now, I don't agree with her comments lauding David Cameron. Yes, Cameron's been successful. Yes, he's winning. But he's winning because he is less unpleasant that Gordon Brown. Let's face it, most people could probably manage that very minor feat. 

Where I do agree with Widdecombe is on the imposition of the A list:
The Conservative Party's A-list, which Mr Cameron has described as "positive action", is aimed at getting more female and ethnic minority candidates.
And Widdecombe's take on it is this:
"We have gone for category rather than ability. We're looking for more women.

"I'm all for more women. I'm all for more members of the ethnic communities. I'm all for more anythings as long as they get there on merit.

"I believe, as a woman, that every woman in Parliament should be able to look every man from the prime minister downwards in the eye and to think she got there on exactly the same basis that he got there."
Quite. Cameron's A-list; well, it reeks of that dangerous and pernicious policy of positive discrimination. It is also tremendously patronising. It implies that women and people from ethnic minorities need the help of the oh so middle class David Cameron in order to be successful in his party. As everyone should know by now, positive discrimination is still discrimination. 

The end result of positive discrimination isn't the promotion of the most inspiring and the best. You don't get a Margaret Thatcher or a Barack Obama because of positive discrimination. They succeed despite discrimination (positive or otherwise), not because of it. All positive discrimination creates is a sense of entitlement not from women or those from ethnic minorities but rather from those who are not capable of achieving political office under their own steam or owing to their own abilities. 

Cameron be warned: Widdecombe is right, and the end result of your A list isn't a party of Thatchers or Obamas. It is a party of those who believe they should have power because of the minority or group they purport to represent. The A-list doesn't bring about the elevation of the most capable. It brings about the elevation of the likes of Harriet Harman, whose sole claim to power is the idea that there should be a woman at the top of British Politics. 

Labels: , , , , ,

Changing the Tone of Key Debates

Recently, we've seen big debates about the NHS and about drugs. What has struck me most about these debates is the irrational, emotional responses of some to those two issues. The NHS is seen by so many as a "good thing" - a benign entity - whilst drugs are bad. Really bad. 

Go ask someone what the NHS means to them. They might say that the NHS is all about all those doctors or nurses working hard to make others better. It might be about the healthcare offered by the NHS to themselves or their family members. What shines through is that emotional connection to the good work that the NHS does. Which misses - completely - the point of what the NHS is. The NHS is merely the bureaucratic means by which healthcare is distributed in this country. The NHS is simply a manmade institution. You don't have to have the NHS to get hard work from health workers, and you don't have to have it to get healthcare. You can tell; other countries don't have the NHS, yet they still have functioning, effective healthcare systems.

Likewise, go ask people what they think about drugs. A lot will tell you that drugs are evil. That they destroy lives, families and whole communities. Which just isn't true. Drug-related crime does all that; drugs themselves don't. You can tell. See, drugs tend to be inanimate objects. They are chemicals, in powder or pill format. They can't mug a granny. They can't destroy a community. They can't do anything other than be ingested by human beings. Rather like the paracetamol in your medicine cabinet. You can rage against drugs as much as you like. But you'd be raging against the wrong things, my friends. 

We need to remove the emotion attached to these inanimate objects and institutions if we are ever going to have a real debate  on them. This may sound like pure semantics, but it is actually crucial. Just look at the hysterical response to Hannan's comment that he wouldn't wish the NHS on anyone. Look at what he said and, more importantly, what he didn't say. At no point did he say that that he didn't want people to have access to good, affordable healthcare. And at no point does his comment diss any of those healthcare professionals who work within the NHS. Yet Hannan has been painted as some sort of demented demagogue who doesn't want to have healthcare and who is, unpatriotically, doing down one of our greatest national achievements. The detachment from reality of this response to Hannan should be obvious to everyone who has had any interaction with the NHS in this country. Yet because of the confusion of what we mean when we talk about reform of the NHS, people assume we are talking about the abolition of healthcare in this country. Rather than asking for reform to a grossly inefficient bureaucratic system that is restricting healthcare professionals in this country. 

