Over at the Contrarian there is a frankly wonderful post tearing apart Richard Murphy's utterly spurious and extremely ignorant opinions about Libertarians (and others who he crudely and incorrectly lumps together with Libertarians). I strongly urge you to go take a look.

I've only got one thing to add; Murphy talks a lot about how Libertarians/right-wingers/anarcho-capitalists/the Tories/the TPA etc want to destroy democracy and remove the right of people to think for themselves. Not only is this stuff and nonsense but it also misses the point that it is Murphy and his ilk who don't want democracy or people to think for themselves. Murphy wants you to unquestioningly agree with his opinions on tax, on the benefits of state expansion and on climate change. If you don't, he'll refuse to allow you to make your point and maybe call you autistic at the same time. There's nothing democratic about the way he operates, and there is no way in hell that he actually wants you or me to think for ourselves. Blind obedience is the way forward as far as statist fucks like Murphy are concerned.

Gay, Bi, Straight, Whatever

The weekend just gone seems to have had its share of whispering around the sexual orientation of Cabinet Ministers; Crispin Blunt came out as gay while others have been coyly (or not) asking around the question "is another senior Tory Minister gay?"

The answer all decent people should be giving to that question is, of course, who the fuck cares? Seriously, why does it matter whether or not someone is gay? If they happen to be gay and married, they it will probably be a problem for their spouses and families, but that's it. That's where it stops. It does not matter one jot whether someone is gay, straight, bisexual or any other combination of orientations. At this point I could argue that sexuality is actually something to complex that it defies easy categorisation, but I won't - because it doesn't matter what a politician's sexual orientation is.

Yet it does matter that we allow our media to get away with this speculation and at times, as a nation, let ourselves get swept away by titillating speculation about the private lives of others. And when need to stop. We should hold our politicians to account and viciously attack them when they fail - in their public roles. As long as they are not doing anything illegal in their private lives, they should remain just that - private.

And this isn't just about who politicians are humping or even what gender they prefer to hump. I don't want to hear about their spouses and I certainly don't want to hear about their sodding kids. I don't want know what to see photos of Cameron's new baby, I don't what to know what it is called - hell, I don't even care what gender it is. I want him to run the fucking country, and do so well. I don't expect him to be preening with his new tot like a z-list celebrity milking the profitable teat of Hello magazine.

Because removing the right of our politicians to have a private life creates this expectation that they will share every element of their private lives with us. Which means that those who are vying for high-office in this country are not those most capable of carrying out that office, but rather are the sort of preening narcissistic fucks who revel in the constant exposure of the media limelight. The end result of this obsession with the private lives of our politicians is not a purer breed of political leaders, but rather Tony fucking Blair.

Gay, not gay, undecided, asexual, both; the only suitable answer should be that you really couldn't give a fuck anyway.

Free Batman Movie!

Well, a YouTube compilation of commercials that made up a mini-movie back before Christian Bale began to define Batman by growling a lot:

Plus, y'know, it's a Bank Holiday and I'm busy, so this is the most you'll be getting from me today!

5 movies that...

...are nightmares; not in the sense of being bad, but rather that the overall themes and feel of the movies are nightmarish. Inevitably, most of these movies are horrors:

5: π: A trip into the paranoid world of a maths genius who may or may not be able to predict the activity of the stock market. He is stalked by others; by businesses, and by cult leaders, and his grasp of reality is fading by the second. Furthermore, like the film at number 1, it is all shot in black and white, just to make it look a little more weird. Still, there's nothing in the film that quite compares to the unique - and definitely not recommended - solution to genius that this film provides.

4: Inception: Yep, it is about dreams, so it is an obvious choice in some ways. Except that it is a strikingly good film about dreams. This isn't about dreaming, it is about being lost in a dream. About a world where everything is disjointed and weird; where you can float and fight and cheat death but never quite attain reality. And, for me, it contains hints - especially at the end - of the dream from which you cannot escape... and even if you think you have, how can you be sure? It is like one of those dreams where you think you've woken up, but you never quite have got back to reality.

3: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: It isn't just that Leatherface is a mighty, monstrous figure who just cannot be stopped, even after he slices his own leg with a chainsaw. And it isn't just about the fact that no matter who you meet you tend to end up back in the arms of that murderous lunatic. No, it is the little touches to the film. Like the intro sequence, that involves carcasses, bones, and a chicken stuffed into a bird cage. Those little signals that show a messed-up mind. That's what moves this film from being a scary horror into a nightmare movie.

2: Videodrome: In which David Cronenberg takes the concept of reality, and - through the world of Max Renn - fucks with it so much that it becomes a nonsensical concept. Reality? Forget reality. If you ever knew what reality was, then you'll be hard placed to find the moment at which you parted company with it. Your world, right now, is most probably the result of a brain tumour caused by the actions of a puritanical cult keen to make society pure again. Or it might be down to the prophecies of a possibly deluded tele-evangelist coming true. Whatever, that kinky porn you've been trying to sell hasn't been that good for you. Oh, and that itch in your stomach, it's not an itch. It's a lethal, gun-spewing vagina growing right in your belly. The best thing you can go is join the new flesh. Which involves suicide.

And you thought life as a pornographer would be fun.

1: Eraserhead: When I first watched this film, I thought it would just be a standard horror film. I could not have been more wrong. The world of Eraserhead is a world mired in absolute, unremitting stress. It is the movie of an awkward, maladjusted yet well-meaning man who just doesn't understand the social conventions of the world in which he has to live. It isn't a horror; it is quite literally a nightmare, and a nightmare that moves up a gear in its ability when the freakish baby puts in an appearance. This is a great, a brilliant piece of film-making. It is also the nightmare movie. The first time I watched it, I ended up with a stress headache. But if you haven't watched it, don't let this put you off. It really is one of those films that you have to watch.

"In heaven, everything is fine" the song says. Given how stressful the world of Eraserhead is, that makes sense even to an atheist like me.

Agreement, criticisms, vacant assertions; allow me to recommend the comments section of this post to you.

NHS Direct

So... NHS Direct is being culled. Unlike so many others, I just have to shrug my shoulders and say "oh" with an overwhelming sense of crushing apathy. It is not so much that I don't care; it is more that I can't even bring myself to care about the fact that I don't care. The fact that GPs have called for it to be cut makes me, if it were possible, even more apathetic.

Yet people moan, and people bleat. For the life of me, I can't figure out why. Unless it is the fact that NHS Direct has the acronym NHS in it, and that acts as a flashpoint for idiots. "You can't cut the NHS!" they scream, like an unthinking mob of would-be right-on campaigners. However, the fact that the campaign to save this glorified health call centre is being spearheaded by that fat cunt John Prescott convinces me that this is not so much a storm in a tea-cup as a fart in a tea-cup; the sort of campaign only of interest to the terminally whiney - the sort of mindless statist chumps who should, at best, be politely patronised and, at worst, just plain ignored.

Grow up, people. And get a grip while you're doing it.

Writing style

Via Longrider, an analysis of my writing style:

I write like
Kurt Vonnegut

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Vonnegut, eh? So it goes...

A Re-Cap of the Labour Leadership Contest So Far

Amazingly, the Labour leadership contest is still going; farting along like a bout of food poisoning - it is unpleasant, it is pretty boring, and you just want it to be over with. But for those of who haven't been paying attention or for those of you who have been paying too much attention, I though I'd give you the summary of how each of the candidates is doing from the perspective of a cynical armchair analyst:

Andy Burnham: It is a complete mystery to me why Andy Burnham bothered with his run for the leadership. He's got precisely nowhere, and despite his claim to be the working class candidate (yes, you're from Liverpool, Andy, but you're hardly Nye fucking Bevan, are you?). In fact he's rendered himself largely indistinguishable from the already beyond bland Miliband sprogs. Well done, Andy, you've become the least charismatic Miliband despite not actually being part of that family.

Diane Abbott: Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Diane Abbott meant to be in the Labour leadership contest in order to make the left-wing case? Because if she was, then I really do wonder what has gone wrong. Because after the brief glare of publicity after Miliband Major patronisingly gave her a way into the contest, we've hear nothing from Abbott. Nada. Zip. Silence has fallen. Which leads me to believe that the left-wing of the Labour party have nothing to say. Which may well be the case, but I don't think John McDonnell would agree with that one. And he must be fucking fuming, since he stood aside to let Abbott into the race.

