Ted Heath's House

Edward Heath's house for sale. Strange, you might think, since the corpulent so-and-so met his maker a few years ago. Why is his house only going up for sale now?

When he died five years ago, Sir Edward Heath left his home to the nation.

The former Prime Minister hoped "Arundells" would give the public a better understanding of his life and achievements.

A-ha! Clearly, Heath's arrogance never deserted him. Even when making his will, he still thought he was a political giant that people would give a fuck about. The reality is somewhat different. The majority of people don't care about Heath and those that do tend to see him as a failure. Hardly the best background for a tourist attraction, is it?

Home Movie...

...Or the dangers of making a "found footage" movie.

First up, Home Movie. It's about a couple and their young children. The couple decide to film all special occasions - starting with Hallowe'en. What they don't really seem to clock is that their children - a boy and a girl with instantly forgettable names - are weird. In fact, they are fucking weird. They throw rocks at their parents, put frogs in a vice, and then crucify the cat (on Christmas Day, natch). It is about then that the parents realise there might be something pretty wrong with their kids. Of course, they then turn on each other, and then do things that can only warp their children further (including an exorcism - filmed, of course. Family occasion, isn't it?) The movie ends, predicably enough, with the kids properly turning on their parents. By then you don't care - about the dumb as fuck parents or the children, who make Midwich Cuckoos look like well-rounded characters.

The film is presented as "found footage" - in other words, the film-makers pretend that this is actual footage recovered from an untoward event that somehow ended up being recorded. And it is here that the really negative reviews miss the point - of course the acting is bad; it's a collection of home videos. Of course the camerawork is bad; it's not meant to be good. But simultaneously, there comes a point where those who who praise this movie to high heaven are also wrong as well. And, in this film, you can pinpoint the exact second when that happens.

Put it this way. You've got two kids. They abduct another child, torture and nearly kill him. What do you do? Are you traumatised? Do you question everything about yourself and your children? And if you do, do you so in front of a camera in a near-perfectly composed shot near a roaring fire-place? No, didn't think so. And that is the point where Home Movie jumps the shark. But it isn't alone in that. There comes a point in nearly all found footage movies where the film itself ceases to be credible by filming what would no longer be filmed.

It is true of some of the "best" movies in this genre. Think about the recent Paranormal Activity. It is clever enough to make a lot of the filming passive - it is about a motion detecting camera filming supernatural happenings at night. But there comes a point - when the man is filming the woman during a row - when any right-minded viewer thinks "this scene would not have been filmed". The same happens in the brutal but compelling Cannibal Holocaust (the grandpa of this genre). Yeah, you might film atrocities in the depths of the Amazonian rainforest, but are you really going to film yourself committing those atrocities? Thought not - such scenes only exist for the purposes of plot exposition. And in The Blair Witch Project there comes a point where they just wouldn't film anymore. Probably around the time they find the tongue in the parcel. Or maybe that's just me. Whatever. There comes a point in that film - and many films of its ilk - where you would put down the camera, and just run like fuck.

So this sort of movie has to provide a reason why the film-makers go on filming even when everything is turning to shit. And to my knowledge, only two films (well, one film and one TV programme) manage this. The first is REC. It is about TV journalists filming the lives of fire-fighters. So of course they film when there's a call to attend an apartment block. Of course they film when things start to go badly wrong - it's a great story. And of course they film when it appears that there is government collusion keeping them imprisoned in what looks like a plague zone. And finally - when the movie kicks up yet another gear and ends up in the hysteria of the top apartment - there's another reason why they're still filming - the camera allows them to see in the dark, while they are being stalked by a hideous creature apparently possessed by a demon. See, in this film, I don't stop to think why they keep on filming, because there is a reason at every juncture why they keep on doing so.

The same with BBC TV's Ghostwatch*. Of course they keep on filming when things get weird, and then when things are apparently explained, and then when things get totally freaky. They have to. The genius of Ghostwatch is that it is a (fake) live broadcast. Those involved (real celebs of the time, lest we forget) have to keep the cameras filming, because they are paid to do so and the entire performance is happening in real time. This is the wonderful genius of Stephen Volk - he told a ghost story to the nation on Hallowe'en that appeared, for all the world, to be real. And he managed to make it so compelling because he constantly kept an eye on its internal logic.

This genre of films - "found footage" - has become far too popular recently, and I can kind of understand why. These are cheap films to make - you need a few actors and, at most, a couple of cameras. They can - as The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity show - reap financial rewards that are near beyond imagination. But they are also deceptively simple. It is about more than just formulating a scenario and letting improvising actors film it. In fact, these are - narratively speaking - among the most difficult films to make credible. You always have to ask yourself "why are these people still filming?" And if you cannot come up with a good answer, you lose all credibility. And since these films are often horror movies, a certain level of credibility is essential to making the whole thing work.

*Ok, technically not "found footage" as it is an ersatz live broadcast. But it still does fit in well with the genre.

Miliband to Miliband - Fuck You!

And there we have it - Miliband Major has shafted his brother and new leader. A graceless, yet curiously understandable, act.

Of course, Labour types are going to try to spin this. They're going to say that they don't need Miliband Major, or that he has done something noble by giving his brother a fresh start. Both these perceptions are, of course, horseshit. Miliband Minor beat his brother his brother in an extremely narrow election and is now turning his back on the sort of politics that is synonymous with David Miliband. So Miliband Major is telling his younger brother to go fuck himself; it really is that simple.

And this is a deeply divisive gesture. This is a brother saying to his sibling "we may be related, we may have served in Cabinet together, but I can't work with you or your politics". It is a simultaneously a political and personal gesture, and it is a clear judgement by one brother/politician on another. Ed Miliband has been in the job for about half a week, and already one of the current figureheads of the Labour party is saying that the new leader - and his brother - isn't worth supporting, even in return for a Shadow Cabinet position.

This will go one of two ways. It will either be a one-off event - a bad loser sulking at his sibling's victory - or it will be the first shot in a Labour civil war. Normally, in the days after a leadership election, I would say this would be the former. However, given the precarious way in which Miliband Minor was elected, and the way in which he appears to be lurching away from the Nu Labour formula that was so successful for the best part of a decade, I think this could be an example of the latter. This may just be the start of another era of vicious Labour infighting...

Miliband Minor and Freedom

Over at The New Statesman, a wonderfully stupid comment about the illiberal voting record of Ed Miliband on the day he decided that he does kind of like civil liberties after all. It's from someone who (presumably ironically) is calling themselves Rebellionkid:

It's important not to take individual pieces of the voting record out of context. He was elected in 2005 so we only have one parliament to go on, and for most of that time he was in and around cabinet. He did not rebel on any vote and turned up to most of the more contentious ones. Almost all party members that senior or above will have an identical voting record including unambiguous support for the "anti-terror" disasters. It's important not to assume this reflects his opinion, simply how he had to vote to get on.

Right, so we're supposed to excuse Miliband Minor's poor choices when voting on legislation that affects every single person in this country because he needed to vote that way to get on. That seems fair enough, doesn't it? Britain was made a less free place in part through the votes of that Pob-faced cunt but we shouldn't worry about that, because it helped him get where he is today. That's fine, isn't it? No, of course it fucking isn't.

Don't believe me? Well, let's take a controversial piece of Tory legislation. Section 28 springs to mind. Now, in order to get ahead in the era of Section 28, a Tory politician would have to vote for that vile piece of policy. But, dontcha see, it's ok to back that homophobia, because it allowed them to make headway with their career. Same logic, see? There we have it - backing homophobia is ok, and Rebellionkid would have to agree. Except it isn't - never was, and never will be. Just like shitting all over civil liberties for careerist reasons really isn't ok.

Ultimately, we're left with two scenarios. Either Miliband Minor backed the attack on liberty in the last government against his better judgement for reasons of expediency, or he voted for the legislation because he believed in it and now is jacking in those beliefs to try to outflank the ConDems. Either way, Miliband Minor is no friend of freedom. Quite the opposite - he is the very definition of a Nu Labour politician, where cheap political gestures are far more important than real ideological commitments. Ed Miliband - fuck 'im, and his false claim to now be a champion of freedom.

The New Ed Miliband

Just when I think I'm growing out of swearing on this blog, I read something like this: Ed Miliband is apparently turning his back on the Brown and Blair years.

It isn't an original observation, to be sure, but I'd just like to point out to him that you were a key player in those fucking years, you cunt.

And if you want to know why you lost the election, Ed, it is because of arseholes like you.

