Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself...

...and believe me, given the number of posts I've written about Laurie Penny, I've tried. But here is Bella Gerens dismissing Penny in a withering, yet wonderfully concise, way:

She is travelling an extremely well-trodden road bearing the placard of thoroughly-explored philosophies. And the destination, reached so many times before, has benefitted no one except the travellers themselves.

Awesome stuff. You really should read the whole thing.

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.

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.

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?

Brown On Immigration

Gordon Brown, calling for less debate on immigration:

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

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

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

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

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

More on Moir

Jan Moir, apologising (sort of) for that article:

Yet as the torrent of abuse continued, most of it anonymous, I also had thousands of supportive emails from readers and well-wishers, many of whom described themselves as 'the silent majority'. The outcry was not as one-sided as many imagine.

Their view, and mine, was that it was perfectly reasonable of me to comment upon the manner of Stephen Gately's death, even if there are those who think that his celebrity and sexuality make him untouchable.

Can it really be that we are becoming a society where no one can dare to question the circumstances or behaviour of a person who happens to be gay without being labelled a homophobe? If so, that is deeply troubling.

There is something wonderfully Nixonian about talk of "the silent majority." It is a way of saying you have oodles of support, without having to prove that people support you. Maybe Moir did get thousands of supportive e-mails - the naked homophobia of her article would certainly provoke a certain type of Daily Mail reader to write in to praise her. But readers of that rag holding ignorant opinions is nothing new. What was quite life-affirming about the response to her rant was that so many people were prepared to protest about the ignorance of her claims.

And as for Gately's sexuality and celebrity being the reason why people protested about Moir's comments, well, that's a little misleading, isn't it? The reasons why people protested included the fact that Moir was pruriently speculating on a very recently deceased person, using rumour and innuendo to fill in for the absence of fact. Gately's sexual orientation only became an issue because the tone of Moir's article - including her opinions on civil partnerships - was blatantly homophobic.

We are not in a position where someone cannot question a person's behaviour if that person is (or was) gay. However, Moir spread rumour and sleazy innuendo about a man who had very recently died without any facts to back up her assertions. That, in itself, is deeply troubling. It says a lot about Moir and the paper she writes for. And if Moir truly wants to avoid being classed as a homophobe, then she should avoid making homophobic comments. It wasn't the fact that she commented on the behaviour of a gay man that was so problematic; it was rather the fact that she judged a dead man and his bereaved partner as sleazy based on no facts whatsoever, and extrapolated from her made up factoids towards a negative judgment on other homosexual couples and on the concept of civil partnerships.

And I find it very telling that Moir's defence of her actions is to try to rewrite history and change what she said in the first place.

"Not Fit To Hold Office"

I struggle to feel too much sympathy for Sharon Shoesmith, despite her whining:

The former children’s services chief was left haunted by thoughts of suicide after losing her job over the Baby P tragedy.

Sharon Shoesmith is suffering post-traumatic stress, faces financial ruin and will never work again, the High Court in London was told today.

Note that she has felt suicidal over losing her job rather than the horrifying details of the Baby P tragedy.

Yep, she lost her job owing to the failings of others and because it was politically expedient for a head to roll. Yet she was in charge of the system that repeatedly intervened in the life of Baby P yet still failed to make any real difference. If the social services failed to make a difference in the life of that poor toddler, then it does rather beg the question of what the point of them actually is. Besides, responsibility means that you sometimes have to take the punishment for something you did not directly do yourself, but you had control over. The buck has to stop somewhere, and on this occasion, it stopped with Shoesmith.

Still, when I read a comment like this I can't help but raise my eyebrows:

Mr Balls had said in press conferences on several occasions that he judged Ms Shoesmith “not to be fit to hold office”.

Ed Balls claiming someone isn't fit to hold office? The most poisonous man in British Politics and close personal friend to the worst Prime Minister since Anthony Eden claiming someone isn't fit to hold office? Jesus, Shoesmith's case doesn't stand a chance. After all, if anyone should know - from personal experience - when someone isn't fit to hold office, it is Ed Balls...

