Something to look forward to:

Temperatures across Britain are set to plunge as low as -5C (23F) over the next two days before Northern England and Scotland is hit by a potential blanket of snow.

I hope the terrible weather doesn't reach Nottingham; knowing my luck, it almost certainly will. Still, at least there is some hope for those areas of the UK that have been so devastated by the winter weather:

The Prince of Wales visited the area on Saturday to boost morale during the lengthy ordeal for locals cleaning up their homes and getting their lives back in order.

And that's supposed to make people feel better? Jesus H Christ, if Prince Charles visited me, my morale would drop not just through the floor, but down to the very depths of Hades to have a chat with a far more inspirational figure - Satan himself.

Gordon Brown and The War On Terror

Gordon Brown:

"We've got to ask ourselves why, eight years after September the 11th, nobody has been able to spot or detain or get close to Osama bin Laden, nobody's been able to get close to Zawahiri, the number two in al-Qaeda."

Yes, we should ask the question. And then note the very obvious answer. Which is that both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri aren't going to be advertising their presence. They won't be in the phone book. They are not going to have an e-mail account. They are terrorists on the run and they are on the run in an area of the world that is pretty close to being in a state of anarchy. Finding bin Laden and the other members of the al-Qaeda is never going to be easy. For some reason - like the fact that they are amongst the most wanted people in the world - bin Laden and al-Zawahiri aren't going to make it easy.

And I also fail to see why finding al-Zawahiri and bin Laden is supposed to make that much difference to the so-called War on Terror. Al-Qaeda is not structured like a traditional terrorist group. If you decapitate al-Qaeda, then you aren't going to end the threat from Islamic terrorism. It just isn't the way al Qaeda or the extremes of Islam work.

But of course bellicose words are always tempting for a beleaguered Prime Minister, particularly when said bellicose words are a call for someone else to do something. However, we shouldn't be fooled by Brown's crude tactic for one moment. His demand directed at Pakistan is nothing more than a distraction tactic. He is using the out-of-date rhetoric of the War on Terror - a spurious campaign against a concept rather than a meaningful war against a tangible enemy. Pakistan is fighting a terrorist foe that increasingly resembles an insurgency in parts of its domain. The very last thing they need is the endless prattle of a discredited British Prime Minister trying to claim some sort of authority in his final months in power.

LPUK: A New Leader

So, the Libertarian Party has a new leader - Mr Chris Mounsey. Many of you will probably better know him by his blogging alias... Now, some might worry about having a leader who uses the occasional cuss word in some of his blog posts. I personally think DK will make a fantastic leader. He is one of the founding members of the party, and he has travelled the country (often at his own expense) spreading the Libertarian message. He is eloquent and passionate about the cause, and that is to be valued as the party looks to grow its base and become a credible force in British politics.

It is also work giving a tip of the hat to outgoing leader Ian Parker-Joseph. I remember when LPUK was noting more than a message board on the internet. The fact that it did not die at birth and has become both a party capable of contesting elections is something that happened under the leadership of Ian Parker-Joseph. And it is always worth keeping in mind that the UK's Libertarian party is not like the larger political parties. Those who run the Libertarian Party do so whilst holding down other jobs and having to deal with a whole host of other commitments. Leading a political party is massive challenge even for paid political professionals; the fact that the Libertarian party has managed to consolidate itself as much as it has done is a testament to the hard work of the likes of Ian PJ.

But anyway, onwards and upwards. I look forward to seeing what plans the new leader has...

Quote of the Day - Britain's Contribution to the EU

"Britain was paying a premium to belong to a gym that beat it up."

Dr Lee Rotherham in his book "Ten Years On: Britain Without The European Union"

A Palin of the People?

Well, Sarah Palin's campaign for the 2012 Republican nomination book tour is going pretty darned well, at least according to this article from the BBC. Regular readers will know that I am not a fan of the former Governor of Alaska. In fact, I think her luddite attitudes and deeply simplistic world view would be inappropriate in the Mayor of Shitsville in the arse end of nowhere, let alone being the so called leader of the Free World. So it is both surprising and alarming that she seems to be such a hit with some Americans, garnering the sort of praise and earning the type of reverence that hasn't been seen since, well, the beginning of the Obama bid for the presidency.

And it takes this sort of comment to understand why Palin is such a hit in parts of the US:

"She's one of us," he said simply. "We're hard-working, 9-to-5 Joes and like her we didn't go to the elite universities that other politicians went to. She understands real life and she understands America."

Of course, that is palpable nonsense. It is like claiming John Prescott is a man of the people, despite his enjoyment of a lifestyle of grotesque opulence at the expense of the British taxpayer would be beyond the means of most people in this country. But let's break it down and look at just how Sarah Palin is not a "normal" person.

First of all, is she really "hard-working"? I doubt that many ordinary "Joes" could jack in their job on a whim like former Governor Palin did. Likewise, how many other ordinary people in the USA are propelled to national stardom and a position where designer wardrobes are bought for them at great expense on the feckless whim of an old man in a hurry?

And her university... now, her academic career is a little bit all over the place, but it turns out she graduated from the University of Idaho. A little bit of internet research sheds some light on what that uni is like. From Wikipedia:

The University of Idaho is the state of Idaho's flagship and oldest public university

Flagship and ordinary are far from synonymous, as a graduate from the University of Idaho might know. Also, from the University of Idaho's own website:

The University of Idaho is included in the 2009 edition of Princeton Review's "Best 368 Colleges." Only about 15 percent of the nation's colleges are included the in the ranking of the nation's best institutions for undergraduate education.

Top 15% of the nation's colleges, then. Interesting. And there's more:

We are consistently recognized among the "top national, doctoral-granting universities" in the country by U.S. News & World Report.

Also:

We have more National Merit Scholars than all other institutions in the state combined and have a nationally-acclaimed Honors Program.

Finally:

We're ranked in the top 30 in the nation as "a great university to hit the books and backcountry" by Outside magazine.

Sure, Idaho might not be Yale or Harvard, but it is hardly a crappy Alaskan Community College either. It sounds pretty elite to me.

And does Sarah Palin actually understand "real life" and "America"? Because almost everything that happened during her campaign sinking performance as McCain's running mate would suggest that she doesn't have the first clue about real life or America. Despite all this, I don't doubt that the real reason why Sarah Palin is such a hit with many Americans is because people identify with her as someone who is like them, and therefore can represent them more effectively. Which does beg the question "does someone being like you actually mean they will be an effective politician?"

Put simply, I don't think that you have to have a level of personal identification in order to buy into a political candidate. In fact, I think that being able to personally identify with a politician should actually be a massive warning sign. I don't want my politicians to be like me. It isn't and shouldn't be a question of personal identification; it should be a question of finding someone with the intelligence and interpersonal skills to be a political representative, even if that person comes from a very different background to those they are representing. Gordon Brown has a similar background to your humble author (except I have spent a lot longer in the real world), yet he is not an effective representative of or for me. One of the most striking thing about life in the modern world is just how disparate the individuals are within society. It is a nonsense to expect those who work on behalf of you to be like you. I mean, would you prefer a surgeon from an elite university who is immensely well-qualified or one with limited education and limited knowledge but who happens to be an ordinary "Joe"?

So Sarah Palin is a not an ordinary person. And even if she was, it wouldn't be a good reason to make her a Republican Presidential nominee or President of the United States of America. The very best thing that the Republican party could do right now is get over this godawful infatuation with Palin and instead focus on finding a viable candidate capable of taking on and defeating Obama - a man who, despite not being perceived as an ordinary "Joe" is more than capable of taking on Palin, chewing her up and spitting her out in any election he fights against her.

It seems appropriate somehow that in a pie chart that adds up to 193% the winning candidate is Sarah Palin...

Via Mr E.

The Terrible, Deadly Cynicism of Nu Labour

That Nu Labour has been one of the most sickeningly amoral and calculating regimes in British history should come as a surprise to no-one. Even the quickest of glances over the behaviour of our government over the past 12 years presents a positive plethora of cynical politicking and absolute cowardice as our government has prioritised popularity over anything and everything else. Yet there is no better example of this shallow yet cynical calculations than the rush towards war with the invasion of Iraq.