Still, perhaps the way forward for Ed's leadership is to turn his back on his government career, and I think we could all accept that. With a full, frank apology for his time spent backing Brown and an offer of reparations for the financial crimes of the last government.

But if that isn't forthcoming, Ed, then I'm sure I won't be alone in telling you to fuck right off. And please feel free to take your fucking party with you on your way to political oblivion.

Parents Banning Books (And Why It's A Bad Idea)

Looking at the list of books that parents want banning in parts of the US is quite eye-opening. I'd have thought that it would be the typical sort of tomes that parents don't want their kids reading until they are more adult - y'know, stuff by Stephen King and Chuck Palahniuk. However, there are some genuine classics in the list of books that cause consternation. Two really stand out to me as books that not only shouldn't be banned from schools, but should be read while at school:

To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee: Offensive language, racism, unsuited to age group

Well, of course there's offensive language and racism in To Kill A Mockingbird. It's about racism, for God's sake. And that's precisely why it should be taught in schools - to introduce the concept of racism in the classroom, where it can be discussed what it is, why it happens and - crucially - why it is wrong. Pretending racism doesn't exist in schools is not going to stop it existing outside of schools. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger: Offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

Yes, Catcher in the Rye has all those elements to it - which is what makes it such a great novel for teenagers. The fact that it is (relatively) explicit and more than a bit nihilistic is exactly what makes it great. Again, this is a perfect novel for teenagers - mainly because it is about being a teenager, and those feelings of discomfort, alienation and the desperation to get to the perceived freedom of adulthood. Yes, it's a grown-up novel, but it is also about growing up - and therefore the perfect time to read it is when you are growing up.

The whole point of reading books at school is not just to be able to say that you have read books - it's to have read thought-provoking (and therefore often provocative) books and then discussed them with your peers and with a teacher. That way, you can learn from To Kill A Mockingbird why racism is wrong and from Catcher in the Rye that you are not alone in feelings of alienation while being a teenager - and what can be done to deal with those feelings.

It is all very well getting kids to read supposed "classics" - but I remember remarkably little from reading such books as The Grapes of Wrath and plays such as Pericles when I was younger. The books that stick in my mind - the ones that actually taught me stuff - were the edgier ones, like The Bell Jar, Lord of the Flies, Nineteen Eighty-Four and (although I still hate it to this day) Wise Children. I value what I got from those books as they taught me a lot about the real world. Which, surely, should be one of the key aspirations of any education?

The desire of parents to ban certain books from school resides in a desire to protect them, to keep them pure and untainted by the real world. Unfortunately, at some point a kid - if they are going to be able to function in the real world - needs to be exposed to that real world, and made aware of all the negative things in it. What better way to do that than through getting them to read a provocative, well-written book and then discuss it the safety of a classroom?

The Flawed Choice For Labour Leader

In a sense I feel sorry for the Labour party - no matter who won on Saturday, they still wouldn't have had a decent leader. This is the least inspiring choice presented to a political party for the vacancy of leader since Ken Clarke took on IDS back in 2001. And, after a brief time of reflection, it appears that the Labour party have learned nothing from the mistakes of the Tories in 1997. Labour did not have the right sort of candidate standing, and they did not choose the right person.

Because the person the Tories should have had to lead them back in 1997 is Michael Howard. Sure, he was abrasive, difficult, awkward and completely unable to say the word "people" like a normal person. But he would also have been great at taking on Blair, reorganising the Tory party and making them into credible contenders in time for 2001. They wouldn't have won, but they would have made some progress rather than just treading water. Instead, the Tories chose the relatively inexperienced Hague just at the time when they needed experience to face one of the most difficult times in Tory party history. And look what happened - 13 years in the political wilderness, and only able to return to power with the help of the Liberal Democrats.

The Labour party have done exactly the same thing - although I'd argue they've chosen someone far less capable that the 1997 version of Hague. At a time when they need someone to do the completely unglamorous job of rebuilding their party, reorganising it and getting it into a position where it isn't on the point of bankruptcy, they've chosen a gormless version of Mr Potato Head to run their party. They've chosen someone lacking experience and gravitas. They've chosen someone who has at no point shown that he can take the fight to the Tories. What they should have done is chosen an experienced leader who knows how to combat the coalition. Maybe not the most inspiring of leaders, but a dependable one capable of not only opposition but also of rebuilding the party. Jack Straw or Alan Johnson would have been good choices at this juncture. I don't think either one of them would be able to win the next election, but I'm pretty sure they would have improved Labour's performance. Whereas with Miliband Minor, I'm pretty sure we're going to see Labour doing worse at the next election than it did in May of this year.

Which is what I mean when I say Labour had a poor selection of candidates to choose from when they elected Miliband Minor. Their party is crying out for an experienced leader, and instead they had to choose from geeks, bullies, non-entities and idiots. Their leader is a mistake; and a mistake that will only reveal its costs after a crushing defeat at the next election. Assuming, of course, Miliband Minor lasts that long...

The Daily Mail Tendency: Ed Miliand

Nothing like The Daily Mail to make me feel some sympathy for a political leader that I just plain don't like. Here's the headline from part of their coverage of the election of Ed Miliband to Labour leader:

Ed Miliband becomes first British political leader of a major party to be living with his family out of wedlock

Oh my, have we travelled back in time? Is this a headline in a newspaper in the year 2010, or the judgmental musings of a conservative parson in a Dickens' novel from over a century ago? Because I honestly can't tell the two apart. I particularly like the phrase "out of wedlock" - it isn't often that The Daily Mail couches its reactionary bigotry in such quaint terms.

It should go without saying that Ed Miliband's domestic arrangements are irrelevant to his potential to be a good leader. However, given the hugely conservative and mainstreams views of many of the fat-tongued, knuckle-dragging fucktards who read The Daily Hate, it is worth stressing that while there are many reasons to question whether Miliband Minor is fit to be Labour leader (let alone Prime Minister) his marital status is not one of them. Whatever the snide commentary of The Daily Mail might have you believe.

Miliband Minor, Missing The Point

Eddie Miliband, trying to prove that he "gets" us:

And I get that whatever your view on the Iraq War, it led to an appalling loss of trust.

No, Ed, no. If you think the problem about the Iraq War is a lack of trust, then you are seriously missing the point, you dumb piss midget. Nu Labour almost immediately showed it could not be trusted - this was not something that happened in 2003, but was something that was apparent almost as soon as they got into power. No, the problem with the Iraq War is that it is an it was an illegal war that has cost literally thousands of lives and has also made the world a more dangerous place. And if you don't get that, then frankly you're no better than that Anthony Blair...

Quote of the Day (Yesterday Edition)

Ed Miliband wasn't the choice of his MPs, wasn't the choice of Labour Party members but was put in to power by union votes. I'm afraid this looks like a great leap backwards for the Labour Party.

Baroness Warsi

The Result

It's Ed, then. Woot. And the best thing? It was the Unions Wot Won It - and it was a massively slim win at that. Miliband's victory has already presented his opponents with a couple of sticks with which to whack him.

Good luck, Miliband Minor. You're going to need it.

***EXCLUSIVE*** The Next Labour Leader is...

…*drum roll please*… apathy! Yes, the absolute winner of this leadership contest – the one who fought the best campaign, and really won people over – is apathy. Because despite this contest having gone on for ages, nothing really happened. In fact – despite the contest for the future of this party – the biggest Labour news story of the summer was around the sniping in Blair’s memoirs. It was about those who represent Labour’s past.

Seriously, the candidates could not have been more lacklustre in their campaigns. Ed Balls seemed to miss the point of what he’s meant to have been doing for the past five months. He’s been carping at the Tories but not really explaining to an understandably sceptical party (given his repugnant behaviour in the last parliament) why they should choose him as the new leader. The Milibands have sniped at each other like testy children in the back of a car on a long journey, while Burnham and Abbott may as well not have bothered. So much for having a big debate. All of the candidates have appeared to have nothing to say. Not so much making their cases to be leader, but rather being too afraid of saying something stupid that might cost them in their campaign. How cowardly. How Nu Labour.

The result of such a dull campaign is that people don’t care. Seriously, no-one out of the self-regarding and incestuous circle of Labour insiders cares about who’s going to be announced as the leader. They’ve failed to engage with the voters despite months of supposed debate about their future. In fact, they still seem to be struggling to understand that they lost the last election, and still think that they need to communicate their message better, rather than changing that message. 5 months of campaigning and debate about the future and they still haven’t reconciled themselves with the immediate past.

The next Labour leader should be worried – very worried. Because this contest has shown that they have a mountain to climb. The public doesn’t care about Labour – they’re just not interested. Meaning the next Labour leader has to get the attention of the people again before they can even consider making that public want to vote them again.