Ed Balls: Listening to the rhetoric of the Balls camp is wonderful; they all talk about how he's the one that the Tories are afraid of. Whereas the exact opposite is actually true. Balls is the one the Tories want. He's an utterly repugnant individual who would be the one most likely to lead Labour to electoral oblivion - no mean feat, given he is running against Diane "racist hypocrite" Abbott. Balls may have been the one who has been taking the fight to the Tories, but that has achieved remarkably little and revealed only that Balls is a nasty little attack dog; incapable of espousing a positive view of the future and only capable of throwing poisonous barbs at the other parties. Whatever Balls may be, he most certainly isn't an electable leader. And it looks like he'll prove this by not being elected leader.

The Miliband Brothers: I lump them together because they're hard to tell apart. But I think I've found a way. David, with his faintly pained expression and little tuft of white hair, resembles a baby badger with constipation. Ed Miliband appears to have a head that looks like an overcooked baked potato with hair crudely stuck on it. This is the best way to tell them apart, IMHO, since there's been nothing in the campaign so far to aid with it - despite the fact that Badger Boy and Potato (now, there's a pitch for a TV show for kids, right there) have been running against each other. This week, there seems to have been greater attempt to put clear divides between them, and it appears the Badger Boy is the continuity candidate who doesn't mind change while Potato is all about change but won't do away with continuity with the past. Clear? Thought not. Personally, I just wish they'd get the hell on with it and decide which Spawn of the Miliband they want as leader.

Of course, with a long campaign to choose a leader, you're bound to get some fatigue - each primary season in the US drags on, for example, even if it is actually quite exciting. However, this contest has not only never caught on fire, it has been almost completely devoid of incident, event and anything that might provoke something resembling interest for the casual observer. The most memorable thing about this contest is the McDonnell jibe about Thatcher - and that came from someone who didn't become a candidate before the contest even started. Despite having five candidates in this election, there's no-one with personality and no-one with ideas. It speaks volumes about the moral and intellectual redundancy within the Labour party that a Miliband will almost certainly be elected their leader - neither Badger Boy or Potato are leaders, but then again, Labour doesn't appear to have any leaders - or ideas - left in it now.

Richard Murphy's Reverence for the Police

Richard Murphy, prize clown, on an example of what he calls "the joy of tax" - our police force:

Sometimes stating the obvious is necessary.

Uh-huh. Allow me to state the obvious - Richard Murphy is a total arse. Moving on:

We need police.

We need laws enforced.

Which assumes (a) that all laws are moral, and therefore should be enforced and (b) the police are capable of enforcing the law in all circumstances. Fellow participants in what I would call reality would dispute both of those assumptions.

And just as much we need their presence in communities – where I suspect they do a lot more simple offering help and direction than they do law enforcement.

What? Where the hell does Murphy live? In an episode of Dixon of Dock Green? I've lived in four cities and a rural village in this country, and I have never, ever seen the police do anything relating to "help and direction". Most of the time it is a bastard struggle to get them to do anything relating to law enforcement.

I am well aware that there are those on the right who think the police – and even law – can be privatised.

Not if they've seen Robocop. Yup, I know Robocop isn't real, but we're dealing with Mr Murphy here, people, making reality a movable - if not irrelevant - feast.

That’s wrong. A coherent system of law and order underpins a society. Only government can command and direct such a service.

Yeah, because left-wing governments never behave illegaly. Oh, wait... And the police. They'd never do anything illegal. Oh wait...

Only government can pay for it.

Government doesn't pay for it. The taxpayers do through money appropriated from them with menaces by the government. Whether they like it or not.

That’s the Joy of Tax.

Once again; Richard Murphy, what a total arse.

Top 30 Libertarian blogs

So, Dale's published his list of Top 30 Libertarian blogs and I'm on there - number 28, with a bullet! Still, I'm quite pleased with the result; partly because there are a lot of Libertarian blogs out there, and also because I am always amazed that people actually read this blog - so I'm startled that people would actually go out and vote for it.

Thanks if you did vote for me; if you didn't, then I think you should go watch that Guns 'n' Roses cover version I posted last night. All six excruciating minutes of it...

Worst Cover Version in the World. Ever.

Left-Wing Semantics

Daniel Hannan clearly understands the semantics of modern politics. Or, to put it another way, the semantic distortions of the statist left:

Still, one has to admire the way in which Lefties have captured the word “fair”. Any reduction of state spending must, by definition, mainly affect those who draw income from the state, just as any tax-cut must, by definition, favour those who are paying tax. Therefore, by a brilliant semantic shift, it is “unfair” not to carry on expanding the state forever.

Abso-fucking-lutely. The same is true with the word progressive, as I seem to endlessly be banging on about. To be "progressive" and "fair" in the language of modern Britain seems to require a commitment to state-expansion. Even though there is nothing progressive or fair about that expansion; it simply leads to the slow strangulation of freedom and responsibility in this country.

MPs against IPSA

Let's look at how some of our MPs refer to those working for IPSA:

“monkeys”, “f*****g idiots” and “nutty”

And here's how they describe the new expenses system:

“This system is a f*****g abortion.”

And here's how MPs behave towards IPSA and its employees:

A male MP who reduced a volunteer to tears 10 minutes into the induction later returned with a note and a box of chocolates by way of apology, while a female MP used the word “f**k” and said: “I am going to murder someone today.” Some MPs reacted angrily to the release of the information, accusing the standards authority of acting like secret police, and threatening to try to have it closed down.

Now, the system may be shit, but bureaucracies often are. Furthermore, this system was only put in place because some MPs not just too the piss, but took everything that wasn't nailed down. IPSA may be flawed, but the fact that it exists is down to the flawed, and downright criminal, behaviour of MPs.

But the shit nature of the system is not the fault of those people working for it, and it is no excuse for appalling behaviour toward those people. It wouldn't be tolerated if a private citizen was absolutely vile to the employees of the government, and I really don't see why it should be tolerated from MPs.

Still, there is an upside to all this; MPs being truly inconvenienced and shafted by a government department should give them a sound understanding of what it is like whenever an ordinary person in this country has to deal with a government department. You never know, it might create some empathy between representative and represented.

3 Non-News Stories

Today is one of those special days where nearly every "news" story makes me shrug in broad apathy. Let's take a look at some of the highlights:

Think-tank states a Tory budget is not progressive: So the fuck what? You could probably find another Think Tank that says precisely the opposite. Hell, you could probably find one that sees the budget as the best thing that has ever happened to anyone ever, and another one that thinks precisely the opposite. It is all meaningless anyway, since the word progressive means nothing. Literally, nothing. It is a word that lefties use as a shorthand for "we like this", nothing more. So just imagine that - left-wingers not liking the Tories. Crazy, eh?

Woman puts cat in bin: Ok, that was a pretty shitty thing to do, but let's keep our sense of perspective here, people. Its a cat. It is ok. Basically, this story is saying that people are shitty and cruel sometimes. But there are much better examples of that in human history. The 1994 Rwandan genocide would be a good example. As would the Beslan school massacre. As would... well, you get the point.

John Cruddas backs David Miliband for Labour Leader: So one charisma bypass backs another charisma bypass in the barely fought race to be the person to lose the next election for the Labour party. How can this really be a news story? The only possible newsworthy outcome of this union of non-entities would be if these two people met in the same room and quite literally sucked all the life out of it through the tedium created by their utterly unhistoric meeting.

Today is yet another indictment of the 24/7 news cycle, where tedium is spun into being news despite not really being interesting on any level.

Richard Murphy's Strange Relationship With Free Speech

Our old friend Richard Murphy is upset that some people have dared to charge him with hypocrisy. And in the subsequent hissy fit on his blog he reveals once again his curious relationship with the concept of free speech. He writes:

So what’s the real issue?

First of all – as I’ve often said the issue is one of intimidation – they seek to propagate the message that if anyone stands up to their vicious form of capitalism they will seek to crush them. So much for a belief in liberty! It takes courage to stand up to such behaviour. They know that. They want to stop others entering the fray by behaving as they do. In that way they hope to crush our current democratic way of life in the UK, Europe and beyond, not least by eliminating debate.

Now, I know there are a lot of people out there who might insult the likes of Murphy gratuitously. However, there is nothing attacking or intimidating about suggesting that someone who campaigns against (the perfectly legal) tax avoidance probably shouldn’t avoid tax himself. That isn’t trying to crush people; it is suggesting that people should aspire to meet the standards they set for others.

This is not stopping others from entering the fray; it is an open and honest dialogue. The sort of dialogue that Murphy himself does not allow. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the first comment on the post in question:

This comment has been deleted. It failed the moderation policy noted here. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision on this matter is final.

That’s right, Murphy is charging others with eliminating debate at the same time as not allowing a dialogue with anyone who does not follow his draconian comments policy – one that is designed to eliminate anyone's views if they dare not to agree with him.

