Universities Charge What The Government Allows Them To Charge Shock!

So, it appears that some universities will be charging the maximum possible in tuition fees that the government allows. Fair enough, I reckon. A degree from a decent university is worth much more than £9k. What does bother me, though, is the government then whining about universities charging the maximum.

I’m sorry, but what precisely did they think was going to happen here? That most universities – entities that need to make money – would charge as much as possible in many cases was 100% inevitable. To think otherwise is completely naïve. Yet the government seems to have been precisely that. There seems to be a certain incredulity that money-making organisations would choose to, well, make money. This talk of only charging the maximum in “exceptional circumstances” is nonsense on stilts – after all, what could be more of an exceptional circumstance for a university that having large amounts of its government funding removed?

Just to be clear – I’m not concerned about tuition fees, or the substantial rise in them. In many ways the new system is fairer since it is being financially able to pay back the cost of a university education is now categorically the criterion for being expected to do so. What does bother me, though, is the terminal stupidity of a government that allows organisations to make money, and then gets the hump when they do. The coalition need to get a grip. They need to be far more astute and political than this. Fundamentally, they need to remember the basic point that their policies have consequences, and if they don’t like those consequences, then they shouldn’t pursue the related policies in the first place.

The Daily Mail Tendency: The House That Looks Like Hitler

Now, you'd have thought that The Daily Mail would be OK with a house that looks like Hitler given their history, but apparently not. Mind you, they're not exactly speaking out against it, more observing...

Jamie Oliver - The Smoking Gun?

Regular readers will know that I am not a fan of Jamie Oliver. In fact, I think that fat-tongued prick is an utter arsehole who shouldn't be allowed near a TV camera - let alone being given blanket coverage by the media when he chooses to say something.

Yet many disagree. Because, for a celebrity chef, Oliver seems to have a genuinely philanthropic streak. Not for Oliver the Gordon Ramsay approach to career management - traveling the world slagging off failing restaurant owners is not for the often tearful and misunderstood Oliver. No, he wants to change things and, unlike so many others in our society, actually does something about it other than flap his (fat) lips a bit.

So we come to the latest Oliver project - his Dream School. Aside from sounding a little bit like an unmade sequel to A Nightmare On Elm Street, the concept of a Dream School sounds like a lot like the chance for various celebrities to play at being teachers. Then again, the education system is in the need of urgent, radical reform. So why not let Jamie and his posse undertake it?

The answer is in this paragraph - see if you can spot what it is:

He assembled an impressive staff room: the drama teacher was Simon Callow, politics was taught by Alastair Campbell, art by Rolf Harris, history by David Starkey, maths by Alvin Hall and sport by Daley Thompson; other figures such as Cherie Blair, Tinchy Stryder, Andrew Motion and Rankin also pitched in with lessons. The teachers were advised by award-winning secondary headmaster John D'Abbro.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I cheated. I highlighted the relevant section. But I'm sorry - the concept of Alastair Campbell teaching politics is surely the death knell for any school. Alastair Campbell is what many would rightly call a terrible cunt: he is the Machiavellian administrator who allowed Tony Blair to achieve power, go into a damaging nonsensical war and then propped up Blair in power just as most people realised how ghastly Blair was/is. He's a crucial henchman to an abhorrent PM. He did so much to destroy political discourse in this country. In fact, I can't talk anymore about Campbell without resorting to very creative swearing, so I'll hand you over to Michael Howard:

And that man - Alastair Cunting Campbell - is the politics teacher at Jamie's Dream School. It's a bit like making Sarah Palin your teacher for evolution - a dumb fucking idea.

Of course, Oliver needs to find some celebrities in order to attract attention to his project. Choosing Mr Smith at Tooting Bec Comp wouldn't have quite the same impact as choosing the man who facilitated the British involvement in Iraq. But then again, there are other political figures - far less tainted political figures - who could have done just as well. Why not use one of those? Why not use someone less compromised than Campbell? After all, that covers off pretty much political figure barring Tony Blair.

Because that's too difficult. And that's the problem with Oliver - the Smoking Gun or final proof of his idiocy, if you will. He wants to do the right thing, but he is so naive and so unthinking that he will pretty much say anything and engage with anyone in order to achieve whatever philanthropic intentions he might have. To misquote a famous saying, the road to Alastair Campbell is paved with good intentions...

