Brown On Immigration

Gordon Brown, calling for less debate on immigration:

Gordon Brown is to urge all parties to show a "united front" against those opposing immigration out of prejudice.

In a speech in London, the PM will say it is right for politicians to talk about the issue and address people's concerns about immigration levels.

But he will say debate must be measured and talk that immigration is "out of control" plays into extremists' hands.

I don't know whether the debate about immigration is playing into the hands of extremists - although I actually suspect that it is the lack of any sort of meaningful debate about immigration and the failures of any of the main parties to make the case for immigration that has really lead to the rise of the BNP. But what really gets to me - the hypocrisy that makes me want to vomit - is that this is Gordon "British Jobs for British Workers" Brown calling for moderation in the immigration debate. To put this in context, it would be like Enoch Powell calling for the removal of hyperbole from the immigration debate a couple of years after the infamous "rivers of blood" speech.

I'd have more time for Gordon Brown and his opinions if he wasn't such a hypocritical cunt.

The Death of Politics?

When you witness the endless cycle of coy comments about reducing this country's level of debt combined with the testy name-calling over who has the worst donor from the three two main parties, it is tempting to think that politics is dead in this country. No longer do we debate the awesome potential of ideas on offer in political philosophy; instead, the party leaders snipe at each other like an old couple in a loveless marriage that each participant is too immersed in to actually consider ending it in anyway other than through the death of one of the participants. This isn't politics - it is a testy squabble.

Yet politics isn't dead. It takes place within the ranks of the main parties, as they battle to decide the direction of their particular political organisation. It takes place in minor political parties, as they vie to get their agendas into the mainstream and persuade people to vote for them for a different future. It takes place in pubs, cafes, living rooms, universities, workplaces. Politics is everywhere and being discussed all the time. In fact, those who probably have the most limited political conversations are those who have the audacity to call themselves politicians.

So what to do? How to end this hideous irony that are politicians seem to be afraid of what is genuinely political? There is no easy solution. The problem with the political oligarchy in this country is that it is self-perpetuating. In order to play a meaningful role in power politics, you have to play the game and join one of the main political parties. Then, to get into a position of power, you need to become an MP. In order to become an MP and then win elections to the Commons, you have to leave controversy and ideology behind you. The opinions you have need to reflect that of the party you represent - which at the moment means adopting the policies and the philosophy of the bland, post-Blairite consensus. It really shouldn't be surprising when our MPs end up as dull party hacks when then need to be exactly that in order to become an MP.

No, there is no easy solution. I have a profound pessimism when it comes to the practitioners of politics at the national level, and I know I am not alone in that. As things stand, the only way in which we can break this impasse and either get the mainstream parties to start offering real choice or getting more radical smaller parties into power is if things get worse, and the bland palliatives on offer by Labour and the Tories are further exposed as utterly useless. Yet things have got pretty bad over the past 13 years - civil liberties and the economy have been decimated, and we are fighting in not just one war but two with no end in sight and the original reasons for the conflict muddied by evasions and lies. Just how bad do things have to get before the people in this country demand that the political language they speak becomes the political language spoken by the so-called politicians?

Am I cynical? Sure, but with good reason. And I think more people need to be more cynical about our political class. There used to be a slogan used against Richard Nixon - "would you buy a used car from this man?" Let's apply it to our leaders in this country - "would you buy a used car from Gordon Brown/Dave Cameron/ Nick Clegg?" No? You want better, more trustworthy and more convincing politicians? Fine. Start demanding them, and we'll take it from there.

Cameron and the Unions

Well said, young man:

Conservative leader David Cameron has told the BBC trade unions "scented weakness" in the government's response to Unite's row with British Airways.

He said Gordon Brown failed to back non-strikers, although Mr Brown said he wanted "negotiation" to take place.

Of course, this weakness when it comes to dealing with the unions and failing to support those who do not wish to strike is not unique to Gordon Brown. It is something that happens during the course of every Labour government, and was particularly pronounced the last time Labour led the country toward the shit-heap under Jim Callaghan. The unions are in ascendance again because there is a Labour government in power - and the Labour party, of course, is more reliant than ever on funding from their most reliable sugar daddies; those within the Trade Union movement.

But it isn't just Labour Prime Ministers who have been shown to be weak in the face of union action. The same has been true of Tory Prime Ministers as well. In many ways, Thatcher was the exception, rather than the rule, and her battle against the NUM - as controversial as it was - was only successful for the government because her government knew the confrontation was coming, and prepared themselves for it.

Unions can break governments - witness the demise of Heath's administration. And there is no reason for thinking that the unions won't challenge Cameron as soon as/if he is elected. But he should relish that challenge - he should use it as an opportunity to show that he has teeth. Whether or not he has the fight in him remains open to debate - after all, thus far his time as leader of the Tories has shown him to be a man of compromise rather than confrontation, of consensus rather than clashes. However, I think this fight is going to come to him, whether he likes it or not. And he needs to start preparing right now if he is going to show himself in a different light to Brown's cowed compliance against resurgent unions.

Doctor Who Series 5 Trailer

Less than a week away now, fellow Who fans!

Lizzie and Sarah

There seems to be some sort of (possibly manufactured) controversy around the timing of the macabre BBC comedy Lizzie and Sarah (you can see it on the BBC iPlayer here for the next week or so). Apparently, showing it at 11:45pm was effectively burying it. Well, yes, and no.

Few people are going to up and ready to watch an extremely dark comedy at that time of night. But then again, this isn't the sort of thing that sits well with an earlier broadcast time. It takes Nighty Night - itself an incredibly vicious and nasty comedy - and ramps it up all the way to eleven. It contains murder, jokes about war crimes and teenagers being run down, and also an extremely fat person having sex. And it is difficult to imagine a comedy that involves a shot of a man (pun intended) with a massive bullet hole in his head being broadcast in the same slot as, say, Last of the Summer Wine. Maybe the BBC did bury it; maybe they couldn't think about when else to broadcast this exceptionally dark piece of television.

Then again, the audience for this sort of thing (and I count myself as among the target recipients of this brand of nasty humour) may not watch it on TV anyway. Personally, I watched it on the computer on iPlayer. Just as I watch entire seasons of TV on the computer, rather than on their original broadcast date on TV. Examples include Misfits, The Inbetweeners and the most recent series of Peepshow. In fact, the only thing I make an effort to watch on TV on its original transmission is (of course) Doctor Who. Everything else can be caught at my leisure online.

I think the way in which a lot of people (and the sort of people who would be willing to watch something as horrible as Lizzie and Sarah) has changed, and the internet plays just as large a part (if not a larger part) than the idiot box in the corner of the room. In fact, part of me believes that the BBC is very aware of this, and the broadcast time of Lizzie and Sarah was decided upon in the knowledge that the likely viewers could catch it online even if they weren't about to watch its original transmission. In fact, I could even believe that the BBC has helped stir up this controversy in the hope that a difficult to broadcast programme goes viral. Certainly, Lizzie and Sarah has got attention that it would not otherwise have got had it been broadcast at 9pm on BBC Three...

The Blob Theme Song

And why not?

Biopower and Smoking: Why It Matters

For those of you not aware of the work of Michel Foucault*, allow me to introduce the concept of Biopower. What's Biopower, you may be asking? Surely not something to do with the environment? Nope, it is about control:

For Foucault, biopower, is a technology of power, which is a way of managing people as a group. The distinctive quality of this political technology is that it allows for the control of entire populations. It is thus essential to the emergence of the modern nation state, modern capitalism, etc. Biopower is literally having power over other bodies, "an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations" [2]. It relates to the government's concern with fostering the life of the population, and centers on the poles of discipline ("an anatomo-politics of the human body") and regulatory controls ("a biopolitics of the population").