If we do want less hysterical debates on this, then we need to be more precise in the what we say. Rather than dismissing the NHS, we need to talk about how we want to improve affordable healthcare in this country through minimising bureaucracy. We're not banning the NHS and closing hospitals; we are cutting red tape and improving frontline medical care for people. Likewise, we aren't talking about decriminalising drugs. We are talking about reducing drug related crime by liberalising the legislation around drug use. 

Is this spin? Sure. Of course it is. And, unfortunately, spin is necessary in this day and age if you want to have any sort of impact on the national debate. Because look at how quick the defenders of the status quo are to fall back on their tried and tested spin techniques. If you criticise the NHS you are unpatriotic. Rather than having to defend our comments in the face of such accusations, those who would consider more radical solutions to our country's problems that simple maintenance of the status quo need to take control of the debate. We need to be challenging the likes of Andy Burnham to explain why they oppose reform to an often dangerous and sometimes fatal system of healthcare provision. And we need to be asking the forces of knee-jerk reaction in this country why they oppose potential solutions to drug-related crimes outright without even considering them. 

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, August 21, 2009

Mark Oaten: Nope, Still No Sympathy

For your delectation, dear reader, I give you the interesting sight of The Daily Mail blatantly plugging the book of former Lib Dem leadership candidate, Mark Oaten. In case anyone has forgotten, Mr Oaten had to step down from his place in the shadow Shadow Cabinet and from the leadership contest when the shit starting flying in about his private life. Pun intended. 

Still, it seems Mr Oaten is still pitching for the sympathy vote. Take this summary of his book:
"This is the story of a man obsessed by retaining his youth, fearful of turning 40 and feeling a complete failure."
Not for the first time, I'll note that a lot of people have been obsessed with retaining youth, been afraid turning forty and of being a complete failure. But they have managed not to have affairs with rent boys behind the backs of their life partners. Besides, it was only really his affair that made him a complete failure - it made him a man who not only failed to win the Lib Dem leadership, but a man who couldn't even complete the Lib Dem leadership race. 

Of course, everyone is entitled to a private life and consenting adults are free to get up to whatever they want as far as I am concerned. But if you do run for the leadership of Britain's failed third party, then you do have to entertain the prospect that your private life may become public. And for that reason - combined with the betrayal of his wife - is why I struggle to have too much sympathy with young Mr Oaten.

*H/t Tory Bear

Labels: , ,

Thursday, August 20, 2009

The Tories - Still Not Libertarian

Far be it from me to smile smugly and to do my "I told you so" dance, but as DK points out, there are some disappointed Tories out there with Cameron's latest pronouncements on alcohol. Well, seriously, what did those "Libertarian Tories" expect? Cameron isn't a Libertarian - he even said so himself. The giveaway for his ideological beliefs is in the name of the party he leads. Yep, he's a Conservative. So of course he's going to espouse Conservative policies. 

A lot of Tory members seem to labour under the delusion that Libertarians such as myself aren't members of the party because of Cameron. Well, they're wrong. I don't like young "Hug a Husky" Cameron, but there is a wider problem with the Tories in my book. Namely that they are not, never have been and never will be Libertarian. For any rhetoric you may get on economic liberalism, there will be a whole raft of socially conservative policies also coming from the Tories. It is what they do, see? They are the Conservative party. For every member of the party like Carswell, Hannan and (on occasion) Davis, there are another 40 members of the Daily Mail reading, blue rinsed prudes just looking to condemn and ban any behaviour that they don't approve of. I know, I was a member of the Tory party for a few years and I saw them all in all of their "glory". And even if there is a growing Libertarian posse within the Tories, they are still going to have to look after the blue rinse brigade. After all, it is only that lot that kept the Tories afloat in the dark days of the early part of this century. 

Cue a thousand and one Libertarian Tories muttering about the "politics being the art of the possible". I understand the concept; I just don't think that converting the Tories into a Libertarian party is actually possible. Look at the leader, look at the membership, look at the political history and look at the policies.  Libertarians in the Tory party should stop deceiving themselves. Their party will never be Libertarian. 

Finally, think about where we are now in the electoral cycle. Cameron is riding high in the polls, he doesn't need to do this sort of Daily Mail pleasing, bansturbation style bollocks. So why does he do it? Because it is what he believes in. And for "Libertarian" Tories currently thinking this sort of thing is bad, just wait until Cameron is in power and struggling in the polls. Then you will see just how little he actually cares for the Libertarian ideology. 