So let’s rank the potential sins here – on the one hand, we have people calling others on hypocrisy when they see it which may make other hypocrites less likely to engage in public debate. On the other hand we have the likes of Murphy who do not allow those with whom they do not agree to talk in the first place. You can argue that both run the risk of damaging free speech and debate, but only the likes of Murphy proactively stop that free speech and debate. So Murphy is once again showing himself to be a hypocrite; championing debate while simultaneously not allowing it himself.

Let's actually have ideology in politics

Chuntering noisemonkey Ed Balls on the "regressive" Coalition:

“The government’s ideological assault on our welfare state and public services is not simply economic vandalism, I fear it will damage the very fabric of our society too."

I have little interest in what Balls has to say - I'm tired of listening to his vapid and deeply predictable assaults on the Tories and/or the Lib Dems. You could replace Balls with a basic programme designed to spew out attacks on the Con-Dems every few days without damaging political discourse in this country. In fact, such a programme would positively improve British politics, if only because Balls would be excised from it. Binning Balls would be lancing a festering wart on the face of British politics.

No, what does bother me is the increasing use of the word "ideological" in relation to the government's spending cuts. Put simply, there is nothing ideological about these cuts; they are basic economics. The Labour government spent too much, the new government has to spend less - therefore it has to cut spending.

That's not to say that there is anything wrong with ideological attacks on the size of the state and state spending. In fact, I'd love it if the government was being ideological. It would make a welcome change from the bland technocratic government that we have had to endure in this country since 1997. To actually have a government doing something because they believe in it rather than to get good headlines or because they have no choice would be a welcome fucking change, quite frankly.

Using the term "ideological" in the way the quote above does is to run the risk of turning it into an insult - which would be beyond stupid, even for a witless toad like Balls. Surely the reason why people get into politics and join a political party is because of ideology? Politics should be ideological, and if the main parties actually remembered the ideologies they are meant to believe in then politics in this country would be one hell of a lot more interesting than the beyond bland bullshit and empty posturing that had now been substituted for political debate.

Against David Harvey, Against Marxism

Here you can see BBC’s HardTalk doing an interview with Marxist “author and academic” David Harvey. He’s the one in the natty waistcoat, in the highly unlikely event that you cannot work who is who.

First things first, it is probably worth questioning the extent to which this chap actually is a Marxist. Sure, he really doesn’t like capitalism, but that in and of itself is not enough to categorise someone as a Marxist. Harvey states “I’m a sort of a Marxist, I guess,” and professes to reading a lot of Marx. As far as I can see, with his reliance on conversations about the future and the need to push the overthrow of capitalism, Harvey’s not an orthodox Marxist; Marx argued that the demise of capitalism was inevitable and would happen regardless of the impact of individuals. In fact, that’s one of the things I find so dispiriting about Marxism; it denies human agency to a large extent.

Still, Harvey doesn’t seem to mind being called a Marxist, and he does defend Marxism, particularly when he says that it is “not a belief system… (it’s) a scientific explanation of how capitalism works.” This is very Marxist, in fairness – Marx and his followers tended to believe that Marx was a scientist uncovering the laws of history. Of course, the notion of Marxism as science is bollocks, quite frankly. The laws Marx laid down about the progress of history have been comprehensive disproved: capitalism has shown itself to be far more resilient than Marx ever thought it would be. The notion of Marxism as scientific is entirely down to his followers repeating, mantra like, that it is a science until people actually started to believe them. Of course, such methods don’t actually make a belief system scientific – otherwise Intelligent Design would be scientific, rather than a meek attempt to make Christianity a little more credible in a scientific world.

What is clear is that Harvey really doesn’t like capitalism. There are a number of different reasons for it; capitalism is unequal, businesses are protected by governments thus limiting competition, capitalism doesn’t make everyone happy, competition is bad, capitalism damages the environment and so and so on. Some of these objections I can sympathise with to some extent, others not at all. But the problem with Harvey and his ilk is that they have decided that they have truth – that capitalism is bad. And everything, everything has to fit in with that truth. Which leads to all sorts of incredible claims – such as the idea that Adam Smith was actually about wealth distribution and that Chairman Mao actually did a lot for his people despite being a brutal dictator. Any subtlety, and shades of grey are not allowed – capitalism is bad. It has to be replaced.

Which leads to all sorts of logical cul-de-sacs and delusions in the worldview of Professor Harvey. For example, he attacks the idea that capitalism can continue to grow at the same time as bemoaning the fact during the last crisis of capitalism that the number of billionaires in India doubled. But how else did those billionaires attain that status except through the growth of capitalism?

There is a childish side to Harvey’s “Marxist” outlook; it is a black and white worldview, a world of goodies (Harvey, but of course) vs baddies (the nasty capitalists). It is all absolutes: he cannot talk about reform of the system, it has to go. Even though Harvey has no real idea of what to replace it with. Even though when people do try to replace capitalism with this formless, undefined utopia, it goes horrifically wrong.

To me, the interview with Harvey highlights the extent to which Marxism is like a religion; it deals in supposedly concrete concepts of good and bad, and it requires substantial faith in a future world rather than living in, and working with, reality. Harvey is exactly wrong; Marxism is not a scientific theory, it is a belief system. Critique capitalism by all means, but you need to come up with something more meaningful than “let’s get rid of it and hope for the best”.

"A textbook suicide"

I'm sure I can't be the first person to have noticed this, but there is something pretty crass in phrasing the death of Dr David Kelly as a "textbook suicide". Regardless or not whether you think he was murdered or whether he took his own life, to relate the death of a man to something in a textbook is pretty heartless. Perhaps there is such a thing as a textbook suicide; however, it seems the decent thing to is not to mention the textbook element to it. I mean, it would be in pretty poor taste if an oncologist said to you "well, your cancer is terminal but on the plus side at least it is textbook". Or perhaps to have a detective saying to a grieving parent "your child was raped and murdered by a stranger, but take heart - it is a textbook child sex murder."

Then again, nothing about the death of Dr David Kelly has particularly shown the state or its representatives to be anything other than, at best, crass and insensitive.

5 movies that...

...are not that well-known, but absolute gems.

5. Office Space: A silly comedy that can be enjoyed by anyone who has done a soulless office job. The insanity of office bureaucracy, the minor irritations of an office that become overwhelming and the sheer thoughtlessness of an unthinking management class are all mocked in this film. Furthermore, it also shows the idiocy of much of what passes for management consultancy, and how the right buzzwords can make up for an absolute lack of talent or business acumen. Plus, it gleefully and openly steals an idea from Superman III - a really nice touch as far as I am concerned.

4. Monkey Shines: Ok, this sounds more than a little silly - a paraplegic gets a helper monkey with whom he has a psychic link. And said monkey acts on said paraplegic occasional murderous rages. But the film is actually filmed in a gritty and realistic way, and has some moments of real tension. The climax in particular is a strikingly well-made piece of cinema - as the paraplegic tries to stop his monkey's killing spree despite not being able to move. His ultimate solution to the problem is simultaneously creative and grim.

Oh, and if you ever wanted to know how a paraplegic could have sex with a woman, this film will show you...

3. Zero Day: Two gawky, awkward teenagers are making a film about their lives. They are basically the losers at their local school, unpopular and seemingly isolated except for their friendship. However, it quickly becomes apparent that they are making the film for a reason - it is their testament to the world, designed to be seen after they die; after they have gone on a killing spree.

The film details their preparations for their attack, mixing the domestic with the chilling. Perhaps most strikingly, it manages to make the two protagonists appear as calm and reasonable people - no mean feat given what they are planning. And then you get the final ten or so minutes of the film: footage from the security camera in the school cafeteria, as they put their plan into action.

Remorseless and chilling; rather like the actions that end this film.

2. Halloween III: Season of the Witch: It doesn't have a witch in it, and nor does it have Michael Myers - which is why it sank at the box office. But this is a true undiscovered classic. It is a clever, unsettling and with some real moments of (non-gratuitous) horror. Sure, elements of the story are a bit ball-sack (the theft of Stonehenge, for example, is a part of the story that just does not need to be there), but it is the sort of film that becomes more and more compelling right up until the final scenes, which represent a desperate race against time to prevent a national catastrophe.

Plus, it has a catchy and deeply irritating song in it for the mask adverts. Altogether now: "happy, happy halloween, halloween, halloween, happy, happy halloween Silver Shamrock."