Blogging Fatigue

So, as Obo the Clown fucks off in the blogging afterlife (for how long, no-one knows - I suspect that, like many bloggers, he won't be able to stay away from the blogging world for too long) and a whole host of posts appear about the apparent decline of the right-wing blogosphere (at least compared to the left), I drift towards writing one of those tedious posts. Yep, I'm going to do it. I'm going to blog about blogging.

See, I think sometimes we forget that for the vast majority of bloggers, this is a hobby. It is a venture done in their free time for no remuneration whatsoever*. Sure, you can argue that they choose to do so and there's no promise that when you start blogging, you're going to make any money whatsoever. But it also means that if someone's work life becomes busier, or their interactions with the real world become more time-consuming, then it will be the blogging that suffers.

But there is also the fatigue that comes if you are a Libertarian blogger. Because, despite the result of the General Election in May, very little has changed from a Libertarian perspective. Labour bloggers can get excited about now being able to attack, which is why there's a rise in the prominence of leftie type blogs. The Tories can celebrate, knowing they're back in power, and that's probably why their bloggers have either shut up shop or become less than essential reading for many. But for Libertarian bloggers, nothing has changed. The government is still the problem, since what divides Labour and the Con-Dems is dwarfed by the fundamental statist assumptions they all share. We've got another five years of statism to endure, and no guarantee at all that there will be any meaningful change after the next election.

So I reckon Libertarian bloggers might be dropping out of the blogging world not because they are closet Tories (although some clearly are), but rather because of the overwhelming sense of fatigue that comes from knowing that we're going to be making the same points to a new group of people who believe that everything is going to be better because the football team party they support happens to be in power. It's a bit like Groundhog Day, but with stakes somewhat higher than the sanity of a fictional character depicted by Bill Murray.

And I feel this fatigue - I feel it every time I hear a lie, or a fabrication, or a fresh piece of idiocy emerge from the gobs of politicians of every party in this country. When I hear phrases like "growth deniers", "Robin Hood Tax", "tax on banking bonuses", "marriage incentives", "National Service", "Burqa Ban" and all the other terrible shit that is spouted by centrist, statist politicians searching for a positive headline. And it is only the rage at their self-serving pomposity and egregious ignorance that allows be to continue with this blog despite that often overwhelming feeling of fatigue.

So for what it's worth, this blog isn't going anywhere...

*I will confess that while I've been blogging I've received donations totaling £30 and a free Cure album. Which is very nice, but not enough to sustain me for too long. If you'd like to increase the profitability of this blog, then there's a donate button in the side bar.

On Wikipedia

Yes, I use Wikipedia on this blog. And I really didn't think there would be a problem with doing so. But, after a couple of idiotic comments and a wonderfully abusive e-mail, I thought I'd explain why I use Wikipedia.

See, it's an easy resource. It is also often accurate - not always, but enough to make it a relevant resource, despite its numerous authors/contributors. And therefore it works well for this blog. See, this blog is not an academic work - it is not a collection of detailed articles destined for publication in various journals. Its a collection of random observations, of quickly written, would-be topical posts on current political issues (and - yes - music, Doctor Who, films etc). There's a place for exquisitely researched writings. This is not it.

So, yeah, I use Wikipedia. If you don't like it, or don't rate it, or whatever, then go elsewhere.

Blindingly Obvious Statement of the Day

From the coverage of the latest execution in the US:

Maria Glod of the Washington Post said Teresa Lewis had a ''fearful expression'' shortly before her execution

Holy fuck! Imagine that! An intellectually subnormal person facing death at the hands of the state had a fearful expression just moments before she was put down like an animal. Who'd have thought it, eh?

Manic Street Preachers - Postcards from a Young Man

Last year, Manic Street Preachers did something pretty impressive - they managed to reverse the downward trend their work had been showing since Know Your Enemy and they produced an album that was genuinely in keeping with their best album - The Holy Bible. It was as if having their missing band member's lyrics to work with forced them to raise they game and see if they could again achieve the heights they did in the mid-nineties. Journal For Plague Lovers was good - it was very good. And I hoped it might be a true reversal in their slow, but still tangible, artistic decline. Unfortunately, Postcards from a Young Man suggests it was just a positive blip, not a reversal.

Because their most recent effort doesn't just show the Manics heading for the safe ground - it shows them putting down their heads a sprinting for it like there is no tomorrow. This is safe Manics; as a result it, it is largely bland anthems with repetitive lyrics and pretensions towards politically aware slogans. And fans will have heard these songs before - maybe not exactly the same tunes or the same lyrics, but these songs will be very familiar to anyone who has heard, say, Send Away the Tigers. It comes to something when Ian McCulloch can effortlessly duet with James Dean Bradfield and it sounds like the most normal thing in the world (at one point, McCulloch even starts singing the Echo and the Bunnymen song "Never Stop"!) That's what the Manics increasingly sounds like - post-reformation Echo and the Bunnymen. Not the worst thing in the world by any stretch of the imagination, but equally not the most memorable either.

Don't get me wrong - this is still an enjoyable album. And a Manic Street Preachers anthem will also sound a lot better than, say, the dirge like "anthems" of Oasis. It is all there - the great guitar playing, the energetic singing, the sweeping strings. But - and I'm going to say it again - we've heard this before. This album - it's an echo of Everything Must Go. And it lacks that album's urgency and the desire of the band to prove itself.

Increasingly, the Manics resemble the Who around the time of Who Are You and Face Dances. They are still capable of turning in memorable songs, but they're doing it because they're a band and that's what bands do - rather than doing it because they feel an urge to make music. As a result, the sad truth is the Manics are still worth listening to, but all this album shows is that they are a shadow of their former selves. Some of the band have called this "one last shot at mass communication", and maybe that's what this album should be - their last.

Comrade Cable and Capitalism

Oooo, looky - Vince Cable - former economist to Shell - is going all anti-Capitalism:

Cable said: "Why should good companies be destroyed by short-term investors looking for a speculative killing, while their accomplices in the City make fat fees? Why do directors forget their wider duties when a fat cheque is waved before them? Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can."

Let's be pedantic for a moment - first of all, capitalism doesn't do anything. No, really, it doesn't. It is a concept, a human construct. Capitalists make take no prisoners, and kill competition when they can - capitalism doesn't. Blaming capitalism for the behaviour of some capitalists is a bit like blaming the concept of a knife because some people stab other people.

But let's break down Cable's sudden aversion to capitalists. He is against people making anti-competitive speculative killings in investment deals. Yeah, that must be frustrating, but what's the alternative? Banning short-term investors? Limiting them to only certain types of activities of which Cable approves? The solution to what Cable considers to be a problem is government intervention and regulation. Ho-hum. He really should have stuck with the Labour party; they're the ones who lap this sort of shit up.

Then there's the notion that directors forget "their wider duties" when there's the chance to make money. But what, precisely, are their wider duties? Their sole duty, surely, is to make money for their companies. You could argue that they also have a duty to their employees, but that too is a duty best served by making money for the company. That is, after all, the nature of business. It is about making money. Talking about the "wider duties" of directors is astoundingly naive - particularly for someone who used to work for one of the world's largest oil companies.

But there is a need to be wary of the death of competition in capitalism; this creates monopolies, and these are sometimes deeply problematic for wider society. However, the problem is how we stop the growth of monopoly. I have no doubt about what Cable's answer to this problem would be - state intervention. But, of course, the problem is that state intervention doesn't end monopoly - in fact, more often than not, it creates state-sanctioned monopolies that are just as negative as the naturally occurring kind. Furthermore, government intervention creates client companies - those who exist primarily to sponge of the tax-payer's money (yes, Crapita, I'm looking at you).

Now, I don't have an answer to the problem of competition. Indeed, inherent within competition is the notion that someone will win - which could lead to monopoly. It strikes me that what Cable is belly-aching about are actually very natural - if not particularly edifying - parts to human nature; greed and competitivieness. I don't know what should be done - if anything - in order to deal with the worst excesses of these aspects to humanity. However, I am pretty sure that a recourse to crude socialism and state control is not the way to deal these potential issues. Because what Cable is saying is that greed and competitiveness are only a problem if people like him can't decide who's allowed to be greedy and who can win the various competitions within capitalism.

Labour, Opinion Polls, and their New Leader

Since the election, it has been quite common to read that the Labour party is doing reasonably well in the opinion polls despite not having a leader. This is, of course, wrong; what is actually happening is that Labour have been doing ok in recent opinion polls because they don't have a leader. And come Saturday, that will change.

