Library Cuts

Leave the libraries alone. You don’t know the value of what you’re looking after. It is too precious to destroy.

So Philip Pullman ends his furious polemic against those who would dare to close public libraries. It is a great piece of writing; unfortunately it also pretty much completely wrong as far as I am concerned. In fact, I’m with Charlotte Gore on this one; our libraries are not all as great as the likes of Pullman make them out to be.

There seems to be a great tendency for people in this country to see institutions like public libraries (and other institutions like the NHS) as good things simply because the intentions behind them are good. The reality – once we remove our rose-tinted glasses and look at what libraries are actually like – is that the quality of the institutions concerned vary massively. I know there are some good libraries out there that manage to do more than simply loan the public books (which is itself an honourable thing to be doing) – they provide communication services and a real interface between the public and often very bureaucratic and monolithic local governments. Yet other libraries are decrepit old institutions – a throwback to a different age, and as a result dated in every conceivable way. And at a time of austerity – when there is no longer any slack in the system – something will have to give. So why not get rid of the poor libraries?

Except there is no need to get rid of anything; we need to more away from the belief that institutions like libraries and hospitals are only legitimate if they are funded and owned by the government. This is something that Pullman doesn’t seem to get – libraries can exist in the private sector; there is no reason why communities cannot come together to save – and dramatically improve – a library if they so wish. The state is not the sole supplier possible for the community; the community itself can provide what it feels it wants and needs.

We need to accept the reality that the government cannot afford to continue spending in the way it has been. We also need to accept that this can actually be quite a good thing, since we shouldn’t need the government to hand us everything it thinks we need on a (generally poorly maintained) plate.

Of course, the government could help achieve this by giving the people the people more flexibility – perhaps by reducing the tax burden. Indeed, this is where the Big Society fails for me (and where Pullman is partially right); it is all very well to ask communities to take more responsibility for running and funding certain services, but it is problematic when we still have to pay so much in tax. But that’s an aside; you want to save your local library from the axe, then start working with people in your community to save it. And losing yourself in the sort of romantic nostalgia like Pullman isn’t going to help you or your cause.

Sweet Jesus, what fresh hell is this?

Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is to make a documentary about the pornography industry for the BBC.

Mrs Smith resigned from her cabinet post after it was revealed she claimed expenses for two pay-per-view porn films watched by her husband.

Right, so Jacqui Smith - an abject failure as a politician - is (presumably) being paid by a public funded body to make a documentary about porn? What precisely is her qualification for this role? Oh, I know, the fact that she charged some of her husband's wank material to the British taxpayer. Just as well she didn't kill someone, or the BBC would be paying her to make a film about murder.

I know dignity and Nu Labour politicians are two concepts that will never exist together in the same room, but honest to fucking God, is it too much to ask that cretins like Smith just fuck off out of the limelight when they are justly turfed out of the corridors of power?

An Open Letter to Recruitment Consultants

Dear Recruitment Consultants of the World,

I know you have to work hard in order to make your job adverts stand out from the crowd, and sometimes a quirky title can help to achieve that. But, as a professionally qualified candidate, I do feel I should warn you that, more often than not, a quirky advert title makes you stand out for all the wrong reasons.

For example, IMMEDIATE START!!! is useless, because it tells me nothing about the job, other than it starts immediately. Of course, it could be the perfect job for me, or it could be flipping burgers in a fast-food restaurant. The point is I don’t know, and when other recruiters actually take the time to tell me what they are advertising, the chances are I am going to click on their adverts rather than your one. The same goes for DO YOU HATE YOUR CURRENT JOB!?! Well, yes, thanks for asking; but there’s nothing in your advert title to make me think that I might like the job you’ve got on any more than my current one. Likewise, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE FUN AT WORK AGAIN? as a title will get the answer “yes”, but still tells me precisely nothing about what the job is. My idea of fun may be very different from your idea of fun, and I’m reluctant to waste valuable seconds of my life clicking on your job advert to compare our differing conceptions of having a good time at work.

My point is this; if you want to someone like me to click on one of your adverts, then I need to see what the job title is. If there is no indication of what the job is, then I’m going to wonder why. And I’m going to wonder what is so bad about the role you’re recruiting for that you have to hide it behind a banal, sorry quirky, ad title. Put simply, these sort of shit titles might work well if you’re looking for slack-jawed chuggers to financially molest people on the streets of Britain, but for any job with just a little bit more professionalism and to attract candidates who conduct themselves with just a little bit more dignity than the chugging scum, you need to come up with an ad title that is more professional and more informative.

Best,
The Nameless Libertarian.

On Andy Gray

I don’t do sports. Seriously, I have no interest in sport whatsoever. Sky Sports means nothing to me, other than when I see a pub has Sky Sports I end up thinking that I should go elsewhere. Therefore, the name Andy Gray meant nothing to me, and I had to get someone to explain what all the palaver was about.