Labels: , , ,

The Tories Fighting the Booze

I've often claimed that the Tories will drift towards mindless social conservatism as soon as they win the next election. It seems that they have already started that drift before a single vote is cast. Let's take a look at some of the most recent pronouncements from the Tories - in this case, on booze. 

From David Cameron - a man, lest we forget, who is likely to be Prime Minister this time next year:
"We need to look at the unbelievable availability of very cheap drink, getting three litres of cider for £1.99, at all hours of day and night."
Now I know that Mr Cameron -  whose conception of cheap cider is probably a bottle of Magners in his local wine bar - probably doesn't know this, but any cider that costs £1.99 for three litres is most likely to be liquid filth. Much respect to anyone who can actually drink the stuff; the concept of it makes my stomach turn and body wince. Let's be honest, cider like that is going to appeal to just two types of people. Kids and tramps. 

So how can we stop those two types of people getting hold of the sort of cider that could probably be also used as battery acid? Well, firstly, kids shouldn't be buying it anyway. There are laws to stop that. So let's try enforcing those laws rather than just looking at the problem. Which leaves us with tramps. 

There is a park opposite where I live; a nice park, except when the winos, tramps and dossers have their occasional drink-offs there. They are cider drinkers - I can tell from the discarded bottles of cider that don't even have a brand name on them. They just say "STRONG WHITE CIDER" on the side. Now, my observation is that these people will buy alcohol no matter what restrictions you place on them. You can only allow the tramp juice to be sold at particular times; they'll be waiting in the off-licence for those times, each and every day. And you can raise the price of the alcohol. This will either piss off the tramps - and they are unpleasant enough at the moment; good God knows what they would be like if they have to pay more for their paint-stripper cider - or the tramps will start making their own drinks. And since they seem to be incapable of going to the toilet without soiling themselves in the process, I rather think that making a safe alcoholic beverage is going to be beyond them. They'll end up dying in parks or clogging up A&E - their strangely bloated bellies full of anti-freeze. Raising the price and restricting the sale of alcohol won't stop these people. Arguably, it will make things worse. 

But that's not going to stop the Tories. Because Iain Duncan Smith - the worst Tory leader in living memory - also has a plan to deal with binge drinking:
Iain Duncan Smith proposed a higher price for alcohol and a higher tax that could be used to pay for more treatments to addicts.
So, Mr and Mrs Williams of Vauxhall Drive are going to have to pay more for their bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon at Waitrose so Mr Wino can get better treatment for his alcohol addiction? Yeah, I can see that idea sitting well with Middle England. They won't resent that idea at all. And if we're going to do that, we may as well introduce a sex tax as well. Every time you get your end away, you have to give the government a couple of quid. So they can pay for the treatment of whores with the clap. 

The vast majority of people in this country use alcohol responsibly. They don't go on the rampage, they don't hurt other people with their drinking, and it is their right to choose to consume alcohol. By introducing taxes and higher prices for all, the Tories would be punishing those responsible people. It isn't fair, it isn't right, it isn't moral. 

Besides, there is no need to introduce further curbs on drinking. Just enforce the laws that already exist. As someone who has held a liquor licence, I know that there are restrictions in place to stop kids, drunk people and alcoholics from being served alcohol. By actually enforcing those laws you might make some headway in dealing with those problems; introducing new taxes and rules will simply punish everyone. 

Labels: , , , ,

The Cost of the Internet

Over at LabourLost, the curiously smug Tom Miller talks about his "career" to date, and mentions his time working for Derek Draper:
"...and of course (I) spent a few months at LabourList before the McBride affair rinsed us out of cash."
It is a curious thing that I have never quite been able to understand about LabourList: this dependance of cash from other sources. I'm sorry, but why exactly did they need a single penny to start LabourList and to run it? You don't need cash to run a website these days, and (as I'll show later in this blogpost) it can actually be unhelpful to take cash from others.