Leaders and figureheads act as shit magnets. As soon as a group has a leader or a figurehead, others can start making the muck stick. It is happening right now in the US with the Tea Party and the really rather dreadful Christine O'Donnell since her primary win. And it will happen with the Labour party once it has got itself a Nu Leader. Don't believe me? Try it. David Miliband - complicity in torture. Ed Miliband - wrote the electoral bromide that was the 2010 Labour manifesto. Ed Balls - Gordon Brown's mini-me. Andy Burnham - pro-ID cards. Diane Abbot - opinions on Finnish nurses. A leader taints his or her party with every ill-judged comment and/or policy they have ever made - regardless of whether those comments/policies are indicative of the organisation they represent.

There is a way around this, of course - you elect a charismatic leader, who can convince people to follow them despite their flaws. But since the Labour party is poised to elect a Miliband, that isn't going to happen. Instead, they will elect a charisma-less geek to go up against a still popular coalition. And then, slowly, their opinion poll ratings will start to suffer again as it becomes clear that the cosmetic change in leader is not the sort of far-reaching change the Labour party desperately needs in order to become electorally credible again.

Fisking a "Short History of the Big Society"

Liberal Conspiracy have a hugely biased and pro-Labour piece up about the Big Society, and how Labour should respond to it. I've taken apart the first part of it, but not the second (despite it containing some outrageous unsubstantiated lies like Gordon Brown having done more than anyone else to help voluntary groups to flourish). The reason is simple - I want to combat the myths and lies this Labourite type is propagating about the Big Society but, as someone who cannot stand Labour, I couldn't give the first fuck about how Labour responds to the concept.

Let us begin:

Every time I read a well meaning Labour activist argue that “Labour needs to move beyond the belief that the state can do everything and develop a response to the Big Society”, it makes me sad.

Awww, bless you. Mind you, I always feel a bit sad when both Labour and Tory activists talk about the Big Society, since neither of them actually understand what the concept actually means.

Here is a quick history of events which contributed to the development of the Big Society:

In the 1970s and 1980s, radical/loony lefties set up a wide range of communuity groups to empower people and deliver a wide range of innovative services. The Tories and their Right Wing allies denounced them in the most vicious terms.

This isn't quite true. What radical/loony lefties have always tried to do is set up state-sanctioned community groups that can use money ripped from the taxpayer to fund the sort of groups of which they approve. The Tories do exactly the same thing; it is just that they favour different sorts of groups. That's the problem that both parties have when approaching a concept like the Big Society - both parties are too statist to really want a freer society.

Between 1997 and 2010, Labour created space and put in place policies to enable literally thousands of voluntary groups to flourish, with huge new opportunities to deliver services and to improve local neighbourhoods. The Tories ignored this, because they were more interested in banging on about immigrants and tax cuts.

No, no, again, not true. Nu Labour massively increased the scope of the state by offering funding (taken from the taxpayer) to pretty much anyone who would take it. The logic is simple - in doing so, it could create a large number of clients to the state, and therefore people destined to always vote for the party of the state. Furthermore, genuinely voluntary organisations do not require the backing of the state. And immigrants? Yes, the Tories have banged on about them - but Labour types are not immune to that tendency either. Nor are tax cuts a bad thing to bang on about - if implemented, then tax cuts let people spend more of their own money, and they may well spend it on genuinely voluntary groups.

In 2009, a small group of public relations professionals at the top of the Tory Party – none of whom had any experience of voluntary action – announced something called the ‘Big Society’, a vague, top down initiative which attempted to claim credit for the insight that voluntary groups had a role to play in delivering services and improving communities.

And in doing so stole the blueprint followed by Nu Labour. Don't believe me? Let's see what of this description could be applied to Nu Labour and its way of governing. Vague? Check. Top-down? Check. Claiming credit for an obvious insight? Check. This is Nu Labour, through and through.

In 2011, thousands of voluntary and community groups will be wiped out by the savage cuts which the Tory government is inflicting on us.

Such groups - if they are so dependent on funding from the government (central or local) - are actually extensions of that government. If these groups are so essential to their communities, then they will find alternative funding. If they're not, then, well, perhaps they should be wiped out - particularly since Nu Labour have ensured cuts have to be made.

An even shorter history of the Tories and the Big Society:

First they denounced it.
Then they ignored it.
Then they claimed credit for it.
Then they cut it.

But even if you accept that this reading of the Big Society is correct, it doesn't immediately follow that the Labour attitude towards increased localism is the right one. My thoughts are simple - neither Labour nor the Tories are capable of implementing what the Big Society should stand for as both place their faith in the state, not people or their communities or their society.

Like many other users, I'd just like to thank Blogger.com for introducing a spam filter that doesn't publish comments from intelligent people I actually quite like but does still let the spam get through. Genius. Not.

Redefining the Liberal Democrats

In case anyone hadn't noticed, the Liberal Democrats have a problem. A problem growing in size and importance. The coalition with the Tories has created divisions within the party - divisions that will, at some point, damage or potentially destroy the party. There are some who favour the arrangement made with the Tories, while others would have been happier jumping into bed with Labour. The reason is simple; the Lib Dems have, from their inception as the Liberal/SDP Alliance right up until the moment their leader became Deputy Prime Minister, been the party of apparent perpetual opposition. Therefore, its MPs tend to define themselves through opposition to the government of the day.

Don't believe me? Look at when the leading lights, for want of a better phrase, came into the Commons and what their positions are on the coalition. Those who are left-leaning - those who would have preferred a union with Labour - all came to power when the main focus for the Lib Dems was opposing the Tories. Simon Hughes, Paddy Pantsdown Ashdown and Charles Kennedy were all elected to the Commons in 1983, Menzies Campbell in 1987, Cable (who initially stood as a Labour candidate during his long bid to get into the Commons) in 1997. For these people, the Tories were the enemy - they would have cut their political teeth opposing the Conservative party. Of course the sudden union with the Tories in May upsets and unsettles them; to those of that pedigree, the Tories are the enemy.

Whereas for David Laws (elected to Parliament in 2001), Clegg, Huhne and Danny Alexander (all elected 2005) the enemy would be Labour - particularly since they will have endured first hand the rump end of Blairism and the absolute, abject failure that was the Brown administration. Of course, for this lot their natural coalition partners were their fellow opponents against Nu Labour: the Tories.

This, then, is the challenge for the Liberal Democrats - they need to work out what they do now they are in power, and have had to make a choice as to which party they ally themselves with. They can either work to amend their identity in line with the choice they made in May, or they can let their growing schizophrenia tear the party apart. Because they can no longer simply define themselves in opposition to the incumbent government; they now have to define themselves against what they have achieved as part of that incumbent government.

Against Certainty

With the Panzer Pope heading home soon, it is perhaps good to reflect on what an extraordinary visit this has been for the religious leader. Sure, his pronouncements have been exactly what you might expect from a Pope - namely, that those who do not share his beliefs are wrong and evil (possibly even Nazis). The protests that arose as the result of his visit reassure me to some extent - they show that this is no longer a religious nation as such, or at least is a nation where religious beliefs are no longer privileged and have to fight for respect alongside other belief systems. This can only be a good thing for a modern democratic nation.

Yet what was striking to me was the sheer level of conviction of many of those who protested the Pope's visit. Don't get me wrong, I can't stomach the man and I think his views, and his actions over the paedophile scandal, are reprehensible and clearly not suitable for a man running a religious organisation of billions. Yet there's a distinction between protesting what the Pope says and arguing against his right to visit this country. I believe anyone with any sort of moral sense should protest what the Pope says; yet to demand that he should not even be allowed to visit his country is just as illiberal (given he is a key figure for Catholics in this country) as many of Ratzinger's pronouncements.

Which has been the striking thing about many of the secular protestors - their certainty that they are right has now reached a point where they seem to be demanding that the religious do not express their views. To me, this is clearly wrong. I believe religion is a lot of stuff and nonsense, and I have no compunction about sharing those views with both believers and non-believers. I believe I have a right to express my beliefs - however, I do not believe that I have a right to tell others what they should believe. The sort of aggressive secularism of some now seems to be reaching a point where it is telling people what they can and cannot believe in and say. And I see this as extremely dangerous.