Now, I understand the case for the Iraq War. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I understand the notion of preemptively disarming a rogue state with nuclear ambitions, and I understand the rhetoric about spreading democracy across the globe. Now, Labour paid lip service to both of these ideas in its rhetoric as it made the case for taking on Iraq, but it is clear that the real reasons behind Britain joining the Coalition of the Willing had little to do with these lofty yet intrinsically flawed ambitions. No, the rush to war had rather more pragmatic reasons:

The political calculation was therefore straightforward. As far as Blair was concerned, if he had opposed the war he would have destroyed the New Labour coalition and given up vital ground to the Conservatives. Rupert Murdoch's newspapers were a key factor in this respect. Murdoch was a passionate supporter of Bush's foreign policy. Blair knew Murdoch would have switched his newspapers' support to the Conservatives if he had sided with the loathed Chirac and Shroeder in opposition to the war. In its 2005 election endorsement for Labour The Sun backed Blair for a single reason – his support for Bush in Iraq.

So there we have it. Britain committed to invading Iraq - and the deaths of British and Iraqi people - not because it wanted to spread freedom or protect the UK, but because the Prime Minister wanted to keep The Scum onside and wanted to get one over on IDS. The cynicism is breathtaking, and the implications clear. Britain's role in the Iraq War was purely in the interests of the ruling Nu Labour elite. I hope this is remembered when the votes are cast in the next election and when the history books are written. We went to war for reasons that make Suez look like a unassailable diplomatic triumph. Bemoaning the cheap cynicism of this rancid excuse for a government is nothing new; but it is worth repeating since their complete lack of morality must not be forgotten.

Ed Miliband, Saviour of the World.

Apparently, the fate of the world is in Ed Miliband's hands. Which would be terrifying if the threat facing us wasn't climate change. Because, as the article on LabourList points out, climate change has slipped down the international agenda with good cause:

The world is far from environmental consensus, opposing domestic and international interests make sure of that. Recent attacks on the science behind climate change have dented public support. And several among our world’s leaders are shamelessly playing the expectations games.

It is worth decoding the phrase "Recent attacks on the science behind climate change". There have always been attacks on the science behind climate change; what has happened recently is the exposure of some of the fraudulent claims being made by those who create the "science" behind climate change. Just a little piece of LabourList spin there; but essential to understanding why climate change consensus seems to be falling apart.

Ultimately, you can tell that the British government don't think that climate change is a pressing issue. The key indicator is the fact that Ed Miliband - the less famous sibling in the political equivalent of the political version of the Chuckle Brothers - is in charge. If it really was an issue that the government wanted to focus on, then it would be Gordo himself - the perennial control freak - would be in charge. So Ed Miliband, a charisma vacuum, is going to save the world from a possibly non-existent threat? It could be used as the basis for the plot of perhaps the world's most boring film. It certainly isn't going to be at the heart of this failing government's final months in power.

Obama on Afghanistan

Barack Obama has been talking about Afghanistan and pontificating on "finishing the job". Now, sometimes I wonder why that particular part of the "War on Terror" is still ongoing. Fortunately Barack is there to remind us. Yes, it is about whupping the butts of al-Qaeda:

"We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks"

Funny, but that sounds to be a lot like the rhetoric of one George W Bush. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. But in fairness, I'm fine with the idea of effectively destroying al-Qaeda. And I am A-Ok with the idea out of getting the hell out of Afghanistan. The key question is how. And I wait with bated breath for someone in power to come up with some sort convincing plan. Rather than spouting tired rhetoric about fighting al-Qaeda...

Yet more state control:

Police are routinely arresting people simply to record their DNA profiles on the national database, according to a report published today.

But of course they are. Is anyone surprised by this? Anyone at all?

This isn't an aberration, this is an aspiration of the government. They won't be happy until we all exist on a database. Be it spurious arrests, or an ID card scheme, or whatever, they will find a way to justify claiming your identity for their database. And this all comes down to how the government views you - as a commodity that needs to be categorised. Like a living, breathing, library book.

Long Weekend

Obscure horror films can be great finds. Those movies that don’t make it mainstream for whatever the reason (normally not being commercial enough) are often the creepiest, most imaginative entries in the genre. Of course there would be another reason why they are obscure – because they are shit. That’s the danger with watching a movie that few people know about.

Long Weekend - an Australian horror movie in which a couple are stalked by mother nature herself – is an odd combination of the two. It has some very, very creepy moments. The dead sea cow creeping up the beach unseen, the paths that lead round and round in circles, the feral dog in the tent, and the camper van floating under the crystal clear sea water are all wonderfully spooky ideas. And overall, the theme of the movie is that there is an awesome power toying with the two humans, just waiting to destroy them. Whatever the couple choose to do, they can’t escape. They were never going to. From the moment they arrived on the beach that the locals swore blind didn’t exist, they were doomed. It is horrific because it is all so inescapable.

The reasoning as to why the two face the wrath of nature is dealt with in a little bit of a heavy handed way in the film, but there can be no doubt that these two are crass when it comes to dealing with nature. They are destructive forces. They litter, they kill, they vandalise. The man has a tendency to shoot at nothing, and shoots in fear – something that later costs his wife dearly. They wipe out a substantial number of animals through carelessness, out of rage and just for the hell of it. As I say, it is dealt with in a terribly unsubtle way in the film, but it is easy to see why Nature might dislike this pair so much.

But that is the problem with the film. The couple at the centre of it are so unpleasant – to each other, to Nature, to just about everything – that it is difficult to have any sympathy with them whatsoever. At points in the film, the malign actions of Mother Nature are almost a blessed relief from the endless fucking sniping between the two leads. It isn’t even a case of one of them being in the wrong – they both are deeply unpleasant, selfish people. As a result, it is a little difficult to care when either one of them meets their untimely ends.

Long Weekend has some fantastic ideas in it, and works really well in places. It is also well-directed and, often, a strikingly beautiful film. Yet it could work so much more if the two leads weren’t so unbearable. It is a vital rule in the successful horror movie that the viewer should care about those under threat. And unfortunately, this is where Lost Weekend fails so badly.

23 Year Ordeal

Dear God:

For 23 years Rom Houben was trapped in his own body, unable to communicate with his doctors or family. They presumed he was in a vegetative state following a near-fatal car crash in 1983.

But then doctors used a state-of-the-art scanning system on the brain of the martial arts enthusiast, which showed it was functioning almost normally.

And:

Houben then suffered years of being effectively trapped in his own body as care personnel and doctors at the hospital in Zolder tried to communicate with him, but eventually gave up hope that he would ever come round.

23 years! Can you imagine being trapped in yourself, unable to communicate with the world around you, for nearly two and a half decades? It truly sounds like a terrible torture, and pretty close to the worst thing in the world. I have literally no idea how this fella was still sane at the end of what must be the very definition of an ordeal...

Only four?

Jesus, that's not a lot. And this is still very early in the process. We still aren't even at the point of charges being brought, let alone getting to a trial.

Still, better than nothing. And I look forward to learning which four cases have been transferred to prosecutors...

BBC Priorities...

So, a leading body that researches climate change has been apparently exposed as telling the odd lie. The potential implications for the climate change lobby are massive. And God love the BBC, they are even reporting this story. In their Technology section:

The e-mail system of one of the world's leading climate research units has been breached by hackers.

And:

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

Yes, because it is all about the (possible) hacking, isn't it? That's the crucial issue here. Silly me, thinking that the media might report on the apparently egregious and gross distortions perpetrated by those who would want to radically change government policy based on spurious and often fabricated evidence. But no. It is all about the alleged hacking.

Fucking hell. And I wonder why some people claim that the BBC is biased?

Labour Poll Boost: They Should Enjoy It Whilst They Can

Via Boatang & Demetriou, a poll that is apparently good news for the Labour party:

Labour's hopes of avoiding a general election rout at the hands of David Cameron's Tories will be boosted today as a new poll shows a sharp fall in the Conservatives' lead, raising the possibility of a hung parliament.

The Ipsos MORI survey for the Observer, which will cause alarm in Tory ranks and boost Labour's hope of performing a "great escape", puts the Conservatives on 37%, only six points ahead of Labour on 31%. The Liberal Democrats are on 17%.

First things first, they are still six points behind the Tories in their best poll result since last December. If the election result was held right here, right now, based on these poll results then Labour would still lose. If that is something to celebrate, then things have been really bad for the Labour party. But things get even worse when you consider that in 2005, the Labour party won a third election victory in a row and looked like the dominant force in British electoral politics. Now, they are celebrating the fact that they are still destined for election defeat, except by a slightly slimmer margin. Based on what is probably a rogue poll.

