Harman On The Sun

Harriet Harman on the desertion of The Sun:

Harriet Harman has said Labour "won't be bullied" after the Sun said it would not back Labour at the next election.

The Sun must be shitting itself. Although the Labour refusal to bullied probably won't stop The Sun from giving it a try.

Opening a debate about equalities at the Labour conference, Harriet Harman said she was speaking about "something the Sun knows absolutely nothing about - equality".

She went on: "Let's face it, the nearest their political analysis gets to women's rights is Page 3's news in briefs."

Which is all very true, but somehow less easy to defend when you factor in the shameless way in which the Labour party courted Murdoch's tabloid under Blair. The Sun may have no idea about equality, and may have all the political sophistication of a wank rag, but it is only now that The Sun doesn't love them anymore that Labour have actually noticed this.

One final thought on the Labour party conference; when they meet again this time next year, they will be a party in opposition and will almost certainly have a new leader. This was the last hurrah for Brown, and may yet prove to be the last stand of the Nu Labour movement. And how did they spend this time? Not so much predicting victory in the next election as reminding people at all levels within the party that there is still an election battle that needs fighting.

The Labour party conference has achieved little other than highlighting the depths of despair within that organisation. The Tories should rejoice; the Labour party seems to have given up.

Labour, Tories and The Sun

In terms of timing, you can't fault them. As Brown sat back in his chair, pleased to have made it through a party conference without an overt challenge to his leadership, The Sun turns round and tells him to go fuck himself. Yep, The Sun is again a Tory paper.

This happening is not really surprising; the only thing that mildly surprises me is that it took so long to happen. Yet despite the inevitability of this announcement, I would imagine that the Tories are this morning celebrating winning over such a popular newspaper, whilst Labour are readying themselves for whatever damage this particular publication chooses to inflict. I'd throw in a note of caution here, though. The Sun is good at self-promotion, and The Sun is great at bigging up its own influence. However, The Sun coming into the Tory camp doesn't so much guarantee a Tory victory as confirm that one is likely.

See, given half a chance The Sun will always make claims like "It's The Sun Wot Won It". That doesn't make the claim true. Sure, The Sun may be able to sway the views of a small minority of people, but the paper really isn't the driver of public opinion that it makes itself out to be. In fact, it tends to sense the way public opinion is going, and follow that.

This decision isn't one of political principle, and it doesn't reflect the strengths or the weaknesses in the cases of the Labour Party and the Tories. It simply shows that The Sun wants to be on the winning side and that, in its judgement, the winning side is headed by the Boy Cameron rather than the Grey Ghoul Gordon.

Getting Applause From the People Who Applaud You Anyway

A comment about Brown's conference speech:

He urged activists to "dream big dreams and watch our country soar" and "reach inside ourselves for the strength of our convictions" and to "fight" for victory - earning a standing ovation in the hall.

The emphasis is mine. Because, honest to fuck, there is no achievement in a sitting Prime Minister getting a standing ovation from his own party at a party conference. It really is a given. Short of defecating in a cup and throwing it in the face of a granny, the Prime Minister is always going to get a standing ovation at the party conference, no matter what he or she does.

Yet this sort of beyond minor triumph is all Gordon Brown has left. His own party were polite to him when he made a major speech. A success in the world of Gordon Brown is the organisation that he leads not being rude to him when he addressed them. Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?

Close the door quietly on your way out of our lives, Gordo.

"I do not believe that the mere fact of having little money entitles everybody, regardless of circumstances, to be permanently maintained by the taxpayers at an average or comfortable standard of living."

Barry Goldwater, 1964

Why the 1992 model won't work for Labour

It is clearly in vogue for the Labour party to cite the 1992 General Election as a model for how they are going to win next year. I can understand why; an apparently unpopular government managed to beat a resurgent opposition convincingly. I've already commented on whether the Labour Party should want to win the next election or not; but there is a far more pressing problem for the Labour Party in using the 1992 election as a model. Put simply, it isn't going to work for them.

The Guardian neatly sums up how the Labour leadership think this plan could work:

Seventeen years ago, the election was fought with the economy in much the same state as it is today. The economy was suffering its second recession in a decade and unemployment was close to 3 million. Business failures and house repossessions were at record levels.

Yet, somehow, the Conservatives managed to shift attention away from their own record and on to the threat that Kinnock posed in terms of higher taxes and interest rates.

Brown, Darling and Mandelson clearly believe that history will repeat itself. From now until polling day, whatever the economic news, the message will be the same – cling on to nurse for fear of something worse.

The above is largely accurate - at least in terms of how the 1992 election played out. Yet it won't work for Labour next time out for a number of reasons:

• Gordon Brown isn't John Major. John Major - for all his flaws - always managed to come across as a likable man. To a large extent, he was the friendly face of Conservatism. He came across as humble, unpretentious and lacking in arrogance. Whereas Gordon Brown comes across as appallingly arrogant and as a bully. He represents the darker side of Labour that puts a lot of people off. John Major was an electoral asset for his party in 1992; Brown certainly won't be an asset for his party in 2010.
• David Cameron isn't Neil Kinnock. Kinnock was a loudmouth with a tendency to shoot from the hip. He had the unerringly ability to put his foot squarely in his mouth, and lacked the discipline to present a coherent public facade. He was also an odd looking ginger man. Whilst that shouldn't be important, it obviously is in the media driven world of modern politics. Cameron - ignoring his massive forehead and ongoing issues with puppy fat - is far more photogenic than Kinnock. Furthermore, his ongoing refusal to say pretty much anything means he is able to avoid the controversies that used to dog Kinnock. Cameron is a political professional in an era where you need to be a political professional to win an election; Kinnock wasn't, which contributed to his second defeat in 1992.
• Major's soapbox campaign really helped him appear both humble to the public and interesting to the media. It was a gimmick, to be sure. But it was also a gimmick that worked. There does not seem to be anything similar coming from the Labour party, and it is hard to imagine the ever arrogant Brown embracing anything that doesn't make him look 100% Prime Ministerial. Brown won't be getting on his soapbox; he sees himself as above such things.
• The Tories are avoiding being triumphalist about the next election, and are not treating it as a dead cert. This was not the case with Labour in 1992. Sheffield "Victory" rally, anyone?
• Major had a credible reason to be Prime Minister in 1992. The last Tory leader had alienated the public with the poll tax and her own party with her stance on Europe. She had to be replaced, and Major fought a contest to succeed her. He won that contest over two other key players in the Tory party. Compare that with Gordon Brown. He came to power not because Blair needed to be replaced, but simply because Brown wanted his turn at being Prime Minister and was sick of waiting for Blair to go. He didn't fight a leadership contest; he simply arranged to be crowned as Labour leader. Major was the choice of his MPs to be PM in 1992, and could point to the leadership contest in 1990 as giving at least some validity to his place in Number 10. Brown cannot do the same. The only person who choose Gordon Brown as Prime Minister was Gordon himself.
• In 1992, Major had recently been part of the successful coalition in Gulf War I. Whilst Labour have had no problem with getting us into wars, they have had problems making those campaigns successful (or even properly equipped). Major went into the 1992 election as a victorious war leader; Brown will go into the next election as a leader who denies this country's soldiers the equipment they need not just to win, but to survive.
• The media largely remained on the Tories' side in 1992. The same cannot be said for Labour at the moment, and I can see a lot of media outlets will not be sticking with them at the next election even if they have done for the past three contests.

There are other reasons, but I won't labour the point. However it is striking that the Labour party now has to look to a Tory victory over 15 years ago in order to get any sort of an idea of how they could win the next General Election. Further proof that the Labour party is devoid of ideas, inspiration and anything that may assist them in making a credible case to continue to be the government of this country.

The Lawless Minority

Conference season is the prime time for politicians to say the right sort of thing that should please the voters without actually stating how they are going to achieve their typically lofty soundbites. El Gordo isn't going to disappoint us; his pronouncements on crime are near perfect examples of saying the right thing without giving any time whatsoever to the practical aspects of policy implementation. Let's take a look at a couple of examples:

"Whenever and wherever there is anti-social behaviour, we will be there to fight it."

Really? You will be there to fight it, Gordon? What, all of it? Every bit of anti-social behaviour? God, you're going to be travelling around the country a lot. And what precisely are you going to do when you confront these anti-social types, Gordon? Chin them?

"We will not stand by and see the lives of the lawful majority disrupted by the behaviour of the lawless minority.

"Because the decent, hard working majority are getting evermore angry - rightly so - with the minority who who will talk about their rights but never accept their responsibilities."