First of all, though, let's prove that you don't need to take a penny from anyone else to run a website. Let's take a website, and look at how much it costs to run it. Just to make it easy for me, I'll use this blog as my example:

TOTAL FUNDING: £0
TOTAL INCOME: £0
TOTAL EXPENDITURE: £0
TOTAL PROFIT/LOSS: £0

Therefore, whilst this blog has not made me a penny, it also hasn't cost me a penny either. You don't need money in order to create a blog. You don't need sponsors.

In fact, taking money from parties and from unions is arguably counter-productive. As soon as you do, there's a pressure to stay on message, and talk about the things they want you to talk about. There is also a pressure to produce regular posts, whether you have anything worth talking about or not. And even if you do manage to avoid simply writing to please your sponsors, you have the added problem of not quite being able to convince your audience that you haven't been bought by those who keep you afloat. 

Aside from employing Derek Draper*, perhaps this was the biggest flaw of LabourList from the outset. They set themselves up, through taking the money of others, to be the biggest and best Labour internet offering. They didn't do the grunt work or slow build up that so many of the best political blogs out there have done. They expected to have a reputation because they could pay for it; they tried to bypass the hard work actually required to get a decent reputation on t'interweb. 

Tom, the McBride affair shouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to LabourList other than giving you the perfect opportunity to offload that deluded moron, Derek Draper. It shouldn't have rinsed the website of cash; you should never have taken that cash in the first place. 

*A man whose only skills are scandal, self-promotion and picking fights with much more capable opponents than him.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Frankly, whilst I hate what he is saying, I have to admire the gall of the man:
Sir Patrick Cormack, who stood to be Commons Speaker, said they should receive the massive increase in salary - from £64,766 to more than £130,000 - in return for scrapping the controversial second homes allowance.
Right. So MPs are caught rinsing the system. In order to stop them, we should pay them twice as much. It is an audacious plan. It is also a bollocks one. By this logic, we should give any dole scum who cheat the benefits system twice the amount of money when they are caught. And if someone mugs you and takes your watch, maybe you should give them two watches rather than just one. To encourage them not to do it again, see?

Still, Cormack seems to understand that now may not be the best moment to be utterly such insane nonsense:
"This is not a propitious time for such a change..."
Do ya reckon? It is rather like a convicted criminal in the dock after sentence has been passed turning to the judge and saying "rather than jail time, I think you should give me some sort of expensive gift..."

Labels: , , ,

Wikio

LFAT asks "Is Wikio worth worrying about?" My answer - no. At least, not for me. 

When Wikio first registered The Appalling Strangeness, this blog was in the lower half of the Top 100 in the political list. It went up and down a bit, but recently it has been in freefall and now resides at No. 146. Behind the newerlabour blogspot; which you have to get permission from the head newer labour drone to read. At the same time, the trend in terms of readers is to go slowly but surely upwards. A bit of a discrepancy there, then. 

Of course, it is down to the way Wikio assesses blogs. More people read this blog than when it was in the Top 100; however, less people are linking to it these days. I don't really care who reads this blog or who links to it - the fact that people do both is a constant surprise and delight to me. However, if I had to choose between those largely meaningless popularity measures for an anonymous blog, then I would rather have more readers than a high ranking on Wikio. Occasionally I write something worth reading; on those rare occasions, I like to think at least someone is taking on board what I say.

This sort of debate does come down to what you want from your blog. Some people - like Mr Dale - see their blog as a career, and a spring board to better things. I'm firmly in the camp of those who blog for their own pleasure, and to vent spleen on t'interweb. Any readers or influence that this blog picks up is a pleasant by-product; they aren't this blog's reason for being. 

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Nadine: Pity Me!

There's shooting fish in a barrel, and then there is having a pop at Nadine Dorries. Both are very simple, but I'd rather do the latter. Those fish in that barrel; well, they've just done nothing wrong. Unlike Nadine, who is one of those people who only seems to open her mouth to put her foot back in it.