And why mention this today? Well:

Smoking should be banned in all cars as well as in public places where young people congregate, doctors are urging.

The Royal College of Physicians wants England's imminent review of anti-smoking laws to consider such measures to protect the young.

See, some will look at the decision to advocate the banning of smoking in cars and wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, if it helps da kids be healthy, who could possibly object? Of course, that is precisely what the government wants you to think. It is why children are mentioned in the article. It becomes difficult for people to argue against it, and those who do can be painted as people who don't mind da kids getting hurt.

But this isn't about passive smoking; it is about control and compliance. The incumbent government have decided that smoking is A Bad Thing. No, more than that - they have decided that smoking does not fit in with their worldview in any way whatsoever. And as such, smokers are Bad People and their habit needs to be eradicated. We've already seen a man go to prison over the smoking ban in pubs; the message that is sent out now is that smoking is criminal.

Yet why does this matter if you don't smoke? Because the government has an idea of a perfect person in their dystopian brave new world, and that person doesn't just not smoke. He or she also doesn't drink. They don't eat fatty foods. Hell, their BMI is perfect at all times. They comply with a government diktat on what it is to be healthy; they don't think for themselves, or challenge those rules. Just as they don't challenge other things, such as the erosion of the right to protest. Nor do they challenge the behaviour of their troughing political class. Or the erosion of both liberalism and democracy in what purports to be a liberal democracy.

And now someone has gone to prison in relation to smoking, the precedent has been set. Others can go to prison for the same thing. Given long enough, the stage will be set for withholding medical treatment from those who smoke and have smoking related illnesses (despite the fact that smokers are forced to contribute to the healthcare system whether they like it or not). And once that has happened, the same fate can be bestowed on the fatties and the boozehounds. Until we end up in the distressing position where those who do not conform to the government's view of how someone should live is dismissed as less than human.

I don't smoke, but I'll stand with the smoker when the government comes to control them. Because the government isn't just seeking compliance from those who wish to spark up in the car - they are seeking compliance from everyone.

*And his work is well worth reading, even if you don't end up agreeing with him on everything or, indeed, pretty much anything.

An Open Letter to the Chancellor

Dear Alistair Darling,

Having noted the number of tax rises in your last budget, I'd be very grateful if you could go fuck yourself, you arrogant, incompetent, thieving arsehole.

Best,

The Nameless Libertarian

Body Scanner Abuse

As soon as I heard about the new airport body scanners, I knew someone would abuse the machines. But even I didn't think it would happen this quickly:

A security worker at London's Heathrow Airport has received a police warning and faces disciplinary action over claims he ogled a female colleague using a full-body scanner, officials said on Wednesday.

The 25-year-old worker made lewd comments after his colleague Jo Margetson, 29, mistakenly strayed into the scanner, which can see through clothes to produce an image of the body, the Sun newspaper reported.

So there we have it. Body scanners are being abused. Because technology may be tell whether someone is carrying a weapon, but human beings are going to be just as interested in a scan of someone's tits and genitals as they are in whether that person is carrying a bomb or not. Security technology will be consistently undermined by some of those people who use that technology.

*Link via the Moai.

The Last Budget

As always, there is much speculation about what might be contained within the budget. I'll leave that speculation to those people who now more about it than me - which is probably most people. However, I'd like to point out just one thing: come hell or high water, this is Darling's last budget. If Labour lose the next election, then it will most probably be the Boy George delivering our next budget. If Labour win the next election, then Darling will be replaced (particularly after his "forces of hell" tirade). You could almost argue that today represents a little piece of history - the last budget of Alistair Darling. Of course, in order to argue that convincingly, you'd have to make the case for Darling actually being a historical figure. Unfortunately, he is a sock-puppet for his evil overlord in No.10. But still, take a moment to consider that this will be Darling's last budget before he is consigned to the historical oblivion that awaits all crap awful Chancellors...

The Cameron Baby

So, Samantha Cameron's gonna have a baby. Before I consign this story to the big fat pile of stuff I just don't care about, let's deal with one thing. The timing.

Obviously, you can plan when to have a baby. However, just because you can plan when to procreate doesn't mean that every baby is planned. And while there will be any number of conspiracy theories telling you that this baby was timed to coincide with the coming election, I think that is bollocks. For three reasons:

1. Firstly, if you wanted to plan a political baby, then you would try to get it to have a birth date as close to election day as possible. Just imagine the shots and the positive publicity around young Hug A Husky Cameron if he was pictured holding his newborn kid on the eve of polling. As it stands...
2. Samantha Cameron will probably be able to do less campaigning owing to her pregnancy than she might otherwise have done. Since this election is increasingly becoming about the reasonably photogenic other halves of our leaders (yeah, I know, but it is all relative - they are relatively photogenic when compared to the men they married) the timing is not ideal for Call Me Dave's campaigning. Plus....
3. This baby will be born within months of Cameron becoming Prime Minister (assuming he is allowed to do so by the electorate). Now, I've never been Prime Minister, but I'm guessing it is a pretty tough job. And a job that won't be made any easier by have a screaming infant in the close confines of Number 10, Downing Street. Learning how to run Great Britain is not going to be aided by changing shitty nappies at all hours of the day and night.

But anyway, before this blog turns into a political version of the execrable Heat Magazine, that's enough on the Cameron foetus.

I haven't commented to much on the latest scandal to hit the Labour party. Mainly because I've barely noticed it. It isn't that I think this scandal isn't important - quite the opposite, in fact - but it comes down to the fact that there are now so many scandals within this current parliament that they just become white noise. I can barely distinguish one scandal from another. In fact, when I now hear of a scandal, I shake my head yet note to myself that this just seems to be be par for the course. Things have got so bad that I'd actually be more surprised by a news report citing good behaviour from an MP, and a general lack of corruption. But there's no chance of that happening anytime soon.

So the only thing I really want to point out about this scandal is this: look at the names involved. Byers. Hoon. Hewitt. If you had had to choose three Nu Labour ex-ministers to be caught up in this sort of scandal then I bet these three names would have been in your top 5.

But I'm being harsh. I'm judging based on my own personal disdain for these jokers. Yet everything about this scandal is intuitively plausible. We are in a position where an MP accused of corruption is considered to be guilty until proven innocent. And it is their fault; it is the fault of each and every MP who has dragged Parliament's reputation into the dirt through their atrocious behaviour. As it stands, I think only one thing will truly change this, and that is on the day that the rancid carcass of this bloated, corrupt government is dragged from the corridors of power and immolated in Parliament Square for the good of the people.

Let's NOT have a Christian song as Easter No.1...

Regular readers will be aware of both my predilection for commenting on stupid Facebook groups and on my general antipathy towards religion. So when I came across a group called "Christian music topping the UK Charts!", a blogpost became inevitable.

Let's see what this group of shrill God-botherers want to achieve:

This is a trumpet call to unite all online Christians throughout the UK to make history. Put aside talk of bunnies, chocolates and egg-hunts this Easter and let's hear the message of Jesus Christ sweep the airwaves as we take Delirious to the No.1 spot!

You can, should you have more faith than brain cells, read more about the campaign here.

Now, I don't really care who is Easter No.1 - the chances are that it will be a shit song that I'll never hear that makes it to the top of the charts on Easter Sunday. And let's face it, being Easter No.1 lacks the prestige of being Christmas No.1. Furthermore, with this campaign being squarely aimed at the Christian God-botherers, there's a natural fanbase for this that makes the number of fans they have got so far something of an inevitability, and therefore not as impressive as the campaign to get Rage Against the Machine to Christmas No.1 last year. But even with all of these caveats built in, I can't help but be irritated by this craptacular campaign.