On Polanski

Even though I have really tried, I can't help but notice all the kerfuffle about Roman Polanksi getting arrested. Normally, an elderly, confessed statutory rapist being arrested would be the cause of media satisfaction and endless articles talking about how justice has finally being done. Instead, Polanski's arrest has caused a whole host of protests from people who really should know better. The Filthy Smoker details some of those protests over at DK's place - and deals with them using his customary forensic, detailed counter-arguments (and sweary insults).

I've little to add, but this is my understanding of Polanski and his crime:

• He confessed to statutory rape
• He fled before he could be sentenced
• Therefore he has never been punished for his crimes
• He has made some popular and acclaimed films* both before and after confessing to statutory rape.

The fact that he committed his crime decades ago doesn't change the fact that he still admitted to it, and has yet to be punished for it. Had he not fled all those years ago, whatever punishment the court was going to give him would have been served long ago and he wouldn't now be facing his punishment as an old man. He chose to flee, and as a result he is suffering for it now. I struggle to feel anymore sympathy for Polanski than I did for Ronnie Biggs - another man who fled justice only to have to pay his debt to society as an old man.

Ultimately, this isn't about the talents of Roman Polanski. It is about justice. If justice is blind, then it should also be able to ignore someone's filmic canon. Polanski's status as an acclaimed film director is magnificently irrelevant; the issue here is his rape of a 13 year old girl. And he should be treated no differently to anyone else who raped a 13 year old girl.

*I've seen remarkably few of them. For what it is worth, I though Rosemary's Baby was pretty good. But not good enough to excuse the director of statutory rape.

Harman The Happy Warrior

Perhaps as some sort of obscure start to her campaign to be Brown's replacement, Harriet Harman has come out fighting against the Tories:

Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman has called the Conservatives "arrogant" for believing it is "their turn, their right to lead this country"

Well, it might be a bit arrogant but then again, what are the Tories to do? The polls show that they are heading towards a sound victory. Besides, I'd question Harman's analysis of the situation. Are the Tories really behaving arrogantly? I'd say they're managing to keep the smugness and sense of excited expectation of getting back into power after so long pretty well under wraps.

And if there has been a party who arrogantly waited to for their turn to assume power, then it would be a particular party way back in 1997. A party that Harman knows very well...

Could this be The Sun's idea of the best news story ever? I mean, it has got sex, lesbians and underage fornication all at the same time. No doubt it caused some sort of meltdown in an editorial meeting as the paper simultaneously wished to denounce this woman as a terrible paedo at the same time as wanting to get as many salacious details into their article as possible. It wouldn't surprise me if they considered one of those photo story articles that they use on their problem pages (you know the ones - they tend to involve a woman/women in their underwear for at least two frames out of three) before deciding that might just be a little too much, even for them.

The Whole Foods Debacle

John Mackey, the Chief Executive of Whole Foods Markets in the US of A, has landed his company in hot water over his comments about Obama's healthcare reforms.

In fairness, it does appear that Mr Mackey - who has made Gerald Ratner style comments in the past - does seem to be a bit tone-deaf when it comes to building strong relations with his customers. Certainly, the sort of people who shop in Whole Foods Markets are generally going to support Obama and shun articles quoting one Margaret Thatcher. Which is probably why they are all boycotting the already struggling chain and - horror of modern horrors - have formed a Facebook Group to slap Mackey and his business in the face.

Yet... Mackey has simply expressed his opinion. He hasn't made his opinion that of the whole chain, and he hasn't tried to force his opinion on anyone else. And, let's be honest, his brand has fuck all to do with healthcare anyway.

Which is where these protestors lose my sympathy. Sure, yeah, they have a right to express their opinions. Just as Mackey has a right to his. They are his customers; they buy stuff from him. They are under no obligation to adhere to or even listen to his political opinions. And vice versa. But the thing that really gets on my tits is the idea that these people are called and called themselves liberals, even though they campaign so hard against any opinion that isn't their own.