The furore has already been well documented and commented on; indeed, this is one of those times where further comment does, at least at first, appear to be superfluous. Personally, Gray comes across as a boorish, sexist oaf and to see him take a bit of a kicking for his attitudes is something I’m pretty comfortable with.

But I do think that there is something naïve about the way in which Gray has been singled out, because if anyone thinks that he is some sort of strange aberration – a unique specimen of Neanderthal misogynist man – then they’re mistaken. It is probably an exaggeration to say that sexism remains the norm rather than the exception in British workplaces, but Gray’s behaviour will be recognisable to many people. So this sort of ritual blood-letting – this hanging out of one (admittedly very culpable) man to dry – may make us feel better, but we shouldn’t deceive ourselves by thinking that sexism and misogyny (as well as general discrimination, which even "feminists" such as Laurie Penny buy into) are uncommon in the UK today. Gray’s an oaf; but he’s not alone in his oafishness.

You know the old quip about how government's will tax everything? Well, here's Julia Gillard and her new tax - a flood tax.

Jesus.

The latest "negative growth"

So, the economy didn’t grow over Christmas. Crazy, eh? Anyone would think that people have less money to spend or something.

Guido makes the point that tax rises at this point may not be a fantastic idea, and I’m inclined to agree with him. In fact, I’d go the whole hog and advocate tax cuts as a way to invigorate the economy. Austerity is all well and good, but the nation will justly feel pretty pessimistic if it ends up paying the same level of (or more) tax for fewer services. Give the people a break; give them some of their money back.

Of course, there is some validity in the claim that the poor weather contributed to the poor results for the last quarter. Certainly, the fact that several days (and longer for some areas) in the key weeks leading up top Christmas were lost through the snow impacted on spending levels. After all, if you can’t reach the shops, you can’t spend – and not everyone has quite got around to the idea of Christmas shopping via the interwebs yet.

But really, this shouldn’t be an excuse that the government can use with any degree of conviction. There was terrible weather in December 2009; it impacted on the economy. So why, oh why, would the government not do any sort of contingency planning for precisely this sort of poor weather? Likewise, why did bus companies not invest in some snow tires? Why weren’t the rail companies putting in place emergency snowfall plans? The poor high-street retailers were largely fucked by the fact that the infrastructure was not able to cope with the utterly predictable event of snow in winter.

So the dip in the figures for the last quarter may not be entirely down to the government’s economic policy; but leading the way by doing all it can to keep our infrastructure going in the pretty much guaranteed event of poor weather in December is an area of policy in which they can, and must, do far better.

On Lord Taylor

"Lord" Taylor's barrister:

"He is not motivated by money. He is a humble man, a gentle and honest man, with a clear moral compass. He is not a man with a silver spoon in his mouth."

He may be humble, he could be gentle, and he may not have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but he most certainly is not honest and he does not possess a moral compass. If he was honest and he did have such a compass, he wouldn't now be facing sentencing as a convicted fraudster. And I don't care how many good deeds he may have done; he has been convicted for what he did wrong, and that is what he deserves to be punished. And people who are convicted of fraud do tend to, at least on some levels, be motivated by money. Otherwise they wouldn't steal the fucking stuff.

He's a crook; he may be a well-meaning crook, but he is still a crook. And he deserves whatever punishment the court gives him.

The Boredom of Modern Politics

See, there's a problem with being a political blogger at the moment. And it is this; currently, politics is just plain boring. We have a government that, despite all the predictions to the contrary, is functioning reasonably well (in terms of being united) despite being a coalition. And they don't do a great deal either; sure, we get the occasional, irritating nudge, but the Nu Labour days - when the announcement of illiberal and poorly thought through policy was a weekly, or even daily, event. There was far more to tear into under Nu Labour; the relatively cautious coalition needs to do more to increase the sum total of freedom in our society, but because they aren't proactively attacking it as much as Labour, it is difficult to truly get wound up by them.

And the opposition? They're a broken record of unconvincing and unrealistic opposition to spending cuts. There is nothing to inspire in Miliband Minor's leadership or his party - nothing to inspire hope or rage. There's just the reassuring thought that his lot are out of power and likely to remain so for a while that's worth commenting on.

And what of the resignations? I don't give a fuck about Coulson anymore; he's resignation has been the most anticipated event since the Queen Mum's death. And Alan Johnson resigning for personal reasons is a bit of a nothing as well; firstly, he wasn't up to the job and secondly as a person, he may well have personal reasons that restrict him from doing a very high-profile public role such as Shadow Chancellor. Even the resignations are boring at the moment.

Consequently, coming up with daily blogposts about politics is challenging at the moment. There is, quite simply, not a lot happening - or at least not a lot happening that is worth commenting on. Which is why posting on here may become erratic once again in the near future...