1. Requiem for a Dream: Whereas other films about drug addiction either make it so bleak that the film becomes almost unwatchable (see the compelling but incredibly Christiane F) or make it look at bit cool in a glib way (yes, Trainspotting, I'm talking about you), Requiem for a Dream is a stylishly directed film with a well-paced plot that doesn't pull its punches when it comes to the reality of addiction. Crucially, this isn't just about illegal drugs - it shows what happens when someone becomes addicted to legal diet pills as well. It is a claustrophobic, well-directed movie with a brilliant soundtrack - it is the sort of movie that stays with you long after the end credits have stopped rolling.

Any additions, well, you know where the comments section is.

Ed Balls Talks...

...good Christ help us. If you want to find out what he has to endlessly gibber on about say you can head here. It is chock full of borderline insanity and clearly delusional statments. One striking example is the spin about the close call he went through at the last election - apparently he knows how to fight the Tories based on that election. Bollocks, young Ed - the only reason why your re-election battle was so close is because you are such an absolute wanker that you have managed to alienate so many people in your constituency.

But the pièce de résistance in Balls' crapitude comes when he says this:

"...we've got to believe in government..."

It is pretty clear that I'm not going to agree with that - as a Libertarian, I believe that government is not something to believe in. Quite the opposite; if you want something to believe in, then go with the idea that the government is incompetent and more often than not malign, intentionally or otherwise. But my opinions aren't that relevant here - we're talking about Balls, and he is clearly someone who believes in government.

Except he isn't. If he did believe in government, then he would believe in the government we have in this country at the moment - but if there is one thing that is clear, it is that he doesn't believe in that government. No, what he believes in is government run by his cronies or, even better, by him.

Which is simultaneously the reason why Ed Balls is so dangerous and why statists are so flawed in their arguments - those seeking to become the government are those least suited to being in government. Balls is arrogant - in fact, he is more than arrogant. Not only does he think that he knows best, but he wants to force what he knows on everyone else in this country. Of course Ed Balls wants us to believe in government (under the right circumstances) - he wants us to believe in him. The arrogant, almost delusional, fucker.

A-level Results: Clearing Chaos

And so it rumbles on - they're aren't enough places for all those who want to go to university. From The Guardian:

Six students are fighting for each spare university place, figures revealed today.

Which means that there are clearly going to be a lot of disappointed students out there. The question, though, is why should they be disappointed? The answer is twofold. Firstly, there has been an expectation created by the Nu Labour government that everyone who wants to can go to university. Their arbitrary, stick-a-finger-in-the-air-and-come-up-with-a-number, figure of 50% of people attending uni had no meaningful connection with the real world, and now that realisation is sinking in for thousands of students across the country. Fundamentally, and unlike the school system, it isn't open to everyone. It is selective. And as the numbers wanting to go to university continues to go up while funding for universities is going down there is only one way this was ever going to end. Disappointment for some.

But there is another reason for the disappointment; no-one really challenges the idea that going to university is a good thing. There seems to be an ongoing mental block around the question "should I really bother with university in the first place?" This question has become even more pertinent now there is a massive cost associated with attending university coupled with the fact that there is no guarantee of employment on the completion of a degree.

This isn't about elitism - rather, it is about challenging the idea that university attendance is a "good" in all situations and for everyone. In fact, it can be argued that it might be better and more profitable for some to go straight to work after leaving school. I mean, I know board members of FTSE 250 company who never bothered with university, and it hasn't held them back. In fact, quite the opposite.

As far as I can see from my university experiences* there are two reasons, and two reasons alone, for going to university. The first is if you need a university degree to go on to do your chosen profession - lawyer, doctor, teacher all spring to mind here. The second is if you absolutely love your subject, and are willing to run up substantial debt in pursuing your love of that subject. Otherwise, what are you missing out on if you don't go to uni? You can still have a social life, you can still make friends - but you can do it while you earn rather than just spend. And you can also help to fight the spurious and unfounded idea propagated by a target-obsessed Nu Labour government that success can only really come on the back of a university degree.

*Postgraduate about to start a PhD, fact fans.

A-level results: The "They're Getting Easier" Cliché

There’s another tradition to the release of the A-level results in this country; the litany of complaints about how A-levels are getting easier. You know the curmudgeonly types who come out with all the gems: “A-levels are getting easier, they weren’t like this in my day, kids today got it easy, never had it so good, I fought a war for them” and so on, ad fucking nauseam. I’m not going to engage with the “debate” about whether A-levels have got easier – not least because assessments of ease are all relative to the individual debating. No, instead I want to point out a couple of things.

Firstly, the idea that A-levels are getting easier is based on the notion that people are getting better grades. That could also be down to teachers getting better at teaching – or at the very least getting better at coaching their students through the examination process. Which, surely, is something to be celebrated.

Yet that isn’t going to convince the “they’ve got it easy” brigade, and it doesn’t entirely convince me. The problem, though, isn’t just about A-levels – the lack of respect for A-level results is a symptom of a wider problem: namely, the nature of education system in this country. Education has ceased, to a large extent, to be about education; instead it is about checking the right boxes and getting the right grades so students can go to university, and schools can get a decent position in league tables.

Don’t believe me? Take English Literature. You can do well in an English Literature A-level without having any passion whatsoever for English Literature. I know; I did so in 1997. All you have to do is read the relevant texts, work out what passages are crucial and rote learn the different interpretations of those passages. Your teacher tells you what is important about the text you’re reading, and how to interpret it. You don’t get to decide for yourself, and you don’t get given the skills to work out why a text is important in its own right by yourself. English Literature is not about cultivating a love of Literature; it is about making sure that you have read certain texts and read certain authors in a passionless, robotic way.

In order to improve education, we need to work out why certain subjects are studied. Take History – why study history? To learn from the mistakes of history seems to be the main reason. Yet with the Beatles becoming a component of some History A-levels, it is difficult to really see what we can learn from History in terms of avoiding damaging repetition. No, for me, History had its value not just in gaining knowledge of what went before, it also provides context for the modern age and, most importantly, how vital it is to question sources – where the sources came from, what agenda the writer might have had, and how those factors impact on the credibility of the source. Basically, it taught me to be discerning when it comes to dealing with different sources. History should be about more – about far more – than just rote learning facts.

It is also telling to consider what is missing from the education system in this country; many crucial subjects just don’t appear to be studied. Home economics would be a good example; when there is constant bleating about obesity, perhaps the education system could take some time out to teach pupils how to cook healthy food. Sure, you might not want to make it an A-level, but it is a damned important life skill. Likewise, many people study science subjects and Maths at A-level. Yet again, this seems more to be about rote learning that engaging critically with the subject. Would it be too much to require students to study philosophy as well? It underpins most other subjects – the sciences, Maths, History… Plus, philosophy should make people question the world, rather than just blandly accept it.

A-levels haven’t necessarily gotten any easier; rather, the education system has changed. Instead of being about educating people and giving them the skills they need for life, it has become about learning facts to pass an exam to check one of life’s boxes. And, as an aside my people, this mindset is becoming increasingly common at undergraduate level at university as well.

So bemoaning the apparent increasing ease of A-levels is to miss the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with our education system; that through years of Labour misrule, our schools have become about box-ticking and targets, rather than education.

Besides, those taking A-levels do deserve praise if they’ve done well. After all, someone with straight A grades has done better than someone who has got straight D grades. They have achieved something and to piss on that achievement because the system is flawed seems unfair. Not least because the pupils taking the exams aren’t responsible for the system, politicians are. And since we vote for the politicians, we are also responsible for it. Spouting the “they’re getting easier” cliché is just a way to hide from the problems that are actually crippling our education system.

A-level Results: When A Grades Aren't Enough

This seems to be an addition to the sob stories that always emerge around the time of A-level results - the clever kid who didn't get in:

A pupil who gained three A* and three A grades at A-level has been left without an offer from a single UK university.

Ben Scheffer, 18, had his dreams of studying economics dashed by Oxford, London School of Economics, University College London, Bristol and Warwick.

Well, those do appear to be pretty good universities - in fact, very good, so they probably can take their pick of people with good results. Nonetheless, three A* and three A grades does seem to be above the norm, even in this day and age.

So why didn't he get in? The article suggests various reasons, like the fact that he took the German equivalent of GCSEs rather than GCSEs. I suspect the real reason is this one though:

He also said: "I didn't write the best personal statement, to be fair, it just wasn't special. And it's a really hard course to get into."

Yup, it was probably the personal statement wot lost it for this chap. When everyone is getting excellent grades, you need to be able to differentiate yourself from the others. The personal statement seems to be an ideal way in which to do that. If you don't do that right... well... this sort of thing happens.