Liberals my arse. Petty little ideologues who need to get over themselves is a more accurate tag than liberals.

Phone Hacking... *Yawns*

Try as I might, I can't get too excited about this 'phone hacking scandal. Yeah, it seems to be seedy, shameful and distasteful. And as such, exactly in keeping with the News of the World. Besides, the 'phone tapping is against the law. So no doubt the police and the CPS will act, if there is grounds to do so. As the UK goes to hell in a handcart, I struggle to get too worked up on behalf of some politicians and celebrities who have had the New of the Screws invading their privacy. 

I'm also not that worried about Andy Coulson. I don't necessarily think he should resign - for what it is worth. These sins were committed before he became Cameron's media manager, unlike, say, the sins of one *Mister* McBride. But really, I don't care that much about who is Cameron's spin doctor. If Coulson has to seek alternative employment... well, it isn't going to make any real difference to me. 

Finally we have Prescott belly-aching about how he might have had his phone hacked. This is John Prescott - the man who was Deputy Prime Minister in one of the governments that worked so hard to erode the civil liberties of almost everyone in this country - and he has had his privacy invaded. Well, boo-fucking-hoo. Listen closely, Prezza. That is the world's smallest violin. And you can guess who it is playing for. 

Hazel Blears: "I'm a (Completely Undeserved) Survivor..."

The first of two posts about MPs' expenses today. Apologies if I'm boring anyone, but I'm not going to shut up about this. Mainly because that's kind of what the corrupt, corpulent fucks in the Commons want. 

Anyhoo, I read that the Labour Party's pet squirrel has survived a vote of no confidence within her local party. Which is fine, really. I guess now she goes forward to a vote of confidence from her whole constituency at the next election, when hopefully the people will vote to give her more time to spend with Alvin and the other chipmunks. 

But, this being Hazel Blears, contrition was never going to be on the agenda. And so this is how she responds to the news that she has been allowed to carry on by her local party:

"I also heard tonight from party members that events of a few weeks do not wipe out 30 years of a record in local and national politics, fighting and being a champion for some of the poorest people in our country."

Quite simply, I don't know where to start with this fuck awful, self-congratulatory bag of crap. So I'll start at the top. She says "a few weeks" - what she means is "a few weeks" of scandal. But what she fails to take into account is that actually, what caused the scandal is the years she spent beforehand on the fucking take. She wouldn't have had a bad few weeks had she not been rinsing the taxpayer for thousands for a far longer period of time. 

Also, out here in the real world, what you tend to find is that being exposed as a fraud does undo 30 years of a good reputation. You lose your job, you are put on trial, you are convicted, and maybe you even go to prison. Blears is detached from reality - as you might expect from someone who has spent 30 years in politics - but her survival of this no-confidence measure (and her refusal to stand down, unlike other MPs in her position) once again shows how there is one set of rules for MPs, and another set for everyone else. 

And what record does Blears have, anyway? She has been a relentless cheerleader for whoever is in Number 10, in the hope of progressing her career. But as soon as disloyalty might progress her career more, she turns round and knifes the Prime Minister she supported and helped to elect in the most public and embarrassing way possible, before elections that her party is destined to struggle in anyway. She undermined her leader, and her party, and helped them achieve a spectacular electoral kicking. Pretty awesome record there, then. Actually, perhaps the reason why she survived the no confidence motion was because her local party decided not to consider her record at all. 

Finally, fighter and champion for the poor. How, precisely? By working with Tony Blair, a man who gutted and ripped away any commitment to the poor Labour ever had? Or by working with Gordon Brown, with his policies like the abolition of the 10p tax allowance? And how does being on the take with the MPs' expenses help the fucking poor, anyway? Other than rubbing their noses in the fact that their elected representative truly lives a different sort of a life to the people she is supposed to speak up for.