As far as I can see, the demise of religion as the dominant force in this country has meant that religion has simply been substituted with other views that cannot be argued with. This is a true irony - many people have freed themselves from religious domination only to find other "truths" to dominate their thinking. This isn't just the case with militant atheists - we can see this certainty affecting many other beliefs throughout this country. The climate change campaigners are now so certain that they have discovered an indisputable truth that they are happy to deny the rights of sceptics to debate and question their conclusions. The same with socialists and other statists - their certainty in the benevolence of the state means they cannot contemplate the views of those who seek to reduce the size of the state. Likewise, flawed organisations and bodies created by flawed humans are now revered to such an extent that to talk of reforming or even abolishing them has become a form of sacrilege. Don't believe me? Try saying that you want to abolish the NHS and see what sort of a reaction you get.

Let me be clear here - I'm not calling for people to abandon their beliefs. I'm not putting forward a case for nihilism; positive or otherwise. What I am saying is that while people should have their belief systems, they should also take into account that other people may differ in their beliefs, and in this inherently uncertain world in which we all exist there must be the possibility that a belief, no matter how apparently logical, adamantly held and cherished, may be proved to be wrong in the future.

Certainty and rigidity in belief can be a comforting thing in an ever-changing world, but it can also be used to dominate others and strangle debate. It should go without saying that we must be very careful to prevent this from happening; but given the readiness of some to deny others their right to express their beliefs, it clearly does need to be said anyway.

So if you're like me, and you think the Pope is an appalling person and Catholicism is nothing more than archaic myth and superstition, by all means make your case and make your protests. But don't seek to deny others their right to hold their own beliefs, no matter how ignorant, ludicrous and downright stupid they may seem to you.

Divine Comedy - Something for the Weekend

The Labour Vitriol Against The Liberal Democrats

Well, this is going to whip the Labourites into an even greater anti-Liberal Democrat fever:

"I totally understand that some of these people are not happy with what the Lib Dems are doing in coalition with the Conservatives. The Lib Dems never were and aren't a receptacle for left-wing dissatisfaction with the Labour Party. There is no future for that; there never was."

Well, the problem Clegg's got is that for some, the Lib Dems were a receptacle for left-wing dissatisfaction with the Labour party; it is just for him and his fellow Orange Bookers that its not. But I do think that the future for the Lib Dems isn't in joining with the Labour party again. And the main reason for that is the behaviour of many in the Labour party since the election.

Since the Lib Dems did the only thing they realistically could in May and joined in coalition with the Tories, the Labour party have acted like a bunch of mad stalkers that have been spurned by the object of their affections. The level of bile that the Labour party have heaped on the Lib Dems is entirely out of proportion with their "crime"; after all, the Lib Dems joined with the effective winners of the last election, but before they did that, they negotiated with Labour and certainly gave that party the chance to win them over. But no, the Labour party have acted with arrogance and bile towards the Lib Dems; the occasional lip service paid by some of the contenders for the Labour leadership to the idea of the future Lib-Lab pact doesn't make-up for the bitter vitriol thrown at the Lib Dems by the Labour party since May.

Labour are still in shock from their defeat in May and still labouring under the delusion that they are in some way entitled to power. It is the same arrogance that defined Nu Labour, and ultimately sank the Brown administration. The Labour party still expects to be in power, and if they can't achieve it by themselves, then they expect the Lib Dems to prop them up. The fact that Clegg and Co. chose not remains a point of bitter contention for the Labour party. And given the level of bile thrown at the Lib Dems, I really don't see whatever future they might have resting on an alliance with Labour.

The Pope and The Mail

You know, the more I think about his Popiness and the objections of him and other Vatican types to the modern UK, the more I realise the basic problem they seem to have. Just look at their claims - Britain is like a Third World country, people are trying to ban Christmas etc. The problem is that they've clearly got their vision of modern Britain through reading The Daily Mail! No wonder their view is so warped.

Mind you, if the Panzer Pope was going to read any British newspaper, and think we can all be pretty sure that it would be The Daily Hate.

Nick Clegg: The Impossible Choice

Simon Jenkins on the limited political future of one Nick Clegg:

Clegg the politician was a nice chap. He could have made a good departmental minister. Back in May he could have decided otherwise, standing aloof from office and declaring that his party would debate and vote on each government measure on its merits. That would have been a true Liberal Democrat dawn, from which he could have returned perhaps more successfully to fight the Tories at the polls.

Instead Clegg chose glory in death. He came to the rescue of Cameron in the latter's hour of need and enabled him to steer the economy out of Labour's morass. I have no doubt Cameron will show gratitude, offering honorary life membership of the Tory party, a safe seat and a comfy place on the Notting Hill sofa. For Clegg that might be enough. But as leader of the Liberal Democrats, he has booked a ticket to oblivion.

Now I'd agree - in part. Nick Clegg is basically fucked as Lib Dem leader. His decision in May was always going to work for roughly half his party, and really piss off the other half. That's the nature of his compromise. Had he done it the other way round - and jumped into bed with Labour - he would still have alienated half of its parties and half of his followers. He had to make a choice, and he did. It was never going to please everyone, which is what makes it a compromise.

And this notion that the Lib Dems could have chosen a third way (no pun intended) of voting on each issue as and when they arise rather than going into coalition is a non-starter. All that would have happened is the Cameron would have gone to the country again sooner rather than later. His party was the only one with the funds to fight another election, and both the Tories and Labour would have a massive stick with which to beat the Lib Dems - that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for unstable government and for political instability.

This is the tragedy of Nick Clegg; he had no choice but to compromise, but by compromising, he ended up shooting himself in the foot. And, as far as I am concerned, he made the best of a bad situation. That's not going to stop the carping of lefties throughout the country, though...

The Idiotic and Offensive Pope

Oh my word, take a look at this for an example of Papal crassness and stupidity taken to an extreme:

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny"

Yes, Britain did indeed fight the Nazis and quite rightly too. The totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany was a nightmare, and it needed to be fought by any nation or movement that claimed in anyway to me moral. Britain fought the Nazis. What did the Vatican do? At best - at very fucking best - it sat on the fence in World War Two.

Furthermore, many people opposed the Nazis and some did so for reasons other than religion. The Soviet Union opposed the Nazis. And as an FYI, Ratzinger, the Soviet Union was atheist.

But that's just background noise to the truly ignorant and offensive rubbish that the Panzer Pope is spouting. The idea that Nazism represents "atheist extremism" is palpable, insulting nonsense. In fact, if anything, the structure of Nazism resembles that of religious orders, and in particular the Catholic Church. The Führerprinzip closely resembles Papal Infallibility. Both belief systems were big on ceremony, of performing in stupid costumes, and to a large extent are based on meaningless, fabricated myths. But the biggest similarity lies in the fact that both belief systems are based on blind obedience. You have to believe absolutely in the teachings of the Church, just as absolute belief in Nazi propaganda was demanded by that regime. There is no allowance for freedom of thought under Nazism or the sort of religion espoused by the Vatican. Unlike in atheism, which is predicated on questioning what was the greatest authority in human life for centuries - that of God.

Sure, you could argue that Catholicism believes in God, while the Nazi regime believed in nothing. But this isn't true; Nazism adopted much of the structure of religion, but just changed the position of their God. Christianity sites God in heaven; Nazism had God in earth in the shape of the Führer.

Furthermore, the exclusion of God, religion and whatever corrupted concept of virtue the Church has from public life does not lead to a truncated vision of the person and of their destiny. On the contrary, the removal of the need to adhere to outmoded, out-of-date archaic teachings from millennia ago actually frees humanity up to achieve more. Stem cell research - banned by the Catholics - helps alleviate suffering and extend lives. Contraception - banned by the Church - helps slow the spread of the HIV epidemic. And so on. The removal of God from public life is a healthy thing. Furthermore, such a move does not bring about the removal of morals from society; "thou shalt not kill" does not need to be backed up by the threat of hell; it becomes intuitively plausible for an atheist through the use of empathy with fellow humans.

And where does this idea that Catholicism is synonymous with morality and virtue come from? The Church has, at best, a dubious record when it comes to morality. It isn't just the recent scandal over paedophilia that shows the Vatican's dubious approach to basic, moral concepts like you shouldn't let people rape children and then cover it up. Going right back to the Spanish Inquisition it should be plain to see that religion can be linked to immoral behaviour and, in far too many cases, horrific cruelty. So forgive me, Ratzinger, if I don't buy into your concept of virtue. It really isn't working for me on any level.

This is meant to be the Pope extending the hand of friendship to people in the UK. Likening those who have legitimate concerns about religion or who just plain and simple don't believe in religion to Nazis does not strike me as a good way to go about that.