On e-mailing me

Yes, you can e-mail me; I don't mind people doing so, particularly if they have something interesting to say or share. But after a couple of irritating encounters with irritating people, I thought I would clarify a couple of things:

1. I don't check my blogging e-mail account everyday, which means if you do e-mail me you might have to wait a few days before I get back to you. If I get back to you at all. See, just because you choose to e-mail me doesn't mean you will get a reply. Particularly if you fail to say anything of any interest whatsoever in your e-mail. Or if you just fill your missive with insults. And especially if you resort to both.
2. You may wish to send me products to review, or websites you might want me to link to. But the fact that you do so doesn't mean that I will give a crap about your website or what you are hawking. This is not something I do to earn money, and I never proactively seek attention for my blog. Therefore I do not feel obliged to give you or what you produce a leg-up using my blog. The rule of thumb is simple; if I like what you do, I might link to it. But there are no guarantees, and there's no right to have your whining acknowledged by me.

Parish note over, folks. Let's get back to the obscure ramblings that define this blog.

Quote of the Day

But to manipulate men, to propel them towards goals which you — the social reformer — see, but they may not, is to deny their human essence, to treat them as objects without wills of their own, and therefore to degrade them.

Isaiah Berlin

The Guardian on Coulson

Of course, The Guardian was going to milk the Coulson resignation for all it was worth; it is what they do as basic Labour propagandists. There is something faintly humorous in the fact that a story that broke yesterday is still at the top of their website, while the breaking news of Brian Cowen's resignation is at Number Three. What also amuses me is that their current story is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy - the story will continue to run and run, the paper says - at the same time as making it run and run by giving it a level of attention that it frankly does not deserve.

But what is the true icing on the cake for me is the fact that the paper is so desperate to breathe further life into the story that they are quoting one Alistair Campbell. Yes, that Alistair Campbell - he of the dodgy dossier fame, and the apparent inspiration for Malcom Tucker. Campbell should know about scandal; what he managed to "achieve" while doing communications at Number 10 far exceed anything Coulson did, or is likely to do in the whole course of his life. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Coulson would have to start a war in order to be as damaging as Campbell.

No doubt The Guardian will continue to run with this story until there is nothing left other than constant repetition of what is already known and what no-one cares about anymore. Hell, the world could end tomorrow and they would still be banging on about how this looks bad for Cameron. It's what they do, and it also why their paper is often so tedious and struggles to make any real money these days.

Why Ed Balls Should Be Labour Leader

In a sense, the last Labour government ended too soon. Not for the country - there is no way we could have afforded any more "leadership" from Gordon Brown. But for the Labour party itself, the fact that their last government ended before they were utterly discredited by having to make the same sort of cuts that they lambast the Tories for - and the fact that our warped electoral system meant that their disastrous showing at the last election didn't completely consign them to electoral oblivion - means that many think that their project was not wrong; it was just curtailed before the benefits could truly be seen. Consequently, the party is not ready to accept the implications of its defeat, and as a result undertake the sort of ideological change needed to make them once again capable of winning, and performing less than abysmally in, government.

Ed Miliband isn't the right man to show them this. A slightly chippy little prig, he has all the charisma of a depressed garden gnome. When the party loses the next election, its members will assume it is because Miliband Minor was leader, and actually they needed someone with just an iota of charisma and a little bit of fight in them to actually take on Cameron. As such, it will miss the point that its policies are just as atrocious as its leader. The Labour party has come to represent in political form the old truism that the very definition of madness is to keep doing the same thing while hoping for a different result.

Thus, the Labour party needs a more capable leader - or at least one able to do the opposing bit inherent in being leader of the opposition. Miliband can't do it; he's a black hole into which anything of any interest is sucked and lost forever. There is one man up for the challenge, though. One man ruthless enough to have forced himself to the very top of Labour party politics, despite having the personality of a smug, rabid skunk. Yes, this is the time for Ed Balls. He needs to be Labour leader.

Of course, he wouldn't change the party's course - he's as bought into Brown's plans as anyone, not least because he was Brown's henchman for so many years and helped to create those plans in the first place. And the people aren't going to warm to Ed Balls either, in the same way as no-one really warms to the angry man in the bar who is just looking to kick someone's head in for fun. But what Balls would be able to do - rather like Howard did for the Tories when he became their leader - is oppose. Balls would fight Cameron. He would fight the coalition. He would marshall his not inconsiderable talents at being a massive arsehole towards his opponents, and make life tough for the Con-Dems in a way that Miliband Minor seems utterly incapable of achieving. And when he lost the next election the Labour party would have no choice but to accept that their defeat wasn't just down to the failure to oppose; they would have to see that the policies they use to oppose the coalition were as much to blame as their choice of leader.

So this is Ed's time to shine - in as much as such a person is ever capable of actually shining. But I doubt whether Ed will ever become Labour leader. I rather think he is the Michael Hesletine of his generation and party; a high-profile, clear contender for the leadership of his party with only one fatal flaw - that the people in his party don't really like him, so aren't going to make him leader. Yet the Labour party could do far worse than Balls. Hell, they have done far worse through their choice of their current leader.