Which may be the way good universities work moving forward - if A-levels cease to be a useful measure with which to differentiate applicants, they will look at other methods - like personal statements, extra-curricular activities, sporting achievements and so on. Hell, Oxford and Cambridge - who have always had their pick of the people with the best results - have been doing this for decades. With fewer university places available and seemingly more and more people wanting to apply, other universities will start doing this, and those applying to the best universities in the country should consider what else they have to offer on top of excellent grades.

Simon Hughes: The Attention Seeking "Rebel"

Probably not news to anyone, but I really cannot stomach Simon Hughes. To me, he's a lisping, attention seeking failure of the very highest order. The fact that he has been a part of Lib Dem politics for so long and still not really managed to get anywhere is a striking testament to his complete lack of ability. Sure, he may be Deputy Leader now, but that is only because Vince Cable practically handed it to him on a plate. Besides, Deputy Leader of the Lib Dems... if being US Vice-President isn't worth a pitcher of warm piss, then being Lib Dem leader isn't worth a pitcher of warm cow's piss - and a cow with a certain disease that can be easily passed on to humans to boot.

Anyhoo, let's look at what the Straight Choice has been saying most recently*; he wants a veto for the Lib Dems on coalition policies:

"If the coalition wants to deliver [parliamentary] votes, neither party on its own has a majority, so we have to make sure everyone is brought into that.

"As a matter of practical politics... the parliamentary party on behalf of the wider party on big issues has to be able to say 'No, we can't go down this road'."

Ermm, I don't know how to put this without sounding patronising, Simon, but the Lib Dems do have a veto to use against coalition policy if they so wish - they simply don't vote for a policy. They are representatives, not lobby fodder.

And that's the same for all MPs from all parties. Don't like something your party is doing? Don't vote for it. You don't have to follow the party line, y'know. You can (whisper it) think for yourselves and act accordingly.

But then again Hughes doesn't want Lib Dems to think for themselves. He wants them to blindly follow his anti-Tory crusade for two reasons - firstly, because it will help him achieve his objective of a Lib-Lab coalition at some point in the future, but also - and, I suspect, more importantly, because it helps to make him centre of attention.

*h/t Guido.

Captain Planet...

I like to think that my scepticism about climate change is entirely down to a mix of intellectual doubts about the veracity of the argument for man-made climate change, and about the refusal of those who make that argument to engage with those who challenge their beliefs.

However, I do have to concede that being forced to watch guff like this when I was a kid may have been a contributing factor:

Generally speaking, if your theme song is improved by a continuity announcer talking over it, then it is shit. Then again, the theme song for this show was very much in keeping with the overall programme, in that it was absolute crap.

The Tea Party Movement

The Adam Smith Institute has a post up about the Tea Party designed to ask a key question about that movement - and it's this:

Is this the change we should believe in?

Meh. I certainly hope not.

The Tea Party movement is, as far as I can see, just a lot of hype. There is nothing new about the Tea Party movement; not even its name. There have been grassroot campaigns in the USA before - and very successful ones to boot. Such campaigns saw Barry Goldwater being drafted for the Republican nomination in 1964, and the creation of the primary successes of Eugene McCarthy (which, in turn, led to LBJ refusing to stand for a further term) four years later. The Christian Coalition - that pernicious body of Christian Fundamentalists - is a recent example as well. But more often than not such organisations have been the result of one of the two major parties in the USA losing their way. And those movements have ended with their incorporation into the party that had lost its way. And I think that is what has happened with regard to the Tea Party - it was formed because the Republicans have lost their way (remember, people, it was formed when Bush Junior was still President). And it will end when the Republicans take over the Tea Party (probably using the ever cretinous Sarah Palin) and fully incorporate it.

Part of the reason for this is the fact that there is nothing radical in what the Tea Party movement stands for. Look at its Contract From America - this is nothing more than the smaller government agenda that should be, and has been, the bedrock of the Republican party. Sure, we can call this programme Libertarian - and in some respects it is (in the sense that any programme calling for lower taxes is Libertarian). Yet what, as far as I can see, is missing from the Tea Party movement is any sort of commitment to genuine social freedom alongside their admirable commitment to economic freedom. Which is why they would be perfect for incorporation into the Republican party, and why they really aren't as radical as they are sometimes made out to be.

On some levels, I'd love to be wrong - I'd love to see the Tea Party movement breaking the mould of US politics, and becoming a genuine alternative to the two mainstream US parties. But there is nothing in either history or the nature of the Tea Party movement to make me convinced that this can actually happen. As it stands, I think we will see this movement becoming a footnote in the 2012 US Presidential election, and then disappearing into the Republican party forever.

Left-Wing? Join the Greens.

Via Charlotte Gore, I see Sunny Hundal has seen the light and decided to join... well, the Labour party. His reasoning, if you can call it that, is this:

But I also think there is a broader issue here. I’ve long said that lefties need to get more involved with Westminster and not just wash our hands off it when we get disillusioned. By that, I don’t necessarily mean going for political office but finding ways to put pressure on Westminster from the left.

Ah, the old entryism argument. Worked so well for Militant Tendency in the 1980's. And no doubt will work just as well for lefties joining the Labour party now.

What I don't get, though, both with people like Sunny and my self described left-wing friends who voted Labour at the last election, is how they can dare call themselves Labour supporters or members and then claim to be left-wing. Because there is nothing left-wing about the Labour party - nothing. Its record in power speaks for itself. It was responsible for the Iraq War. For the decimation of civil liberties in this country. For the debasement of democracy and the rise of spin. For the bailing out of failed banks. What is left-wing about that? Nothing. So why support them? Some sort of base tribal loyalty, where the Tories are worse than Labour, and the feeling that deep down the latter party remains in some way genuinely left-wing - even though the available evidence would (quite literally violently) suggest otherwise.

And lefties can't claim that there isn't an alternative. If you believe in left-wing politics - if you believe in socialism, if you believe in combatting climate change, if you believe a party with a truly pacifist agenda - then go join the Greens. Seriously; they are an updated version of what the left used to stand for. And they've even got an MP now, so you can't dismiss them as political by-standers. The choice is clear, the choice is stark - join a party discredited by endless compromise and a brutal yet pathetic 13 years in power, or join a party that pretty much stands for what you stand for but isn't utterly ideologically tainted. Some choice...

Of course, I can't stomach the Greens - but then again, I can't stomach the Labour party either. Yet as far as I am concerned the Greens have one big advantage over the Labour party - they are not the ideological equivalent of toxic waste. So the choice is simple: if you feel you need to be a member of a political party and you are left-wing, then either join the Greens and retain a shred of fucking dignity or follow Sunny and join the Labour party. Or to put it another way, sell your soul to the political equivalent of the devil.

Obama, Islam and The Daily Mail

Oooh, it has been a while since I last tore apart a Daily Mail article. Then I saw this one, that combines largely incoherent rage against two of their favourite targets (Islam and Obama) and... and how could I resist?

The headline is:

'Provocative, insensitive and uncaring': Fury after Obama backs mosque near site of September 11 disaster

Two points - first of all, being "provocative, insensitive and uncaring" is something that The Daily Mail should know all about - it is what they do all day, every day. In fact, it should probably the tagline for their hate-rag.

Secondly, I thought that September 11th was a terrorist attack - the use of the word "disaster" seems curiously restrained for the Mail. They missed a chance to be hyperbolic there.

On with the article:

Barack Obama has been hit by a furious backlash from victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks after he backed plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

As we shall come to see, the sentence above should read that Obama "...has been hit by a furious backlash from some victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks and some Republicans..." An important qualification that the Mail didn't see fit to mention. Then again, imprecise terms help to create the hysteria, don't they? As this next section shows.

The proposed site for the 13-storey building is close to where almost 3,000 people died nine years ago after Muslim hijackers flew two jet airliners into the World Trade Center.

Oooo, and there is is - the motherload. Note the phrase "... Muslim hijackers". Can we dispute that? Technically not - the hijackers were Muslim. Yet they were also male - so why not write "male hijackers"? They were also human - so why not write "human hijackers"? Why not list their individual ethnicities? The problem with the use of the term "Muslim" - what makes it misleading at the very least - is the broad nature of the phrase. Islam is a religion followed by millions across the world and has different factions that believe in different things. The 9/11 hijackers were a particular kind of Muslim - they were Islamic fundamentalist militants. And as such, they were divorced from the vast majority of Muslims across the world. The use of the word "Muslim" in this context is misleading as it does not take into account the breadth of beliefs and different levels of fundamentalism inherent within that religion.

BTW, fact fans, the new mosque is two blocks away from the site of Ground Zero. Just in case you are wondering.