Existing MPs no longer trust the media, in any way. Following the disclosure of Alan's private conversation, they may no longer trust individuals.
Once again, we're supposed to feel sorry for MPs. Those who are paid £60k a year, and have the sort of benefits package that would make Sir Fred Goodwin weep tears of bitter envy. Well, boo fucking hoo. I couldn't give a flying fuck whether MPs trust the media or individuals. Because, given their atrocious behaviour, the media and individuals in this country really don't trust MPs.
The new pernicious rule for MPs to declare hours spent on outside interests will prevent the multi-skilled, clever, articulate, learned individuals who are, by their own obvious track record of achievement, the type of people Parliament desperately needs to attract and retain - from even considering a life as an MP.
Why will it stop these talented individuals from considering life as an MP? Because what we're asking is to know what else our MPs - who are elected by and paid for by the people - get up to. There isn't even an insistence that they give up outside interests. We'd just rather know what they are up to, so we can assess whether they are taking the piss. And rubbing our faces in it. 
Instead we will see the emergence of a new breed of MP: those who will enter Parliament because they are rich, or careerist.
As opposed to now, where MPs are rich, careerist or greedy. 
We will witness the opening of a chasm between the electorate and those who legislate.
That chasm is already there and created by you and your friends, Nadine. Getting a new breed of MP into power would be a good thing, and would help to reduce that chasm. If only because that new breed might not be such a collection of total, if you can pardon my French, cunts. 
Everyone will be a loser. The very people Parliament is elected to represent will be as remote from the centre as they have ever been at any time before.
No, greedy MPs with a lust for taxpayer cash will be the losers. Which actually makes everyone else a winner. 
Opportunity for the voice of the individual voter to be heard will become almost extinct
Erm, the voice of the individual is being heard, Nadine, right here, right now. You'd hear it if you would just listen. But I guess you wouldn't like what that individual is saying. Because individuals are shrieking at you, and calling you all sorts of rude names for being caught with your hands in the till.

Which is the point, and what I know I am not alone in desperately hoping for. This new era of electric, microscopic scrutiny of our MPs can only be a good thing. As Dorries accidentally reveals herself. Earlier in her post, Mad Nads writes:
We are on the brink of an historic shift in the way Parliament operates, and the type of person who becomes an MP.
Oh, I do hope so, Nadine. And I hope that the new type of person who becomes an MP really isn't like you.

*And I wouldn't put it past her to claim blogging is part of her "working" whilst still on holiday. Although at this point she claims that she is working by keeping her phone on. Using that yardstick, I can claim to work 24/7...

Labels: , , ,

Pay Equality

Via Tom Harris, a staggering quote that could almost been spoken by one of the antagonists in Atlas Shrugged:
"The crisis we find ourselves in is one significantly caused by greed. The salaries of those at the top raced away while the median wage stagnated. Inequality grew, and an economic crisis ensued. The unjust rewards of a few hundred 'masters of the universe' exacerbated the risks we were all exposed to many times over. Banking and executive remuneration packages have reached excessive levels. We believe now is the time for government to take decisive action."
Read the whole article. It is insane. The ideological redundancy of the left is brought into sharp relief by this outmoded, out of date pile of toss. The recession - a perfectly natural downturn in the economic cycle - was not created by greed. And it won't be aided by the government dictating what privately owned companies can and can't pay their employees.

Tom Harris - a Labour MP - is against this. The incumbent Chancellor of the Exchequer - a man who has done a vast amount to alter the balance of our mixed economy in favour of the government - is against this. Quite rightly so as well. Because as soon as people start embracing this sort of rhetoric, they start on the terrible descent towards a Stalinist style command economy. That creates equality not through enabling people to achieve all they can with their lives, but by slowly yet remorselessly dragging everyone down to the same level. Oh, and by creating an utterly stagnant economy at the same time. 

Many moons ago, political debate used to focus on the relationship between the Church and the state. Now the debate must centre on the relationship between the state and the economy, and the state and the private individual. The sort of policies espoused by Compass in this instance are an alarming call for more state intervention in both the lives of its citizens and the economy at a time when government should just be moving in the opposite direction. And these policies represent the politics of financial jealousy. The angry, petulant sulking of those who want to earn the same as a CEO or business executive, but aren't prepared to do the work to earn it fairly. 

The government should take decisive action. It should ignore Compass when it talks utter rubbish like this. 