Doctor Who - Meglos

For many years the most recent Doctor Who DVD release Meglos was a sort of Doctor Who Holy Grail for me; it wasn’t available on video, few people wrote about it, few people commented on it. What was this oddly neglected story actually like? Was it a hidden classic, just waiting to be found?

Quite simply, the answer is no. Unfortunately, it is just a bit shit.

It has one of those scripts that badly needs editing and rewriting; it feels like a first draft from a couple of writers who didn’t care much about the show or the quality of what they were producing. It is filled with padding, with endless info dumps and little to reward the discerning viewer. Mind you, the script isn’t helped by the production values that just exude a sense of “that’ll have to do”. The alien planets come across as a sort of clichéd take on Doctor Who - more for a lazy satire of the show that an actual story. And not for the first or the last time, we can tell that we’re dealing with aliens because they have stupid hats.

Upsides to the story? Well, Baker isn’t bad in the lead role, and Jacqueline Hill makes a welcome return to the show years after playing one of the first companions. Plus, the cactus people transformations are quite effective. But that’s it. And that’s not a lot for 4 episodes of TV. Mind you, even if this was on the verge of being a classic, having a villain who (at least initially) is a pot plant is always going to undermine the story somewhat.

There was some talk of bringing Meglos back as the villain in last year’s The Lodger. Thank God they didn’t – it would have pushed a comedic episode into the realms of absolute farce. The sad truth is that Meglos isn’t a lost classic waiting to be rediscovered. It’s a vapid story that is instantly forgettable – which is just as well, because this story heartily deserves to be forgotten about.

Exit Johnson, Stage Right

Far be it from me to speculate on something I don't know the details of, but I can't help but think that there is something behind Alan Johnson's decision to quit as Shadow Chancellor. The phrase "personal reasons" is almost beyond parody; it means nothing and everything simultaneously. It is pretty much calling out to the press to investigate - and speculate - further.

Of course, it might all be down to personal reasons. It might be that Johnson does want to spend more time with his family. It might be that there is a scandal brewing - something in his private life that prevented him from running for Labour leader and from challenging Brown went it might have made a difference to Labour's chances at the 2010 election. Or it might be - and this is what I suspect is the truth - that Johnson just thinks Ed Miliband is a massive twat that he simply cannot work with.

And coming so soon after David Miliband - Ed's own brother for fuck's sake - decided the backbenches are better than the Shadow Cabinet, this can't be anything other than an indictment of the leadership of Miliband Minor. Either his judgement is flawed in making Johnson his Shadow Chancellor or he is such an arse that a generally genial figure like Johnson cannot work with him.

What happens next is difficult to predict - although it will probably be nothing. At least not in the near future. But with the government following austerity policies and the Lib Dems about as popular as chlamydia, Miliband Minor should be riding the crest of a wave. As things stand, he is unable to get those closest to him to work with him/continue to work with him. This doesn't feel like a politician at the height of his powers; this feels like a leader unable to lead. And having endured a similar sort of leader in the form of Gordon Brown for several years, I can't help but wonder how long Miliband has left to show his own party that he is different in style and capability from the man who was his mentor.

The Coalition's Progress

The coalition came to power promising a new politics; a common enough aspiration, and it is easy enough to understand why the Con-Dems would want to distinguish themselves from the completely compromised failure that was the Brown administration. But, as Obama has so clearly demonstrated in the US, it is far easier to talk about change in politics than to actually implement it. So how have the Con-Dems got on thus far?

In terms of spending cuts, they’ve obviously made a start – although the caveat about a reduction in future spending not being the same as an actual cut in spending is ever present and ever relevant. However, where the Con-Dems have completely failed is in the battle to dominate the discourse when it comes to spending “cuts”. Rather than making the case for spending cuts, and thus reducing the size of the state, they have treated cuts as something nasty that they are being forced to do. A bit of empty, half-hearted rhetoric about the Big Society is not enough to make the case for a smaller state and a freer, but more responsible, populace. Plus, the Con-Dems have completely failed to punish Labour enough for making these cuts inevitable. Every time Ed Miliband opens his stupid mouth to spout spurious nonsense about the “cuts”, the coalition should be responding with “well you and your party caused them!” There is an opportunity here to keep Labour out of power for a generation, but that will only happen if people truly understand the cost of Labour’s incompetence during their thirteen years of misrule.

The coalition has also made a small start with civil liberties. It is great that the ID card scheme has been scrapped, but that is simply a reversal of one of Labour’s most egregious attacks on our civil liberties. It is not the start of a genuine move towards a freer society in any meaningful way. And the much vaunted commitment to civil liberties from the coalition is not materialising in terms of practical politics. The state can still spy on us to a massive extent; landlords are not allowed to decide whether to allow smoking on their premises or not; protest is still draconically policed; we are all still “nudged” towards the sort of behaviour the state wants from us. If there is a distinction between the coalition and the last Labour government, then it is in a commitment to paternalism rather than overt coercion. Thus, we’re in a better state of affairs than we were under Blair and Brown, but there is still a hell of a long way to go.