Yes, this poll is a triumph for the Labour party. But rather like their recent by-election victory, it may prove to be a pyrrhic victory on the morning after the next General Election and they are returning to the Opposition benches for what could be a long period of time.

Is it just me or is Nick Clegg looking more and more like Cameron with every passing day? Give him slightly floppier hair, and you'd be hard pressed to tell him apart from young Hug A Husky:

Maybe this is their election strategy. The Lib Dems want their leader to look like the not yet hated leader of the Tories in an attempt to boost the popularity of the perennial third party. It isn't a great idea, but it isn't a bad one either - and much better that Clegg's other plan which, as this article makes clear, is to sit tight and pray that there are still enough Liberal Democrats in the House after the next election to take part in some sort of coalition in the event of a hung Parliament...

The BNP is going multicultural:

A Sikh man who has campaigned for the BNP in support of its anti-Islam stance has been put forward to be the party's first non-white member.

Rajinder Singh, who is in his late 70s, has twice lent support to Nick Griffin during the British National party leader's court appearances and appeared in an election broadcast for the party in 2005. There have been suggestions that he could stand as a BNP candidate at next year's general election.

Go you, Rajinder! In no way whatsoever are you being used by the BNP. No, they respect you even though they see you as a "guest in this country" and, until very recently, refused you membership of their party. And in no way are you going to become the BNP's first non-white member just to save them from devastating legal action. You go, Rajinder. You are a trailblazer. A myopic, deeply flawed and ever so slightly moronic trailblazer, but a trailblazer nonetheless.

A Plug For Dreamland

One of the great things about the return of Doctor Who has been not just the quality of the programme itself, but also the quality of the spin-offs. Even the last series of Torchwood managed to be great. The days of K-9 And Company are long gone. Mercifully. And if, like me, you are struggling to wait until Christmas for the next instalment of the adventures of a certain Doctor, then check out Dreamland. It may be a cartoon, it may very clearly be a stopgap in what has been a Doctor-lite year, but it is actually very entertaining and in keeping with the spirit of live-action version. And it is streets ahead of, say, the Star Trek cartoon. Or the Scream of the Shalka misfire. If it continues like this and if I find the time and if I can be bothered (which represents three big asks) then I'll write a review of it. But far more importantly, go watch and go enjoy.

Quote of the Day - Explaining Global Warming

"The problem we are faced with is that the meteorological establishment and the global warming lobby research bodies which receive large funding are now apparently so corrupted by the largesse they receive that the scientists in them have sold their integrity."

Piers Corbyn, speaking in 2000

Harry Brown

See, I think I know why Harry Brown (or 'Arry Brown, to mimic the Caine accent) was made. Caine has obviously been playing Alfred in the successful Nolan directed Batman movies. And he must have been watching Christian Bale meaningfully mumbling his way through those films, and decided he wanted a bit of the action for himself. Of course, what any self-respecting film-maker should have said to Caine is "no" (or perhaps "you're a big man, but you're out of shape"). Instead, they decided to shun the moulded body armour and instead gave Caine a cardigan and a replica firearm. And so the utterly execrable Harry Brown was born.

The plot - such as it is - is simple. 'Arry Brown is a old man who used to be a Royal Marine. 'Arry lives in a housing estate so awful that you would probably emigrate to a war zone for a better life if you lived there. He has an old friend. Who gets murdered after trying to stab some feral fucking youths with a bayonet. 'Arry gets drunk, accidentally stabs a thieving junkie on his way home, and then becomes a vigilante extraordinaire. He is like a wheezy version of Paul Kersey. Or Rambo with a pot belly.

And so he goes around killing a group of chavs and hoodies who all seem to have decided how to act by watching Kidulthood over and over again. He is also pursued (in the loosest sense of the word) by two police officers - one of them a wankstain in a flat cap and with all the sensitivity of a pitbull, and the other a female Inspector who no doubt is meant to come across as thoughtful and intuitive but instead comes across as wet as bog paper that has been immersed in the loo. Oh, and he also kills a drug dealer who looks like Gollum and a drug dealer who looks like some twat out of Razorlight in order to save a junkie whore. And I am not disparaging the woman in question; the way her character is set up makes it clear she is both a junkie and a whore. Still, 'Arry sees something worth saving. Maybe it was the fact that she is choking on her own vomit as he offs her boyfriend. Who can tell what the logic is of a psychotic pensioner with a grudge?

And everything spirals to a deeply unconvincing climax in a pub where the wheezy 'Arry (who appears to have some form of emphysema that vanishes by the very end of the film) and the Keystone Kops without the charisma are menaced by the king chav and his uncle in the middle of the sort of riot we stopped having in this country back in the 1980s. Before everything turns out to be OK. For 'Arry, at least. Not for all of the dead people, though.

No doubt this was meant to be gritty. A sort of update of Get Carter for a generation now drawing their pensions. Unfortunately, it seems to think that characters sporting cliched accents and a certain level of visceral violence makes something gritty. It doesn't. It just makes it a late-night version of The Bill with hints of Last of the Summer Wine. See, for something to be gritty it also have to be vaguely realistic. Harry Brown not only stretches the bounds of credibility, but takes the boundaries of credibility to a bar for a drink, drugs it, then carves out its kidneys to sell on the black market and then leaves the boundaries of credibility for dead in a ditch. The Punisher was arguably less daft; it certainly had better characterisation. It you want to see something gritty, then go watch Scum or I.D. Harry Brown drifts into satire without realising it - which is the kiss of death for any "gritty" film.

Sorry, I should have put a spoiler warning at the beginning of this post. But trust me, the stupid fucks who made this film have already spoiled it far more than I ever could be by revealing elements of the "plot".

A Doctor Who Clip

For anyone who, like me, finds the concept of Children In Need very worthy but the actual programme One Of The Worst Things In The World, I give you the most important part of the annual telethon. Yep, here is the clip from the forthcoming Doctor Who adventure The End of Time. Enjoy!

Climate Change *Proof*

DK is (naturally) celebrating the news that some of those Climate Change "scientists" have been caught being somewhat economical with the the truth. Now, the climate change brigade would probably argue that this makes little difference; that the environment is still under threat even if these scientists have been caught constructing the sort of fabrications that might normally be associated with a Nu Labour government preparing for war. Certainly, I'll concede that the climate is changing, and that humanity often does have a negative impact on that environment. And I'll also concede, since I am in an unusually generous mood this morning, the deceit of some environmentally focussed scientists does not dismiss the findings of all environmentally focussed scientists. However, it does bring it all into question.

Which is the point. I, for one, am sick of being called a "climate change denier" in the same tones that are normally reserved for Holocaust deniers. I don't "deny" climate change, I simply question the extent to which humanity is responsible for it and also doubt how convincing some of the supposed evidence for it is. Guess what? I'm a skeptic - and this evidence shows that being sceptical is a good position to be be in.

Blind adherence to the "truth" about climate change is a frankly moronic position. Like every other part of life, science can seldom offer an absolute, indisputable "truth". And it is also open to use and abuse by those with agendas. So for all those environmentalists out there who wish to close down the debate because the evidence for climate change is now "indisputable", take a step back and a deep breath, admit you are wrong, and start making your case again. This time without the shrill, strident tone that sounds more appropriate coming from a religious fanatic than someone talking about reality.

Frickin' awesome:

Drinking alcohol every day cuts the risk of heart disease in men by more than a third, a major study suggests.

And:

For those drinking little - less than a shot of vodka a day for instance - the risk was reduced by 35%. And for those who drank anything from three shots to more than 11 shots each day, the risk worked out an average of 50% less.

I'd write more, but I'm off to get hammered.

Nottingham City

A blog about the city I recently (well, in the last six months) made my home.

I'm not saying I agree with the title of the blog but... if I was going to be cynical, I would say it does have a vague ring of truth about it.

President Tony - Not Going To Happen

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh out loud and do a little dance of joy at this:

Gordon Brown has accepted that prime minister Tony Blair cannot become the first President of the European Council, Downing Street has said.

Good to see that once again the "support" of Gordon Brown has once again acted as a curse rather than a blessing.