Mr Obama expressed his support for the mosque, which will replace a building damaged by the attacks, at a White House meal celebrating Ramadan.

He said: ‘Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country.

‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’

Let's have a round of applause for Obama - a man who thus far in his presidency has been more than a little underwhelming has said something that is simultaneously courageous and absolutely right. America was founded on the principle of freedom of religion - and this freedom has to be protected, particularly if the religious building is being built on private land in accordance with the law.

His speech on Friday was heavily criticised by a group representing the families of victims of the terrorist attack, who called the plan a ‘deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah’.

Bullshit. It will have quite the opposite effect - by not discriminating against Islam based on the fanaticism of a tiny minority of Muslims, his speech will reduce and slow the rate of radicalisation. To do the opposite - to ban this mosque on the basis of an ignorant tainting of all Muslims as fundamentalist will increase alienation and in doing so increase the chance of more bloodshed in the name of Allah.

Debra Burlingame, a sister of a pilot killed when his plane was flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon and a spokesperson for victims’ families, said: ‘Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see.’

Barack Obama was actually talking about a site two blocks away from "the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago". Furthermore, religious tolerance is part of America's values - and what Obama said is completely in line with those values.

BTW the Pentagon, where this lady's brother died, is in Washington, not New York. Wonder whether she objected to the rebuilding of the Pentagon? Probably not, because that wasn't about the "Muslims", just the US war machine that has, through years of attacks and aggression, helped to provoke the wrath of Islamic fundamentalists.

Peter King, a Republican congressman in New York, said the President had been wrong to back the plan, adding: ‘It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero.’

Ooo, looky, a Republican congressman in an election year who doesn't agree with the sitting US Democrat president. Who'd have thunk it, eh?

Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center, condemed the President for a 'gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost.'

Well, Regenhard is entitled to her opinions. Just as Muslims are if they want to express their religious beliefs in a mosque a few streets away from Ground Zero. In this case, on private property. The fact that Regenhard has lost someone does not make her opinion more valid that the opinions of others - tragedy is not a trump card in public political debate.

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said the decision to build the mosque wasn't an issue of religious freedom, but a matter of respect.

'The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding,' he said.

So, the House Minority Leader is opposing the sitting President in an election year - again, nothing startling here. It would actually be more startling - and, indeed, interesting - if said representative agreed with Obama. As it stands, the correct response is "of course he'd say that - it's his job."

New York Republican Congressman Peter King added: 'President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero.'

Hmmm, hasn't this already been said?

Democratic Senate candidate Jeff Greene of Florida said: 'President Obama has this all wrong and I strongly oppose his support for building a mosque near ground zero especially since Islamic terrorists have bragged and celebrated destroying the Twin Towers and killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

'Freedom of religion might provide the right to build the mosque in the shadow of ground zero, but common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else.'

This is more interesting if only because the person speaking is a Democrat. However, for all the world, he sounds a lot like a candidate in an election year trying to jump onto a populist bandwagon. And he's also wrong - he's conflating "Islamic terrorists" with "Islam".

However, Colleen Kelly, who lost her brother Bill in the 9/11 attacks, disagreed and claimed a mosque would be 'a fitting tribute'.

'This is the voice of Islam that I believe needs a wider audience. This is what moderate Islam is all about,' she said.

A-ha! Someone who gets it! Magic. And the fact that she tragically lost her brother shows that the families of the bereaved are not the homogenous entity they are sometimes made out to be for the sake of political expediency.

Challenged about his comments during a family trip to Florida yesterday, the President said: 'I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding.'

Obama said that 'my intention was simply to let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion.'

Uh-huh. Obama also gets the point about religious freedom in the US - a principle on which that country was founded that appears to be on the cusp of being forgotten.

The White House insisted Mr Obama was not backing away from his initial comments.

Spokesman Bill Burton said: 'What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.'

Good - Obama shouldn't back away from his comments. And I'd have more sympathy with the anti-mosque brigade if they were looking to ban all religious sites of worship within a two block radius of Ground Zero. But they're not; and even if they were, I'd only have more sympathy with them - not believe that they are correct.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist said: 'I think he's right - I mean you know we're a country that in my view stands for freedom of religion and respect for others.

'I know there are sensitivities and I understand them. This is a place where you're supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can't.'

Excellent! A Republican who gets it as well! No wonder he's having to run for the Senate as an Independent rather than Republican, though.

There had been mounting pressure for Obama to speak out on the issue after his political enemies, including former candidate for the vice presidency Sarah Palin, criticised the plan.

How predictable - Sarah Palin adopts the ignorant, populist stance on a issue. How deeply tedious that woman is.

The site was bought by the not-for-profit group the Cordoba Initiative for £3 million.

It plans to spend £75 million on a complex including a prayer room, mosque and ‘September 11 memorial and contemplation space’.

Developer Sharif el-Gamal said: ‘We are deeply moved and tremendously grateful for our President’s words.’

In a sense el-Gamal shouldn't be grateful to Obama - he should be grateful to the fact that America was based, in part, on the concept of religious freedom.

Which is the point here. Muslims have a right to worship just as much as any other religious believer. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure that Islam is a load of toss just like every other religion. But if you are going to have a free society, then you have to allow people to be free to believe in nonsensical toss. Otherwise, you are discriminating; you become illiberal. You become an enemy of freedom.

And if you want to understand just how crass the whole idea of not having a mosque near the site of Ground Zero, then just imagine the outcry if Northern Ireland banned Catholic Churches because the IRA once carried out terrorist atrocities in that country. Same principle here; just a different religion...

Blair the Greedy vs Brown the Noble

From the Twitter feed of Gus Baker:

Tony Blair wants £150 4 a signed copy of his memoir. Gordon Brown affirms that all proceeds from his book will go to charity. #justsaying

Probably being a bit cynical here, but I rather think that the reason why Blair is charging £150 for a signed copy of his book is because people are willing to pay £150 for his book. Fuck knows why, though. However, I think the chances of anyone paying that amount for a signed copy of Brown's book is less than zero, so why on earth would he embarrass himself by trying to ask for it?

I think we're all supposed to be impressed by the fact that Gordon is giving the proceeds of his no doubt entirely self-serving and largely unreadable book to charity. I'd be more impressed is (a) Brown wasn't writing said book at the expense of the taxpayer while neglecting his duties as an MP and (b) if this book was destined to be in the remainder bins across the country within weeks of its release.

Just sayin' is all.

UPDATE:

And now Blair's got in on the charity act - he's giving millions to the Royal British Legion. I'm sure I won't be alone in noting that if Blair really wanted to help soldiers, then he might not have sent them into an illegal war without the equipment they so clearly needed.

What is nice about this, though, is that it is likely to be a yet another way in which Blair will best Brown. Since his book will almost certainly sell more than Brown's, he'd going to be better at the "giving book proceeds to charity" competition that he has just started. And what's the betting that's a big part of the reason for this announcement?

On the Death of David Kelly

Andrew Gilligan, writing on how he believes Dr David Kelly was not murdered, concludes his article with the following:

I'm often surprised at the enduring interest in this one man's death. If you seek government culpability, the deaths of 150,000 Iraqis would seem, to me, rather more the point. David's was a mainly personal tragedy – and the reason Lord Hutton circumvented the inquest, and sealed the evidence, was not some conspiracy, but because his family wanted it. Among those calling for an inquest, David's widow and daughters have been notable by their absence.

Now, however, I believe that more harm and distress may be being caused by the endless tide of junk speculation than by holding a proper inquest. We should have one, if only to stop the nonsense once and for all.

I find it odd that Gilligan writes that Iraqi deaths are more the point than David Kelly's death. Personally, I think that they are both points in their own right - albeit, points about different things. Iraqi deaths make a point about the horror of an illegal war, the death of Dr David Kelly makes a point about the cruel efficiency of a government determined to pursue a new war against Iraq, and its willingness to brand anyone who might dissent as the enemy.

Kelly's death was a personal tragedy, but it was a personal tragedy with considerable public implications. I can fully understand why the family might not want all information about the death of a loved one broadcast across the country. Yet what Hutton failed to understand is the concerns that many have about the behaviour of a secretive, spin obsessed government towards both David Kelly and the march to war in Iraq. By all means do what the family wants and keep some information secret; where Hutton failed was in his inability to answer or even seemingly address the concerns of those who felt there was something more, something untoward, about the David Kelly tragedy.