A Tax on the Stupid

Y'know, a lot of people used to call the National Lottery a tax on the stupid. I don't think that's quite fair - it is a tax on the idiotically optimistic. Sure, you're pretty stupid if you enter the lottery but in the near impossible circumstance that you won, not many people would be remarking on that stupidity. Unlike, say, if you gave money to the last government in return for one of their pointless, invasive and pointlessly invasive ID cards.

Therefore, I've got no sympathy whatsoever for people affected by this:

Labour have failed in attempts to get compensation for people who bought ID cards, which are set to be scrapped.

They say thousands of people who voluntarily spent £30 on cards did so in "good faith" and should be refunded when next renewing their passports.

But they lost a vote in the Commons during a debate on proposed legislation to abolish the cards.

If you got an ID card before you had to, then you are either a Labour minister, utterly thoughtless or blindly obedient to the state. All of which suggest you are a person of limited intellectual capacity. Furthermore, if you paid for an ID card knowing that the opposition parties opposed them and that opposition party would almost certainly form the next government, then you are doubly stupid. Basically, you wasted your money. You lost out on the money you sunk into the ID card scheme. Boo-fucking-hoo for you.

Normally I support the government returning whatever money they can to the people. In this case, though, I don't - partly because they cannot afford to refund those stung by this scheme. The entire ID card folly cost the taxpayer millions - each ID card is estimated to have cost £20,000 each. This isn't just government waste - this is government waste pumped up on speed and steroids. The comparatively small amounts of money individuals have lost by signing up to the scheme is gone - as is the taxes of many others who had to pay the government under duress for this scheme, even if they didn't get an ID card and thought the whole thing was a shit idea from the very start. If you paid for an ID card, you don't deserve a refund. You're just a bit dumb.

Which is perhaps the sole achievement of the ID card scheme - it finally managed to create a tax on the stupid.

Some Tory twat of an MP on AV:

"Because of the second preference vote, AV can also lead to bad or inefficient MPs staying in their seats... AV leads to tactical voting, so people may end up voting for someone they don't want as their MP, which is hugely damaging for democracy – it encourages people to cast a ballot in favour of things they don't want and don't support."

I struggle to see how this can be distinguished from FPTP. Bad and inefficient MPs remain in their seats and there is also a lot of tactical voting. And as someone who votes in every election, I can say I always vote for things I don't want and don't support. If I didn't, I wouldn't be able to vote.

This smug cunt clearly believes that people vote for him because they believe he's the best and because they believe in everything he says. However I don't doubt for a moment that people vote for him because they don't really have the choice; he is the least worst of all the alternatives.

By all means make the case against AV - but if your argument is that Parliament is filled with the best and that we have true choice at General Elections, then you are sure as fuck not going to win me over.

Proud to be British...

...for perhaps the first time ever:

One of the Pope's senior advisers has pulled out of the papal visit to Britain, after reportedly saying the UK is a "Third World country" marked by "a new and aggressive atheism".

If we are pissing off people closely connected to this reprehensible arse of a pontiff, then we must be doing something right.

The Tea Party, Palin and The Republican Nomination

Some interesting commentary from Mark Mardell on the Tea Party successes in Republican primaries:

Both the polls and senior Republicans suggest that Tea Party favourite Christine O'Donnell hasn't a hope of winning the seat. But the Republican voters wanted her as their candidate nonetheless.

So when people tell you that Sarah Palin will not win the nomination in 2012 because she cannot beat President Obama, remember it is grassroots Republicans who make that decision, not party strategists or commentators.

There's a curious tension between the Tea Party and the Republicans; there is a sense in which each wants to co-opt the other, despite the fact that they are not actually compatible. I reckon this struggle will continue right up to the 2012 election; however, I don't doubt that the Republican party will end up absorbing the Tea Party movement. Which is a shame, but seems to be the way these things go.

Mardell's right, of course - if the Republican grass-roots want an unelectable candidate, then they can nominate one. And this may well be the way in which Palin wins the nomination in 2012. Yet the more I think about, the more I would sound a note of caution about assuming Palin will be the 2012 Republican nominee. While it is true that both parties in the US have nominated inept candidates (Goldwater and McGovern spring to mind), they have noted the result of this - landslide defeat. And you can see recent examples of how even the party faithful have ultimately decided to choose the credible candidate over the unelectable. That's why the likes of Howard Dean and Mike Huckabee - despite being the favourite for a substantial minority of their respective parties - were ultimately passed over in favour of more mainstream (and perhaps less inspiring) candidates. Despite the lack of a credible alternative at the moment, I suspect that this is what will happen with Palin; in the end, the party will almost certainly choose a more credible candidate than Palin because, ultimately, they want to beat Obama - not hand him a landslide re-election.

Apparently the Pope's not a sell-out:

Thousands of tickets remain unsold for events during the visit of the Pope, who arrives in Scotland on Thursday.

Now this gives me some faith - in people if nothing else. I can't help but feel that it is a positive thing that people aren't flocking to see a privileged man in a dress who was once a member of the Hitler Youth and has done much to hide child rapists from justice. Not that I'm biased against the Panzer Pope or anything...

Another Non-Story

As reported on the BBC:

Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham is calling for a review of the leadership election rules.

Mr Burnham says the current contest is too heavily influenced by big donors and benefits the leadership favourites.

In other words, a probable loser wants the rules changed to make a future victory more likely for him. What a shock!

Union Bullshit

Trade Union leaders failing to break the habit of a life time by talking total fucking bollocks:

TUC chief Brendan Barber has said the public will not accept large-scale spending cuts, as trade unions gather in Manchester.

They will accept them, I believe, because public spending has become synonymous with waste. If the government trims the unproductive parts of its operations, it will not adversely affect how the public live their lives but will allow for, in the longer-term, populist measures such as tax cuts.

Mr Barber said unions would reach out to the wider community to form a "progressive alliance" to make the case for alternatives to spending cuts.

Oh, Jesus titty-fucking Christ, it's that word again - "progressive". And it is being completely misused here. What Barber wants to form is, by definition, a "conservative alliance" - he wishes to conserve the status quo. Which is fine - he can go away and do that to his heart's content. But don't lie about it - you're being conservative, Barber. And anyone with any intellect won't ally themselves with you because you're attempting to conserve an unsustainable and ultimately regressive status quo.

RMT union leader Bob Crow called for a campaign of "civil disobedience" in protest at spending cuts.

Well, I want to call for a campaign of "civil disobedience" against Bob Crow. And after the tube strikes, I think a campaign against him will be far more popular than a campaign against spending cuts.

I have no issue with the Trade Unions campaigning in the best interests of their members - hell, that's what they're for. But campaigning for the government to continue with the levels of spending that are running the risk of bankrupting this country is not in the interests of their members, and certainly isn't in the interests of the country as a whole.

Doctor Who: Time and the Rani

Another month, another Doctor Who DVD from the "classic" series. And, like last month's offerings, the most recent release is widely regarded as one of the series' all time clunkers. Seriously, Time and the Rani languishes towards the bottom of nearly every fan poll - and sometimes even manages to hit the bottom spot. To many, it makes Revenge of the Cybermen and Silver Nemesis look great. But I don't agree.

I frickin' love Time and the Rani.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not unaware of the story's weaknesses - it would be difficult not to be aware of them, as they are so numerous. Sylvester McCoy is still figuring out how to be the Doctor, and his decision to prat about rather than act for a lot of the story is misjudged. Bonnie Langford's Mel - easily one of the weakest companions in a show that has been around for nearly half a century - is never worse than here, where she runs around in a costume that insults even the tasteless eighties and does little more than scream or whine. The Tetraps are most effective when they are not seen, and the tedious Lakertyans are next to impossible to sympathise with. The plot is bland, and the CGI of the pre-title sequence looks like a bad cartoon, not a bold new start for the show. But - worst of all - the "death" of the Sixth Doctor appears to have happened because he fell off an exercise bike. This is the same Time Lord who died the last time from a virulent disease that he had the antidote for, but decided to give it to his companion instead. It is an insult to the Sixth Doctor - a Doctor already much insulted by the costume he had to wear and the generally low quality of scripts he had to wade through.

So yeah, there's a lot not to like about Time and the Rani. And I know this - the only reason why I like it so much is for reasons of nostalgia. See, this story is perhaps Doctor Who at its most childish - a story written for children, rather than for all the family. And - unlike so many other fans - I had the fortunre to watch this story when I was eight years old. I was a child, so as far as I was concerned, this was one of the most exciting things ever! There was a new Doctor, there were monsters, decent cliff-hangers, and a simple plot. The special effects were good (and some of them still stand up to this day) and there was a sense of palpable excitement to the whole thing. I watch Time and the Rani and revert back to the days when I could watch Doctor Who for what it is, rather than critically evaluating it and also assessing its commitment to continuity.