As an atheist, I don't really celebrate Easter. And I do understand that bunnies, chocolate and egg-hunts are not, strictly speaking, what Easter is about - at least from a Christian point of view. But I also think - and I think the Bible will back me up here - that Easter is also not about gaining a whole shitload of publicity for a blander than bland band simply because they choose to warble on religion the whole fucking time. Want to celebrate your Messiah? How about going some good for people as a whole, rather than championing a band who have been around for as long as Radiohead but with just a fraction of the success? Because I'm pretty sure that the example given by Christ at Easter deserves a little more gravitas than pushing a song by a band that makes Coldplay look fucking butch up the charts.

Still, I'm hopeful that this campaign will ultimately come to nothing, as some many Facebook campaigns do. But if there is even a hint that this lot might succeed in their stupid fucking objective, then I might start my own Facebook group - a campaign to get an atheist song to the top of the charts. Probably "Dear God" by XTC. Because, if nothing else, it is a far better song than anything Delirious? have ever produced...

BBCA Doctor Who Advert

Just a couple of weeks away for us resident in the UK...

Quote of the Day

"Spin is... the burnishing of an irrelevancy until it appears to be genuine, the redirection of a truth until it appears to be 'the' truth... the creation of pseudo attitudes, the momentary feelings that are produced in response to artificially assembled information and images."

Randall Rothenberg

ID card uptake: Some Statistics

According to the propaganda around the government's utterly contemptible ID card schemes, there has been some "voluntary" uptake:

Trials have already been held in Manchester, where more than 3,500 people signed up.

What? More than 3,500? Sure, that's thousands of people but... let's crunch some numbers.

Now, according to Wikipedia (yeah, I know, Wikipedia is about as reliable as... well, government stats, so bear with me) the population of Manchester is 464,000. Which is an uptake of 0.75%. Hardly a massively impressive result, is it? Particularly when you consider that in the 2005 British General Election, the BNP scored 0.7% of the vote. Which makes ID cards only marginally more popular than the BNP. How depressing for advocates of this particular invasion of our civil liberties.

Ministers have admitted spending £1.3 million on an advertising campaign to persuade people to pick up ID cards in pilot areas.

£371 per sign-up. No wonder it needs to become compulsory - otherwise, it could cost circa £22,260,000,000 to get everyone in the country to "volunteer" for it.

We're supposed to be impressed. We're supposed to see this as some sort of endorsement of ID cards. But the numbers seem to suggest that the public is doing anything but endorsing the ID card scheme. They will have to be forced on us if the government truly wants everyone to carry them - and if they become enforced, then they fail to realise the key claim the government makes on their behalf. After all, how can they make anyone feel safe, when they have to be forced onto the people at great cost?

Going Negative

The Tories go negative:

A new nationwide Conservative poster campaign to be revealed within days will show the party adopting a more negative message... By contrast, the second wave of posters will concentrate on Mr Brown and seek to convince voters that he is personally responsible for the state of Britain’s public finances. The change in direction is being supported by two US advisers recently hired by the Tories, both veterans of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

This makes perfect sense, really - at least if the Tories want to win this election. There seems to be a taboo around the use of negative adverts, and certainly the use of the "New Labour, New Danger" poster probably cost the Tories in 1997. But this time, Labour have gone negative first. That's what this "controversy" around Ashcroft is all about. It is negative campaigning, and if the Tories don't respond in kind then they end up looking like they have no backbone, and are unable to act as an effective opposition should.

Furthermore, there is a massive open goal available to them - namely, Gordon Brown. Going negative on Gordon Brown can be done without even being too negative - to a large extent, making critical comments is simply stating facts. Pointing out Brown's failures is like shooting fish in a barrel, and since the Tories seem unable to put forward any policies, then attacking Brown really is their best bet.

Hell, you could almost argue that a negative election campaign against Brown is positive, if only because it could have such a positive outcome - namely, the removal of Gordon Brown from Downing Street.

A Hung Parliament

Voters are getting used to the idea of a hung Parliament, and some are even actively wanting one:

Voters remain unconvinced by the Conservative alternative, with 29% thinking a clear Tory victory would be best. Only 18% think Britain would be best served by a strong Labour win this spring. Both groups are outnumbered by the 44% who want a hung parliament in which the government works with smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats.

Of course, before anyone gets too excited about the voters being fully committed to a hung parliament, it has to be noted that for the past few weeks the idea of a hung parliament has been remorselessly dragged into the political spotlight by all media outlets for the last few weeks. The people are probably not buying into the idea of a hung parliament, more responding to the narrative mercilessly created and perpetuated by a media desperate to make this tedious pre-election period into something more interesting.

But I think now more than ever it is worth not only considering, but proactively selling, the idea of a hung parliament. Labour since 1997 have shown the devastation that can be wreaked on this country by a party with a large majority. Furthermore, a decent coalition - ideally between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories - would arguably be the best outcome for Libertarians like myself. The government would be severally constrained, and therefore less able to spend money and less able to encroach on our freedoms. At the same time, the Liberals would constrain the social conservatism of the Tories, while the Tories could constrain the social democracy of the Liberals. And then there's the fact that both parties agree on some key areas, like the need to abandon the ID cards schemes.

In fact, I'd actively encourage people to do what they can to help achieve a hung parliament - or, more specifically, a coalition between the Tories and the Lib Dems.

Discrimination is discrimination...

...regardless of the reasoning behind the discrimination.

Via Jackart, I've happened upon Karl Winn, an angry man ranting about (not) employing those who have been in the Armed Forces:

Anybody who has been in the pay of such a military force, and by their silence and complicity has condoned such illegal and immoral actions while accepting a monthly blood-stained pay-packet, certainly will not be considered for employment by us!

What this would appear to suggest is that simply being in the army is reason enough to assume someone is guilty of criminal actions - even if there is nothing to suggest that they actually are. It is the sort of sweeping generalisation that can only really be made by someone truly ignorant. You simply cannot make this sort of blanket assertion without ending up with egg on your face. It is like saying everyone who has ever been in the Labour party supported the Iraq War - it is palpable nonsense.

Winn has clarified his position on his own website:

...we are not talking about people who do their duty. Nobody is going to condemn any service man or woman for that. What I'm referring to is the unwillingness of far too many service men and women to give evidence against those who commit criminal offences. .. I'm not talking about incidents that happen in the heat of battle against armed combatants, but actions, that by any standard, amount to murder, or other such crimes against a civilian population. However, I accept we'll never agree on this. Your allegiance is to the British Military - mine is on the side of its victims.

Which seems to indicate that he has realised that he has gone too far - that his sweeping generalisation was simply not fair. But unfortunately for Winn, the first comment shows that he was talking about people who do their duty - "anyone who has been in the pay of such a military force" - and his back-tracking is nothing other than the desperate panic of an arrogant man who has put his foot firmly in his mouth. He is condemning those who have done their duty.

See, what Winn is advocating is discrimination - nothing more, nothing less. He is going to discriminate against all people who have been in the Armed Forces based on the actions of a few. When you think about it, it is just as ignorant as refusing to employ all people from an ethnic minority because a few members of that ethnic minority have committed crimes in the past.

I have no particular desire to defend the Armed Forces, and have no time any more to support the conflicts in Afghanistan or Iraq in any way. But Winn's discriminatory comments aggravate me because he denies the concept of individuality, and assumes guilt not based on individual actions, but on his own crude understanding of a world he stands on the outside of.

Ashcroft, Unions, and a lack of anything real to say

Monkeys flinging shit at each other:

The Conservatives have stepped up attacks on Gordon Brown over his links with the political director of the union behind the BA strike.