Yes, Gordon, we are sick of the lawless minority. In particular, the lawless minority in the Commons. They should be dealt with. They are making a lot of the decent majority in this country very angry. So sort them out, Gordon, and maybe people will start to support you. Except you won't, will you? Because you are one of the political minority pissing from a great height onto the people of this country. So all your words are largely meaningless, Gordon. So rather than spouting shite at the people in this country, maybe you could just drop dead. And fuck off whilst you're doing it.

Ed Balls. Assassin?

As the Labour party conference rumbles on with all the eloquence, wit and intelligence of a drunken tramp mumbling in the park, much of the press speculation is about the appallingly shaky position of the Prime Minister. And rightly so; The Brown soap opera is probably going to be far more interesting than anything that is said at that conference. But it is all wishful thinking. I don’t think there is the stomach to replace Gordon Brown. It would take a fight, and there don’t seem to be any politicians up for it. David Miliband is so wet he would lose an arm-wrestling contest with a granny, Alan Johnson just doesn’t seem to give a fuck anymore and Harriet Harman will always be impeded by the fact that she is arguably the only person in that party less likely to win an election than Gordon. It would take an political assassin to bring down Gordon, yet those who have most to gain seem to be happy to wait and watch their leader waste away into the history books for a little while longer. If there is going to be an assassin, then it is going to be an unlikely figure.

Which is why I honestly think there if there is going to be a real challenge to Gordon Brown, then it may well come from the most power hungry, amoral and devious member of the Nu Labour cabinet. Step forward, Ed Balls. I’m talking about you.

Now, I understand that Ed Balls has been a loyal supporter of El Gordo for a long time. But loyalty is an odd concept in Nu Labour politics – to understand their corruption of the word you only have to look at Brown’s “loyalty” to the last Prime Minister. Besides, Balls has been very good at positioning himself close to the very pinnacle of British politics. It has been a long time but he started out as a Tory, back when they were in power, and he has let very little stop him from getting into the right position with the right allies. Now his ultimate aim – the Labour leadership – is within his grasp. And I do wonder whether his raw ambition will overtake concepts such a loyalty. After all, if it did, then he would simply be following the example of his mentor.

In the past, being loyal to Brown was advantageous to Balls’ career. That has ceased to be the case – which is perhaps why he has moved to a position where he is openly (although not hyper) critical of Gordon Brown. Furthermore, Brown denied Balls the position of Chancellor – something Balls both desperately wanted and felt he deserved, according to Westminster gossip. Maybe the Brown-Balls (no pun intended) relationship has come to its natural end. Balls can’t get anything more from it, so it is time to end it and move onto the next stage.

And the next stage for Balls is making a bid for the leadership. Which may well involve knifing his mentor, and the man he owes so much to, squarely between the shoulder blades.

Of course, I’m not saying this will happen, and I can’t – despite the utterly self-serving nature of the man called Balls – quite see this scenario playing out. I think an ongoing mix of lethargy and cowardice will make sure Brown is safe – at least until the electorate get a say next year. However, if someone does decide to end Brown’s political career before the General Election, don’t be too surprised if Brown turns to look at who has stabbed him in the back and ends up muttering the words “Et tu, Eddie?”

There can be few clearer indicators of the likelihood of a Labour Defeat in 2010 than the ever odious Peter Mandelson talking up the option of a job with the Tories:

LORD Mandelson has disclosed that he is ready to accept a job under a future Conservative government.

I'm sure the power-hungry, two-faced little fucker would be more than happy to serve under any party in order to keep his greasy hands on the levers of power in this country. Just as I'm quite sure that even Comprise Cameron would rather immolate himself in Parliament Square rather than take on this godawful man who was a key figure in getting the terrible Nu Labour government elected in the first place.

When Losing Is Better Than Winning

From The Guardian yesterday:

Then there is Peter Hain talking today, apparently loyally, about how election 2010 could be like 1992 when the Tories pulled it off against all the odds.

But Hain will know that the Tories had a relatively new leader then, a fresh fellow called John Major on his soap box who somehow clicked with voters (at least for long enough to win that election). Labour has Brown, who looks stale as stale can be.

Yes, quite. Hain can talk as much as he likes about this coming election being like that one many moons ago, but the truth is this election increasingly resembles 1964 or 1979, not 1992. Brown isn't a John Major, he is a Jim Callaghan. Or an Alec Douglas-Home. Except without the limited charms of either of those two.

Yet strategically I wonder whether Labour should even want to win the next election. It is irrelevant which party wins the General Election next year; they are going to have to be responsible (to use the parlance of one Nick Clegg) for "savage cuts" just to try to stop the country from sinking. The Tories will be able to get away with that; they have been marginally more open about the need to deal with the spending issue facing this country, and can always blame Labour if all else fails. However, Labour will have to go back on their (ever-changing) position on spending cuts, and all this talk of Tory spending cuts could end up like George H W Bush's "Read My Lips" pledge. If they won, they would have to go back on their rhetoric and this time, people would remember. They would be classified by one and all and beyond all reasonable doubt as liars. It would cost them dearly at the 2015 election.

And if they win next year, then Gordon Brown will stay on as their leader. Now, even if he did manage to sneak a win next time out, it wouldn't change the fact that Gordon Brown is a terrible, terrible leader. And a pretty awful person. People would have another five years of the Ghastly Gordon show, and the ongoing rumours about his physical health, his mental well-being and his egregious personality would come to define the Labour party absolutely.

Plus, there is no way that Labour could gain seats at the next election. Even if they managed to win, it would be a scraped victory. And given the current infighting within the Labour party, the party would be able to pass very little of its programme and we would see a run of embarrassing defeats for the government as it tried to govern. After all, Brown has been defeated by the current Labour majority of well over 50. If it was reduced to 20 or even 10, he and his Cabinet would be paralysed. In fact, I doubt the administration would last the full five years. It would be brought down by a no confidence motion long before it had a chance to run its full course.

Also, Labour is exhausted at the moment. It is ideologically bankrupt and there is an embarrassing dearth of talent at its head. Another government would require a new Cabinet from the dilapidated and reduced Parliamentary Labour Party. Meaning that the whole country could see just how poor the Labour talent pool is these days. The government would be shown for what it would have become - a lacklustre rump of a party, desperately clinging to power for no good reason.

If Labour should take anything away from the 1992 election, it is that the Tory win ended up being a pyrrhic victory. For the next five years, their squabbled their way into a deep sea of electoral oblivion, and ended up decimated in the Commons. They were booted out of power for well over a decade, and couldn't even act as a capable opposition for a good seven years. Had they lost in 1992, then they would have been returned to government in 1997, or 2001 at the very latest. By winning in that year, they condemned themselves to 13 years out of government.

Realistically, the Tories are going to win in 2010, but probably not with a huge majority. Conceivably, Labour could win in 2015 and would definitely be credible players by 2020. If they were to win next year, then the ensuing government would be a national disaster that would destroy the Labour party utterly. They would be out of power by 2015 at the latest, and would be in the wilderness for decades to come.

Labour won't win the next election. The irony is that if they did scrap a win, it would probably be worse in the long run for them than losing.

Compulsory Voting

David Blunkett - with with his trademark lack of respect for freedom and individual responsibility - on the idea of compulsory voting:

"We should introduce compulsory voting between now and next May. Forty per cent of the population aren't voting, therefore they are leaving the other 60% to cast their vote for them and we know that those in greatest need are least likely to vote," he said.

Note how this is less about principle and more about maximising the Labour vote at the next election. Although quite how those stay-at-home Labour voters would feel towards the government if they were forced by law to head to the ballot box might be a different kettle of fish.

Now, I'm all for everyone in the country heading to the ballot box on election day. Voting is an essential part of our democracy, and - regardless of what you might think - people fought and died for your right to vote. Voting is a right for people in this country; and it is a right that should be exercised.

However, I can't bring myself to favour compulsory voting anymore. Democracy has to include the right to opt out, particularly if you find there is no-one representing what you believe in. A free society also requires people to have the right not to vote if they so wish. Any proposal to introduce compulsory voting has to come with the threat of punishment, and as a result it is essentially a negative measure. It isn't making people want to vote; it is forcing them to do so whether they like it or not.

If politicians actually want to increase turnout, then they should inspire people. They should offer groundbreaking policies that interest people and make them want to support the party in the ballot box. The declining turnout over recent General Elections isn't indicative of a declining interest in the general public about how this country is run; it is simply showing the lack of choice between the potential parties for government and how uninspiring the status quo is.

Don't make us vote; make us want to vote.

"Can Sarah Brown save Labour?" The Guardian asks. The answer, as in so many things, can be found in history. Sarah Brown is just as likely to save Labour as Norma Major was to save the last Tory government.

She can stand next to her husband, the Prime Minister, on the sinking ship. And she can frantically try yet fail to distract attention from her husband as the Good Ship Nu Labour sinks under the icy waters of electoral oblivion.