Labels: , , ,

(London) Oxford Airport

Controversy ahoy as Oxford Airport rebrands itself:
A headline on the company's website now reads: "Welcome to London Oxford Airport."
London Oxford. Hmmm. My knowledge of UK geography isn't outstanding, but I do know that - whilst it is closer to London than, say, Birmingham - Oxford is still an entity in its own right. And if Oxford airport is being rebranded to take advantage of the fact that London isn't a million miles away, then what else is going to be linked to London? Are we going to have London Birmingham International Airport? London East Midlands Airport? Or perhaps even London Cardiff Airport? Because the Welsh would love that rebranding.

Which is the point. I don't know that any regional UK town or city that appreciates being directly linked to London. In fact, it is pretty much like kicking that town or city in the balls and then making salacious comments about their mother. They just don't like it. 

Fortunately, (London) Oxford Airport have taken that into account:
James Dillon Godfray, the airport's marketing manager, said the name change had been met with hostility in the university city. "Local people feel it's a snub to Oxford because they feel Oxford should stand on its own two feet," he said. "We are very proud of our business and Oxford as a destination, but this has nothing to do with Oxford."

And he insisted the change would not mislead international customers. "Fundamentally this is about raising awareness about our existence in the overseas business aviation market place," he said.
Right, well, I do have to say that if I was an international customer and I landed in Oxford thinking it was London, I would be mightily pissed off. It is bad enough landing in arsing Heathrow. To land in Oxford would be a mighty slap in the face if I was expecting to land in London. And it would make me want to slap James Dillon Godfray in the face as well. 

Still, he's right on one thing. This will raise the profile of (London) Oxford Airport. Hell, it already has. I had no idea that Oxford had an airport before I read that story. I've still no desire to use it, what with it being easier to reach London which has no less than four airports, but my awareness has been raised. London Oxford Airport exists for me now. Even though it isn't in London...

Labels: ,

Monday, August 17, 2009

Hannan, Cameron, and the Leech that is the NHS

Make no mistake about it, I am no fan of the NHS. It is a colossal, glaring, idiotic waste of money these days. Sure, I know that there are people within the NHS who work hard and do good deeds. But the whole thing is a bureaucratic nightmare; a money pit capable of consuming this country's whole economy before burping, then demanding the same thing again. It is not a national treasure; it is a drain on the nation and our failure to debate the rights and the wrongs of the NHS is a national disgrace. At its most effective - which was probably sometime in 1947 - the NHS was a useful entity. Now, when we see it at its worst - which is a lot of the time - it resembles nothing more than a festering sore on the United Kingdom. Or a virulent infection. Possibly caught from a dirty ward in an NHS hospital. 

And as a result of the above I believe that Daniel Hannan's comments on the NHS represent common sense*. He seems to be one of the few politicians who embrace the idea that the future of healthcare might not be entirely down to the NHS. Sure, I don't think his actual words - which show the same rhetorical flourish that made his vicious yet entertaining attack on Gordon Brown so famous - help the cause of having a debate in this country, but I think his sentiments are spot on. 

Inevitably, though, not everyone agrees. Particularly not the person most likely to be our next Prime Minister. Cameron writes:
Millions of people are grateful for the care they have received from the NHS - including my own family. One of the wonderful things about living in this country is that the moment you're injured or fall ill - no matter who you are, where you are from, or how much money you've got - you know that the NHS will look after you.
Now, it is pushing it a bit to say I am grateful for what the NHS has done for me in the past. It provides a service, like other service providers that help me in day to day life, I'm glad that they are there. But to say I am grateful is really pushing it. After all, I go to Sainsbury's and get a service from them. In return for taking my money, they provide food. I'm not grateful for what they do, just pleased that the transaction is done and I get what I've paid for. Which is exactly how I feel when I have used the NHS. See, I pay for the NHS, so I expect some sort of service in return. Cameron's use of the word "grateful" makes me think that the NHS is doing me some sort of favour when they treat me. They aren't. They are providing the service I pay for through taxes and National Insurance. 

Furthermore, being grateful would actually mean I get a good service. Sadly, with the NHS, that seldom happens these days. It doesn't matter where you are from, or who you are, or what money you have - you are still going to get generally rather shitty service from the NHS. It will look after you; often in a slipshod, disinterested, condescending and utterly inhuman way. Don't believe me? Well, walk into A&E with a non-threatening illness/injury and see how you get on. 