They say Mr Brown should have given Charlie Whelan - his former spokesman - a "wide berth" yet claim he is "at the heart of Labour operations”.

And from Labour:

Labour called it "a desperate attempt" to distract voters from the controversy surrounding Tory donor Lord Ashcroft.

Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, this is meant to be news? For as long as I came remember, the Tories have been funded by business and Labour by the Unions. And yes, the Tories are trying to distract voters from the Ashcroft “controversy” – but Labour and their tame rags have manufactured that controversy in order to distract the voters from the absolute fucking disaster that this Labour government has been.

And it is depressing – it is so depressing - that both parties seem to think that the best way in which to win votes it to shriek about how the other party has taken money from someone who won’t give them money. Do we really think that Labour would turn down money from Ashcroft if he happened to be a Labour rather than a Tory supporter? Of course they fucking wouldn’t – just as the Tories would take money from the Unions if the Unions didn’t see them as the enemy.

All this does is highlight the lack of ideological commitment from the main parties vying to form our next government. They have nothing to say other than shout “corrupt” at each other, with the constant retort of “I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?”

Record contracts

Apparently, something called a “Jedward” no longer has a record contract. I know, I know, it seems tragic that these two disgraces to humanity are going to find it more difficult to produce new music, but I’m sure that – unless you are the sort of idiot who cares about the state of Cheryl Cole’s marriage or the love life of Simon Cowell – most people will be able to deal with this tragic turn of events.

Nonetheless, this article does make a interesting point about how it might make more business sense to drop some bands after their first album:

It might seem ruthless, but imagine the misery and wasted time and money that could have been spared if this practice were applied outside of X Factor acts. Take Hard-Fi, a band precisely nobody in their right mind could really have expected to ever get any better after their first album. What if their contract with Atlantic had been quietly knocked on the head after one album? Right now we're all watching MGMT's label beginning to flog a second album which the band themselves have breezily claimed contains "no singles". Would the world continue to spin if Columbia said to MGMT: "Do you know what lads? Thanks for the first album and everything but if you're going to turn in a follow-up with no singles and announce that to the world with some bizarre sense of pride then maybe it's best if you find someone else to throw millions of pounds at launching what is essentially a sonic turd in a basket"? Yes, the world would most certainly continue to spin.

It sounds about right to me, and you can easily name some other bands who should have been politely disregarded after their first record. Take the Stone Roses. It took them half a decade to come up with a follow-up to their admittedly really rather good debut album. How come that didn’t set off some alarm bells within their record label? And when “The Second Coming” was finally delivered, how come no-one within the record company politely took the band to one side and said “guys, we’re going to have to pass on this. If sub-Led Zeppelin rock sludge is really the best you can come up with after several years, then we think it is best if you focus on performing rather than selling records. And by performing, we mean doing the pub rock circuit.” Elastica are another good example. It took them years to come up with a follow-up to their interesting yet highly derivative debut. And why did no-one question the financial benefits of releasing “The Menace” when the best track on it was the cover version of an slightly obscure, twee track by German New Wave band?

Of course, most band managers worth their salt will negotiate a contract for more than one album, making it very difficult for a record company to back out after just one release. And some great bands would have been consigned to the abyss long before they had a chance to be great based on a passable first album and a lacklustre follow-up, including the Jam, Manic Street Preachers, Ash and the Clash. But so often that first album remains the best ones, no matter how many records the band in question gets to make. The Stone Roses and Elastica are just two of many, many examples.

Gordon Brown; Feminist

As well as banging on about how he isn't going to step down even if he fails to retain the 66 seat majority bequeathed to him by Tony "Shitbag" Blair, Brown is also keen in this interview to tout his feminist credentials. Well, that's putting it far too strongly; he's keen to dispel the image that he just can't get on with women:

Asked whether he was simply more comfortable around men than women, Mr Brown said: "No, I feel more comfortable with women, I've got to tell you. Right throughout my life I've worked very closely with the women who've worked with me.

"Some of the most senior people working with me are not only women, but extremely, extremely professional and competent women."

There is something jarring in that final sentence. It comes across as if the idea that women can be "extremely professional and competent" is almost a revelation to Gordon Brown. This is compounded by his awkward phrasing when he says that he's worked very closely with the women who've worked with him. It almost sounds like he can only work with the women who are willing to work with him.

But I think that it would be just as wrong to paint Brown as a simple misogynist as it would be to paint him as a feminist. Put simply (and to make up a word), he's just not a peopleist. Gender isn't the issue in Brown's flawed dealings with others - it's the fact that he just doesn't like working with, or even dealing with, other people. It is, and will always remain, an extraordinary flaw in a political leader.

I don't know what Brown's strengths are, but he should focus on them rather than on trying to create this false image of him as a people person. Put simply, it just isn't credible. In the grand scheme of things, he doesn't come across as someone people would get on with, and he isn't going to win any extra votes by pretending he is. You might feel, regardless of how pointless he is, that you could go for a drink with Cameron (until you realised that he wants to go to expensive wine bars). Clegg; well, you probably wouldn't know he exists, even if he spoke to you. And Brown? Well, if that glowering, angry freak was stomping towards you then you'd probably cross the street for fear that he might clomp you one in the face if you failed to give him money.

Gordon Brown isn't a feminist, but his problem has nothing to do with gender. He's just an old-fashioned misanthrope.

Facebook, Atheism and Santa

Allow me to introduce you to another Facebook group - Hey Facebook!... Atheist Groups are NOT Hate Groups! Stop Banning Them!

Personally, I was unaware that Facebook was banning atheist groups. I suppose it is possible; most organisations are very tentative and risk averse when it comes to dealing with religion, and if it came down to a straight choice between the God-botherers and God-deniers, then the latter will (more often that not) lose. However, to ban an atheist group because it is a hate group seems to be crass, particularly when you can join the BNP Facebook group. There is nothing hating about atheism; in fact, atheists tend to be more tolerant than the believers.

Yet I can't get too worked up about this. If Facebook wants to ban atheist groups, then let it crack on and do so. It is a private organisation and frankly it can do what it wants with its own website. As an atheist, I can't bring myself to be anything other than mildly peeved that religious groups get a higher profile on Facebook than atheist ones. Because, at the end of the day, this is Facebook - a social networking site with oodles of stupid groups. I honestly don't think that anyone is going to be swayed to atheism or to religion by Facebook. Besides, there is a certain poetic justice in God (Other Public Figure, apparently) sitting on a website that also boasts Santa Claus (classed as a politician, would you believe) as a user.

Still, the group is worth checking out if only for the pictures. This one is probably my favourite.

Manic Street Preachers - Jackie Collins Existential Question Time

The original version includes the words "a married man fucks a Catholic" rather than the tamer "a married man bags a Catholic" in this video...

Quote of the Day 2

I don't know, you wait for one quote of the day and then two come along on the same day:

"It's the constant arrogation of an overstated influence on life and society that secularists like myself oppose. There's no point in pussyfooting around. You believe something dreamed up by illiterate goatherds 2000 years ago and I've got to respect it? No is the answer, after 9/11."

"Religion can't carry on unconstrained, and the constraint must be, see yourself as you are, an unelected body with no greater rights than any other interest group such as trade unions or political parties. Have your say, but don't impose yourself on the rest of us."

A. C. Grayling

Quote of the Day

At the very moment when it would like to give lessons in democracy to different traditions and cultures, the political culture of the West does not realize that it has entirely lost its canon.

Giorgio Agamben (1942- )

Paxman v Sting

I never get tired of watching Sting get dissed on Newsnight - the best moment is at 7:23 when the "Rainforest campaigner" gets the full Paxman treatment.