Polly Toynbee has written a prospective speech for Gordon Brown to deliver to the Labour party conference - a resignation speech. And you know what, it is pretty good. Of course, it is filled with inaccuracies, Social Democratic posturing and the curious detachment from reality that we have all come to expect from Toynbee. But the way it sings Gordon praises even as he resigns for, well, failing, means that it could work. It would be exactly the sort of preening bollocks that Gordon would want as his resignation speech.

Go on, Gordon, listen to Polly. Read out this speech at your party conference. The facts may be wrong, but the overall theme is perfect. And just what the country needs from you.

John Smeaton, MP

Man of the people - well, terrorist punching baggage handler - John Smeaton is standing for Parliament. And, by God, he's ready for a fight (again):

John Smeaton, the former baggage handler who took on one of the Glasgow airport bombers, today promised to "bring a storm down on Westminster" after putting himself forward for the Glasgow North East byelection.

Yeah! Yeah! You tell 'em John. Of course, you'll need to get elected first. How's that going?

However, Smeaton appeared to be completely stumped when, at a press conference, he was asked about Jury Team policies on linking MPs' pay to civil service pay grades and the holding of referendums on key policies.

Details aren't the be all and end all of politics, John, but it does help to understand the basic policies of the organisation you are going to represent. Still, no doubt you will have the answers. In time.

Asked about the public electing Commons select committees, he said: "It's something I will look into and get back to you on that."

Good, good. Just as a heads up, though, it might be worth working out what your party is about before the election rather than afterwards. It may help with the whole, y'know, getting elected thing.

As a final point, I would just like to point out that in no way is this a cheap stunt by the Jury Team. Of course not.

Phantasm

As part of my ongoing (slightly pointless) commitment to watch as many horror films as I can before I shuffle off this mortal coil, I watched the supposedly acclaimed motion picture Phantasm last night. And at this point, I wish to express my incredulity that there was ever a sequel, let alone three further installments.

I do wonder who rates this film, and whether they saw a different version of the it to me. Because what I saw was little more than an episode of Darkplace without the energetic performances. It was flatly directed, with no attempt to build up scares or an atmosphere of dread. And the script was beyond appalling - the revelation of the piece seemed to be that dead people were being made into dwarves and then sent to another dimension. Which is an idea so bad that it could almost have been scrawled on the back of an envelope by an uninspired feeling and utterly drunk Shaun Hutson.

I don't expect too much from horror movies; really, I honestly don't. Just being mildly diverting would be enough. However, this one didn't achieve that. In fact, it was beyond crappy. Craptacular, if you will. It just didn't seem to really care. And whilst it wasn't the worst horror movie I have ever seen (step forward, The Stink of Flesh) it certainly was one of the most pointless.

Phantasm - not phantastic. If you will pardon the excruciating pun.

LoveFilm's summary of the plot of the film Southern Comfort:

Robert Eads is a female-to-male transsexual suffering from ovarian cancer who faces sure death after 20 doctors have refused to treat him for his condition. Far away from Atlanta's city lights, Robert makes a life for himself and his family—his two families: his biological family of two parents, two sons by birth, and a darling three-year-old grandson; and his chosen family of two female-to-male transsexual sons, Maxwell and Cass. Robert is falling in love with Lola Cola, a sultry male-to-female transsexual, but as hard as he tries to resist, in the face of his impending death, the romance blooms beautifully in bittersweet irony.

Sounds like an interesting film. It isn't the Southern Comfort they mean, though. That is a very different film...

Could Brown have a better relationship with the US if McCain was President?

The fraught Brown/Obama relationship - which resembles the sort of awkward flirtation that occurs when someone just isn't interested in the person desperately trying to win them over - makes me wonder whether whether the "Right" "Honourable" Gordon Brown would actually have been better off with McCain winning last year's presidential election rather than Obama.

Sure, McCain and Brown are ideologically worlds apart. Yet the Brown-Obama relationship is testament to the fact that having similar ideas doesn't mean you will get on. Besides, McCain has carved out a niche for himself as a maverick who is happy to overcome ideological differences if the political situation demands it. Furthermore, both men are grizzled political survivors. They might have far more in common than between Obama and Brown. If all else failed, they could always talk about their mutual interest in courage; McCain could regale stories that Brown could use in his next book on that subject.

Yet this idea falls apart when faced with political reality. After all, in a classic example of someone hedging their bets, Cameron managed to position himself to appear to be supporting both McCain and Obama. In fact, he categorically threw his weight behind McCain in January of last year. This has to be contrasted with the effective radio silence from Brown towards McCain that is typical of Brown when he hasn't worked out whether someone can directly help him or not. Then there is the issue of the al Megrahi release: an act that has badly damaged US-UK relations. I doubt McCain would have been forgiving on this issue either; in fact, I'd almost imagine he would have been more angry than Obama. Perhaps a President McCain would be just as unhelpful to the desperate 'Make Brown a World Statesman' campaign as President Obama actually is.

Which just goes to show that the problem is the US President; it is Gordon Brown. He is an unpopular, unlikeable leader with an unhealthy streak of political cowardice running through him. He carries with him a heavy stench of failure. No first term President would want to too closely associated with a British Prime Minister who is perhaps the very definition of a loser.

A verbatim quote from an advert* for a "Socialist Society" seen on a university notice board:

"Where is your free market now?"

Erm, buried underneath a great big fat mount of your pointless state intervention, mate. And even before the economy crashed, there was no such thing as a free market. In this country, and in other Western democracies, the market is not free; we have a mixed economy. And the state intervention inherent in that mixed economy did nothing to prevent the crash; in fact, you could argue that it did a great deal to exacerbate the crash when it came.

Still, don't let little things like facts fuck up your mindless, cliched slogan, eh?

*Handwritten in felt-tip pen. No, really. And there was another advert proclaiming "Whose driving climate change?" Who ever said socialists were stupid?

A deeply depressing read from the Telegraph on the enquiry into the scandal of MPs expenses. It fully shows the utter impotence of the enquiry to do anything that will fundamentally change the pretty horrific status quo:

It is impossible for Sir Christopher to recommend that MPs suspended for misconduct should face the possibility of a recall by-election in order to keep their seat. But without such a measure, how can voters can pass judgment on their MPs misdeeds?

Instead, Sir Christopher is limited to tinkering. His committee can certainly ban some of the more easily abused practices, such as expensing mortgage interest rates and being able to claim for petrol without a receipt. And he could be radical by pushing for the full publication of all receipts, all claims, and all formal correspondence between MPs and the Fees Office.

Yeah, tinkering is what we need. That's going to make a lot of difference. I mean, there is no way whatsoever that our completely honourable MPs could find a way around a "tinkered" system, is there?

If there is change, then it is gong to come from another source. And, unfortunately, that potential source of change is also the source of the problem:

Unhappy as he is, Mr Straw should take heart. The power to end this "terrible period" is in his hands and those of his fellow MPs. Getting British politics out of its current mess does not require the Kelly inquiry or the government to work some kind of magical restoration of trust in Parliament. It simply requires Parliament to trust the public , with full access and full publication.

Great. We're reliant on Parliament trusting the people. Well, they've shown a lot of trust so far with their refusal to be open in any way with the people who elect them. In fact, the only thing our MPs have shown less enthusiasm for other than trusting us is reforming their own system. So you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath over the impact of this particular "enquiry".

Margaret Thatcher - More Hated Than Brown. Apparently.

This is a humdinger of a comment (in response to another comment making the crazy assertion that Gordon Brown is the most hated Prime Minister in history):

How fast the memory fades. Margaret Thatcher was most definitely far more unpopular (and deservedly so) than Gordon Brown.

- Peace Maker, Battersea

Ah, that would be the Margaret Thatcher who fought for and won the leadership of her party, before winning a General Election in 1979. She then won landslides in 1983 and 1987, before being forced out as leader of her party before she got too unpopular to allow them to win the election in 1992. Evidently "Peace Maker" of Battersea also has a fading memory. They've forgotten that before Thatcher was unpopular enough to be replaced by her party (back when politicians had the backbone to replace electoral liabilities) she was actually a very impressive, successful populist and election winner. Regardless of what you think about her policies, it is a matter of historical record that every General Election fought in over ten years was won by Margaret Thatcher. In terms of General Elections, she fought three, won three.

Unlike Gordon Brown, whose record is fought none, likely to lose one. Badly.

Snubbing the Desperate Gordon Brown

There's much fun to be had with any snub of Gordon Brown. Especially when it comes from Barack Obama:

Gordon Brown lurched from being hailed as a global statesman to intense embarrassment tonight, after it emerged US President Barack Obama had turned down no fewer than five requests from Downing Street to hold a bilateral meeting at the United Nations in New York or at the G20 summit starting in Pittsburgh today.