Don't get me wrong, this is a poor introduction to the Seventh Doctor and not even close to the genuinely great post-regeneration stories (The Power of the Daleks and The Eleventh Hour if you're interested). Most people won't be able to see in it what I see. But that's one of the things that's great about Doctor Who. You can have stories you love because they are great, and stories you love because they seemed great when you were a kid.

Oh, and even if you're not a fan of the story, it is worth buying this DVD anyway for the extra features. In particular, seeing the video audition for Sylvester McCoy shows why he was cast, and shades of the portrayal that would later make his Doctor genuinely great even if that side of his performance was missing from his debut story.

How to turn Where's Wally into a nightmare, by Werner Herzog

Skinner *hearts* Miliband

Odious leftie fire-brand Dennis Skinner has decided to back centrist Blairite weasel David Miliband in "race" for Labour leader. His reasoning, if you can call is that, is as follows:

“The big question is who are the Tories afraid of? Who is the best candidate to stand up against Cameron at the dispatch box? Who has the best chance to beat Cameron in an election?”

“For me the best choice is David Miliband and that is why I will be supporting him as next Labour leader.”

Three things arise from this for me. Firstly, Labour is not focussed on reforming itself or working out why it lost last time. It has only one thing on its mind - future victory. And Miliband Major is the sort of candidate who reminds them of the halycon days electoral success under Blair. Of course, this logic is more than just flawed; it is downright stupid, since at the last election the voters not just rejected Brown, but also Blair and Nu Labour. By harking back to Blair, they are harking back to what has been (finally) rejected by the voters. They need to find something new, and Miliband - a continuity candidate for Nu Labour if ever there was one - certainly isn't new.

And I'm not sure whether Miliband Major is the one the Tories are afraid of most. I mean, he's always struck me as a total dweeb; the sort of chap Cameron (and possibly even Clegg) could make mincemeat of at the dispatch box. I will say this, though - if the Tories do fear Miliband the most, that doesn't mean that they are actually afraid of him. It could be that they just see him as the most credible opponent Labour have running as leader. Which, given the dearth of talent in the line-up, is a backhanded compliment at best.

Finally, if the likes of Skinner are supporting Miliband, who the hell is going to vote for Diane Abbott?

Skinner backs Miliband Major - further proof that the Labour party has utterly lost its way.

A New Way of Campaigning?

Through behaving like a total nut-job:



Now, if the Labour leadership had seen some speeches like this, it would have been far more entertaining. But enough of that. I think that if Sarah Palin becomes the Republican nominee for President in 2012, this guy should be her Vice-Presidential pick.

Pastor Terry Jones Speaks!

And while the underlying message is less ignorant than normal, the speech is lacking in both coherence and eloquence. Let's take a look:

[First words inaudible]...

Best part of the speech.

...what would have to happen for us to call our event off. As we prayed about that, in the past we did have one idea.

I'm guessing it wasn't having pretty much the whole world opposing your event...

This idea we put out in prayer to God. That if he would want us to call this off, if we have accomplished our goal, then our thought was the American people do not as a whole want the mosque at the Ground Zero location.

The American people do not exist as a whole. Don't attempt to force homogeneity on one of the most diverse nations in the world.

That if they were willing to either cancel the mosque at the Ground Zero location, or if they were willing to move it away from that location, we would consider that sign from God.

So God doesn't so much move in mysterious ways - he is actually full-on fucking obscurantist. He talks to rednecks on Florida through the mouthpiece of Muslims in New York - and said Muslims aren't even talking about the same thing as Jones and his idiotic ilk. Yep, this may be a sign from God, but even if it is a sign from a fictional deity, it remains very open to interpretation.

We have, or he has [indicating Iman Muhammad Musri, standing beside him], been in contact with the imam in New York City.

I, with the imam here, will be flying up there on Saturday to meet the imam at the Ground Zero mosque.

Has the Ground Zero mosque actually been built yet? Or is Pastor Jones so delusional that he thinks he's going to meet people at a place that hasn't even been built yet?

And, by the way, the proposed mosque isn't on Ground Zero. By all means go there, Jones, but you're going to be a couple of blocks away from where you need to be.

He has agreed to move the location. That of course cannot happen overnight. But he has agreed to move that.

Except reports say that those behind the mosque haven't agreed to move the location.

We felt that that would be a sign that God would want us to do it.

Like a transatlantic mobile phone call, the coherence of Pastor Jones's statement is starting to become garbled, incoherent, and not worth going on with.

The American people do not want the mosque there.

Well, some American people don't want the mosque there. Others do. Like the people building the fucking thing two blocks away.

And of course Muslims do not want us to burn the Koran.

Which is precisely why you said you would do it, you antagonist, fundamentalist little twat.

The imam has agreed to move the mosque. We have agreed to cancel our event on Saturday.

Again, the first half of this sentence may well not be true. But hey, if delusion has got Pastor Jones to cancel his little book burning, then so be it. After all, it was the delusional belief in an ersatz God that created it the idea of a book burning in the first place.

And on Saturday I will be flying up there to meet with him.

Good. Enjoy New York. Take in a show, have a hot dog. And enjoy the celebrity while you can. Because hopefully you, Pastor Jones, are about to disappear from the public eye forever.

MPs? Or Tabloids?

Via Guido, a quote from Tom Watson on modern MPs:

"They have no predators, they are untouchable, they laugh at the law, they sneer at parliament, they have the power to hurt us, and they do with gusto and precision…"

What's that you say? That he was actually talking about tabloid newspapers? Really? I can kind of see how his words might be applied to newspapers, but they are a far more apt description of our ruling class...

The Labour Leadership Contest Summarised.

Good God will this infernal Labour leadership contest never end? The candidates are not saying or doing anything new, and if you're a Labour party member who hasn't figured out which one of these non-entities you want as leader despite the months of campaigning, then you're thick as pig shit. Then again, if you've got a vote, you're a Labour party member so you're probably not blessed with intellect anyway.

If you want my advice (and I'd imagine that the paragraph above would alienate most Labour party members), then you should vote for Ed Miliband or Andy Burnham. Both of those are anodyne, bland and immensely tedious, but they would at least represent some sort of a change. David Miliband - a charisma vacuum and total geek - would be destroyed by the media and would be demolished each and every week in Prime Minister's Questions. Plus he's the continuity candidate, and there's no point in continuing with the type of politics comprehensively rejected by the voters at the last election. Ed Balls and Diane Abbott are both electoral bromide. You may as well dig up Michael Foot's carcass and make that Leader of the Opposition; he'd be more popular than Abbott or Balls. Yes, I know, a choice between Ed Miliband and Andy Burnham is a bit like choosing between different types of mild soft cheeses, but effectively, that's the choice you've got. Enjoy.

Christian extremist lackwits call for Koran burning

Oh, good golly gosh this sounds like a such a dumb fucking idea:

A small US church says it will defy international condemnation and go ahead with plans to burn copies of the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary.

And the justification for it?

But organiser, Pastor Terry Jones said: "We must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam."

Well, Pastor Terry Jones is clearly a fucktard of the very highest calibre if he thinks that this will be a clear message getting to radical Islam. After all, his country has invaded two nations and destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives trying to send a message to radical Islam. And if radical Islam is getting the message, it is only making them more angry. Which is what Jones's little piece of idiocy will do, if it goes ahead. Make angry radicals even more angry. Woo-hoo! That's great work there, Terry, you empty-headed lackwit.

Of course, burning books is never a great sign, but as we know, radical Islam is not above having the odd burning of stuff itself. So why shouldn't these Christians get in on the act? Well, partly because their religion is big on turning the other cheek rather than burning books, but also because this is a reactionary and stupid thing to do. The only comfort arising from this situation is that more mainstream Christians in the US and elsewhere are making their voices heard and are shouting this idea down. Which is what they need to do. Because the extremes of religion - whatever that religion might be - are very dangerous. And they discredit the whole of that religion; it becomes tainted by association with the bigots. Just as Jones reckons he is sending a message to radical Islam so Christian churches in the US need to send a message to their radical, or extremist elements - and they need to tell Jones and his odious ilk to go fuck themselves. Or more Christian words that have the same meaning.

Concrete Blonde - ...a long time ago

A good song and a nice ending to a great series.

Blair, Protest, and the BNP

Tony Blair doing his own little version of Godwin's Law*:

But Mr Blair, prime minister from 1997 to 2007, said: "I'm concerned that I don't want to put people through a lot of hassle at this Wednesday's signing."