This idea - espoused by leading politicians of all parties in this country - that the NHS deserves to be treated with reverence because it is free at the generally rather shitty point of service. Despite the flaws in the way he delivered his message, Hannan has simply voiced the thoughts of many people in this country who see the NHS as something in desperate need of radical reform, rather than being promoted as the best this country has to offer and a model for other countries to use for their healthcare systems. Cameron's empty cant highlights he has nothing to offer other than the status quo on one of the key issues facing us today - namely, what the hell we do with the NHS. 

*They certainly aren't unpatriotic. And when Andy Burnham and other stupid tools like him spout that sort of rhetoric, they come across as the sort of unthinking idiotic drones who should only exist in the former Soviet Union. They have nothing to do with Britain in the 21st Century.

Labels: , , ,

Oh look...

...let's all laugh at the fat guy.

Labels:

A-levels and Monkeys

It is that time of year again; oh yes, those claims that A-levels are getting easier are being rehearsed and shouted up to the rafters once more. The favourite quote I've read so far this year is this one:
One director of A-levels, based in the North West, told researchers: "You could train a monkey to do the questions today."
Really? You could train a monkey to do the questions? Really? I doubt that, somehow. Monkeys are good at many things - including flinging their poo at each other - but I think it is a bit much to argue that they could sit an A-level exam. In fact, this claim is so bloody stupid that it makes me wonder about the sort of person who would make it. Is this man - with his Plant of the Apes style view of our monkey brethren - actually fit to be a director of A-levels? And besides, surely a director of A-levels should be able to do something about those exams if he thinks they are too easy?

Anyway, the problem isn't that A-levels are getting any easier*. The flaw seems to be with the exams themselves. They seemed to have stopped testing understanding of a subject, and instead demand rote learning. So it isn't the fault of the 25% of students who will get "A" grades this year - they've done what the subjects require, and have committed a lot of things to memory. And it isn't the fault of teachers - they've figured out how these exams work, and have given their students the required knowledge to go away and pass those exams. No, the failure is within the education system itself. A system that now favours teaching only so targets can be attained, and that the rote learning of information rather than the understanding of a subject. And a system that does very little to prepare students for real life.

So to summarise - congratulations to those who do well at A-level. You worked hard, and you have the grades to prove it. To those of you in charge of this country's "education" system - you might want to think about the flaws in A-levels, and what they show you about the education system as a whole in this country. And finally, a monkey couldn't do the questions on an A-level paper. And it probably wouldn't want to, anyway. It has better life skills to learn. Including learning how to fling its excrement at its family, friends and any gawpers passing by its cage in the zoo.

*Although A-levels were at their most difficult in the year 1997. When your humble author took four, and got three "A" grades and a "B", fact fans. 

Labels: , ,

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Back!

Well, I'm back from holiday. It was very nice, thank you for asking. I dare say I have missed a great deal, but until I sit down and start doing some reading I'm not going to be able to figure out exactly what I want to comment on. And I'll be honest with you, that isn't going to happen today. But I'm sure you will all survive. Somehow. 

But whilst I am briefly on this blog, I'd just like to point out that this sort of thing sums up why I am no longer a Tory. They are jumping on the anti-banker bandwagon in the pseudo-populist manner of that shyster Tony Blair. But worst of all, it has allowed Peter Mandelson - the serpent king of spin - to criticise the Tories for being opportunistic. 

Own goal here for the Tories, and not the sort of error that the next government of the United Kingdom should be making. 

Labels: , ,

Sunday, August 09, 2009

We're All Going On A Summer Holiday...

The books are selected, the case is packed and the car is booked. This can only mean one thing - your humble author - the Nameless Libertarian - and his lovely wife are off for a week of holiday. This means that posting on The Appalling Strangeness will be sparse if not non-existent. Unless the Moai finds a log-in or it rains all day every day. Actually, the latter could happen, but I'd be grateful if everyone could keep their fingers crossed that it doesn't. 

So, Regular Readers, I will bid you adieu with the farewell of the modern age: "Laters, innit?"