No fewer than five requests? Jesus Christ, Gordon, have a little fucking dignity. What the hell is wrong with you? Did you think he would suddenly say yes after the first four requests? Evidently mindless persistency and pleading doesn't work when dealing with the President of the United States of America; an obvious fact to everyone not connected directly to the strange, strange world of our incumbent Prime Minister.

This desperation to get the attention of Barack Obama means Gordon Brown come across like the fat girl stood at the side of the hall at a school disco. Or like the weedy, spotty boy desperately hoping for attention from the most attractive girl in the school - who, of course, doesn't even know the pathetic loser exists. I just wish Gordon Brown could get a fucking grip and realise he is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. And also figure out that if his premiership is so reliant on an affectionate smile from Barack Obama, then he is resolutely and absolutely fucked.

Nick Clegg, Prime Minister. Lib Dems, the Real Opposition. *Yawns*

There is something wonderfully repetitive about Lib Dem conferences. They might change their leaders, but the empty rhetoric is still the same. The desperate yet pointless claims to being on the cusp of real political power are always combined with the hopeless optimism of the leaders. This year proved to be no exception:

Nick Clegg today insisted that he would fight the general election in the hope of replacing Gordon Brown as prime minister of a progressive, anti-Conservative government.

Yes, Clegg, you're going to be Prime Minister. Of course you are. That seems so likely it is pretty much a dead cert. And of course, the way you will get to be Prime Minister is by attacking the Tories rather than Labour. After all, the Tories are the ones who are in power... oh, wait...

"Labour is lost. They haven't the ideas, energy or vision to start again. If you voted for them in the past, you have a choice," he said.

Yes. You have a choice. Vote for someone other than Labour. Like... I don't know, the Tories. Or UKIP. Or the Greens. Or the Libertarian Party. Or, if you are a bit of a moron, the BNP. Unfortunately for Mr Clegg, not believing in Labour doesn't mean you have to vote Liberal Democrat.

"You can give away your vote to a fringe party. You can stay at home in despair. Or you can join with the Liberal Democrats and make the difference."

So you can throw away your vote on a fringe party with no chance of winning power, or you can join with the Liberal Democrats who have no chance of winning. Yet voting for the latter can make a difference. Uh-huh. I'm struggling to see what the difference is between the fringe parties who won't win the next election, and the Liberal Democrat party who won't win that election. Other than the Liberal Democrats having a larger microphone that they can use to shout through and inadvertently display their raw impotence.

"If you supported Labour in 1997 because you wanted fairness, you wanted young people to flourish, you wanted political reform, you wanted the environment protected, or you simply believed in a better future, turn to the Liberal Democrats. We carry the torch of progress now."

It seems Young Mr Clegg wants to fight the 1997 election. Which is a bold position to take as we near the 2010 General Election. And who said the Lib Dems were out of touch?

For as long as I can remember, the Liberal Democrats have been on the point of becoming the progressive opposition instead of Labour, or overtaking the Tories and just becoming the opposition to Labour. Every time the Liberal Democrats have that option, they spunk it away. So if they really want to make the case for them being the real opposition in this country, then they need to show that they understand why they have failed in the past and what they plan to do about it in the future. Simply having the leader claiming that he wants to be Prime Minister is not enough. There is no shortage of people wanting to be Prime Minister in this country; Clegg and his followers need to work a lot harder to explain why and how they plan to actually make the man who shares a surname (and dull personality) with the least interesting character from Last of the Summer Wine into a credible contender for Number 10.

Why I (Still) Hate Jamie Oliver

Jamie Oliver is saving the world again. Well, he's trying to make fat munters from the US a little less porcine, but no doubt this will be pegged as some sort of impressive philanthropic gesture from the fattest tongued chef in the whole world. He says:

"I've only worked with a couple of families so far and all I can tell you is it makes the hairs raise on the back of your arm. I feel emotionally connected to this project.

"They are all anaemic with information. They are not stupid, they are not ignorant - it's just they have never had food from scratch in their life."

Oliver feels "emotionally connected" to every project he works on. It is his Unique Selling Point. He's the caring chef. If he just turned around and shrugged at the fatties, it wouldn't make as good television. I do have to wonder, though, whether Oliver would give the first fuck about these troughers if he wasn't paid to care, and if it didn't get him on TV.

It took me a long time to work out what I hate the most about Jamie Oliver, and why, if I ever met him, I would happily punch him repeatedly in the face until he ceased to resemble an ugly sausage roll. And it isn't his face or his voice - although Lord knows both should be grounds for summary execution. No, it is his smugness. It is his belief that he should travel across the country and now the world telling other people how to live their lives. Sharing all the dubious knowledge that comes from being an unexpectedly popular TV chef. To me, Jamie Oliver is the equivalent of a champagne socialist. All of his good deeds are motivated not just by the desire to help others, but the desire to help himself and his career at the same time. And yes, I know there is an argument that all charity work is done for selfish as well as philanthropic reasons. But that doesn't mean I have to enjoy the glib platitudes that spew forth from the revolting Jamie Oliver as he tries to change the diet habits of the world for reasons of career enhancement.

I've an idea of how Jamie could make the world a better place. He could staple his stupid mouth shut.

Stuff I don't care about Number 1,286

Pope Benedict XVI is to visit Britain in 2010, the BBC has learned.

Oh. And this is one of the big stories on the BBC News website for precisely what reason? Yes, I know there are several million Catholics in the UK. But does that really warrant the attention being given to an old man who has a penchant for wearing dresses and who used to be in the Hitler Youth coming to the UK? For some - probably a minority - of those Catholics, this is a BIG DEAL. For everyone else in the country, this is the sort of non-story that simply distracts attention away from just about everything that it newsworthy. Even fucking reality TV.

You might just get away with this being a headline in 2010, when the Panzer Pope actually hits these shores. Until then, it is a storm in a teacup. No, wait, that's too impressive. It is a fart in a teacup.

The Liberal Democrat Vision of "Hope"

A Liberal Democrat talks nonsense over those "savage" cuts:

"I think we have overdone the despair," Mr Webb said. "Doom and gloom does not inspire and motivate people. People want it straight but they also want hope."

Yes, people do want hope; it all comes down to how you define hope. I'm not quite sure why Mr Webb sees spending cuts as "doom and gloom". Less spending means less government intervention. Less government intervention means the likes of Gordon Brown have less control over the lives of the people in this country. That route isn't one towards despair. Fuck me, it is the road to hope.

But moving on from the utterly crappy idea that hope can only come from the government, it is worth noting that - for all the rhetoric - Webb shouldn't be too despondent about the direction of his party:

Mr Clegg's comments that "savage" cuts in some budgets may be needed to protect funding in priority areas has caused unease in sections of the party - even though he has stressed that there would not be an overall reduction in public spending under the Lib Dems.

Smashing. No overall reduction in public spending? Well, as a policy that not only manages to be unhelpful but also unrealistic. Although, given that, I dare say it will let many of those in the Liberal Democrats sleep easily tonight.

More Royal Mail Wasters

Via Lobbydog, this gem of a story from The Daily Telegraph:

One worker boasted of how he wasted time by filling in “739” forms - which tell anyone who is not at home that they have a parcel to collect - while still at the sorting office, rather than on the doorstep once he had checked whether the recipient was at home.

Yeah, I don't think he is alone in doing that. In fact, in my neck of the woods, it appears to be the norm rather than the exception...

Quote of the Day

It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers... They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exaltation which sooner or later impairs their judgment.

Calvin Coolidge, (1872-1933)

Baroness Scotland

So, she broke a law that she helped to draft. And she has been fined for it. Yet, according to Gordon Brown, she doesn't have to resign. It really does beg the question of what the fuck someone has to in order to have to resign in the world of Gordon Brown. Unless, of course, the law she broke doesn't need to be adhered to. In which case is this law strictly speaking necessary? And if not, then surely the person who helped to bring it onto the statute books should resign?

Either way, Baroness Scotland really needs to go.

The Efficacy of the Smoking Ban

On the face of it, this can only be good news:

Earlier this month it was announced that heart attack rates fell by about 10% in England in the year after the ban on smoking in public places was introduced in July 2007 - which is more than originally anticipated.

But the latest work, based on the results of numerous different studies collectively involving millions of people, indicated that smoking bans have reduced heart attack rates by as much as 26% per year.

Now, whilst I am no fan of the smoking ban (despite not being a smoker myself) I will concede that a drop in the rate of heart attacks can only be a good thing. A 26% drop seems to be a pretty big achievement.