The Labour movement has always been filled with hypocrites - with champagne socialists and other freeloaders - but Blears is amongst the worst. Those who voted for her yesterday made a massive mistake. They showed that it is not just the likes of Blears that is out of touch with the British people, but the Labour Party as a whole. 

Tony McNulty and the Adventure Of His Parents' Home

The cry went out again yesterday - from an MP, of course. The increasingly common cry of "I've done nothing wrong!" This time, the person protesting was Tony McNulty. The kind of person who could only become a Minister in the real fag end of a once popular government.

And what was McNulty's crime? Aside from being part of Gordon Brown's cabinet (a crime that really should warrant the death penalty) McNulty was claiming expenses on a second home - like so many other MPs. However, his parents were living at the second home. He claims that he was making considerable use of it, and therefore the expenses are justified. I made considerable use of my parents' home - mainly when I was growing up there - but that's different, of course. McNulty is an MP, and therefore should be allowed to fleece as much money as possible from the taxpayer through the immensely generous expenses system.

Which is the whole problem. For what it is worth, I don't think McNulty actually broke the rules - but I'm pretty fucking sure he knew he was taking the piss. But the rules are so outrageous, and so insulting to anyone who actually has to fund these fucking MPs, that not breaking the rules really isn't the point. The rules allow you to rinse the system for your own financial benefit. But just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should do it. The rules are a fucking outrage, they need changing.

In fairness McNulty acknowledges this:

"I have said these things need to be looked at," he said. "There are anomalies."

Wild applause for the man, please. For having the fucking gall to claim the very rules he is exploiting need to be changed. The concept of leading by example is utterly alien to McNulty. He is perfectly happy to call for changes to the rules, knowing that his fellow MPs will resist them for all they are worth, but until those rules change, he is more than happy to suck the public purse dry in return for the privilege of serving his constituents and acting as a Minister of the State.

There is nothing original in noting that an MP is a hypocritical wanker; yet time after time we get new examples of the absolute contempt they feel for everyone bar themselves.

Dealing With Those Who Appear To Be Drunk And Disorderly

The government sometimes (oh, ok, all the time) seems to forget that there are laws in this country to deal with the anti-social behaviour excessive consumption of alcohol can cause. Taxes, advertising restrictions and minimum prices be damned – they won’t make a blind bit of fucking difference to those who are behaving like arses because they have had too much to drink. The laws of the land are quite clear and offer protection to the public against alleged abusive drinkers.

Maybe there are some people in power who don’t understand what the laws are. So, to clarify, a person who appears to be inebriated can be refused any more alcohol. If that person reacts in a way that others find offensive and threatening, the police can be called and then the apparent drunk can be arrested and charged. Those charges can see the person brought to trial for their actions.

As happened in this case.

And if the Labour government really wants proof that the law can and is enforced they should talk to the defendant in this case. After all, she was a member of that government for eight years…

Banks, Government: Transparency for one, nothing for the other

Gordon Brown is calling for more transparency from the banks:

The prime minister has demanded that banks admit how many "toxic assets" they have on their balance sheets. Gordon Brown told the Financial Times the banks had to "come clean" about these bad debts so people could trust them again.

Uh-huh. This would be the same Gordon Brown who is heading up a government with precisely no intention of coming clean about their own expenses, let alone their own toxic assets. Although the latter could be embarrassing; imagine Gordon saying "yeah, we've got this massive toxic asset on our books. You may have heard of it. It is called the NHS." It would be nice to see the government here leading the banks by example, though. 

Although Gordon does have a point; if the banks do come clean then maybe people will trust them again. It is a measure of how delusional, intellectually stunted and emotionally retarded Brown is that he does not realise that the same thing applies to him and his cronies in the House of Commons. 

Smith and Stalinism

Jacqui Smith isn’t a Stalinist. Oh no. You can tell. Because she said so:

Ms Smith told BBC One's Andrew Marr programme: "There have been a lot of charges thrown around here - the idea that, you know, this is Stalinism, this is a police state. In my book, Stalinism and a police state happens when ministers direct and interfere with specific investigations that the police are carrying out.”