Bribing The Voters

Good news! Some railway stations are going to be improved. But take a look at this list and see whether you can clock the link:

Manchester Victoria – Tony Lloyd LAB
Clapham Junction – Martin Linton LAB
Barking – Margaret Hodge LAB
Warrington Bank Quay – Helen Southworth LAB
Preston – Mark Hendrick LAB
Wigan North Western – Neil Turner LAB
Luton - Margaret Moran LAB
Liverpool Central – Louise Ellman LAB
Stockport – Ann Coffey LAB
Crewe – Edward Timpson CON

Yes! They are all in Labour constituencies, except Crewe which is a key Labour target seat! What a crazy co-incidence, especially this close to the election!

Of course, politicians always try to bribe voters. Thatcher did so magnificently with the sale of council houses, for example. But it is seldom that we such a blatant example. It is insulting the intelligence of the British populace. Assuming, of course, that they don't fall for it. However this stands as yet another testament to ideological redundancy and sheer desperation of the Labour party. And what a slogan it could be - Your country's fucked but some train stations look a little better...

A gem of a quote from LabourList:

Talking about a leadership challenge now simply aids David Cameron. What Labour now needs is for Brown to deliver some new and positive messages, which connect with people on the ground and take the fight to the Conservatives.

You know what? Talking about a leadership challenge does aid David Cameron. It increases the instability of the government and paints the picture of a party divided. But not having a leadership election also helps David Cameron - since it leaves Gordon Brown in power. It is always going to help the opposition if the government is headed by someone who is effectively a toxic millstone around their necks.

And it has been a long wait for Gordon Brown to deliver some "new and positive messages". In fact, we've been waiting ever since he came into power and said he wasn't calling an election because he wanted to spell out his ideas. After several years of nothing happening it seems a little hopeful to suddenly expect Gordon to become a charming, visionary spokesperson brimming with new ideas.

But it is nice to see this LabourList writer setting out their plan for Labour: get behind Gordon and hope for the best. Which is rather, for Labour at this moment in time, hoping that pigs might fly...

The Queen's Speech

From the BBC:

Key measures in the Queen's Speech include a crackdown on excesses in the City and a legal obligation to halve the budget deficit within four years.

I'd rather there was a proper crackdown on government excesses than those of the City. After all, if the government goes tits up, then we still have to pay for it. Whereas if City firms go out of business, then it costs us remarkably little. Unless the government chooses to bail them out at the taxpayers' expense. But they would never be dumb enough to do that, now, would they? Oh, wait...

And a legal obligation to halve the budget in four years... well, fine. It would be nice to know how, but I'm sure the legal obligation will focus the mind. As long as halving the budget doesn't come at the taxpayers' expense, this aspiration is fine by me. Although I can't help but think that if half this spending is so expendable that it can be got rid of in less than half a decade, then it probably wasn't worth it in the first place. But I've made a sort of peace with the fact that Nu Labour have spunked away eye-wateringly large amounts of money in achieving precisely nothing. It still makes me very, very angry, but I try not to dwell on it these days.

Mr Brown told the Commons Labour was the "only party with the policies to build a long-term recovery".

You keep telling yourself that, dear. The only thing you have working in favour of your feverishly delusional hypothesis is that Labour were the bunch of cunts who created the current situation, so they have some sort of idea of how to reverse it. But I won't be holding my breath.

Quote of the Day

"Yes, if it came to it! If you have to wade through all this shit to win the election, then I'm happy to lose it! Alright?"

Peter Mannion in The Thick of It

Foot in mouth disease from a Labour candidate:

A Labour election candidate may be sacked after calling the Queen a "parasite" and "vermin" on a website.

Now, I don't like the Royal Family. At all. And I can slate them as much as I like as I am running for precisely nothing, and represent no-one other than myself. However, you are a little dumb if you are seeking election and slating the oddly popular unelected head of state. Particularly if you do on to say this:

Mr White said the Queen "milks this country for everything she can".

He may be correct; but then again is a member of a party that has not just milked this country but also effectively razed it to the ground over the past decade and a bit. As much as I dislike the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family, I have to say that when you compare them to the Nu Labour government then they really do come across as the lesser of two evils. By some way.

Further Proof of the Shameless Lord Mandelson

Peter Mandelson:

Business Secretary Peter Mandelson this week claimed there was now a "contract" between the Sun and the Tories.

Yes, because there was never a contract between Nu Labour and The Sun, now, was there? And his tetchy response has nothing to do with the The Sun now having an effective contract out on the Labour party, does it?

He also accused the paper of "bad taste and crude politicking" over the story in a BBC interview.

In fairness, The Sun does do both "bad taste and crude politicking". But - hang on for a moment - so does Peter fucking Mandelson! In fact - and let's be honest about this - the only reason why Brown brought Mandelson back from the life raft for failing Labour politicians EU is because of his rare gift for media manipulation with no regard to taste and his abilities when it comes to crude politicking.

If you really want to make the case for your political leader being persecuted by an unfriendly media outlet then it tends to be best if you haven't spent the best part of your career wooing and coaxing said media outlet in to berating the opposition. Fuck me, what next? Alastair Campbell calling The Sun low brow and not that sophisticated?

Another RIP

Hang on, I thought he died years ago. I thought that Christopher Lee killed him by burning him in a giant Wicker Man.

Bad taste jokes aside, RIP Edward Woodward.

Doctor Who: The Waters of Mars

Well, it was good. Actually, more than that. It was gripping. From start to finish. Just so much better than Planet of the Dead, which frankly looks lacklustre compared to last night's episode. Was it perfect? No. Any programme that contains a robot called GADGET is going to get on my nerves slightly. But that is a minor complaint when you consider just how much the show got right.

Firstly, it managed to be both tense and terrifying. In fact, much of the episode reminded me of various zombie films. The make-up of the creatures, combined with their creepy voices, reminded me of The Evil Dead, whilst the spasmodic, twitching that the victims did when they changed, combined with the single drop of water falling into a man's eye causing his death, reminded me of 28 Days Later. And when you consider that this series is a family show being broadcast on a Sunday evening, those are some pretty intense references to have. I'm not sure what children would have made of The Waters of Mars, but I know that had I watched as a kid, I'd be having nightmares for weeks afterwards.

It also contained neat references to other elements of Doctor Who without being obtrusive. In particular, I liked the idea that the Ice Warriors had frozen something in the glacier; something so monstrous that they felt encasing it in ice was the best way to deal with it. But it wasn't just the in-jokes and geek references that made it work. The episode also managed to feel like the logical conclusion of the Doctor being the last Time Lord. He was now able to write the laws of time, and turn himself into the Time Lord Victorious. And there have been few images as terrifying in Doctor Who than the hero turning himself into a meglomaniac. And the most challenging thing of all to take in was the fact that there was nothing wrong with what the Doctor wanted to do. He wanted to save lives, just as he does all the time, but he was forced by the laws of a long dead race to leave the pioneers of Mars to die in fear in Bowie Base One.

Which is what the heart of this outstanding episode was about. It showed two transitions - as the Doctor moved from being totally defeatist to being convinced he could change this fixed point in history, whist Adelaide went the other way. The darkness at the heart of The Waters of Mars was about how powerless all the characters actually were. The Doctor tried to break every rule to ensure Adelaide's survival, but in the end, she understood that she had to die. And has there ever been such a bleak end for someone who was effectively the Doctor's companion? She took her own life; effectively forced into it by the Doctor's actions.

It will be very interesting to see where they take the Tenth Doctor in his final two episodes. A number of options present themselves, and I would be staggered if the Doctor's drift into megalomania didn't have serious consequences for him. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Doctor's actions here don't play a major role in what kills his tenth incarnation.

So, all in all, a fantastic episode. And a bittersweet one, because it shows - amongst other things - that RTD has finally worked out how to write brilliant Doctor Who just as he is about to leave the show. The script for The Waters of Mars was terrifying, though-provoking and brought out the very best in his actors. Whereas for so much of his time as a writer for Doctor Who, RTD's stories have been far more lightweight than what he managed to produce last year with Midnight and last night with The Waters of Mars.

Quote of the Day

"The story of Brown's career: a brief moment of boldness, followed by a hasty, grim faced retreat."

Private Eye No. 1249

Rating the Doctors

Tomorrow sees the broadcast of the first new Doctor Who episode since Easter. And it is one of the last episodes to star young David Tennant. So as we are winding down yet another regeneration of the Doctor, I though I would take a look at the previous incarnations of the Doctor. But rather than just doing a Top 10, I though I would instead arrange them into three categories - Failed Incarnations, Average Incarnations and Successful Incarnations - and explain why I've placed them in the different categories. To fellow fans, the classifications may be controversial. To those who aren't fans... well, I'd be surprised if you have read this far.