That said, there is something about this study that I do have to question. It is based on a big assumption: namely, that there is a direct correlation between the end of smoking in pubs and the decline in heart attacks. And whilst there is probably some sort of a link between the two, I'm not sure whether it is as comprehensive or conclusive as indicated in this article.

Let me explain. A decline in heart attacks could be the result of other factors. Like healthier lifestyles in other areas, such as the loss of weight and more exercise. It could also be an indicator that preventive medicine is working as well, and people are being caught before they have their first heart attack. It could simply be medical professionals now know when to intervene, and are helping to get that heart attack rate down. And finally, yes, it could be down to people giving up smoking. But it doesn't follow that the giving up of smoking has to be down to the smoking ban.

The assertion that this drop in heart attacks is down the smoking ban doesn't stand up, and also paints a very positive yet unrealistic picture of that ban. It also fails to show the economic consequences of the smoking ban, or what it has meant for the freedom for businesses to choose what they want to happen in their own premises. As a result, this "good news" story actually comes across as part of the wider government campaign to paint smoking as a taboo and a dreadful sin that can only be expurgated with government intervention.

Prescott and Brown: A Moron Bigs up A Twat

John Prescott meeting expectations. By talking absolute shite:

"Gordon Brown is still the guy who turned this global economy round, everybody credits him with that, except here in the UK.

There are two fundamental issues we're facing, climate change and global finance. Both require global agreement, he's the best man in the field for the job."

These are global problems, you need global giants, not the pygmies I hear about," he said.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Hahahaha. Hahahahahahaha. Ha. Hahaha. Haha. Sorry. Sorry. That really got to me for a moment. Lost it a bit. Sorry. Feeling better now.

Where to start? According to the EU Lard Mountain, Brown is the person who turned the global economy around, although we don't have any indications of how he did that. And I can't help but note that as British Prime Minister, it would have been better had he turned around our economy whilst he was saving the world. Perhaps that's why he doesn't get credit for it in this country. Because our economy is still fucked.

Now, Prezza's asserts that we are facing climate change as a fundamental issue. He doesn't specify what about climate change is the fundamental issue, but one can take an educated guess (something Prescott is probably incapable of doing) from the fad currently taking up his time. And global finance... what about global finance, John? Is it a good thing or a bad thing? What is Gordon going to do about global finance? Why is he the best man in the field? And did you mean the global economy when you said global finance? Do you even know what you are talking about there, John? Or are you just spouting crap in a desperate attempt to gain attention?

And finally, the use of the word pygmies to describe the opposition seems a little crass. No doubt the left will waste no time before castigating Prescott for using such a term. After all, if it was a Tory, they would be more than happy to brand the speaker a racist.

Prescott's words show his utter disconnection from reality. In fairness, though, this is nothing new. But the fact that Prescott is treated as a Labour party heavyweight for reasons other than his incredible girth shows just how fucked the Labour party are.

Lib Dem Treasury Spokesperson Vince Cable: A Socialist

Y'know, it sometimes surprises me that Vince Cable ever worked for Shell. Surely that multinational capitalist enterprise must have noticed that they were employing a typical and tedious Socialist as an Economist?

Anyhoo, Mr Cable's latest wheeze is to slap another tax on those who happen to own an expensive house:

The new charge of 0.5% would apply to the value of a property above £1m. So if a home was worth £1.5m the 0.5% tax would apply to £500,000 of it, meaning the owner will have to pay £2,500 a year. The extra tax on a £4m property would be £15,000 a year.

Well, that's further limited the number of people willing to vote Lib Dem. Besides, weren't the Liberal Democrats talking about savage spending cuts just a couple of days ago? I guess Vince must have just got excited, and found the old social democrat in him was just unable to pass up the chance to whack the prosperous with yet another penalty for the heinous crime of being, well, prosperous...

Could this be The Sun's idea of the best news story ever? I mean, it has got sex, lesbians and underage fornication all at the same time. No doubt it caused some sort of meltdown in an editorial meeting as the paper simultaneously wished to denounce this woman as a terrible paedo at the same time as wanting to get as many salacious details into their article as possible. It wouldn't surprise me if they considered one of those photo story articles that they use on their problem pages (you know the ones - they tend to involve a woman/women in their underwear for at least two frames out of three) before deciding that might just be a little too much, even for them.

Libertarianism and Banning

Yet another news story containing a call for a ban on something:

The Royal College of Psychiatrists said new plans to keep children safe from internet predators should specifically address the rise of so-called pro-ana and pro-mia sites - which advocate anorexia and bulimia.

Right, now, this is a bit of a tough one. Because as a Libertarian, hearing about a call to ban something activates a little red flag in my mind, and I am left very wary about what freedom could now be condemned to the dustbin of history by pressure groups and the government. Yet when I realise is pro-ana and pro-mia websites, I struggle to get too excited. I wouldn't miss them if they were gone, and I can't imagine they are dreadfully pleasant sites.

Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with the call to ban them.

Now, as Libertarian I do support some bans. For example, the ban on child pornography is one I have no issue whatsoever with supporting. So given I am happy with the ban of one type of utterly unpleasant website, why I am not so keen on a ban for another type of unpleasant website?

It comes down to the harm factor. By definition, child pornography has to involve the rape and/or abuse of children in the process of its creation. The same is not true of the pro-ana and pro-mia websites. Furthermore, I have seen no conclusive proof that they actually do a lot of harm to people. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists stops short of making the claim that they lead to anorexia and bulimia:

Professor Ulrike Schmidt said: "Pro-ana and pro-mia websites advocate anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa as a lifestyle choice, rather than as serious mental disorders. Research shows that, even for healthy young women, viewing such websites induces low mood, low self-esteem and increased body dissatisfaction."

Low mood, low self-esteem and increased body-dissatisfaction may be bad things and part of the road towards anorexia and bulimia, but feeling that way does not automatically mean that a person will become anorexic of bulimic after viewing one of these websites. And lots of other things could provoke a similar feeling in a lot of people - like a day in a comprehensive school.

Furthermore, once you ban one thing to save people from eating disorders, you set a precedent for banning other things for the same reason. The article mentions London Fashion Week as "a showcase for "underweight women."" How long until we get a call to ban that? And if we have already banned pro-ana and pro-mia websites, why wouldn't we ban London Fashion Week? And so on and so on, until we all live bland, homogenised existences free of risk but also devoid of a sense of being alive.

More often than not, a call to ban something comes from a well-meaning but naive source. And the decision to ban, more often than not, comes from a desperate attempt by a far from wise politician to be populist. And a ban itself is a clumsy, unwieldy tool that often damages and affects far more than it intended to. As a result, we need to carefully, objectively and unemotionally interrogate each and every ban, with a view to understanding whether it is actually necessary and what unintended consequences it might have.

Banning something is often very appealing, but is seldom actually the answer.

"That dwarf"

Dominique de Villepin on his rival Nicholas Sarkozy:

He's the man Mr de Villepin is known to refer to in private as "that dwarf".

The whole article is worth reading in full. It details just how de Villepin has ended up on trial for slandering his one time rival for the Presidency. And it hints at the level of animosity there must have been (and no doubt still is) between these two figures.

Of course, this sort of behaviour isn't limited to France. Our own "beloved" Prime Minister has no issue with burying his rivals beneath a veritable shit storm of innuendo and smears. What is missing from this country, though, is the little asides like one potential President calling another "that dwarf". I would love to know what Brown has called David Miliband or Harriet Harman behind their backs. I suspect it would make Mr de Villepin's comments look positively tame...

As DK asks, why now?

Why now has Ed Balls announced that he could save £2 billion in education spending cuts? What has taken the Labour Party - who have been in power for over a decade - so long to work out they could make this saving? From what the ever odious Ed Balls is saying, they could have saved this country literally billions of pounds in the years they have been in power. Jesus titty-fucking Christ, Balls' statement shouldn't be applauded. It should come with a charge of criminal negligence and a demand for a taxpayer refund from those Labour leaders who have had anything to do with education spending in the past 12 years.

And if they have wasted that much money on easily identifiable waste in the last decade and a bit, just imagine how much they have wasted on other areas of the increasingly vast enterprises associated with the government...

Quote of the Day

A politician is a statesman who places the nation at his service.

Georges Pompidou, 1973

Clegg and Change

It doesn't happen often - mainly because the guy is amazingly silent for someone who runs a major political party - but I happen to agree with something that Nick Clegg has said:

"The Tories simply believe it's their turn, that they don't have to work for it, they don't have to prove themselves."

Spot on, as far as I am concerned. The Tory party is still sitting tight until they can stroll back into power. The political pendulum, which swung so hard against them in 1997, is now swinging back in their favour. They no longer need to make a case for being elected, and as a result they don't even try.