And you know what? She’s right. Stalinism is – in part – what happens when ministers get too involved with the actions of the police. However, sadly for Ms Smith’s argument, Stalinism is also what happens when the police arrest people for the crime of being an opposition politician.

I’ll concede that not everything is known about this case as yet and it is more than possible that more will emerge about Mr Green’s actions – it is possible that he did break the law in some way. But as it stands it looks a lot like Mr Green’s sole crime was being in opposition, and acting as opposition MPs have always acted.

If this was a one off, then I would be less worried about it. But the arrest of an opposition MP seems to be completely in keeping with how our government operates. This isn’t an isolated incident; it seems to be part of an ongoing campaign to reduce civil liberties and suppress debate in this country. We live in a country where you can be imprisoned for 28 days without charge, where you can be arrested for wearing a stupid mask on the streets, where protesting outside Parliament generates the sort of police presence that one might associate with a riot. The government has tried to emasculate Parliament, and is currently trying to put us all on a database, like commodities owned and controlled by the state.

So maybe Jacqui Smith didn’t behave in a Stalinist way over this one incident. But for those who love freedom and our civil liberties, Britain in 2008 is a depressing place to be. It isn’t the individual incidents that make me want to put my head in my hands in despair – Mr Green himself is not the best of MPs, and may yet be proved to have committed a crime. Rather, it is the overall impact that this most egregious of governments is having on the freedoms and civil liberties that have existed, in some cases, for centuries. Green’s arrest is a symptom of a disease within British democracy – and it is a disease that should be concerning everyone within this country.

Ruth Kelly, Former Minister

I was expecting that whilst I was away that I would miss out on a lot of high profile, crucial stories that practically demand the second hand opinions and mild swearing of this blog. I was completely wrong. Basically, whilst I was away, nothing really happened in the news.

Perhaps the biggest story for me as I trawl through what has happened over the past week and a half is the news that Ruth Kelly has stepped down from the Cabinet. And may I be the first to offer my heart felt congratulations. Her departure from British Politics is most welcome and a definite step forward.

My dislike for Kelly isn't based on the way she looks - although Lord knows she represents a stinging rebuke to all those who claim that modern politics is based on looks. Kelly dresses like a slightly stressed bag lady, and would not look out of place walking round a park, mumbling to herself about whatever incoherent thoughts go through the mind of a bag lady as they do their daily stroll around the park. She is also not the most attractive of people, resembling a Picasso rendering of those two upside down faced people from Everything But The Girl. But we can't just judge our politicians on how they look; I retain a sneaking fondness for William Hague, but will concede that he looks and sounds eminently punchable.

No, my dislike of Kelly comes from her religious views. Don't get me wrong, you can pretty much believe anything you like as far as I am concerned. That lizards rule the world, that the Holocaust didn't happen, that everything is at the whim of a temperamental invisible sky fairy - your beliefs may make you an absolute fucking idiot, but you can still have them if you like. Even if you are a member of the deeply conservative (which for the Catholic Church - arguably the most conservative organisation ever created - is really saying something) and, frankly, deeply strange Opus Dei.

The problem comes, though, if you are a member of a deeply strange Christian cult and are made Minister for Women and Equality. Because for a member of Opus Dei, equality is something dangerous and should be feared. After all, those who don't believe what you believe are wrong. Those who dare to have sexual relations (especially with members of the same gender) for any other reason that procreation, are evil and should be judged. Again, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong (if you wish to be an archaic moron) with holding these views - it only becomes an issue when your beliefs directly oppose your ministerial brief.

Now you could argue that it is not Kelly's fault for being made Equality Minsiter - that decision was made by Prime Minister Blair. I would argue, however, that it is her fault for accepting the role. What on earth stopped her from saying "actually, Tony, I've had a think and my religious views probably mean that equality will never be one of my priorities, so I will have to turn down the kind offer of being Minsiter for Equality"? Actually, I can take a guess at what stopped her - the Nu Labour obssessions with ministerial posts, ego boosts, and big salaries.