Failed Incarnations

Jon Pertwee - Some people really rate the Third Doctor, and there can be no doubt that at the time he was a very popular Doctor. Yet in retrospect, Jon Pertwee's portrayal of the Doctor poor, and one that seems out of character with what came before and after. The Third Doctor looks like, as I remember reading once in Doctor Who Magazine, "your granny after a gin bender". He is like one of those tedious TV action heroes that were inexplicably popular in the 1970's - he dresses and acts like Jason King, with added tedious moralising. This isn't to say that there weren't some great Doctor Who stories during Pertwee's tenure; it is just that almost all of those stories would be enhanced by having another actor in the lead role.

Colin Baker - everything about the era, from the costume, through to the blustering yet paper-thin portrayal, through to the generally very weak stories, shows why Colin Baker's time as the Doctor is notorious and understandably short. In fact, this era is probably where the "classic" series jumped the shark. It is a shame, because somewhere within Colin Baker's portrayal there is an excellent and interesting character trying to get out. Yet every decision made by the production team seem to undermine what Baker was trying to do. They failed to make this Doctor into more of an alien; instead, they made him into a bit of a wanker.

Paul McGann - the Eighth Doctor is always going to be undermined by the fact that he only appeared once on the TV - and then for only part of the adventure. But it isn't just about the limited screen time. It is also down to McGann's performance. It isn't a lazy performance. It is just tremendously bland. There is no attempt to anything other be nice. There is no complexity whatsoever to his Doctor, and there is little to actually remember about the Eighth Doctor after the end credits on his only TV story have rolled. Sure, had he had more adventures, then maybe he would have developed a stronger and more memorable character. But then again, had he been a more memorable character, maybe more adventures would have been commissioned...

Average Incarnations

William Hartnell - William Hartnell struggled with the role of the Doctor. It isn't just the fact that William Hartnell struggled to remember his lines; his whole portrayal shifts from slightly scary old man into doddering old fool, and loses a lot of its power in that transition. But he deserves some respect for being the first Doctor. And he (along with the Daleks) clearly clicked with the public, since it launched a programme that has been running for over four decades.

Peter Davison - Davison's portrayal is similar to McGann's in that it is instantly likeable and not that distinctive. Yet Davison brings an edge to his Doctor - there is a weariness, an impatience that gives him a gravitas that belies his relatively youthful appearance. Furthermore, Davison is one of those actors who deserves credit for what he did to move the show on - he replaced Tom Baker, a man who had become synonymous with the Doctor. And he managed to create a new version of the Doctor that, whilst not being as memorable as Baker's portrayal, did at least keep the series going and - crucially - kept it popular during one of the most important transitions it ever went through.

Sylvester McCoy - hated by some, forgotten by many, McCoy actually gave a very interesting performance as the Doctor, and made him perhaps the most alien and powerful that the Doctor has ever been. Watch Ghost Light or Survival, and see a Doctor who clearly isn't human playing games with others as he combats great evil. Don't get me wrong, there is much wrong with the McCoy era - the first season's tone is jarringly inappropriate; his Doctor wears a sweater that frankly needs burning and McCoy has a curious inability to play angry convincingly. But there are just flashes within his time as the Doctor that show there was something truly original going on, and I reckon that had McCoy had a longer time playing the role, then we would have seen something very special emerge.

Successful Incarnations

Patrick Troughton - you cannot underestimate just how important Patrick Troughton is in the history of Doctor Who. Prior to Troughton taking over the role, Hartnell was the Doctor, and the idea of changing the lead actor would have seemed insane. Now it is considered both normal and, in fact, expected. And that is down to Troughton. Because, as well as being a highly skilled actor who is one of the most convincing people to play the Doctor, he also made his Doctor distinct from Hartnell's. His Doctor is not the same as Hartnell's, and as a result TV history was made and the idea of the ever-changing face and personality of the Doctor was born. Put simply, if the second Doctor had not been such a great actor as Patrick Troughton, I doubt that the show would be on TV today.

Tom Baker - yep, for many people, Tom Baker is the Doctor. Now, I see many limitations in Tom Baker's portrayal, and he is helped by having some of the best stories ever contained within his time as the Doctor. But even I cannot deny the power of Tom Baker's Doctor. He looks convincing alien, and Baker is such a magnetic actor that he dominates any scene he is in. Part of this is down to the way Baker looks - with his mad eyes and demented grin, he naturally looks alien. But he is also a talented actor who seems to know that he is giving the performance of his life - or, at least, the performance he will be always remembered for.

Christopher Eccleston - just as Troughton saved Doctor Who by replacing Hartnell, so Eccleston ensured a bright future for the series by becoming the Ninth Doctor. Crucially, Eccleston seemed to understand that his character needed to be interesting. Rather than pursuing the bland, by the book type of portrayal of Paul McGann, he instead made the Doctor intense, damaged, brittle and difficult. There are certain moments in the history of Doctor Who where casting choices ensured its longevity - Eccleston becoming the Doctor is one of those examples. Put simply, had just about anyone else played the Doctor in 2005, then I don't know whether it would still be on the TV today.

David Tennant - like Tom Baker, I have some serious issues with the way Tennant plays the Doctor. Particularly since, at certain points, he comes across as just, well, a little bit irritating. But there can be no doubting that Tennant has been a tremendous success as the Doctor, and I think that for a whole new generation of fans if you mention the Doctor, they will instantly think of Tennant even after he has left the role. He has become an iconic Doctor, and is perhaps the only actor who can rival Tom Baker in his claim to be the Doctor.

Anyway, that's enough from me - roll on The Waters of Mars...

Labour's "Resounding Victory"

You can tell when a party is really down on its luck when a win that should be taken for granted is hyped as a "resounding victory." Put simply, Glasgow North-East would return an over-ripe turd to Parliament if it was fighting the election under the Labour banner. After all, they sent a pig in a suit to Parliament many times simply because he claimed to be a socialist.

This isn't a victory for Labour and for Gordon Brown; it is a victory for inertia and the inability of the people of Glasgow North-East to work out that things don't get better, no matter how many times they vote Labour.

However, I'm not going to carp on too much about this. Let Labour claim their "resounding victory"; let them have their moment of tenuous glory. Because come the next General Election, I don't think they will be in a position to claim any sort of a victory, resounding of otherwise...

The first paragraph of a news report on the BBC website containing precisely zero surprises:

The government has been accused by MPs of showing a "real lack of concern" for people affected by its programme of 2,500 post office closures.

If anything, I'd critique that for being a little too long and a little too wordy. Let's make it flow a little better and, by doing so, make it far more comprehensive:

The government has been accused by MPs of showing a "real lack of concern" for people.

Yeah, that's spot on.

Michael Caine and National Service Nonsense

Sir Michael Caine, proving once again that celebrities are not the most sagacious of political commentators:

National service should be reintroduced to give young people "a sense of belonging rather than a sense of violence", Sir Michael Caine has said.

Maybe I'm missing something, but just how on earth does forcing people to join the army stop people developing a sense of violence?

Quote of the Day

"The search for a form of morality acceptable by everyone in the sense that everyone would have to submit to it, seems catastrophic to me."

Michel Foucault, (1926-1984)

Gordon Brown, Letter Writing, and Afghanistan

There can be few better examples of the inverted midas touch* of Gordon Brown than the furore about his letter to Jacqui Janes and then his ensuing phone apology. Of course, Gordon Brown's handwriting is appalling and very difficult to read, and his phone call reads like a muted argument involving a man who can't help himself but to try to make himself look correct, even if it means arguing with a recently bereaved mother who he has already managed to piss off massively. Now, this whole exchange has given Brown some unlikely (and, no doubt, extremely temporary) allies and I have no doubt that Jacqui Janes' appalling tragedy has been shamelessly milked by The Scum - a paper that, lest we forget, was a bellicose supporter of both the Iraq and Afghan invasions and that did much to ensure both the election and repeated re-election of Nu Labour. But I can't help but think that once again we have a classic mountain being constructed from a molehill - and one that obscures what should be debated right here, right now.

The issue isn't Gordon Brown's handwriting, or his insensitivity on the phone. That is nothing more than cheap, point scoring politics. Fun, to be sure, but nothing more than that. And the issue isn't about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan in the first place - that's one for military and political historians now. The fact is we are there, and people are dying. So there are two, crucial issues - one tactical, one strategic. And neither is about this unfortunate letter sent out by Gordo.