He added that he had heard the British National Party "had wanted to get involved in the action".

Excellent stuff. A near textbook attempt to taint those who might protest against Blair for whatever the reason (being a profiligate war-mongering son of a bitch who allowed someone he thought was incompetent to succeed him would be my personal reasons for protesting) through an fake association with the knuckle-dragging Neo-Nazi louts of the BNP. This is just one small step above screaming "Nazis!" at his opponents and then running away.

Still, Blair is at least being consistent - even in retirement he is still spinning away and continuing to argue against the legitimate protests of those who might not agree with him. It's nice to have these occasional little reminders of why Blair was such a corrosive and damaging influence on British politics.

UPDATE:

And now he's cancelled it. Well, I guess the protestors have won this little battle. And Blair has reminded us of something else - he's a fucking coward.

*Before anyone says anything, yes, I know Godwin's Law actually relates to da interwebs - this is why I'm calling it a version of Godwin's Law.

Blogroll

I'm going to be updating my blogroll next week; it is hideously out of date. Should you wish to have the dubious privilege of being on it, then feel free to e-mail me at thenamelesst[at]yahoo[dot]co[dot]uk. As long as your blog isn't total toss (like, say, Richard Murphy's) I'll probably link to it.

Iain Dale: Missing the Point

Iain Dale not so much missing the point as turning in the opposite direction as it whooshes past him:

Andy Coulson is bloody good at his job. That's why the likes of The Guardian, Alastair Campbell, Prescott and Johnson are doing their best to jump on the back of the New York Times story about an ex News of the World journalist who was sacked by the paper for persistent drug and alcohol problems. You don't think he might have a grudge, do you?

The fact that someone might be good at their job doesn't mean that they haven't done dubious things in their past. Besides Alastair Campbell was good at his job; that doesn't stop him from being a total cunt now, does it?

And because someone was sacked for drug and alcohol problems doesn't mean that they can't tell the truth. Indeed, whistle-blowers are often those who feel betrayed - rightly or wrongly - by the organisations they report on. Take John Dean for example - he was fired by Nixon, and grew to have a grudge against that administration. However, that doesn't mean his testimony was any less truthful because of that grudge.

They all want Coulson's scalp. Well, sod 'em.

Of course they want Coulson's scalp - just as Tories love to get the scalps of Labourites. This is basic politics. And it works both ways, as Dale full well knows.

The Police investigated this and found that Coulson had nothing to answer for. So did the DCMS Select Committee. Clearly that's not good enough for Campbell and Prescott - those very models of good media practice and personal conduct.

And here we have the rub; the police did investigate, but it appears that investigation was - at best - flawed. So citing a flawed investigation in order to absolve a man who had to resign over the conduct of one his employees just isn't that credible, really.

Anyway, this story isn't just about Coulson - it is about the Met's collusion with the News of the World in order to stop a police investigation into criminal activity. That's why citing the previous investigation is pointless nonsense - the story is about the flaws of that investigation.

Whatever people thought of Andy Coulson's appointment back in 2006, over the last four years he has proved himself in the job. He's bloody good at it.

Again, so? Blair was good at his job - does that mean we should absolve him of all of the things he did wrong? No, of course not. But then Blair's Labour, and Coulson's a Tory. So Coulson is allowed, in the tribalistic view of Iain Dale, to get away with things that a Labourite should be condemned for.

His accusers are political opportunists who were part of a government which did far worse things than anything Coulson is accused of.

Yeah, but even if you accept that Coulson's detractors have done bad things that are worse than what Coulson is accused of, it doesn't mean that these potential crimes shouldn't be properly investigated. By that logic, we shouldn't expect the police to investigate burglaries because there are murderers out there.

As far as I am concerned they can go to hell. Coulson is innocent until proven guilty.

Unfortunately, with Met apparently colluding with the News of the World, it is impossible for Coulson to prove himself innocent, just as those wanting to prove him guilty can't do so either. This is the problem - if there isn't a thorough investigation, then we will never know what happened.

Dale has lost himself, and his grip on logic, in the fact that some Labour types have been calling for the resignation of a Tory. That isn't the point, and it isn't the story. The issue is that the police may have colluded with a newspaper to hide the truth. It isn't a party political issue; it is an issue about the impartiality of the police force. It is a broad story with wide implications. Getting your panties in a twist about the involvement of Coulson is to miss the point.

Besides, does anyone doubt for a second that if this story was about the potentially criminal activity of a Labour party member then Dale would be demanding action, investigations and resignations?

Morrissey the Racist

Morrissey talking shite - and not for the first time:

"Did you see the thing on the news about their treatment of animals and animal welfare?" he said. "Absolutely horrific. You can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies."

It is always fun when Morrissey says something like this because many of his fans start to make excuses for him, and try to dress up what he's said because he happens to make music they like. Unfortunately, I can't do that. As much as I like the Smiths and some of Morrissey's solo stuff, there's not way of hiding that his comments are pure racism; the malign blathering of a man who cares more about animals than he does humans, and is prepared to make broad sweeping assertions about an entire people based on nothing more than ignorance.

Morrissey; talented singer songwriter. Morrissey; ignorant racist.

Blair Welcomed in Dublin

Got to love the Irish:



Just a shame they didn't hit their target.

Pay Gordon to work for free

Gordo’s doing charity work. And he’s keen to highlight that he’s doing it for free:

“Each of these positions are pro bono and Mr Brown will not accept any remuneration. He will continue to write on global issues, as he has been doing recently with articles on the desperate plight of those in Pakistan and Niger."

The narrative is as obvious as it is tedious; good ol’ Gordon is doing charity work for free, while evil Tony charges for his post Prime Ministerial work. What a shit, eh? Just as well Gordon is around to be genuinely charitable.

Except, that’s not quite the case when you think about it. Sure, Gordon may be doing his charity work for free, but it’s not like he doesn’t have a healthy income. After all, he is still an MP, although not that you would know it given his criminal lack of attendance and therefore neglect of his constituents since he lost the election. So Gordon may be doing charity work, but he’s doing it at the taxpayer’s expense while ignoring the job he was actually elected to do. So you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t praise him too much, or think that he’s in some way better than Blair – who, while be may be raking it in now, at least isn’t an MP anymore.

That’s Gordon Brown – even as he works for free he still expects you to pay for it.

The "Successes" of Tony Blair

As Blair once again prances around in the limelight like a two year old looking for attention, those old rose-tinted glasses have come on for some. For there are those in the Labour movement, probably still in shock that they were booted from office earlier in the year, who look to Blair and remember that he managed to do one thing that his successor (and many of his predecessors) failed to do - he could win elections. Three of them, in fact. Making him - for some - the most successful Labour leader of all time.

But let's interrogate this idea a little more. How successful was Blair actually? He won three election victories, sure - the first one against a Conservative party more hideously unpopular than it had ever been before in its history, the second against a Conservative party broken by the electoral drubbing they got in '97, and the third one was a much less convincing victory against a Conservative party only just starting to recover. Furthermore, the local election results of the final Blair years don't show a popular leader at the peak of his powers; they show quite the opposite. Had Blair fought the 2010 General Election, he'd have lost.

So yeah, three election victories - impressive, but not as impressive as it might first appear. I suppose Blair looks good compared to other Labour leaders and their electoral performances. Take Kinnock - fought 2, lost 2. Foot - fought 1, lost 1. Callaghan - fought 1, lost 1. With this in mind, the norm for a Labour leader is Brown rather than Blair; of course he looks good by comparison. In fact, since World War Two, only two other Labour leaders have been able to win general elections (compared to seven for the Tories); Attlee and Wilson. Yet Wilson actually did better than Blair, if winning elections is the key qualification for success as a Labour leader. He won in 1964, 1966 and managed to scrape into government in both of the elections in 1974. By this logic, Wilson should be the example the Labour party should follow, not Blair.

Furthermore, those in the Labour party wishing to venerate Blair for winning elections should remember precisely how he did it. It wasn't through being a crusading politician, winning people to his cause through brilliant oratory and ideological commitment. No, he won power by stripping his party of any real ideology and instead selling a bland empty shell of a party to a country that just wanted the Tories out. Blair made Labour non-threatening for some, but in doing so he also made it practically worthless.

So, yeah, wear your rose-tinted glasses and praise Blair 'til you're blue in the face. But his only real success was replacing a moribund Tory government with an empty facsimile of the Labour party. Which is hardly the blueprint for a brave new Labour party now, is it? Honest to God, winning elections is not the be all and end all of politics - particularly not if a grinning homunculus has to sell the soul of your party in order to achieve it.