And Clegg goes on to talk even more sense:

"If you want things to be different, really different, you have to choose different. That's our message."

It is my message as well. If you want something different, then you do have to choose something different. Unfortunately, I rather think that my idea of what is different and Mr Clegg's idea are radically different, and represent the point of departure. Clegg is trying the tried and tested technique of positioning his party as the real alternative to the status quo. Unfortunately, these days that fools practically no-one. There is nothing in the Lib Dem platform that isn't replicated in the manifestos of the other parties. For example, they are making a big fuss about spending cuts at the moment - just as the other parties talk about cuts. And the complicity of the Lib Dems in this summer's expenses scandal shows just how much they are caught up in and part of the status quo. They are resolutely part of the post Blairite consensus that both dominates and cripples British politics today.

There are small parties and new political movements that are growing in influence in this country. If you truly want change, then support/vote for them. If you want real change and a proper break from the bloated, statist status quo, then support the Libertarian Party.

Unfortunately for Mr Clegg, the Lib Dems do not represent change on any level. Still, at least he was right about the Tories.

In the sort of twist of fate that makes me laugh out loud, I note that the attempts to have a national postal strike make be adversely affected by the localised industrial action of the employees of Royal Mail. Which - if it happens - would be pretty damned wonderful. A great example of the law of unintended consequences, and enough to make me believe just a little in karma.

£519,868,800 per day

The Times is reporting on the rising amount of staggeringly large debt that the British Government - and therefore Britain - is in:

Britain is clocking up debt at a rate of £6,017 per second as the Government struggles to balance the books. With tax receipts plummeting because of the recession, state borrowing grew by £16.1 billion last month — almost twice the entire budget for the 2012 Olympics.

Let's think about this. £6,017 per second means £361,020 per minute. Which means £21,661,200 per hour. Which means £519,868,800 per day. And so on. You get the point. It is fucking terrifying.

Now, I don't like any of the major parties, but reading figures like those listed above make me hate Labour that little bit more than the others. Because they have to take the responsibility for allowing an unelected Prime Minister to drag this country into the sort of debt that could cripple it in the future. And there still isn't really a plan as to how the government will manage this debt, let alone try to bring it down.

Brown hasn't so much mortgaged the future as taken out a massive loan with an angry, unpredictable loan shark. And at some point - most probably when Brown is out of power - that loan shark is going to come and demand payment. And then, because of the delusions of Gordon Brown, the incompetence of the Cabinet and the cowardice of the Labour party, we're all fucked.

Nu Labour Grudge Match: Penny Against Purnell

There can be few more wonderful things than watching two Labour party members sneering at each other. And when those two happen to be Penny "Would Be Radical" Red and James "Suddenly Socialist" Purnell - neither of whom will be strangers to regular readers of this blog - it is just delightful. And in this case, the exchange between the two perfectly sums up just how fucked the Labour Party is.

The story - from Penny rather than Purnell - is that during a meeting with the shifty former Cabinet minister, Penny snapped and told Purnell what was on her mind. It is quite interesting and worth reproducing in full. If only because it shows Penny Red is resolutely part of the Entitled Generation*:

"Look, James. You know and I know that the damage has already been done. There are hundreds of thousands of young people and people with disabilities out there whose lives have been entirely scuppered by a batting team of the recession and your damn stupid benefit policies. Sure, you're trying to guarantee jobs for one in ten of them now - but that's not enough, and we both know that. I'm not here to shout at you or to tell you how angry I am with you, and I'm not here to point out the massive hypocrisy in your personal behaviour over the expenses scandal -there wouldn't be a lot of point in that. I'm here to ask you, please, to listen.

Notice here how there are problems that have affected young people like Penny. The recession (which has presumably not allowed them to get jobs) and the Purnell Benefit reforms (which have presumably limited their earning potential whilst on the dole) are making life miserable for them. Which is understandable; but they are not alone in suffering from the recession or from Nu Labour policies. There is no sense within this of Penny and her friends trying to make the best of a bad situation. They expect the government to give them a job, rather than actually going out to find one. And when the government doesn't do so - and refuses to pay them for doing fuck all - they get angry about it. Which makes me a little angry. Mainly owing to the arrogance of it.

Now, I know it is bad form to post subjective anecdotal evidence to make a case; that said, I'm going to do it anyway. The government has never helped to find me a job. In all bar one case, I have found jobs through personal searches and direct application to companies. As for the one exception, I found that job through the personal contacts I built up through working. Disability isn't a hinderance either. I have worked with people who are disabled yet have worked very effectively in a variety of professions. The difference is between those who would go out and find a job, and those who want the job to come to them. And a job that comes gift-wrapped by the government. If you wait for a job to come to you, then you are going to be disappointed. Because - nine times out of ten - someone more proactive will have taken the role before it ever gets to you.

Oh, and it is positively startling to claim that you are not going to tell someone how angry you are with them at the same time as talking about their "damn stupid policies" and their "massive hypocrisy." Clearly a sense of self-awareness is still lacking in what passes for the Radical Left these days.

But Penny goes on with her odd mix of a plea and a rant:

"People are hurting, right now; people like my partner and my former housemates are in desperate situations and they are hurting. You're a highly ambitious, brilliant politician. There's not a small chance that by the time you're leader of the Labour Party or Prime Minister of Britain [note: neither Purnell nor his aide moved to correct me at this point] we will still be hurting, still be desperate, and some of us might still be unemployed. I want you to remember, please, that you owe us a voice. I want you to remember that our votes count, too, and that we are people just as much as people who are lucky enough to be employed. It's too late for some of us now; but we're good, bright young men and women who just want to earn our way, and our votes count as much as anyone's. So when you're powerful again, please remember us, and remember that you owe us. And that's all I have to say."

All this talk of hurting brings the music of Tears for Fears to mind. Although I do think that politicians - particularly those of the Nu Labour type - are immune to concepts like "hurting". So it is just as well that Penny mentions votes - the only thing the likes of Purnell could ever care about. Yet it is worth noting why so few politicians care about the young and the unemployed; the former often don't vote, and the latter often aren't registered. So Penny's vote is arguably worth less to Purnell than the vote of someone of middle age and the middle class; statistically, Purnell can rely on the middle class to turn out to the ballot box more than he can the unemployed or the young.

And why does he owe Penny a voice? Or even owe her anything? What the hell has she ever done, other than turn up to a meeting and hector him? Again, there is the pervasive sense of entitlement without justification. Penny just expects Purnell to represent her, her friends and her views. She doesn't explain to her readers or to Purnell why she should be listened to. Presumably because she doesn't have a reason.

Still, you have to hand it to Purnell. His response to all this is just gold:

At which point, Purnell said, "Thank you. That seems like a good point on which to end the meeting".

*Throws back head and brays with laughter.*

He doesn't give a fuck. Even in the face of Penny's self-righteous, self-serving indignation and pleading rage, he doesn't give a fuck. And in doing so he sums up perfectly what is wrong with Nu Labour politicians. They are so arrogant, and so self-absorbed, that they are perfectly happy to ignore the views and the arguments of their own party.

Which is how this post perfectly sums up why, for the foreseeable future, the Labour Party is fucked. James "Workhouse" Purnell represents the next generation of Labour leaders, and he doesn't really give a fuck about anyone other than himself. Not even those supporters he should be developing into party loyalists and activists. And the Labour generation after that can't do anything other than whine and tantrum over the grossly unfair government that doesn't deliver a job and/or a benefit cheque on demand.

Fuck 'em. Fuck the lot of 'em. They are on the way out, and good riddance.

*A concept I'll go into detail about in another, still to be written, post.

Sometimes news can be so unsurprising that you actually feel shocked that what you are reading about didn't happen ages ago. This would be a great example of that:

THE county council has pulled out of the bid to bring the World Cup to Nottingham in 2018.

The real surprise here is that Nottingham - a small city with a Robin Hood fetish and economy based on students and debauched stag/hen parties - ever thought it could host the World Cup in 2018. It was probably an odd mix of naive optimism and crass stupidity that made them make a bid in the first place, but frankly Nottingham has more urgent problems than trying to host a glorified football tournament in the year 2018...

The Green Alliance Manifesto

Or, to put it another (more accurate) way, the demands of the Green Alliance to shape the manifestos of the main parties at the next election.

The Green Alliance are a pressure group, and - of course - there is nothing wrong with pressure groups seeking to influence policy and government. Hell, it is pretty much their reason for being. Yet what is striking about the Green Alliance's press release is just how they attempt to fulfill their aims. They seem to mix strident demands with unsubstantiated threats and prophesies of doom. And as a result they are really unlikely to achieve its ends in any way.