Was Ricky Gervais Ever Funny?

I had the misfortune the other weekend of catching about 20 minutes of the Ricky Gervais “comedy” film Ghost Town. To say I wasn’t amused would be a massive understatement. In fact, the segment I saw seemed to be completely devoid of jokes, barring a jarring rant from Gervais about how the Chinese are weird. It lead me to conclude that Gervais is past his prime; that he’s gone off the boil. But then I started to wonder whether Gervais ever really had a prime.

Let’s look at his career to date. His stand-up simply seems to consist of saying politically incorrect things and then laughing uproariously at his own naughtiness. He resembles a teenager doing a bit of verbal flashing; unfortunately, he lacks the mitigating factor of relative youth. A fat, middle-aged man trying to be controversial isn’t stand-up – it is more the behaviour of pretty much any patron of any pub any night of the week.

Being on television seems to bring some discipline to Gervais – mercifully. Extras certainly had its funny moments – the sight of celebrities demeaning themselves is always welcome. Yet in terms of tone, Extras is all over the place. It seems to want to be an excruciating comedy of manners, yet also includes ludicrous characters like the agent. It wants to be Curb Your Enthusiasm, but it doesn’t quite seem capable of achieving that. And by the end of the series it has become an unfocussed rant against the nature of celebrity – which is ironic, given how much Gervais seems to relish his celebrity status.

And then we have The Office. To diss The Office is seen by some as a sort of sacrilege. And certainly, there are some moments of absolute genius within that series, although I’d argue that the American version of The Office is superior to the original (which is a post for another day). But watching The Office - and the documentaries on the DVD – lead to the conclusion that Ricky Gervais played David Brent so well because he is, to a massive extent, David Brent anyway. Which is why Gervais will probably always struggle to make his mark in anything other than The Office. He’s a one-trick pony, and he ended the series containing his best performance years ago.

McCarthy - we are all bourgeois now

Get to fuck. This is truly groundbreaking:

BNP membership rules still discriminatory, court rules

The BNP. Still discriminatory. Who'd have thought, eh?

Heaven is Whenever

Via DK, I've come across a new project based around music:

Heaven is Whenever is an escape for political bloggers who want to lay down the yoke of partisan commentary for a while and luxuriate in a pastime we all share: music.

As we move into what no doubt will be a bitter election campaign that, in the grand scheme of things, won't matter because nothing will change no matter who wins, any sort of refuge for political bloggers (particularly those who don't fit in with the political mainstream fighting this election) is more than welcome.

Just leave out the politics and focus on the music.

Increasingly, that seems a great idea to me.

BNP Teachers

There is something about this story that I find very troubling – and it doesn’t take a genius to work out what it is:

Teachers in England should not be banned from membership of the British National Party or any group which may promote racism, a review has concluded.

While I have no children, I can understand how many people might feel uncomfortable about having a racist teaching their children. That said, I do think that people shouldn’t be excluded from teaching based on political beliefs, even if those political are (as in the case of the BNP) utterly repugnant.

Because, surely, the idea of a teacher is to teach – not to act as political spokespeople for various parties. The point shouldn’t be to ban those who hold particular views from teaching, but rather to ensure that teachers educate and inform, rather than proselytise and promote their own political views. And that includes all political beliefs, ladies and gents – not just those nationalist, socialist and racist views of the BNP. Just as we should separate church and state, so we should aspire to separate politics from the class room.

Pink Floyd and Padding

Apparently, Pink Floyd have just won a court case against their record company. The Floyd didn’t want their albums split up (and their contract enforces this request). The BBC reports:

Earlier this week, Robert Howe QC, appearing for the group, said the the band's deal with EMI stipulated that their "seamless" albums should not be split up and that they "wanted to retain artistic control”.

Now, I’m a big fan of Pink Floyd, but I can’t help but think that The Daily Mash’s caustic take on the case is more than a little relevant. See, the main reason why the ‘Floyd’s albums are seamless is because there are no real gaps between tracks on their records. And it is also safe to say that there are some tracks that, if they can’t quite be dismissed as pure padding, then are at least less memorable that the true Floydian classics.

In a sense, it also makes business sense to sell the albums as a whole, if only for the sake of people coming to Pink Floyd with no idea about what to expect from the band. I mean, if a newbie to the world of ‘Floyd finds “Time” or “Comfortably Numb”, they’ll be coming back. However, if they find “On the Run”, “Get Your Filthy Hands Off My Desert” or, good God help us, “Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave Grooving with a Pict”, then they are going to end up wondering what all the fuss was about and probably won’t be coming back for more…

What might be the result of Labour winning the next election?

So, what do we think will happen if Gordon Brown manages to pull off what at one stage seemed impossible and wins the next election?

Any number of things could happen, most of which are pretty depressing. Bankrupt nation with a cowed, nanny-dependent population is a distinct possibility. But as far as I can see, one of the worst possible scenarios is as follows.

A re-elected Gordon Brown would be empowered in such a way that he hasn't been since he ascended to power. In fact, within the Labour party, he'd probably be more powerful and influential than ever. And he'd be able to wreak his revenge on those who have made life so unpleasant for him. Ed Miliband would go - possibly even replaced by his even more stupid looking brother. Alastair Darling would certainly be chopped. And who do we think Brown would replace Darling with?

Why, that would be Ed Balls, perhaps the only senior politician in this country more poisonous than Brown himself.

Of course, Balls in Number 11 would be bad enough. But suppose - as I suspect would be the case - that Brown stepped down over the course of the next Parliament. Those rivals of Brown - like Miliband - would have been humiliated and would be unlikely to be credible successors unless they had performed spectacularly well on the backbenches. And Brown - who would have been the reason why many new Labour MPs had their seats in the Commons - would have considerable influence over who replaced him. And who would Brown choose? Why, the younger version of himself - his chosen Chancellor. Ed Balls.

So a Labour win at the next election could give us Prime Minister Ed Balls. Possibly one of the most terrifying prospects that one could imagine. The only upshot would be that with Ed Balls as Prime Minister, there would be no way in hell Labour could win a further election in 2015...

Urqhart for PM

For those of you who are, like me, struggling to work out who to vote for, allow me to point you in the direction of this Facebook group: Francis Urqhart for PM. Sure, he might be an amoral, psychopathic dead fictional character portrayed by a deceased actor, but I still reckon he'd be a better choice than Brown, Cameron or Clegg...

The Devil and the Pope

Sometimes you don't need to satirise the Catholic Church; it just does it for itself:

"The Devil resides in the Vatican and you can see the consequences," said Father Amorth, 85, who has been the Holy See's chief exorcist for 25 years.

Doesn't the Pope live in the Vatican as well? If the Devil resides there as well, does that make them roomies? Or something more?!? I think we should be told....

"I am convinced that the Nazis were all possessed. All you have to do is think about what Hitler and Stalin did."

Err, Stalin wasn't a Nazi. Small point, but worth highlighting. And the Nazi's weren't possessed by anything than a heady brew of undeserved power mixed with deeply held prejudice. To dismiss them as possessed by evil is rather to miss the point about the banality of evil; the willing killers of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are not necessarily evil - although their actions certainly are - but are rather normal humans given permission to become inhuman by the state. That's why we need to have constant vigilance against the tendencies of government to drift towards authoritarianism. And also why we need to combat any such drift (with something a little more realistic than exorcism).

Plus, wasn't the Pope once in the Hitler Youth? Does that mean he was possessed as well? Perhaps that's why the Devil feels so at home in the Vatican.

"(The Devil) can remain hidden, or speak in different languages, or even appear to be sympathetic. At times he makes fun of me. But I'm a man who is happy in his work."