Now, I've got no divine insights into the death of David Kelly - personally, I think it is more likely that he committed suicide than he was murdered but since the circumstances surrounding his death is about as clear as mud it is difficult to say anything definite. Which is actually the real point here - the point that Gilligan misses. We should have a proper inquest because we live in a democracy where the actions of our government should be transparent. In this case, the government was anything other than transparent; a sin compounded by the fact that some many people have been calling for a proper inquest. The demands of the people are being ignored...

Basically, a proper inquest isn't - and shouldn't - be about stopping nonsense; it should be about addressing the very genuine concerns people have about how the government treats its people and the fundamental lack of government openness about such crucial issues as life and death in a society which, in rhetoric at least, calls itself free and democratic.

Prescott on Milburn in the Coalition

I have no time for Alan "Nu Labour's answer to Alan Beresford B'stard" Milburn whatsoever, and I'd argue that his new role in the government is nothing other than naked politicking from the coalition - something that even a charlatan like Cameron should be opposed to if he genuinely wants to close the door on the Nu Labour era of politics. After all, that obsequious little turd Milburn actually cared about social mobility then he would have done something meaningful about it when he was in office.

But what is striking about this deeply cynical move from both the Con-Dems and Milburn is just how idiotic it can make the Labour party look. And to prove that, we can look at the crown prince of Labour idiocy, "Lord" Prescott:

Lord Prescott wrote on his Twitter page: "So after Field & Hutton, Milburn becomes the 3rd collaborator. They collaborated to get Brown OUT. Now collaborating to keep Cameron IN."

Ah, the word "collaborator" - a word so loaded it is unbelievable. But let's think about other collaborators, shall we? Let's take one in particular: what about a former trade unionist member of the Labour party, a traditional Labour MP who decided to collaborate with Tony Blair? A Labour MP who collaborated with a fundamentally centrist upper middle class Labour leader in order to give that centrist's leadership some much needed working class credibility? A Labour MP who became Deputy Prime Minister in the Blairite government, and reaped the rewards of said collaboration through his games of croquet at a grace-and-favour home... yes, I'd imagine Prescott is well placed to know what a collaborator looks like, because he is the very definition of a class traitor, and if you looked up collaborator in the dictionary it would have a picture of his fat fucking face next to it.

And yes, you can argue that the trio mentioned in Prescott's tweet campaigned to get Brown out. And guess what? Had they succeeded, they might have helped Labour limp to a fourth election victory. Furthermore, even if that (highly unlikely) event didn't happen, then the results of the hung parliament may have been very different - since Brown was one of the major things that pushed Clegg into the arms of Cameron. So guess what, Prescott, you jowly cretinous fuckwad? These people may have been collaborating against Brown, but in doing so, were acting in the best interests of the Labour party. Blind loyalty isn't always a virtue, you know - particularly not if your leader is someone like Brown, and the electoral equivalent of a lethal injection.

Finally, keeping Cameron in? Is someone like Milburn credible enough with any constituent part of the British electorate to actually achieve that? Of course he isn't. All his presence does is allow for Cameron to claim bipartisan support for his social mobility programmes; a claim that will not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny - assuming that the next Labour leader will be capable of even offering that level of scrutiny.

The thoughtless, crass and purely party politically based bile of Prescott eclipses even the shallow cynicism of the Con-Dems' no doubt fleeting alliance with Milburn. And it takes something as radical as the incredible fool that is John Prescott to add credibility to Milburn's dubious appointment to a role to the coalition government.

5 movies that...

...I have no intention of ever watching even though other people bang on about them all the time:

5. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels: I have no desire to waste a couple of hours of my life watching some mockney cunt playing out his gangster fantasies on the big screen. Oh, and having Vinnie Jones in your film doesn't make it cooler, it just undermines it.

4. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: I know it got a lot of plaudits when it was released, but it actually is just a bog standard love story told in reverse. There is nothing special about this idea other than the growing younger conceit - and if I want to watch something on that subject, I'd go with Golden Years.

3. The Godfather II: I thought the first one was so boring that it basically constitutes a crime against humanity so I have no desire whatsoever to watch the second film in the series. The same for the third one, but in fairness, people don't rave as much about that one.

2. Enter the Dragon: I have no interest in Bruce Lee or any of his films. They don't so much leave me cold as leave me utterly uninterested. Plus, I suspect that if you aren't into martial arts this film would actually be utter bollocks... which means I'm pretty sure that I would find this film to be utter bollocks.

1. Chicago: a musical gangster movie starring Richard Gere and Catherine Zeta-Jones is, conceptually, the sort of thing that should be condemned to an eternity in development hell. The fact is was made startles me - the fact that intelligent people have watched it and liked it is nearly beyond belief. I'd rather watch one of the Police Academy sequels then this - they're as ludicrous as this film sounds to me, but at least they don't have songs in them.

Feedback and violent disagreement in the comments section, please.

Richard Murphy on the problem of taxpayers being overcharged by HRMC:

There is an answer, of course.

The answer is more tax inspectors.

No, that's not the answer to any question other than "how can we waste more of the taxpayer's money?" There is an answer, however. And it is this - simplify the tax system. In fact, go for a flat tax. But a tax accountant like Murphy could never go for that now, could he?

Doctor Who - Revenge of the Cybermen and Silver Nemesis

The BBC have chosen to give us two "classic" Doctor Who stories on DVD - a boxed set of Cybermen adventures. I suppose it makes marketing sense to do it this way, but it is just a shame that the two stories they've chosen are, well, a bit shit.

First up is Revenge of the Cybermen. And it is appalling. The story is split between a space station and Voga - the planet of gold. Or Wookey Hole, to you and me. The latter setting works quite well - at least until the Vogans appear, with their tiny motorboats and stupid electric locomotive. But it isn't just the Vogans' equipment that undermines them as a credible alien race. They also look rubbish. Their masks make then look like Michael Foot with severe liver failure. They are largely indistinguishable from each other, and the only two that stand out are the wheezing, doom-mongering leader and the "let's blow 'em all up" would-be leader. I can't even remember what, if anything, the individual Vogans are called. Because, basically, I don't care.

Up on the space station, there are bland, generic space-farers and a faintly shifty civilian all trying to cope with a space plague. Except it isn't a space plague - it is a Cybermat attack. And the Cybermats fail to look in any way like a threat - rather, they resemble giant metal turds. Furthermore, when they attack, it is painfully clear that they are basically giant sock puppets controlled by the person being attacked. Still, all this should have be rendered irrelevant when the Cybermen finally arrive on the space station.

Except the Cybermen are the weakest element of this already incredibly weak story. They are dressed in spray painted seventies style boiler suits, and for reasons that defy understanding shoot from their foreheads - meaning a Cyberman attacking you in this story resembles someone having a neck spasm. They are also led by the most notorious Cyber Leader in the show's history - a pompous Cyberman with a special half black head strutting around with his hands on his hips. It is ridiculous to think that he is meant to be the leader of a band of logical, emotionless killers. He's actually the cybernetic equivalent of Captain Mainwaring. Furthermore, the script sets up the Cybermen as desperately fighting for survival. Unfortunately, it does so by undermining a famous foe of the Doctor in a story where the production values are already working to undermine that foe. The Doctor calls the Cyber force "just a pathetic bunch of tin soldiers skulking about the galaxy in an ancient spaceship", and that it exactly how they look. The Cybermen in this story are pathetic.

About the only thing this story has going for it are the performances of Tom Baker, Elisabeth Sladen and Ian Marter - they are a great TARDIS team and each actor plays their role with admirable gusto and a certain level of conviction. However, every single other story featuring this crew is better, and almost all of them are already available on DVD. Go to them first.

Silver Nemesis is better, although not by much. It at least has some ambition - taking time travellers from the Elizabethan era, neo-Nazi's led by a survivor of the Third Reich, and Cyberman and pitting them against each other in a race for an ancient Time Lord weapon. Unfortunately, the reality is that there is some awkward fish-out-of-water comedy stylings for the Elizabethan pair, and a lot of running about in fields and then a warehouse/hanger for the different parties in the story. Likewise, after years of over-familiarity with the main character, this story tries to make the Doctor mysterious again. However, this too is undermined by the way it is realised in the show, since it is basically done by one of the guest characters going "oooo, isn't the Doctor mysterious" all the time. Still, I'd rather Doctor Who was overly ambitious than not trying at all - ambitious and a bit silly is better than pedestrian and dull.