On a tactical level, there needs to be an open and honest debate between the government and those leading the armed forces on what needs to be done to make sure that the troops have the best chance possible of surviving in what is proving to be one of the most hostile battlefields Britain has encountered in decades. Specifically, what equipment is necessary. Put simply, when joining the army people should expect at some point to have to fight. They shouldn't expect to die because their "grateful" government has failed to provide the equipment needed for the army to fight the very war the government sent it in to. There has been lots of talk recently about spending cuts, with many lamenting a drop in spending - yet it appears that perhaps the one area where more spending might be appropriate is on those fighting a brutal counter-insurgency in Afghanistan.

The alternative to increasing spending on the Armed Forces in order to maximise their chances of survival is, of course, to get the fuck out of Afghanistan. But even if we choose to stay, then we need to come up with something a little more credible than the present plan. Which seems to be sitting tight and hoping for the best. No-one is saying that it will be easy - after all, Afghanistan is a disparate collection of tribes that has track record of repelling any British incursions. Yet there needs to be some sort of strategy to indicate just how the ongoing deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan can be turned into a situation where if we cannot claim something approaching victory then at least we can point to some sort of stability in that country. At the moment, there appears to be nothing.

And once we have managed to sort out both the tactics and the strategy in Afghanistan, then we can focus on the blame game and giving Labour the kicking it so richly deserves for the Afghan disaster. But when we do, the focus should be on the failure to give troops vital equipment and a plan. Rather than Brown's letter-writing ability. Because whilst he may have blundered in his dealings with Jacqui Janes, at least he didn't stoop as low as Donald Rumsfeld and his special signature stamp...

*In that everything he touches turns to shite and becomes absolutely worthless.

Quote of the Day - A Nu Labour Mission Statement

An extract from a post at Wonko's World years ago that, to this day, reads not as satire, but an actual mission statement for the Nu Labour government:

Besides which we just can’t help but meddle, interfere, impose our views on others, and generally use taxpayers resources in ways that are wasteful except in our own self-aggrandisement.

Link via an e-mail from the Moai.

Surreal stuff I never knew about, Part One.

The attempted (and ferociously amateur) kidnapping of Alec Douglas-Home.

Is it too much to ask that someone kidnaps Gordon Brown? Probably. After all, you wouldn't get much money for that git. You'd struggle to even get a pound...

An Apologist for Totalitarianism

What better way to commorate the fall of the Berlin Wall than by putting on the rose-tinted specs and pretending that life in the former East Germany was actually something to be celebrated? From The Guardian:

Since the demise of the GDR, many have come to recognise and regret that the genuine "social achievements" they enjoyed were dismantled: social and gender equality, full employment and lack of existential fears, as well as subsidised rents, public transport, culture and sports facilities. Unfortunately, the collapse of the GDR and "state socialism" came shortly before the collapse of the "free market" system in the west.

It is particularly bold to state that there were genuine "social achievements" under the brutal, utterly oppressive totalitarian regime that was the GDR. What with it being the sort of nightmare dystopia that people literally died trying to escape from. If one was so inclined then one could probably find the genuine social achievements of the Nazi regime. Of course, any such social achievements would not stop the Nazi regime being one of the most hideous administrations in twentieth century history. Just as subsidised rent doesn't change the fact that the GDR was a brutal dictatorship that rendered its people as something less than human.

And to talk of a "lack of existential fears", as well as being deeply subjective, is also taking a very limited view on fear. Because even if there were no "existential fears" in the GDR, there was the constant, practical fear of imprisonment for lengthy period for "crimes" such as not agreeing with the state. If it is a choice between having freedom of speech and having subsidised sports facilities, I'll probably pay a bit more to go swimming and go for the former. Except, of course, I won't have to make that choice since most governments in liberal democracies subsidise sports facilities any-fucking-way.

Also, it is worth pointing out that the collapse of state socialism was completely comprehensive - it was rejected both as a political and economic model. The GDR - and the Soviet Union - collapsed under the weight of maintaining their own terrible hypocrisies. By contrast, the "free market" system in the West has never actually been tried; and the mixed economy model favoured in the West is still going strong, despite a major wobble with the latest dip into recession. Neither free market capitalism or a mixed economy is perfect; however, they are not based on a web of paper thin lies and do at least allow the people to critique those systems. Whereas in the GDR, you'd go to prison for doing such a thing.

It is telling that the writer laments the "demonisation of the country I lived in and helped shape." Because, and make no mistake about this, she is an apologist for a disgusting, totalitarian regime. She is defending the indefensible. Imagine if this article had instead appeared in The Daily Telegraph and defended apartheid. There would be a national outcry, with the like of The Guardian screaming about how terrible the article was. Yet there is very little difference between the old regime in East Germany and the former racist regime in South Africa. Both were about the suppression of the people. And the author of this article is no different from the South African who bitterly complains that life was better under apartheid. The only reason why the demise of the GDR is perceived as a bad thing is because it was bad for the author herself. But that doesn't change the fact that, just as the South African lamenting the end of apartheid comes across as a racist reactionary, so the person shedding tears of the death of the GDR is a communist apologist mourning the end of a sickening, totalitarian regime.

The Mash Nails The Mail

A t-shirt available to buy:

As Homer Simpson might say, it's funny because it's true.

Debate and Definitions

A few weeks ago, I asked the question "what to do with the railroad?" There doesn't appear to be a clear solution but, as DK notes, talk of privatistion and nationalisation hides the fact that the railways weren't transferred back to the private sector under Major:

And that's all I wanted to point out: that the railways are not privatised. But maybe, just maybe, we might look at whether proper privatisation could work.

But it would have to be proper privatisation—without the constant and crippling interference and condition-setting, occasional nationalisation (e.g. WWI) or commandeering (e.g. WWII) or the companies and network that the state has indulged in almost since the very inception of the rail industry.

Quite. The railways weren't privatised properly; it is disingenuous to refer to them as privately owned and privately operated. And it isn't just the missed classification of the railways. Across the board, words and phrases are being twisted in their meaning to allow the government to get away with murder. For example, we've heard a lot about the failure of free market capitalism since the recession began - something that hides the fact that we have a mixed economy in this country that is anything other than free. We are constantly told that the banking sector needs to be regulated - yet it already was massively regulated when it went tits up and strangled the rest of the economy. We hear about how the War On Terror is about increasing our security and bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to other parts of the world, even though it does anything other than achieve security, freedom or democracy.

This bastardisation of terminology may sound like a tedious point of semantics, but it really isn't. It allows the ruling elite to control the debate with our democracy through misusing simple words. Privatisation can be painted as a bad thing based on the failure of the railways; even though they haven't been privatised. The banking crises can be used as part of the argument for regulation - even though regulation did nothing to prevent the collapse of certain banks. And so on, and so on, and so on. Until the terrified and terrifying rictus grin on Gordon Brown's face sums up the "progressive" movement in this country, and the ever preening David Cameron apparently leads a "conservative" party offering nothing other than utterly empty concepts of "change".

It isn't even a question of arguing with our elected elite; it is more about telling them to shut the fuck up until they learn what very basic terms mean and use then use those terms correctly.

If you missed the most recent edition of The Thick of It, then you missed a classic episode of what is one of the best things on TV at the moment. In particular, it is great to see how the series is reflecting the current reality of our incumbent government as they slide towards electoral defeat. The series seems to be perfectly capturing the bland nature and the utterly empty ideology of a failing government. And, in particular, this country's failing government.

Best of all is the presentation of Malcolm Tucker - a man increasingly on the edge as he tries to do what he has always done but doesn't have the same resources. With a new minister and an absolute dearth of anything to fill a conference with other than cheap stunts, he truly is trying to polish a turd. His move from verbal to physical assaults was inevitable. Yet the best line from the most recent episode doesn't go to Tucker or the terrible, foot in mouth twunt acting as the Press Officer for the conference. Instead, Glenn managed to come up with the best quip"

"I feel like I am in a therapy group being run by my own rapist."

Magic!

Remembrance Sunday

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

For the Fallen by Laurence Binyon (1869-1943).

The full version of the poem can be found here.

Quote of the Day - Common Sense

"Defining common sense is... the ultimate act of political power."

Steve Smith

Dave and BoJo - Friends, But For How Long?

Iain Dale has, utterly unsurprisingly, some praise for one David Cameron:

Geordie Grieg's interview with David Cameron in today's Evening Standard us well worth a skaz. His tremendous likeability comes across well. You just can't imagine Gordon Brown giving an interview like this.