The area where the coalition has had its most success is in maintaining what is a fragile and unlikely union between two different parties. Sure, there have been grumblings – particularly from the Lib Dem contingent, but generally speaking the coalition has defied cynics and managed to hold itself together, even through deeply divisive issues such as the rise in tuition fees. It is well within the realms of reality to now predict that the coalition will serve a full five years in office – something that, on paper, never really appeared possible even in the first flush of the new political union last May.

But this is somewhat depressing; the most effective the coalition has been, according to this analysis, is in clinging onto the reigns of power. In other words, by acting for itself. The self-interest that has dominated so much of recent political history is present and correct in the “new politics”, rather sadly. And the progress of the coalition thus has not been impressive; at the moment, the very best that they can claim is that they haven’t been as bad as Labour. But if they genuinely what to do something new, and create a decisive break with the past, then they have to spell out a decisive vision for a smaller state and at the same time turn their rhetoric in civil liberties into something meaningful and practical. Forget the Big Society; the coalition can be genuinely ground-breaking if it speeds up the pace of change and gives us a free society instead of the status quo.

On Laurie Penny

The fact that Laurie Penny has managed to make a complete hash of searching for an admin assistant to help with her book should not come as a surprise to anyone who has read her writings on a regular basis; of course she was going to be sexist and hypocritical about it – that’s what she does. I’ve not great desire to rehash the arguments about how idiotic she’s been. I do, however, have two questions:

1. Laurie, if you can’t afford to pay someone a living wage in order to do your grunt work, then why can’t you just do it for yourself?

2. Who the hell would pay good money to get Laurie Penny to put a book together?

British Sea Power: Valhalla Dancehall

It is very easy to have released the record of the year (so far) when we are only in January. And make no mistake about it, British Sea Power have managed that. The thing is, they may also have the record of the year when we reach December as well. Because, and make no mistake about this, Valhalla Dancehall is a great album. In fact, it is pretty fucking fan-fucking-tastic.

The tendency thus far in BSP's career has been for them to open with a mood piece - a piece of music or a song to set out the stall for their album ("It Ended On An Oily Stage" being the honourable exception. Not so Valhalla Dancehall. The opening song is BSP at perhaps their most political; it is an angry song that laments the fact the protesting on a Saturday night isn't considered cool. It very much taps into the protesting zeitgeist - intentionally or otherwise - and as such is precisely the sort of song that Manic Street Preachers should be writing these days, but (sadly) they aren't. And from there, we have a mix of both the normal BSP songs yet a more confident band and therefore a more compelling final product. It all culminates in "Heavy Water" - a song that combines the best of Pulp and Echo and the Bunnymen in their respective primes, yet still retains a distinctly BSP flavour to it. And by the time that rolls around for the first time, you know that you have heard something good. But the best thing is that you know you will have to go back to it and listen to it again to fully appreciate it. And that's when it starts to get even better.

Confidence is probably the watchword here; this is a band who know that people will listen to their record, and as a result don't feel the need to chase popularity (a problem with Open Season, perhaps) but instead can focus on making their songs as strong as possible. Plus, the lyrical dexterity - what other band could have a protest song that involve the lyrics "I'm a big fan of the local library/I just read a book/But that's another story" or have a lead single that talks about the nature of celebrity in part through acronyms ("Your VPL in the SUV")? Even the refugee songs from last year's slightly lacklustre Zeus EP fit in well here. It sounds like a complete musical project.

Of course, BSP are not for everyone, and if you prefer less cerebral and less obscure indie music, then this will not be for you. But as far as I am concerned, this is a document of a band at the very height of their powers. A clever, witty, moving and anthemic record; and it may just end up being your record of the year, even if you buy it right now.

Elsewhere...

I've a post up over at The Liberty Cabal about the tyranny of the minority. Go have a read. You may as well. It's all you're getting from me today...

Photo of the Day

Via Awkward Ed Miliband Moments, this gem of a photo from Miliband Minor's earlier years:

Ignore Ed Balls looking like a thug in a bad wig for a moment, and instead focus on Miliband Minor. He looks like an extra from Revenge of the Nerds. Or maybe he's auditioning to play Adrian Mole. Still, we can't claim that age has improved his looks; nowadays, he's lost the nerdy quality and instead come to resemble an angry looking potato...

The Liberal Democrat's Perpetual Crisis

So Labour's won a by-election. Fuck-a-doodle-doo. It's only a seat that they've had since 1997 - which is also the year when this particular constituency was created. Honestly, you crazy labour types - you're going to have to do better than this at the next General Election if you want to win back Number 10.

But what amuses me is the Lib Dem response to this by-election defeat (man alive, Elwyn Watkins must be massively tired and hacked off by now). We have had Nick Clegg attempting to achieve great new things in the realm of platitudes by noting that "it's a challenging time for Liberal Democrats". Well yes, yes it is. For the first time ever, you have political power. And it hasn't been as easy as it looked to be when you were carping from the sidelines, eh?