The Devil makes fun of you, eh? Can't think why...

Praising Brown For His Flaws

In an extraordinary piece on how Gordon Brown’s egregious flaws are actually the reason why he has managed to cling on to power, The Independent’s Steve Richards seems to be reveling in the idea that Brown being a wanker is why he is still Prime Minister. Now, a better – or more patient – blogger might care to dissect the whole article. I can make my point just by fisking two paragraphs.

There is a pattern here. When Brown was Chancellor, a thousand voices predicted at certain key moments that he would never be Prime Minister.

Only a thousand? I’d have thought there would have been tens of thousands of voices all claiming that Brown would never be Prime Minister. Some out of hope, some out of fear, some out of a sense of incredulity that someone so incapable and unsuited could be considered a potential PM, let alone actually taking on the role.

A thousand theories accompanied the voices. He was Scottish. He was too openly disloyal to Tony Blair. He was so obviously useless.

All of which is true, but only the last reason should really be a barrier to becoming PM.

When he became Prime Minister the chorus moved on to predicting his demise before the general election.

Mainly because he has, as Prime Minister, been shit and… well, useless.

He is about to lead the party's campaign.

Hopefully to defeat and all.

How has he survived for so long at the top of British politics, at least since 1992 when he was made shadow chancellor, if he is this deranged, bullying incompetent who cannot communicate and has no strategic skills?

I’ve emphasised the crucial word – more on that later.

Part of the answer relates to stamina, appetite for politics and thick-skinned durability. There are not many people who could put up with such assaults on their character.

Does Brown really possess a thick skin? And does he really put up with assaults on his character? If he does have such a thick skin, then why did he employ the compellingly vile Damian McBride to bully people on this behalf? And why are we hearing so many stories about Brown flinging mobiles at people who bring him bad news? Raging like a baby in a tantrum when encountering criticism is not the behaviour of someone with a thick skin or who is putting up with character attacks in a stoic way.

Evidently Brown wants to keep going even if that means facing a daily hell of abuse.

Yeah, this is probably true, but is also true of many other politicians. In fact, putting up with regular abuse should be one of the criteria on the job spec. Because while Richards might be wanting us to feel sorry for Brown, the truth is that he gets the normal amount of abuse for someone in his position. Certainly, the sort of abuse he gets is easily comparable to the amount that Major got when he was PM. And Cameron – Brown’s would be nemesis – gets a fair share of abuse to, particularly given Cameron’s supposed status as a toff. Just to put the cherry on the cake, much of the abuse thrown at Major and Cameron comes not only from the party Brown leads, but also from Brown himself. Yes, Brown puts up with abuse. It may even be a “daily hell” owing to the thinness of his skin. But it is the sort of abuse that he is perfectly happy to dole out to others as well.

If he did not want to do so he has had more opportunities than most to give up.

This is a bit of a nonsense statement. Of course Brown has had opportunities to give up – every day is an opportunity. He could end this supposed misery by tendering his resignation right now. The same is true of any wealthy man with a great pension plan to fall back on. Brown hasn’t had more opportunities than most people (in his position). He can give up any time he wants.

What Richards is probably referring to, though, is the number of coup attempts Brown has suffered during his relatively brief time as PM. And it is true that Brown has had more attempts to depose him than most Prime Ministers. But the crucial factor that has to be taken into account is the quality of those coups. Aside from the fact that they were shit and going nowhere, did any of them really offer Brown the chance to stand down with even an iota of dignity? I mean, who on earth could bring themselves to stand down as the result of a coup led by Hewitt and Hoon?

Quite clearly, one of the reasons why Brown has been able to stay in power is because his opponents have been utterly, utterly shite.

The other reason is, of course, Brown himself – he is a bully and he is manipulative. He spent his time in Number 11 carefully crafting the narrative that he was not only the natural successor to Blair, but the only one. When the end for Blair actually came, the Labour party could not think of any alternative to Brown. And the bullying – Brown’s attack monkeys, and his rages - mean that anyone who might even try to control or even oppose him cannot. Far more than Blair, Brown has broken the Labour party. He has made it into a cowed shadow of a political organization – the political extension of his own schizophrenic ego.

Brown has survived; he may yet confound expectation and win the next election (although I strongly doubt that). However, his survival is down to anything other than positive reasons – his bullying and the incompetence of his colleagues.

The Guardian and the Soap Opera Version of Politics

Well, this will be a massively condensed version of a post that I have been working on for just under a week. The reason why I have radically cut the word count is because it becomes counter-intuitive to write an epic blog post criticising the amount of attention that Ashcroft has got from the likes of The Guardian - frankly, neither Ashcroft nor this whole sorry non-story should be left in the limelight for any longer than is absolutely possible.

What got me started on this pointless odyssey into the obviously compromised and far from neutral Guardian was this idea here – where they want their readers to write to Tory MPs and would-be Tory MPs with a list of (really rather dull) questions. Now, I’m all for contact with your MP, but not to simply do the legwork of a national newspaper. I mean, whatever happened to investigative journalism? I mean, imagine if Woodward and Bernstein had adopted The Guardian approach to political journalism: "President Nixon, were you involved in the Watergate cover-up?" "No." "Well, we believe you were, and we're going to prove it by... by... getting people to write letters!"

Besides, any self-respecting Tory MP/candidate will simply ignore any letter demanding answers from their bosses. Probably from a mix of fear, but also because they’ll have better things to do with their time. Like trying to win (re) election to the House of Commons.

But it isn’t just the idiotic questions that Guardian readers have to spam their Tories with. No, the whole of The Guardian (well, their online presence anyway - I'm not going to pay good money for the online version of this rag) seems to be awash with articles about Ashcroft – even down to an article comparing him with a duckhouse. Yes, that’s right – the Ashcroft saga (a rich man not wanting to pay massive amounts of tax) is on a par with the expenses scandal. And, of course, the comparison is with a Tory MP’s particular moment of greed – even though it is Labour MPs who have been charged in that relation to that scandal.

So what we have here is The Guardian acting as nothing more, yet nothing less, than attack dog of the ruling party. Sure, they have never been neutral, but with this current concerted attack on one Tory donor, they have started to resemble a Nu Labour version of Pravda. Or a version of LabourList with a massive readership and a national profile. Which would be less of a problem if this particular ersatz scandal actually mattered. But it doesn’t. It really doesn’t.

Which means that the naked bias of The Guardian - and any other rag savaging to Tories for having a rich donor – are doing two things. Firstly, neither Labour nor the Tories are being challenged on their actual policies. It feels, for all the world, like The Guardian wants to turn this election into a referendum on Michael Ashcroft. If the Tories lose, then guess what? People weren’t ok with Ashcroft’s donations. If the Tories win, then we will know people don’t care. Is that really any way in which to choose the next government of the United Kingdom? The Guardian seems to think so.

Which leads us nicely on to the second, linked point – that The Guardian are doing the donkey work of those who would turn modern British politics into a bad soap opera, devoid of political content. The Ashcroft saga – which has been dragging on since the last century, for Christ’s sake – is irrelevant when you consider the challenges facing this country and the seeming inability of all parties to raise themselves to that challenge. The real problems, and the glaring issues facing us, are hidden behind a bunch of Labour supporters tutting at a rich man who wants to limit the amount of tax he pays. Which is simultaneously dangerous and pathetic.

Ashcroft and The Guardian

I'm currently working on quite a long post about The Guardian's response to the Michael Ashcroft saga. However, owing to the fact that I am currently only able to use a shit PC with a shit version of IE on it - and the fact that The Guardian's position has changed as this non story drags on develops, the post will have to wait until later today/tomorrow.