The problem with Silver Nemesis is two-fold. Firstly, it tries to suggest darkness in the central character, but is actually far more childish than the other stories being produced at the time. Ace in particular suffers. In every other story from this era, she is a feisty, brave character - sometimes abrasive and naive, but far more interesting than your standard Doctor Who companion of the classic series era. Here, she is a bit whiney, a bit pathetic, and seemingly scared by the concept of Cybermen when, within the continuity of the show, a few weeks before she'd taken on a Dalek assault squad single-handedly. This feels like what it is - a jobbing writer creating a story about what he thinks Doctor Who is, rather than creating a interesting story that actually fits with the overall tone of the show.

But a far bigger problem is the treatment of the Cybermen in this story. They look impressive - they actually look as if someone has spent some money on them. They get a decent looking spaceship. Unfortunately, though, that's it. The rest of the presentation again undermines them. They have the booming voices typical of eighties Cybermen - that it meant to make them sound impressive but actually makes them sound like boorish and pompous public school teachers. They are also utterly inept and incredibly vulnerable. They are taken down by Nazi gunfire, arrows tipped with gold and - wait for it - Ace shooting them with gold coins using a catapult (again, also undermining Ace - since when was she Dennis the Menace?) Their cyber signals can be intercepted and overcome by jazz music. And they are fooled by a really rather obvious trick from the Doctor - in fact, exactly the same one he'd used to defeat the Daleks just weeks before this story was originally broadcast. The Cybermen in this story are pointless - which in a way is even worse than them being pathetic. If they were removed from this story them it wouldn't have a detrimental affect on it.

The problem with these DVDs isn't so much that the stories are far below par - there are plenty of ropey and disappointing Doctor Who stories if you look hard enough. The real disappointment with this set is it takes two classic era's from the show's history - the early Baker years and the later McCoy years - and one of the most famous monsters from the show's history - the Cybermen - and show us at the same time the worst elements of all three. If you watch Earthshock or Tomb of the Cybermen then you'll know why the Cybermen are famous. If you watch Genesis of the Daleks or The Seeds of Doom then you'll see why the Fourth Doctor is famous, and likewise the same for the Seventh Doctor if you watch adventures such as The Greatest Show in the Galaxy or Ghost Light. Anyone watching these stories for the first time really will end up wondering what all the fuss is about.

Democracy: a Threat to Freedom?

One of the biggest threats to freedom that is emerging in today’s society is democracy. That is not to say that democracy is in some way fundamentally illiberal – rather, the fact that democracy, which is a means rather than an end, has become an unchallenged synonym for freedom is a key problem. Democracy may play a part in a free society, but democracy itself is not freedom, and can be detrimental to freedom in some respects.

Democracy gives power to the people to choose their leaders; it does not, however, guarantee that the leaders chosen will respect freedom. Democracy, at least in the modern sense of a political system based on open elections, gives people the freedom to choose, but it does not follow that people will automatically choose to be free. The 2004 US Presidential election illustrates this contradiction; in a free election, the people choose to re-elect George W Bush – a President who brought in the deeply illiberal Patriot Act and who backed state torture of terror suspects. In this case, democracy worked against freedom; it allowed the re-election of a man who eroded the civil liberties that are so essential to a free society.

Furthermore, the term democracy has also been abused to such an extent that it has become almost meaningless. The Iraq war illustrates this: the invasion was meant to bring democracy to Iraq, and in doing so, bring freedom. Yet the concept of forcing democracy – which is fundamentally about the will of the people – on a nation without consulting the people is as completely contradictory as it is undemocratic. There was nothing democratic or free about how democracy was brought to Iraq; in a truly free and democratic society the people would have chosen what political system they wished to have, rather than having that system chosen for them by an occupying power. Here, “democracy” was neither about freedom or genuine democratic choice.

Finally, democracy itself has become detrimental to political life in many Western societies. Because democracy has become synonymous with freedom, it is assumed that if the people get the chance to vote every four to five years then they live in a free society. Inbetween those elections, politicians are simply not challenged as they should be, and the notion that freedom requires constant vigilance is lost as long as the people get to give the nod to one party or another at regular intervals. As the recent Labour administration in the UK shows, a government can do a great deal inbetween elections to corrode civil liberties in a nation without provoking uproar from the people losing their freedoms. The modern ideal of democracy seems to require only that people vote when they get the chance. Freedom, however, requires a lot more from its people.

Ultimately, democracy has a part to play in freedom, but the modern day reverence for democracy and the constant, incorrect conflation of democracy with freedom represent at the very least challenges, if not direct threats, to freedom.

This post is an entry in the blog contest responding to the new book, New Threats to Freedom edited by Adam Bellow. The contest is open to all and further information can be found here.

The Criminal Labour Government

Baroness Warsi actually saying something worth hearing:

I'm a lawyer. I can tell you that if an individual had run up debts so irresponsibly they would face legal consequences ...

By running up colossal debts on the nation's credit card, debts so huge that we have been borrowing one pound for every four we spend and increasing our national debt by £3bn a week, what Labour did to British people is frankly criminal.

Baroness Warsi back-tracking on the one thing she's ever managed to say that is actually worth hearing:

I think it was a manner of speech that I was using ... Labour's conduct has been pretty appalling, but frankly I have to say that, as far as I'm aware, it has not been criminal.

Hmmm. I'm prepared to be a little bit more categorical and clear in my thoughts of the Labour party in power: I have to say that I believe the conduct of Labour in its thirteen years in power was criminal. The amount of debt that they've run up leaves them open to the charge of criminal negligence, but it is about more than just the debt. Labour in power consistently tried to pervert the course of justice repeatedly by denying or undermining inquiries into attacks on this country, the death of government employees and the murder by the police of an innocent man on the tube. But above all, Labour dragged us into an illegal war. Thousands of people have died because of what the Labour government did. Quite literally, the Labour party has blood on its hands.

You were right the first time, Warsi. The Labour government from 1997 to 2010 was criminal.

Security and Blair's Book-signing

Just look at what security precautions you have to jump through if you want the former Prime Minister to sign a copy of his autobiography for you:

...Blair fans will have to comply with a number of strict conditions before being allowed near the great man:

Customers cannot be photographed with Blair, there will be no personal dedications, and all bags, backpacks and briefcases must be checked in, along with cameras and mobile phones, before meeting the former Labour leader. Blair will sign a maximum of two books per customer.

In addition, those wanting to have their book signed must show proof they bought it from Waterstone's that morning. They will then receive a wristband, although, as the Bookseller points out, this "does not guarantee Blair will sign the customer's book". Ouch.

Blair fans? Do they actually exist? And is there anyone who actually wants a signature from Blair enough to jump all of those hurdles? I doubt it. The only reason why I would accept those security precautions is if the end result was me being allowed to call Blair a warmongering, lying, self-serving cunt and then being able to spit in his face. But something tells me that isn't on offer...

Against the Progressive

In some respects, we're all political progressives. After all, only the morbidly depressed or those who are paranoid and reactionary don't want to make some sort of progress towards what they believe is right politically. No, the concept of progression in politics is not something I object to in principle. What really does bother me is what has come to be defined as "progressive" within politics.

Rather like the word "liberal" in US politics, the term "progressive" here in the UK has been bastardised and corrupted for reasons of political expediency. The left have taken the term progressive and tried to make it synonymous with their own views. It is easy to see why. By claiming they are progressive, they simultaneously create the idea that they are the future and those who oppose them are, almost by definition, regressive.

Yet it is worth interrogating exactly what these people mean by "progressive". What, exactly, is making progress? Let's look at an example of the progressive in action - the oft-floated idea of a progressive tax. What makes a tax "progressive" in the bastardised sense of the word? It is if (a) some people pay more tax than others and (b) more money overall is taken from the people in the form of tax. So what is making progress here? The size of the state, the coffers of the state, and the state's control over its people. Which is actually what progressive politics is actually about - the progression, or rather the growth, of the state. The bastardised definition of progressive is statism, pure and simple.

Which is why, for me and many others, what is defined by many as "progressive politics" is actually fundamentally regressive. Progressive politics works to extend the scope of the state. As such, it works to restrict freedom, making it fundamentally illiberal and against freedom. For me, if politics is to be progressive, then it needs to be about maximising freedom. Those who call themselves progressives stand for the opposite with their innate and seemingly unquestioning reverence for the state and for state control.

Part of me wants to try to reclaim the word "progressive" - to try to make it about freedom again, to make it genuinely radical and actually progressive in a meaningful way. However, that is never going to happen. The word progressive has been bastardised, it has been debased, and I think it is beyond reclamation. Instead, I'll make this pledge. Any party who uses progressive as part of their election rhetoric, or who claims to be progressive, will not get my vote. The progressive as we understand it today is fundamentally regressive to liberty, and as such should be utterly rejected by anyone calling themselves a Libertarian.