In particular, according to the interview Dale cites, Cameron can be praised for adopting a sensible attitude to Boris Johnson:

Is the Mayor too much trouble? “Would I rather have some faceless bureaucrat running London who could not pull a crowd at the Tory conference? Or would I rather have a swashbuckling, charismatic, irresistible character who will, yes, occasionally put his size 10 feet in it? In the end I would rather have the latter.

“He is doing a fabulous job running London. I think what's happened in terms of security on public transport, trees, cutting waste, and the optimism and sense of dynamism he brings to the job, he is doing a fantastic job.”

Now, on face value this all looks rather dandy and more than a little bit like Cameron is an open-minded leader who is happy to have talented people in his party, even if they occasionally create some problems for him. Of course, it is politically savvy of Cameron to praise Johnson. After all, Johnson is the only Tory since 1997 to wield real and substantial political power. He is, at this point, arguably a more powerful and more important Tory than Cameron. And people will be looking to BoJo to understand what a national Tory administration will actually be like. It would be utterly pointless for Cameron to criticise Boris at this point, and whilst Cameron has many, many flaws, failing to be politically astute is not one of them.

However, the more fundamental point is that it is easier for parties in opposition to cope with those who do not follow the party line - particularly when the government is in free-fall. Any divisions may be commented on by the media, but the focus is always on the government fuck-ups. That, of course, changes once a party gets into power.

So it will be interesting to see how Cameron copes when Boris goes off-piste after Call Me Dave has become Prime Minister. It will be interesting to see how Cameron copes with the headlines talking about a return to Tory civil war when BoJo and others follow a position that is expressly in line with the leadership. I hope Cameron will simply shrug his shoulders, and point out that this is what happens in a party with a broad membership in a democracy. However, I sense that he will be much less accommodating and open once he is in Number 10. This prediction has less to do with any observations about Cameron's personality and much more to do with the lessons of history - almost all politicians demand more power, more control and more loyalty when they get into power. And those renegades who could be tolerated whilst in opposition become far more of a perceived threat once political power has been attained.

Gordon Brown's Priorities

Gordon Brown shows, once again, his unerring ability to focus on the crucial issues of the day:

Gordon Brown has said he thinks X-Factor's twin contestants John and Edward Grimes are "not very good."

I don't know who these people are. And I don't have the time to care. I kind of think that there are more important things to think about than the latest talentless arsewipes who happen to be on The X Factor - a show that almost seems to defy the theory of evolution with each new series. Then again, maybe I'm just busier than Gordon Brown. After all, he doesn't have much to do. Other than run the fucking country.

A comment about Anthony Sowell, America's latest serial killer:

"We kept away from him and he kept away from us," said neighbor Tamica Pierceton, 26. "We should have said something to someone. I wish I had."

One can attribute that statement to shock, and excuse it because of that. Otherwise, it just begs to be pulled apart. What could be said to someone about the apparently stinky Sowell? "Oh, that man smells bad, he must be bad." Or "Jesus, he needs to take a wash, like, seriously!" Being smelly is unfortunately not enough to show that someone is evil. Otherwise the aromatic tramp who sits by the canal in Nottingham drinking super strength cider all day everyday is just about the most evil person in the world. And who is the someone that something should be said to? The police? Because not even in America has it become a crime to stink to high heaven. And some might say that being stinky is enough to arose suspicion that you might have corpses sitting around the house. However, there is no causal link between serial killing and being a little whiffy. Otherwise, the vast majority of fat people on the tube on a hot summer's day are amongst the worse mass murderers ever to walk this earth. Judging by the smell, I mean...

Sellafield reject the BNP

Poor old Nick Griffin. So unpopular that they won't even let him into Sellafield:

Nick Griffin had wanted a fact-finding tour of the site, which is in his North West European Parliament constituency.

But Sellafield Limited, the facility's operator, said it was concerned about security and possible demonstrations.

Actually, it is worrying for democracy in this country that an elected representative is so dogged by protest wherever he goes that he cannot inform himself about the crucial issues in his area. Another example of those who would oppose the fascism of Nick Griffin accidentally becoming fascists themselves. Yet, I understand the security concerns and if there is a choice between potentially leaving the security of a site like Sellafield compromised and letting someone like Nick Griffin tour it, then I think security is the more pressing issue. Besides, I don't think we are going to miss out on any sage analysis from Griffin. Such is the sophistication of his political discourse I'd reckon he'd see any problems with Sellafield being "down to the immigrants."

Christian Ignorance

Take a seat, and grab some popcorn for what should be a humdinger of a row:

About 300 protesters held a candlelit protest outside a Glasgow theatre over the staging of a play which portrays Jesus as a transsexual.

The protest was held outside the Tron* Theatre, where Jesus Queen of Heaven, in which Christ is a transsexual woman, is being staged.

Ok, good. A bit of a debate. And I reckon that the producers are well entitled to put their show on, despite it containing what some might call blasphemy. Just as Christians are completely entitled to protest about the depiction of their long dead Saviour as a transsexual woman.

The only problem is that the Christians just have to get offensive:

Another (slogan) said: "God: My Son Is Not A Pervert."

Fucking hell. For those of us who don't hold antediluvian views, there is actually nothing wrong with a transsexual person. It is certainly wrong to dismiss them as a "pervert". This sort of a slogan reveals far more about these protestors than perhaps they intend. It shows that they aren't about asking for respect for their views, but rather doing down the ideas of others and sitting in judgment over the lives of others. A religion founded on respect for others and loving thy neighbour is utterly undermined by this sort of puritanical and ignorant slogan.

*Presumably not this Tron.

Compromise Cameron and the EU

I have a much more detailed post about the EU floating around in my head that is, in part, a response to this week's events. But until I get time to put it on paper (well, on a computer screen) this will abortive commentary will have to suffice. And, of course, it is about the Cameron response to the expansion of the EU's influence:

David Cameron has said "never again" to powers being transferred from the UK to Brussels without a referendum.

I can't help but think "too little, far too late." Particularly coming from the leader of the party of Edward Heath.

He has been accused of backtracking on a "cast iron" pledge to hold a referendum if he becomes prime minister, but he said: "I did not promise a referendum come what may, because once the Lisbon Treaty becomes law there is nothing people can do about it."

Really? Can we actually do nothing about the Lisbon Treaty becoming law, or is it just very difficult to do something about it after it has happened? Is it just that it would require someone with a fucking backbone to do something about it, and therefore is beyond the scope of the cowardly Cameron? Besides, he could hold a referendum over Lisbon and if it comes back with a response of a big fat "no", then not only could he try to do something about it but he could also use the result as a massive stick to beat Labour with as well as a strong indicator that further integration is a really, really bad idea.

Well, whatever happens, it is very difficult to be inspired by David Cameron, and in particular over his EU policies. He has treated the EU like the elephant in the room, and now is only talking about the Lisbon Treaty because he has no choice and because he now thinks he can argue it is too late to do anything about it. It is pathetic, particularly since he is now almost certain to be our next Prime Minister.

The Daily Mail Tendency: Deadly Scientists and their Evil Drugs

Another day, another extraordinarily ignorant article from everyone's favourite hate rag. In this article, the broad class of "scientists" gets a trademarked Mail bashing. And all for one government advisor taking a stance on drugs that does not match the reactionary position of The Daily Hate.

Now you could argue that this article is part of a post-positivist approach to life. It isn't, though. It is more of a luddite response. From the type of people who would probably like to burn scientists for being witches. If you don't believe me, read the article all the way through. We see scientists being protrayed as amoral experimenters who would be right at home in the Nazi and/or Stalinist regimes. We also get the hints that we are seeing an incipient coup, with a nightmarish dystopia of rule by scientists hoving into view on the horizon. And various other jaw-droppingly ignorant statements designed to create a culture of fear around scientists because they happen to have (factual) opinions that The Daily Mail doesn't agree with. The article stands as a sound explanation of why supposedly intelligent politicians such as Brown and Johnson would fly in the face of scientific fact when it comes to drug classification - if they appear to be completely hysterical and irrational tough when it comes to drugs, then The Daily Mail will treat them as the most inspirational leaders since Churchill.