Which is why I am glad that Kelly has gone from the Cabinet - the decision to make her Minsiter for Equality sums up the contempt that Nu Labour seem to feel towards their ministerial roles. Kelly's beliefs made her unsuited to the position she held - fair enough, but it didn't stop her boss from putting her in charge of equality or from her accepting the role. Kelly can believe what she likes, but she shouldn't then be hypocritical enough to accept a ministerial job that flies in the face of her absurd religious beliefs.

But I'm calling for Nu Labourites not to hypocritical - the very definition of a waste of time. I'm going to do something more productive now, like build a perpetual motion machine or command the tide to turn back.

Benedict In America: "Deep Shame"

The Pope (resisting the temptation to put “Panzer” in front of his title) has been in the US, undermining our PM (hurray!) and generally being well received. He’s also started to acknowledge that Catholic Priests have been abusing children, and that child abuse is not a good thing. Yes, I know most people know this anyway, but given the standards of the previous pontiff this point needs clarification from Benedict XVI:

“The pontiff called the scandal a cause of "deep shame", and spoke of the "enormous pain" that communities have suffered from such "gravely immoral behaviour" by priests.”

This probably stops short of being the total condemnation of child abuse that most people would expect: priests using their positions of authority and responsibility to rape children of more than “gravely immoral”; it is utterly evil. Still, at least the pontiff is acknowledging paedophilia isn’t the done thing, even within the monastic orders of the Catholic Church.

But it is not just the fault of the Church, you see. Oh, no, not at all:

“However, he also brought up what he saw as problems in the wider world, saying the media were to blame for broadcasting unsuitable material.”

‘What sort of unsuitable material?’ you’d be well within your rights to be asking.

"What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today?" he asked.

So much wrong with that statement that I don’t know where to start. Turns out, in Benedict-land, it is not child pornography causing paedophile priests, which is hardly surprising as child pornography is condemned and restricted across the world. But rather pornography and violence, beamed into households all over the world via the vile media. Benedict’s paedophile priests must be very susceptible to the influence of the media, and also very imaginative about what they see, if they are going to turn the porn and violence broadcast by the media into a calling to rape children. Frankly, if they are that susceptible to the media, you’d have thought that they wouldn’t be the right calibre of individual to spread the word of Benedict’s God on earth, would you?

And even given the violence and pornography beamed around the world by the media, why does it become meaningless to talk about child protection? Probably always worth having a conversation at some point about child protection. You know, to protect children ‘n’ all.

But Benedict and the upper echelons of the Catholic Church don’t want to have a proper conversation about how they can help to protect children – which has nothing to do with porn or violence in the media. Rather it is about how their priests behave and what they do when cases of child abuse come to light. I don’t think the Panzer Pope will be admitting this, though. That would challenge the authority of his church and, as we know, the church is infallible.

Cue the sound of hollow laughter.

Hain Goes!

Good news. Just a shame that it didn't happen any earlier.

And for what it is worth, I hope the police do investigate and that the incompetent, perma-tanned dickhead is dragged through the courts, convicted, and utterly humiliated.

UPDATE:

And the Brown team are spinning this for all it is worth. Check this comment out from Gordo himself:

"I recognise that, given the circumstances and your desire to clear your name, this is the right and honourable thing to do."

See, this must be a new form of right and honourable that I haven't been informed about. It would have been right and honourable for Hain to go as soon as this ugly mess began. Resigning after the matter was referred to the police is far too late. There is no honour in this. It is an embarrasing mess for Hain's department, government, party and country. There is no dignity in his resignation, it was forced. The unedifying vision of Nu Labour's answer to the Tango Man clinging to power for the last few weeks has been a national disgrace.

Frankly, the right and honourable thing for Hain to do now would be to immolate himself publically in front of the Department for Work and Pensions. Anything else seems, at this point, a bit of a cop out.