To summarise, though, my position is this - I'm pretty sure that while Ashcroft has the dubious ethical status enjoyed by many wealthy "donors" to political parties, he's probably one of the best of a bad bunch. And I'd also say that The Guardian - which has its own intersting position with regard to the payment of tax - is simply using this story to prop up a failed government that has nothing to say other than pointing at the Tories and their benefactor and chanting the mantra "they are rich, they are evil. They are rich, they are evil."

Which is utterly pathetic.

Quote of the Day

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

Ron Paul, (1935- )

A Wage Increase For Our MPs...

Iain Dale has a post up arguing for the rise in MPs pay, and there are a couple of paragraphs in there that are very telling. Not so much about Dale's thoughts, but about the whole debate around MPs pay.

MPs still get paid less than a Deputy Head Teacher, a GP or a senior Health Service manager. I happen to think that if we want people to pass laws over us we should be attracting top class people into politics, rather than some of the dross we have got at the moment on all sides of the House. The desire to serve the public is a vital part of all of this, but that doesn't mean MPs should have to wear hairshirts the whole time.

I'm not saying £65,000 is peanuts, but it's certainly attracting too many monkeys.

Let's deal with this bit by bit.

First of all, does the fact that MPs earn less than a Deputy Head Teacher, GP or senior health service manager automatically mean that an MP deserves to be paid more? Is the job of an MP - which is effectively lobby fodder mixed with working for the Citizens' Advice Bureau - really worth more than a GP? And let's be a bit controversial here - can we really be sure that a Deputy Head, GP or a senior health service manager (whatever that is) isn't overpaid as well?

We need to be attracting those most suited to the job to become MPs. That doesn't mean that we have to attract those who are lusting after as much money as possible. In fact, I'd argue that those motivated by money are not going to be the best to become MPs. The pay should be a lesser factor - the desire to be a public servant should be foremost in the minds of applicants (which, in fairness, Dale alludes to. Sort of.)

Furthermore, while I do want our politicians to be wearing hairshirts all of the time, most people don't. And they probably would have been happy with the amount MPs earn as a salary - before they discovered that MPs were rinsing the taxpayer dry through various expenses fiddles. People were happy for politicians to take home a decent salary, and then some of them took the piss. Hell, some of them not only took the piss, but spat in the face of the taxpayer and dissed the taxpayer's mother. At a time when the respect for British politicians is probably at an all time low, it seems curious that anyone - even an independent body - would be advocating paying them more.

And £65,000 - well, giving the figures around the average salary in this country, it is a lot for the majority of people. In fact, it is at least £30k more than the average person earns in this country. But I'd argue that the reason why we are getting monkeys - and self-serving monkeys who only interrupt their fiscal onanism to fling shit in the taxpayer's face at that - is because entering the Commons has been such a good gravy train to jump aboard. The concept of a public servant needs to dwell in the servant side of things - and part of that, even if it doesn't require an actual sacrifice - does require something other than a desire to make as much money as possible.

I believe £65,000 is too much for an MP - particularly when you throw in the benefits they get on top of that. If I was an MP, then I would take £30k as a basic salary, and about £10k on top of that in expenses. I know I could do it because I have worked in Central London doing a job requiring a lot of travel. But what puts me off being an MP isn't the salary, but rather the shit that goes with the job. Including the intrusive staring at the private lives of MPs, and the fact that the job really could be done by a trained chimp when it comes to activities in the Commons. For £65,000 a year I really do expect our elected officials to do something other than bray like a rabid mob at PMQ's, and traipse through the correct lobby on the instructions of a whip.

£65k a year for what we've got; I honestly believe we could have much better for far less.

Nu Labour and the Celebrity Endorsement

Over at LabourList, I see that some sort of Nu Labour drone* has managed to write a book. It’s a short book, mind, but that’s understandable when you consider the topic – Why Vote Labour. Frankly, I’m amazed she managed to produce enough text even for a small book. I’d have thought this sort of tome could have been written on the back of a bar mat. And since it is about reasons to vote for Labour, written on the back of a bar mat after a substantial session of absinthe drinking.

But then we see Ms Reeves’ secret – she’s got other people to help her write her “book”:

"Why Vote Labour" tells the inspirational stories of people and families from up and down the country about the difference Labour has made to them. It also includes personal accounts from Jo Brand, Gurinder Chadha, Bono, Eddie Izzard and others on the difference Labour has made.

Right, so, we should vote Labour because a sarcastic bag of lard, someone I’ve never heard of, a twat whose egregious personality is summed up perfectly by his idiotic sunglasses, and a long past prime comedian happened to have scrawled some meaningless gibberish in a lightweight tome penned by a Labour PPC. In the whole broad spectrum of shitty reasons to vote Labour, that has to be one of the worst. In fact, the only way that list of celebrities could have been made even more repellent is by including the chopper to end all choppers – Sting.

And I can’t stand it. I just can’t stand it. I cannot cope with this notion that because someone has a hit record, they suddenly become an expert on politics who is worth quoting by someone aspiring to become a legislator. And I despair of the fact that she would quote comedians as a reason to vote for her shit awful party without even a hint of irony.

I want to write a book. It would be called “Why celebrities are cunts, and how they have helped to destroy politics.” Because that’s what this is – the debasement and destruction of political discourse in this country. Soon, we’ll be in a position where parties cease to publish manifestos, and instead commission a special edition of Hello! magazine that contains celebrities as charismatic and convincing as Chris Martin out of Coldplay wibbling on about why we should vote Labour because “it’s like good, and stuff.”

So fuck off. Fuck off the lot of you. To celebrities – do what your best at. Which isn’t political interventions. To politicians, get a grip. If you have now become dependent on “celebrities” to make your case and connect you to the people, then you have lost your way, and you have lost your Raison d'être. And know this – any party that uses the likes of Bono fucking Vox as an expert on anything other than making largely shitty records is not getting my vote. Not now, not ever.

*Seriously, where the fuck do they get these people from? Is there a factory somewhere outside Wigan mass-producing these tools?

Quick Question

What is BBC 6 Music, and why should I care that it is being closed down?*

*It is still one question, just with two parts.

Paying Tax As "Giving"

There is nothing quite as jarring as Peter Mandelson – a man who has a proven track record of resigning in disgrace – criticising another wealthy man for the heinous crime of trying not to pay huge sums in tax.

But there is no shortage of people attacking Mandelson and the members of all parties who appear happy to wade through a massive mire of hypocrisy in order to have a pop at a Tory benefactor. And I’ll leave them all to it. Instead, I wanted to look at an example of how this has been portrayed in the media – in this case, by The Guardian. Take a look at this paragraph, and see if you can work out what I find most troubling:

Ashcroft and the Tories have refused to answer questions about when Ashcroft fulfilled the less onerous task of declaring himself a long-term resident, which allowed him to continue to be a non-dom paying tax only on his UK earnings and avoiding giving tens of millions of pounds to the tax office on his substantial international estate.

Have you spotted the most troubling phrase? It is the idea that Ashcroft is avoiding “giving” his money to the tax office. Now, who actually “gives” their tax money to the Inland Revenue? Who “gives” their taxes up? Anyone? Anyone? Oh, no, at best – at fucking best – we pay taxes. Taxes actually tend to disappear without the majority of people in this country actually actively giving up the money. It goes before your pay hits your account. You pay tax whenever you buy a commodity that includes VAT. You pay tax all the time – however, people don’t tend to give tax money to the tax office.