But then again, when haven't the Lib Dems been facing challenging times? The drop in support owing to their coalition with the Tories is only the latest in a long line of crises. In fact, since the Ginger Drunk resigned, they've had nothing but crisis after crisis. There was the post-Kennedy leadership debacle contest that ended with the election of the least charismatic man in history as Lib Dem leader. The fall of Ming the Merciful so soon after his election allowed the party to choose Nick Clegg as their new leader. And, lest we forget, Clegg said and did nothing as Lib Dem leader until he was allowed to debate with the big boys (well, both Brown and Cameron are a little portly) on TV. And as a result, his party was lucky not to lose a large proportion of their seats at the last election; any chance of a breakthrough was simply hype.

Pretty much since the Ginger Drunk jumped on a populist bandwagon by (quite rightly, in retrospect) opposing the Iraq War, the Lib Dems have been in crisis. So these may be challenging times for Britain's perennial third party, but that is nothing new for that party. They've lurched from crisis to crisis for the past few years like a political version of Gordon Brittas; this election result is nothing more than business as usual for the ever amateurish Lib Dems.

Happy (belated, most probably) birthday to the Devil himself, who is six today (although I know he's older in real life). Here's to many more years of DK championing liberty...

Hating Gordon Brown

I’m always a bit surprised when I hear that people hate David Cameron. Sure, I think he is a vacuous chancer; an empty suit devoid of policies and convictions. And his larking around with huskies shortly after he became Tory leader remains, for me, the defining image of his leadership thus far; more interested in fashionable images that in real politics. I find him frustrating and lightweight – but I’m still surprised with the bile that some people feel towards him. Hate seems a bit strong when a certain level of eye-rolling and weariness is all Cameron needs. And I’m completely taken aback when people say they hate him more that Gordon Brown.

But then that begs the question – why do I despise Brown so much? Is he really that much worse than “Hug a Husky” Cameron?

Part of the reason for my Brown hatred is arrogance, I suppose. Don’t get me wrong, I think you have to be a little bit arrogant to want to become Prime Minister in the first place. If you aren’t convinced that you’re right, then why bother to put yourself in a position of power and claim that you know better than your fellow citizens? Cameron is arrogant, to be sure – as is Clegg and all the others who seek the highest of high office. Yet almost every politician I can think of wears their arrogance better than Gordon Brown. Not only is Brown certain that he’s right, but if you dare not to agree with him he’ll do everything in his power to bully and/or break you. He doesn’t just patronise those who don’t agree; he hates them and can’t help but let that hate ooze from every pore in his corpulent body.

But there is a far simpler reason why I hate Brown; he was (as predicted by so many, including his own colleagues) an absolute fucking disaster as PM. He screwed this country; he brought us to our knees economically and turned the drama of the recession into a financial apocalypse of a crisis. And he left us with nothing of any value from his years in Number 10; there is nothing to balance his financial failures against. Even a book like Brown At 10 - a tome desperate to appear balanced – cannot hide the fact that Brown basically had no successes as PM to his name, other than not being deposed by his cowardly, inept colleagues.

Of course, Cameron may yet prove to be just as disastrous, and I may grow to properly hate him too. But I suspect that he will struggle to match the arrogant incompetence that so defines Brown – and explains why I find him so utterly odious.

Iron Man 2

There’s a tendency to lump all superhero movies together into one genre. Let me just say that to do so is utter bollocks. Don’t believe me? Well, just compare Iron Man 2 with The Dark Knight. Both have superficial similarities; sequels to successful films, these feature millionaire superheroes fighting bad guys who in some way resemble corrupted versions of themselves. But in terms of tone and style, the two films could not be more different. The Dark Knight is a dark film about escalating violence, and takes on elements of a Greek tragedy. Iron Man 2 is a glib, tongue-in-cheek two hour soft-porn film for technophiles. It is also interesting to contrast the two central characters – Bruce Wayne behaves like a dick to hide his alter-ego and protect his friends and loved ones. Tony Stark, however, behaves like a dick because, basically, he’s a dick.

But enough of that comparison; let’s talk Iron Man 2. What’s it like? Well, it is as if Favreau and his production team decided that the template for Pierce Brosnan Bond movies was a winner, and decided to carry on that franchise using Tony Stark instead. Consequently, you get a fun, brash, silly film with an engaging but often irritating central character. Downey Jr clearly has fun in these movies, and who can blame him? It is just a chance for him to strut around pretending he is king of the world.

And don’t talk to me about darkness in the film. Yes, Stark has health problems and Stark gets drunk and behaves like a fool. But that’s hardly ground-breaking and gritty, is it? And yes, there is character development – if you can call it that. Pepper Potts (unconvincingly) changes from being completely wet in the first film to a brusque businesswoman who has almost a maternal attitude to Stark. Her transformation isn’t about developing her character; it’s about giving Stark some sort of a foil to point out how annoying he is.