Labels:

Saturday, August 08, 2009

Online Library of Liberty

Those of a Libertarian or Liberal bent may find this website a useful resource. I've had a brief look around it and it seems there are a lot of interesting articles on there. Some of you may already know it, but for those of you who don't you could do a lot worse than taking a quick look.

Labels: ,

Friday, August 07, 2009

Primary Labour

David Miliband, acting curiously:
He adds: "We say we want to listen to our voters, why not a system of registered voters as in the US to create the basis for primaries?"
Now, I'm all for a primary to choose Labour (and Tory) candidates. I think it would be deeply funny to try to foist completely unsuitable candidates on the main parties. I also think that it would help to broaden the candidates who go up for election to Parliament. At the moment, the main way to become a candidate for Parliament, especially in a safe seat, is to spend ages toadying up to your local party machine. This creates generic candidates who are party animals through and through. The election of individuals or radicals is neutered in many constituencies by the need to cover the backside of the local party with kisses. 

However, I do think that this idea is going to be an interesting choice for all parties, and in particular Labour. After all, the US primaries - even when they are open only to party members - are often deeply divisive affairs that tear political parties apart just before they have to fight in an election. Just look at Obama and Clinton spending millions to tear strips off each other in 2008. And that was one of the nicer primary battles. Look at the Democratic primary process in 1972 - a primary season that allowed for all the most capable candidates to be picked off one by one and meaning that Nixon was going up against perhaps the easiest candidate to trounce. Or the Democrat primaries in 1980, when Ted Kennedy - showing all of the loyalty of a randy praying mantis - hobbled the re-election chances of Jimmy Carter. And in doing so handed the White House to Ronald Reagan. 

Primaries can be fun for the media, and fun for the voters. However, I predict that a lot of them - if implemented in this country - are going to be deeply corrosive toward party loyalty and are also going to be very embarrassing. The current system - whatever flaws it may have - at least allows the Labour party et al to choose their candidates in relative privacy. A primary will not allow for that...

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

How Labour Can Win The Next General Election

Basically, if the Labour party want to win the next election, they should get down on their knees and pray to a God that doesn't exist for a miracle that isn't going to happen. That's their best, and most realistic, bet. 

However, if they want to limit the coming electoral carnage and try to prevent a total wipeout at the polls next year, then there is one thing they could do. Replace Gordon Brown with Alan Johnson. ASAP.

Here's the scenario that might allow Labour to stop the coming Conservative landslide. Brown is booted out of office. Now. Whoever has influence, who ever can get the result they so badly needs for the party, acts now. Brown goes quietly; a broken man, scuttling away into retirement. And then the party unites around Johnson. Like the Tories did around Howard after then found out IDS was pretty much useless. Then Johnson says he won't announce anything about the next Election until Parliament reconvenes in the autumn. In the meantime he tours the country being a Prime Minister, being a man of the people, and not being Gordon Brown. 

Come the return of Parliament, Johnson announces a General Election date - sometime in March, 2010. He explains that he is giving the date so far in advance of the election so everyone has an effective chance to get ready for it - parties, voters and the media. Then he creates a Cabinet bringing big names from both the Blair and Brown years together, and makes his party looks united. He works hard creating a positive profile for himself, pointing out that, like Cameron, he is a nice guy. Except, unlike Cameron, Johnson actually has experience of government. He passes uncontroversial legislation, and communicates far better than his predecessor as Prime Minister. And he removes Cameron's main selling point since he, like Cameron, is also not Gordon Brown. 

And he goes to the country on the day he promises. Labour lose, but they don't lose badly. Cameron has a small majority, and the Labour party have everything to play for in the new Parliament. Johnson would still be party leader for as long as he wanted to be, and would have the opportunity to stop the bitter infighting that will consume the Labour Party if they lose by a landslide. So there we have it. Their best bet; ditch Brown, crown Johnson. 

But it won't happen. I think Brown could be forced from power, but there is no way that there could be a coronation of Johnson. Because as soon as Brown goes, Ed Balls will start fighting for the leadership. And as soon as it ceases to be a coronation, it becomes the self-destructive bitch-fight will devastate the party just before a General Election. The Labour Party isn't capable of a coronation at this point, even if it is the only thing that can save them. As a result they will continue with Brown, like a tug boat heading into a tidal wave. 

Labels: , , , , ,