Does this sort of distinction matter? I mean, it’s The Guardian we’re talking about here. They are never going to describe taxation as state sponsored theft. But the very fact that the use of the concept of giving taxes is so subtle is what makes it so troubling and pernicious. It is arguably far more damaging than any statist fuck banging on about tax avoidance like it is a financial equivalent of the fucking Holocaust. Because it is so subtle, and so easy to miss. Yet the more it is repeated, the more it feeds into the dominant discourse in this country that giving money to the state is a good thing. In fact, the use of the word give is very interesting – after all, we give to charity, so we can extend that to the state. Yes, giving to the state is like giving to charity. That’s the agenda that this sort of subtle framing wishes to perpetuate. Except the government charity is just as likely to spend it on war or banking bailouts than on something those who perpetuate this myth actually think deserves funding.

So the next time someone tells you that you give money to the tax office, please feel free to tell them to fuck off, and grow a brain cell while they do so.

From the BBC Have Your Incoherent Rant Say on the death of Michael Foot from some dullard called Gemma:

I remember him for trying to free Ms Hinley from Prison. Luckly he failed and she died in prison. He came across as a weak willed man

Uh huh. Are we quite sure that we aren't thinking of Lord Longford trying to free Myra Hindley from prison? Just askin' is all...

Good luck to the reader who found this blog by searching for "extreme wanking material". Hope you weren't too disappointed when you realised that you'd found yet another shouty political blog rather than the extreme wank material you were looking for...

In praise of Michael Foot

Here's an example of Brown getting something right:

Prime Minister and Labour leader Gordon Brown led the tributes, describing Mr Foot as a "man of deep principle and passionate idealism".

See, I'd agree with that. Foot was a man of deep principle and passionate idealism.

Of course, what Foot believed in was abject nonsense. It was the sort of cliched left-wing bilge that should be abandoned once someone moves beyond the naive surroundings of student union politics. His ideas were soundly - and rightly - rejected by the British people in 1983.

But at least Foot stood for something. Anyone who has studied Foot knows why he wanted to be Prime Minister, and knows that it was for ideological reasons, rather than ego or personal gain. In fact, in some respects, British politics in 1983 represents something of a golden age, in that the Labour and Conservative parties were headed by ideologues passionate about a particular vision of the future for Britain. Compare that to now, when the leaders of the party have no political ambition beyond the extension and perpetuation of their own political power. When Foot lost, he could at least say that it was a honourable defeat. He fought for what he believed in and failed. Which will be a damn sight better than whoever loses this coming election will be able to claim - mainly that they fought to win political power for themselves, and failed to achieve even that.

Foot came from a different era of British politics - when it was more about ideological debate than a popularity contest between pointless party leaders. So rest in peace, Michael - but let's hope the idea of genuine conviction politicians isn't also dead and gone forever.

Give the BNP morons a megaphone!

I've always maintained that we should let the BNP speak. In fact, I reckon we should let them speak as much as possible to as wider an audience as possible. Because, as this article shows*, they don't half talk utter shite:

On 24 August 2005, Mr Eriksen wrote: "I've never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the feminazi myth machine into believing that rape is such a serious crime ... Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal.

"To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting that forcefeeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence. A woman would be more inconvenienced by having her handbag snatched.

"The demonisation of rape is all part of the feminazi desire to obtain power and mastery over men. Men who go along with the rape myth are either morons or traitors."

It isn't even worth bothering to pull the quotation apart - its absolutely abhorrent nature should be obvious to everyone who is a grade-A fuckwit. But this sort of thing is perfect, just perfect, publicity for the BNP. See, it shows the truth about them. That BNP activists are not noble patriots misrepresented by a hostile media, but rather prime examples of moronic bigots who really aren't worth taking seriously for an more than 1.2 seconds. This sort of thing is an excellent example of how free speech can and should work. The witless ones should be allowed to say what they like, so people with an IQ higher than 23 can point and laugh before dismissing them as useless wankstains.

Let the BNP talk. Give them blogs, interviews, time on the TV, and even megaphones. Because - as Nick Eriksen so ably shows, they truly are repugnant in their views. And said views will alienate the vast majority of people in this country - if they are allowed to hear what the BNP actually believe.

*Link via Cheeky Chappie in a comment on this post.

Those Poll Results

David Cameron, responding to relatively poor poll ratings* for his increasingly pointless party:

"They don't hand general election victories and governments on a plate to people in this country, and quite right too," he said. "I know how important it is that we recognise this election was always going to be close. This election was always going to be a real fight for our party, a fight to make sure we serve the country we love, and that's the fight we're going to have."

Sure, Davey C. Sure. You need to have a fight. Well get a grip and fucking start fighting, then.

This has always been the Tories' election to lose. And guess what? They are starting to lose it. Which is pathetic, really. A dump in a carrier bag should be able to oust Gordon Brown. The fact that the Tories are starting to struggle is a damning indictment of the current leadership.

And - crucially - it is a damning indictment of the Tory leadership's failure to lead. Both myself and many, many others have consistently criticised Cameron for failing to say what he stands for. And guess what? We were right. Labour - for all of their flaws (and they have a lot of flaws) - actually explain what they stand for. Sure, what they stand for is essentially not worth hearing about, but unless the public is presented with an alternative, the party that says something is likely to triumph over the party that says nothing.

Fucking hell, it isn't even the case that Cameron has to say something original or brilliant. As long as he doesn't say that he wants to punch old women in the bladder, he can say what he likes. But his failure to position himself at all on pretty much anything means that people forget he exists, and he is incapable of grabbing the media spotlight. Since the New Year, Cameron has increasingly resembled (God help him) Nick Clegg. And whatever strengths Clegg might have**, no-one sees him as a future Prime Minister.

I don't give a fuck who wins the next election, but Cameron does. And the buck stops with him. The first Tory victory for nearly 20 years is right in front of him, within his reach. But only if he doesn't allow the petrified indolence that has characterised his leadership thus far to dominate the way the fights the general election. Brown may not be a clunking fist, but if Cameron goes into the General Election with both hands tied behind his back for no reason, Brown will manage to land some punches. And possibly enough to see a minority Labour government returned to power.

*They are still in the lead, just less so that before. There is the temptation to paint these sort of poll results as a disaster, but the reality is there are rogue poll results and poll results are not indicative of how people will actually vote. Nonetheless, given the state of the incumbent government, the Tories should be pissing over the rancid corpse of the Labour Party, rather than fighting the persistently aggressive zombie headed by Gordon Brown.

**Answers on a postcard, please. Because I really don't know what the fuck they are.

And what is so wrong with this?

A rich man wants to pay less tax in a country that increasingly (and grossly) penalises people for the *crime* of being rich. How is that controversial? Who the hell wants to give up the money they earn to enable a profligate and deeply inefficient government to spunk money up against the wall?

Frankly, I'd be more shocked if Ashcroft wasn't desperate to save his money from the Chancellor. If only because that would make him really quite moronic. And therefore make me wonder how he earned his billions in the first place.

Facebook Groups

To all those on Facebook who are friends with the Nameless Libertarian and who send invites to join groups about UKIP and support UKIP candidates - I'm not interested. I'm really not. I'm not a member of UKIP, I don't support UKIP and I am never, ever going to vote for UKIP. So it really is pointless to send the invites to me*.

A similar message to our American cousins - I'm not a US citizen, so enlisting my help with the latest campaign to get some crackpot elected president or a bellicose Republican into Congress is going to be ignored. It is also worth stressing that the Republicans are not (especially in their current incarnation) a libertarian party - any more than the Tory party in this country is libertarian. So calling from support from a libertarian for the Republicans will, on almost every occasion, be completely pointless.

*Of course, people might be signing up to a cause and then inviting all of their friends. Although that doesn't change the fact that most of the pointless invites I get are from UKIP supporters rather than, say, Tories...