Then there’s Mickey Rourke’s performance as Vanko. Sure, he’s intense, and he gives a restrained, subtle performance in a role just crying out to be camped up. But seriously, he’s in the wrong sort of film for that performance. His character, and his character’s family, run through every cliché possible of a Russian villain, and his character’s actions in the film (like attacking a Grand Prix, for fuck’s sake) are hardly the actions of a thoughtful man. Watching Rourke in this film is like watching a gourmet chef try to make a decent meal out of a Big Mac. It ain’t ever gonna happen.

No doubt there will be Iron Man 3 - and the franchise could run and run as long as Downey Jr (given every other actor in the series is immediately replaceable) is up for it and as long as people keep on watching. And yeah, this is enjoyable nonsense – which I pretty much think is exactly what the producers and directors wished to achieve. But I find it quite telling that throughout the film, the DVD I had from LoveFilm kept on skipping (which is happening a lot, actually. Come on, LoveFilm, sort it out). Yet despite missing several scenes and the dialogue that ended the film, I really didn’t feel I missed out. Which, I suppose, is both the benefit and the potential flaw of this film; they are the very definition of non-essential. And this may well cause the franchise problems when it starts to come up against real opposition at the Box Office.

How to win Come Dine With Me

Yes, I occasionally watch Come Dine With Me. Sure, it's often a bit ghastly and you end up thinking that you would never, ever want to have dinner with any of the contestants. Or even visit their home towns. But watching it is fascinating in some ways, and it is good TV to watch when you don't particularly want to use too much of your brain.

But if you do happen to watch it with even a little bit of your brain turned on, then you'll realise that the contestants often make the same stunningly stupid mistakes. So here it is; my guide of how to win Come Dine With Me. Or at least not lose it badly.

1. Don't go on the show if you are a fussy eater. Seriously, why would you? If you don't like fish, or vegetables, or something else that is almost certain to crop up in one of the menus at some point during the week, then you're not going to have a great time. This isn't a game for those who aren't open to trying new things, just as a sprinting race might not be the right contest for those who don't like running.

2. You're a guest at someone's dinner party, not a paying customer at someone's restaurant. That means that your host is entitled to conduct the dinner party in whatever way they see fit. Sure, you might not agree with them - and you can reflect that in the scoring - but for fuck's sake, don't bellyache about a Muslim host not giving you wine, or a vegetarian host not preparing meat for you. It is their dinner party, you are their guest; grin and bear it even if you don't like it.

3. When you're cooking your own meal, do as much preparation as possible in advance. You're going to be entertaining three to four other people in front of a film crew; in the evening, time will not be on your side. And as an FYI, preparation does not mean getting slaughtered in your own kitchen before the guests even arrive.

4. Cooking will be highly pressurised and there is a real potential for things to go wrong - therefore your Come Dine With Me meal is probably not the best time to try something new, or to go for something you've tried before and went wrong. Do something you know how to do; a well-prepared but safe meal will earn far more points than a badly cooked but adventurous disaster.

But there is one rule - one golden rule that cannot be broken if someone wishes to win this particular competition. And it is this: don't be a dick. This is a popularity contest, people will be voting on you as well as on your food. Therefore, coming across as arrogant, dismissive, boorish, oafish or any other way of winding people up the wrong way is not going to help you to win. In fact, quite the opposite is true; even if you cook the best meal in the world, you still won't win. The simple truth is that people aren't going to vote for dicks. Don't believe me? Just ask Gordon Brown...

Doctor Who - The Coming of the Terraphiles

I like Doctor Who - a revelation which will, I'm sure, not come as a surprise to any of my regular readers. I also have a sneaking affection for the novels of Michael Moorcock; he has an vivid imagination and a wonderful sense of irreverence that comes across strongly in his work. Therefore, when I heard that he was writing a Doctor Who novel, I knew that it would be something I'd be reading.

The Coming of the Terraphiles is, it is pretty safe to say, unique. You don't often get Who novels - or indeed stories - like this one. Part P. G. Wodehouse in space, part Harry Potter novel, part epic fantasy adventure, this is Doctor Who painted on a broad canvas. Certainly, the modern series has much more money than the old series had, but it could not come close to realising Moorcock's vision. Indeed, a multi-million pound movie also couldn't. It doesn't take a genius to work out why Moorcock is writing a book rather than an episode for the series. If they made The Coming of the Terraphiles on the TV, then the next three seasons would all involve the Doctor fighting the evil Shoebox people; there would be no money left at all. Forever.

There is another reason, of course, why this couldn't be part of the TV series - fundamentally, it jars with large swathes of what the new series has tried to achieve. For a lot of this adventure, whimsy is the driving force, combined with a certain whimsical sense of Britishness. There's a character called "Bingo", for heaven's sake. For a lot of the adventure, it reads like the writing of someone who is only vaguely aware of the programme, and doesn't really care for what he's seen. The Doctor and Amy are mercifully close to their onscreen versions, but they are also written in such a way that it is clear that the author prefers other characters in his book. I can imagine many fans of the show being mystified - and probably more than a little disappointed - by this tome.