On the eve of party conference season, eight of the UK’s leading environmental organisations today publish Common Cause: the Green Standard manifesto on climate change and the natural environment.

In case you were wondering, the eight groups are listed here by the BBC:

The groups making the call ahead of the forthcoming political party conferences are Green Alliance, Friends of the Earth, the Woodland Trust, WWF, the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace.

All the sort of organisations that will cause the main parties in this country to drop their pants and change their carefully designed and orchestrated party conferences to debate the calls of this strange union of movements. I can just see Gordon Brown ditching his latest desperate attempt to stay in power Keynote Speech to have a debate about these ideas. Something that becomes even more likely to me when I see the demands of these groups:

They are calling on all the political parties to endorse the Common cause declaration3, which states that climate change and restoring the natural environment should be accorded the highest priority during the next Parliament.

The highest priority? Jeez, that's a bold aspiration. Sure, you might just be able to get it to a high priority with the likes of Hug A Husky Cameron, but the highest priority? Against the ongoing crippling recession? The coming bankruptcy of the UK unless there are radical spending cuts? Against the troops dying in Afghanistan? They really want environmental concerns of a bunch of charities and members of the environmental lobby to take precedence and priority over all of those issues? That's somewhere between ludicrous and faintly insulting.

They are also calling on the parties to commit to 10 green manifesto proposals for 2010.

If the Tory Manifesto is as light as last time, then 10 pledges will pretty much eliminate all other commitments. Which, I suppose may be the point. If they can't put anything else in the manifesto then environmental concerns will have to go to the top of the list. But if this union truly wants to get their ideas into the manifestos of the main parties, it needs to make sure that there is a reason why the parties should sign up to their ideals. And this is where the Green Alliance becomes like one of those sandwich board men proclaiming "The End of the World Is Nigh":

The stakes are high: the price of failure would be paid by those in the UK and internationally who are most at risk from climate change, and in the irreversible loss of countryside and biodiversity. Action is required now, not in the decades to come.

Oh God, here we go. The tedious, predictable demand that action has to be taken now. Before something terrible happens! The problem with this rhetoric is that I have been hearing it since I was knee high to a grasshopper. Environmental doom has been coming unless the government deals with it now for years. And yet here we all are, still A-Ok. Now, for all I know there may actually be a global environmental apocalypse coming. But the environmentalists have now become the Boy Who Cried Wolf. The constant repetition of their warning has made that warning supremely ineffective.

Stephen Hale, director of Green Alliance, said on behalf of the groups: “It’s now or never. Support for the Common cause declaration will be the threshold for credibility at the next election on environmental issues. The commitment to decisive action must be endorsed by all parties. The real contest will be over specific policies, so we urge them to include our 10 manifesto asks for 2010 in their forthcoming manifestos."

Again, now or never. Or, as past history has shown us, it is now or never or some point in the future because we're not sure when - or even if - the oft-promised environmental apocalypse will actually happen.

And the next election will about a debate on policies - a variety of different policies, of which environment will be a small part. It will also be about the economy, and MPs' expenses, and the War in Afghanistan, and divisions in the Labour party, and the fact that Gordon Brown is the least popular and least effective Prime Minister since Anthony Eden nearly got us into a war with America over Suez. The Green Alliance proclaiming what the threshold for credibility on environmental issues at the next election is all very well and good, but it ignores the fact that the parties will need to consider a lot of other issues also demanding a credible response before they start worrying about environmental policies.

“Action in the next parliament is critical if we are to simultaneously reduce our CO2 emissions whilst improving the resilience of our natural environment to avoid the looming crises of food, energy and water shortages by 2030.”

Now, I'm all for avoiding food, energy and water shortages by 2030 - I think most people would be. Unfortunately, two things are missing from the Green Alliance's claim that the next Parliament will be crucial in avoiding that. They are:

1. There is no evidence that the apocalyptic shortages mentioned by the Alliance are actually going to happen and
2. There is no evidence that the 10 points from the Alliance - which consist of unsubstantiated and unexplained arbitrary targets relating to standard Green objectives - will stop those shortages.

Which is the first problem with this demand for the main parties to make their manifestos green - there's no real concrete evidence that the demands of the Alliance will truly make a difference with the environment. And that ties in nicely with the second problem these demands have - there is no evidence that embracing this rhetoric will help any of the parties politically.

Had there been an election in 2006, then these ideas might have been incorporated by the likes of Cameron into a manifesto. Unfortunately for the Greens, since then things have changed. And they have changed massively. For most people in this country, environmental politics represent the political equivalent of a luxury good. If some people can afford to be green, some people will do. However, in the midst of a financial crisis, people don't care as much about the environment, and for the vast majority of people it isn't going to be the main thing that influences their votes. This demand from the Green Alliance simply shows how desperate the environmentalists are becoming. People aren't listening anymore; people can't afford to listen. And a shrill demand for the main parties to add some environmental policies to their manifestos won't change that.

RIP Troy Kennedy Martin

But how can you have an obituary of him and not mention the traumatic yet great series Edge of Darkness?

Royal Mail Blues

Apparently the Royal Mail are considering a national strike. No, really, they actually are considering formalising their current approach of doing no work, rather than just pretending that they are actually doing something.

The potential strike is in response to possible redundancies that may result from the modernisation of the Royal Mail. According to Dave Ward, who holds the wonderfully Stalinist title of "deputy general secretary of the Communication Workers' Union":

"Modernisation is crucial to the future success of Royal Mail, but the implementation of change must be agreed and it must bring with it modern pay and conditions.

"Postal workers deserve to be rewarded for change. We want to see a new job security agreement which will help people through this time of change for the company … Modernisation should improve services not cut them."

Well, "modern pay and conditions" very easily could mean redundancy, in this day and age. I fail to see why the Royal Mail should be sheltered from the economic reality affecting the rest of the country. And as for "rewarded for change", why, precisely? Their reward for doing their job is surely the pay they get for it. If their job changes, then the workers need to think about whether they feel their remuneration reflects their changed circumstances. If it doesn't, then they can always find another job. Rather than trying to cripple their existing employer with unthinking demands for more pay.

I'll agree that job security is a nice idea. Unfortunately it doesn't really exist anywhere anymore. Again, there is no reason why the Royal Mail should be different from other organisations. Employers take on people to do a job. Unfortunately, should they change their structure/way of working, then they may need to lose some employees. It isn't ideal for those that lose jobs; yet it isn't realistic for organisations to keep people on when they have no work for them to do.

And the concept that modernisation shouldn't improve services rather than cut them is spot on as far as I am concerned. However, I'm prepared to entertain the idea that modernisation might involve cutting head-count in order to improve services. And that is still A-OK as far in my humble opinion.

Finally, maybe Deputy General Secretary Ward might want to use some empathy and consider why - after a summer where Royal Mail employees have devastated the already tatty reputation of that organisation and made mail deliveries even more of a joke than they have been before - those running the Royal Mail believe increased automation and employing fewer people might be the best way forward for them.

BBC v. The Government

Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw on the BBC, apparently without a sense of irony or self-awareness:

The £5 billion corporation “probably has reached the limits of reasonable expansion”, he said, and hinted that the “multimedia empire” needed to be cut down in size.

And:

Mr Bradshaw said: “Although the trust has performed better than its predecessor, I don’t think it is a sustainable model in the long term. I know of no other area of public life where the same body is both regulator and cheerleader.”

Whilst I can support a reduction in the vast bureaucracy and monolithic structure of the BBC - particularly if it comes with a reduction in the licence fee - I can't but note that Bradshaw's criticisms of the BBC could also be leveled at the vast, ever-growing government of which he is a part. By all means note that the BBC's current model is unsustainable, and that the organisation should be reduced in size and that the burden on the British people should be reduced, Mr Bradshaw. But don't be afraid to apply the same analysis to the government. Because that behemoth is in need of even more urgent reform than the BBC.

And you can do this, Mr Bradshaw, because you are both a regulator of the government at the same time as being its cheerleader...

Lies, Damn Lies and Gordon

"Politician Lies" is hardly a news story these days, but this story does take some beating:

The Conservatives today accused Gordon Brown of lying to Parliament as they published Treasury papers on public spending.

The document, prepared by officials in June, appears to show how the Government would meet Alistair Darling's pledge to cut the massive budget deficit in half in four years. It outlines spending falling by more than 9 per cent between now and 2014.

After a whole summer of talking about the Tories' 10% spending cuts, Labour now reveal that they are going to have to reduce spending by 9.3% themselves. The shameless nature of it is utterly staggering. Still, it just goes to show that they didn't pluck the 10% figure out of the air after all. It came from the Treasury.