Maybe someone with more patience than me would be able to do some good work fisking the article; unfortunately I cannot work up the appetite to take apart the whole sorry thing. Instead, I'll just make some quick comments on the final paragraph:

And to every one who thinks otherwise, I would ask them to carry out a simple experiment. Put a drug, bought casually on the street corner, and a glass of red wine on the table when your teenager comes home from school. Which of them, in all honesty, would you prefer him to try?

I wonder why the author thinks that everyone has a teenager, and that said teenager's gender is male? Personally, I find the concept of worrying about a teenage boy who doesn't exist and is never likely to exist utterly pointless. Rather than eye-opening and terrifying, as the author no doubt intends.

Still, it is the comparison that is so problematic. Put simply, it is loaded so you can only choose the glass of wine. So let's try and even it up a bit. What would you choose if it was a choice between a legal drug such as cannabis, made in safe and healthy conditions in a factory, that is actually safer than that glass of wine? Or how would you feel if it was a choice between a drug and alcohol both bought on a street corner? Or how would you feel if it was a choice between dope and a 100% proof spirit?

Poor journalism and biased reporting/comment is typical of The Daily Mail, and this article is no exception. However it does indicate one of the biggest problems we have in this country as we look towards having an intelligent debate about drugs. Across the board, from politicians through to journalists, the message is sent out that drugs are bad. That they are abnormal. The scientific data, of course, would suggest otherwise. But those who point this out and dare to suggest anything other than the hysterical misinformation about drugs currently being circulated are at best, amoral, and most probably evil people who want to corrupt your kids and turn them into junkies. That is, of course, palpable nonsense - but until the tone of the debate around drugs changes in this country, ignorance and the propagation of unscientific myth are still going to be the order of the day.

Quote of the Day

"In my view, sociology today has still insufficiently noted the fact that the development of man is bound up with competition, that is, with the most important element of the liberal economy."

Max Horkheimer, (1895-1973)

Royal Mail Wasters: Take Your Employers to Court!

The latest from the CWU - those people who are breaking the postal service in this country and making sure you don't get your mail:

The Communication Workers Union (CWU) is going to the High Court on Friday to seek an injunction preventing Royal Mail from using 30,000 agency workers.

It accuses Royal Mail of using agency workers as strike breakers to do the work of CWU members involved in the continuing UK-wide industrial dispute.

Now, the Royal Mail claim they aren't using agency workers as strike breakers. Far be it from me to contradict them, but I can kind of see why people might think they are employing peps to minimise the impact of this strike. And you know what? Good on 'em. So they fucking should get people in to replace those who are striking for reasons that defy understanding.

See, when it is all said and done, the Royal Mail is a business. And its business is delivering the mail. It has to do this to stay in business. Already, businesses across the country who rely on home delivery for their services are switching to other providers. If this goes on, then the Royal Mail is going to bleed to death. All of its main clients will go elsewhere. So its management are doing what they have to do to help this business survive.

So the strikers should be thanking rather than suing the Royal Mail for looking after the best interests of that business at a time when the employees are being totally irresponsible. The Royal Mail's management is doing what is necessary to ensure that there is some sort of company for the strikers to go back and work for. Which, if these strikes continue to disrupt service as much as they have been, is by no means guaranteed.

Pity Poor Gordon!

Gordon Brown:

"I could present our message a lot better. I'm actually shy by nature rather than extrovert, someone who feels that your actions should speak for themselves, but that's not the way politics works these days."

I have some sympathy with him here. I'm not an extrovert either, and am often shy in social interactions. Yet I'd throw in a couple of caveats here. First of all, I think that if people have issues with Gordo (and, let's be honest, they really do) then it has little to do with his shyness. The issues are more around his astounding arrogance and absolute disrespect for any opinion other than his own. And secondly, Gordon is right that this is way politics works today. But who has been at the centre of British politics for over 12 years and has done nothing to change that culture? Why, Gordon Brown. All he has done is insulated himself from that culture - and from the country he is meant to be leading - through his Downing Street bubble of toadying acolytes. Don't bemoan the system when you have been in a position for over a decade to change that system.

Moving on to the second bid by the Prime Minister to tug on the old heartstrings:

Mr Brown went on to say that he himself had "very little money", adding: "It's very expensive being prime minister. I gave up my prime ministerial pension that would be worth around £2 million, but on my first day in office I gave it up.

"And my salary is frozen. And I don't want our ministers to take any rise in salaries either."

Well, he chose to give up that pension. Whether the PM warrants a £2 million pension is a debate I'm not proposing to have here, but Gordon decided to give it up. You can argue that was admirable or foolish. However, it was Gordon's choice. And stating you have "very little money" is open to wide interpretation - after all, what constitutes very little money is relative to what one's financial expectations are.

Still, this is all a bid to create Honest Gordon, friend of the people. As further comments show even more clearly:

Responding to allegations the expenses scandal "made you all out to be a bunch of corrupt spivs", Mr Brown said: "Yes, and that's very hurtful. I have never tried to make any money out of being a politician."

Of course it is hurtful to be called a "corrupt spiv". But Brown would get more sympathy from most quarters if he hadn't had to pay back £12,415 as a result of the expenses scandal. Either Gordon was trying to make money out of being a politician or he was exceptionally negligent when it came to making his expenses claims. Either explanation doesn't make a great case for him continuing as the Prime Minister of this country.

Which is the problem; Gordon's problems are either of his own making or down to things that he could have changed during his time as a senior politician in and then leader of the ruling party. His desperate attempts to evoke sympathy are doomed to failure because, fundamentally, he has been the master of his own destiny and what he is experiencing today is entirely of his own making.

Undesirables and Criminals

Via Mr Eugenides, a startlingly jarring and utterly inappropriate quote from some cuntrag of an MP:

Mr Wilshire wrote: “The witch hunt against MPs in general will undermine democracy. It will weaken parliament - handing yet more power to governments. Branding a whole group of people as undesirables led to Hitler’s gas chambers.”

First up, people knowing more about what their thieving shites elected representatives are up to is not bad for democracy. The whole expenses scandal is good for democracy. What it hasn't been good for is cockbags like Wilshire. But his interests - and the other greedy, truculent pigs in the House of Commons - are not synonymous with democracy. And it certainly won't be handing more power to those in government - the very fact that these absolute fucking arses have had so much control over their own remuneration is how they have ended up in this mess.

And the line about Hitler's gas chambers... My God. How insulting is that? To compare the justified outrage against MPs with the horrors of the Holocaust? How dare this cunt make that sort of a comparison? How dare he? A massive ego combined with a massive persecution complex is the only way to explain that comparison. But since Wilshire is too lost in his own self-importance to take into account even the most basic of facts, let me spell out a few things to him. First of all, the Jews were not just branded as undesirables. They were cast out of the economy, they were robbed, they were stigmatised, they were forced into ghettos and then sent into camps where they lost their lives as the result of a callous, cold-hearted genocide. Contrast this with MPs, who have been branded as undesirable owing to a massive fraud committed by some of their number against the British people. As a result, some of them have lost their jobs, and some of them have had to pay back some of their ill-gotten gains. A comparison of the plight of MPs with that of the Jews in Nazi Germany is a sickening as it is crass and inappropriate.

One final point - societies across the world do designate people as undesirables all the time. However, it isn't based on race or gender or religion. No, the people now classed as undesirable are those who have committed crimes and have not been punished for them. And if certain MPs are falling into the undesirable category, it is because they appear to have committed fraud against the very people they are meant to represent. So you'll forgive me if I don't feel much sympathy for them...

Heseltine gets it right!

Well, that was a title I never thought I would be using.

But Tarzan does impart some wisdom here. He is right that Cameron may well need to form a coalition after the next election and that is something that Cameron should definitely be preparing for right now.

And he was also correct when he said:

David Cameron "does not need 77-year-olds in his government", he said.

Lord Heseltine would be that age by the time the next election is held.

"We do not have the physical stamina to sit up all night reading those interminable papers, arriving for breakfast meetings or whatever it may be, six days a week, or five-and-a-half days a week," he said.

It isn't just the age-factor; it is also what Heseltine and his lot represent. They would be a hangover from the end of the Major regime - a regime that, lest we forget, was about as popular as herpes 12 years ago. It would remind many of the old Tory brand, and damage Cameron's decontamination exercise. And the message it sends out - that Cameron has to rely on the discredited by association leaders of the last Conservative government - is not one that Cameron should or would even want to send out.

And it shouldn't just be the 77 year old Heseltine that Cameron ignores. He should also ignore certain other big beasts who will be expecting - despite a total lack of credibility - a key position in the new government.