That said, there is much to like about the book. Moorcock's irreverence is there, and it spreads to his treatment of the Doctor Who format. Sure, the modern TV series would not have a long sequence with the Doctor trying to smash nuts with a sledgehammer, but guess what? This isn't the TV series. It is an interpretation of a series that has been on air for nearly fifty years by a deeply idiosyncratic and justly well-regarded author. Anyone wanting contemporaneous fan fiction has come to the wrong place.

Plus, one of the benefits of Doctor Who is that it is such a broad format that you can tell almost any type of story within its format. Indeed, I found it quite fun to imagine other Doctors participating in this adventure - there can be little doubt, for example, that (the latter era of) Tom Baker's Doctor would fit right into any Moorcock created universe.

If I was to admit one meaningful criticism of the book, it is that it lacks a sense of menace throughout. Sure, the universe may well end if the Doctor doesn't find a particular Macguffin, but - given the circumstances - everyone is surprisingly relaxed about that. Yet the climax has the decency to be dramatic, and the final scenes actually manage to be quite moving.

So I'd recommend this book to any Doctor Who fan - but with the proviso that you have to be open to someone messing with the format and writing a different sort of a story that just happens to feature the Doctor and Amy. If that is too much for you, then I understand - but you'd be best off heading for one of the standard BBC novels, or just waiting for the new series to start later this year.

Chaytor; Guilty, sentenced

Of course, there's still some debate about MPs expenses, with a number of people - including intelligent people whose opinions I normally respect - arguing that there was nothing particularly wrong with those MPs who rinsed a system that was so clearly open to rinsing. To them I say "shite", but I accept that not everyone agrees with my view that anyone who uses the public purse to enrich themselves is a total cunt who, at the very least, is not fit to hold public office.

But surely not even those prepared to give those scummy MPs an easy ride could argue that this isn't very welcome. Chaytor's sentence is, in my not at all humble opinion, richly deserved. Not only did he commit fraud, but he chose to steal from the very people he was elected to represent. I couldn't give a flying fuck whether he's been left a broken man by all this - after all, what broke him was not a realisation that what he did was wrong, but rather being caught and punished for his wrongdoing. He's a thief; he deserves to be punished. Cue the old cliche - don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I fully expect there to a virulent outbreak of rage against Chaytor on the interweb, and no doubt someone right now is typing out the sentence "prison's too good for him". On that, I'd have to disagree. Prison is exactly right for him.

Hasta La Vista, Governator

As the good state of California bids (a fond?) farewell to the Governator, it is worth considering for a moment just what the gubernatorial career of the star of Kindergarten Cop means for modern politics. On one level, Arnie’s election, and tenure, in office seems to be a good example of the very worst of our celebrity obsessed culture. After all, does anyone really think that Arnie would have become governor had he not already been a celebrity? And does being a bodybuilder turned often rather wooden actor really qualify someone to be a leader for millions of people?

Yet, on balance, the man who decided it would be a good career move to make Junior actually turned out to be a pretty good choice for Governor. Sure, he didn't always treat his fellow politicians with absolute respect, and he often took a different path from the party in which he is nominally a member. Yet he was far more successful than his immediate predecessor, and managed – against the odds, and certainly against the weight of expectations – to become a credible politician in his own right. There can be little doubt that, if his nationality did not preclude it, that we would be looking forward to a presidential campaign from Arnie in 2012.

And that’s the way in which Arnie is such a good example of celebrities in politics; he simultaneously shows that celebrity can help you achieve high office, but that if you take that office seriously and surround yourself with decent advisors, that celebrity status should not predispose you to failure if you manage to win an election. Celebrities can be just as credible as politicians as those who dedicate their whole lives to the pursuit of political office.

So in a sense, I’m saying I don’t mind – or at least don’t automatically reject – celebrities aspiring to or entering high office. That said, it will be the death of our political system in this country if we ever elected a moron like David Beckham - taking a gamble on a celebrity is one thing; electing one who is clearly a massive tool would be quite another...

*Honestly, titles like that write themselves - particularly when I get to half-steal them from the BBC...

New Year Resolutions, Blogging Style

So, here’s some New Year Resolutions for this blog. They’re all achievable, I suppose, just so long as my natural indolence doesn’t get in the way:

1. Not to give up blogging. No matter what my workload is like. Nor even if every other blogger ever decides to give up (which, at the current rate of attrition, should happen by about August).

2. To write some decent posts for the Liberty Cabal. And I do mean decent, not the sort of dashed off shite that often gets dumped on here.

3. To blog in a timely way that allows my blogposts to be at least reasonably topical. Yeah, I’m aware of the irony of publishing such a resolution four days into the New Year, but that’s that whole indolence thing rearing its ugly head.

That’s it, really. Normal service on here will be resumed from tomorrow. Or as soon as I can be bothered…