This will probably lead to a whole host of rhetoric about how a fall in spending is not the same as a spending cut, and that the Tories are planning a 0.7% greater decrease in spending, and that Gordon Brown wouldn't lie anyway because of his much vaunted (but apparently soundly fucked up) moral compass. In fairness, I don't believe Labour did lie about spending cuts. Not for the crap reasons listed above, but simply because at this rate they aren't going to be in power long enough to have to implement them.

Jimmy Carter offers his insights into the healthcare row in America:

Former US President Jimmy Carter says much of the vitriol against President Barack Obama's health reforms and spending plans is "based on racism".

Hmm. Whilst I have no doubt that Barack Obama has faced a lot of racism in his life, I'm pretty sure that the majority of the vitriol he is receiving about healthcare reform doesn't have a racist basis. There may be another reason for the abuse.

Like, perhaps, opposition to his healthcare plan.

Quote of the Day

All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.

Enoch Powell, speaking in 1977

RIP Keith Floyd

Whilst I can't say I ever really watched him a lot, but let's be honest, a hard-drinking, eloquent TV Chef filled with a certain zest for life is a hell of a lot better than the fucking dross we have to put up with these days. Yes, Jamie Oliver, I'm talking about you.

Finally!

Gordon Brown is poised to announce that spending cuts are going to happen:

The prime minister is due to say it will be necessary to "cut unnecessary spending on low priorities" but will not say where the axe will fall.

Personally, I love the fact that only now will Brown grudgingly talk about cutting "unnecessary" spending. It speaks volumes about his mindset and the mindset of those in his party that only now will they consider cutting unnecessary spending - spending which, against every sensible parameter, should be cut anyway. What with it being unnecessary and all.

Of course, spending cuts have been inevitable since Brown spent billions propping up certain financial institutions, and desirable for a lot longer. The fact that Brown has only just brought himself round to this point of view shows how hopelessly out of touch he is with anything even approaching economic reality. The fact that he has finally caught up with everyone else deserves minor applause. Yet Brown is still refusing to say where these inevitable spending cuts will fall. And at the current rate of accepting the idea of spending cuts, he should have a good idea of where they will fall in about December 2010. By which time - thank Jesus - Brown will no longer be in power...

Single men, form an orderly queue:

A 107-year-old Malaysian woman has said she wants to get married again, for the 23rd time, as she fears her husband wants to leave her, says a report.

And why does this lady think her husband might leave her?

But now she fears her husband will not return home after completing treatment for drug addiction in Kuala Lumpur.

107 years old, married 22 times before, and not yet officially separated from her drug addicted husband. I can imagine there will be no end of potential suitors for this lady.

Our Prime Minister Business Secretary, Lord Peter Mandelson, has come out swinging blindly against the Tories. From the BBC:

Attacking the Conservatives, the business secretary said David Cameron's party wanted "deep, savage, indiscriminate, across-the-board spending cuts".

He added: "The fact is that a new generation of Conservatives is now foaming at the mouth with excitement at the turn of economic events.

"They believe it releases them from the need to remake the image of the Conservative Party as a nice party with a genuine concern for fairness and commitment to public services now."

First of all, what is wrong with "deep", "across the board" spending cuts when the country is on the brink of bankruptcy? And what evidence is there that any spending cuts would be "savage" and "indiscriminate"? None, really. But I guess "deep, savage, indiscriminate, across the board" sounds far more terrifyingly arbitrary than "deep, across the board."

But it says something about the skewed logic of political debate and reporting in this country that a party has to be wed to colossal levels of public spending in order to be "nice". Well, what is "nice" about taking the taxpayer's money and spunking it away on inefficient and costly public service? What is "nice" about unwarranted and often deeply intrusive theft from the taxpayer's purse?

Yes, Lord Mandelson, you're in the "nice" party. Really fucking "nice".

Gordon Brown: A Lying Incompetent

Gordon Brown is again talking about a recovery in the economy. Man, those green shoots are certainly taking their time in blooming into something more useful. But this being Gordon Brown, he can't resist the opportunity of announcing good news in tandem with a jibe against the Tories:

"Don't risk it with the Tories whose obsessive anti-state ideology means they can't see a role for government in either recession or recovery"

It is just plain nonsense to accuse the Tories of having an "anti-state ideology". It is a startling mis-representation of the Tory position to say (as Gordon Brown effectively does) that the Tories see no place in the economy for the government. You know this, I know this, the Tories know this and Gordon knows this. He is simply showing his naked political opportunism once again. He is interested in saving the country from recession, but he is just as interested in his attempts to alleviate the suffering of the people being an opportunity to give the Tories a swift kick in the balls.

Still, there is a wider issue with what he is saying. Now, I'm not quite anti-state, but I am certainly wary of state intervention. And I do have to say that the Brown administration stands as a stunning rebuke to those who would argue that the state has to have a role in a recession and/or recovery.

Brown has spent money like it is going out of fashion. And what do we have to show for it? Other governments - despite the promises of Gordon - are coming out of recession before us. The state owns banks, which are the poorest performers and least efficient organisations in that sector. We have businesses still going under, and we have growing unemployment lines. The schemes set up to alleviate some of the symptoms of recession for the people do not reach their target audiences in a timely fashion, if at all. Brown hasn't shown that a government can spend their way out of a recession. All he has shown is that a government can use a recession as a reason to spend terrifyingly huge sums of money without any real opposition.

And if we are moving towards recovery, then it is worth noting that the spending policies of our Prime Minister are going to have an impact on that recovery. And on the country as a whole. Brown's Viv Nicholson approach to the recession has left this country not only unable to pay for any further economic stimulus packages, but also for other fundamentals. Like, say, equipping an army fighting in the hostile environs of Afghanistan. Furthermore, the extent of the recovery is going to be stifled, if not suffocated, by the tax burdens that almost certainly will come given the massive borrowing of Gordon Brown. In a sort of sickening irony, Brown's attempts to create a recovery may damage that recovery. If not provoke another recession.

So there we have it. Brown. Wrong on the Tories. Wrong on the recession. Wrong on the recovery. And bankrupting the country to boot. Remind me, why is this man still our Prime Minister?

We're All Paedos Until Proven Certified Innocent

I haven't commented too much on the new government scheme to make everyone who wants to have any sort of a contact with a child pay a charge of £64 for a certificate to prove they are not a paedophile. Yet on reading the astounding arrogance of Sir Roger Singleton, the man whose agency will be leading this latest affront on civil liberties and direct challenge to the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty rather than the other way round, I just couldn't help but comment. And get a little pissed off, too.

The BBC quote Singleton:

Sir Roger, whose agency will run the vetting scheme, said: "We need to calm down and consider carefully and rationally what this scheme is and is not about.

"It is not about interfering with the sensible arrangements which parents make with each other to take their children to schools and clubs.

"It is not about subjecting a quarter of the population to intensive scrutiny of their personal lives and it is not about creating mistrust between adults and children or discouraging volunteering."

Someone needs to point out to Singleton that just because he doesn't intend certain things to happen as a result of his actions doesn't actually mean they won't happen. After all, I've heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Unfortunately, in the government's desperate attempt to answer the hysterical plea of "won't some think of the children?" they are limiting and damaging the experiences of many children growing up, as well as casting a ghastly veil of muted accusation over anyone who wants to have any sort of contact with a kid. They are effectively saying "you want to work with/interact with children? You must be some sort of paedo."

And Singleton's talk of people calming down and being rational/careful is deeply ironic, given this measure is a completely hysterical and over the top response to the crimes of Ian Huntley. If the government truly had calmed down after that particular crime, then we wouldn't be looking at yet another government database that will do next to nothing to protect the people of this country. Yet will do a great deal to inconvenience the people, increase suspicion and paranoia within society at the same time as making childhood that little bit less enjoyable for children.

Thinking about this calmly would reveal that fact that most child abuse happens within the confines of the family home. And this database, with its intrusive and expensive checks, is going to do fuck all to change that.

Elton John wants to adopt a toddler. Not sure this is such a great idea. Nothing to do with Elton's sexual orientation or his lifestyle. Much more to do with his motivations:

"Last week I lost one of my best friends; my keyboard player died of a heart attack at 52.

"It broke my heart because he was such a genius and so young and has two wonderful children.

"What better opportunity to replace someone I lost than to replace him with someone I can give a future to."

Hmmm. I know there are no shortage of crappy reasons for why people want to become parents, but seriously, adopting a child to replace your dead friend just seems a bit weird. Can you imagine this kid, when he's in his teens (and when Elton will be in his late seventies), asking his Dad why he was adopted. "Well, son, I had this fifty-two year old keyboard player who died so I thought, hey, why not adopt someone to fill that void in my life?"