The Simple World of Laurie Penny

In a nauseatingly self-congratulatory post, Laurie “THE CELEBRITY” Penny writes this:

If I ever lose perspective, or start praising George Osborne, or just turn into a massive wanker, I’m counting on the people whose opinions I’ve always valued to take me to task.

Sorry all, but it is just too easy to say that Penny has never had a sense of perspective, or that she has ever been anything other than a massive wanker. Those cheap shots you should make elsewhere. As, if you are so inclined, no doubt you will.

No, it is the bit about praising George Osborne that gets to me, because it reveals so much about Penny’s mindset. She deals in absolutes, see. And here the absolute is that GEORGE OSBORNE WILL NEVER DO ANYTHING SHE CAN SEE AS GOOD. Which completely ignores one of the most fundamental facets of life – change. Penny might, in future years, move away from the clichéd left (‘growing up’ I believe is the actual term) and realise that people like Osborne can offer valid opinions and policies, even if you disagree with the broad parameters of what they stand for. Furthermore, she also denies the idea that Osborne himself could change; maybe on day, in one area, Osborne will position himself on the tedious left. Doesn’t seem likely, but it is not an impossibility either. Unfortunately, Penny’s naïve worldview is simply too narrow to encompass any such possibilities.

Of course, you could argue that her statement was meant to be tongue in cheek, but anyone who has read Penny’s blog knows that (a) it is exactly how she feels about Osborne and (b) it is typical of the way she looks at the world.

There may be some intelligent statists and socialists out there – those who understand the contingent nature of political identity and political reality. Judging by this and pretty much the rest of her output, we can rest assured that Laurie Penny is not one of them.

More Murphy

Richard Murphy on some spending cuts:

But there’s more to it than that. The people who run these services – lowly paid by and large – want to work with the young, the old, in caring for fellow human beings. The private sector is not going to provide these people with those jobs – because the state is not going to pay them to provide them – and nor is The Big Society – let’s be realistic.

Where to begin? There are just so many problems in this hysterical bilge that I really do struggle to find a starting point. I guess we're just going to have to do this the old-fashioned way, and start at the beginning.

Firstly, those who work for the various services Murphy is chuntering about are often not paid well. But that really is the choice of those who employ these individuals. That's right - local and central government decide how much these people should be paid. Therefore, it is their fault if these people aren't paid particularly well.

Murphy would be on stronger ground if the pay in the public sector was roughly the same across that sector. Of course, it isn't. Those delivering frontline services may be paid poorly, but those in management positions or in office based work are often paid relatively well - a quick flick through The Guardian's job adverts shows this. And those who run councils - the Chief Executives etc - are often paid hundreds of thousands for the work they do. Of course, pay comes down to the particular worth an organisation places on its employees and you can argue that the pay scales in the public sector are counter-intuitive and warped. But that's an internal problem to the public sector - that sector that Murphy virtually worships.

It is also impossible to say what the motives are of such employees. Some will actively want to work with the vulnerable; others might do it because they have no choice. Murphy here is trying to do a crude trick - he's tugging on your heartstrings by talking about poorly paid caring people. The reality is that some carers will match that description - others really won't.

And where's his evidence that the private sector won't give these people jobs? The private sector may well give them jobs if there is a demand for their services and a chance that those services will turn in a profit for the employers. Employers aren't reliant on the state and state funding to employ people who are useful to them - in fact, a lot of employers would far rather that the government buggered off out of their hiring choices.

He's right that the Big Society won't pay for these people - but then again, given the Big Society is a largely empty concept rather than an actual institution, that's hardly surprising. Social Democracy won't pay to provide jobs for them either - again, it's a ideology, not an institution or individual with funds. However, society and its component communities may well pay for these people to have relevant jobs - particularly if the tax burden in this country is substantially reduced and people get to choose how they spend their money to a much, much greater extent. Which, of course, is something that Murphy passionately opposes.

At its heart, there is something very depressing about Murphy's view of human nature. He doesn't see people as basically willing to care about other people without the coercion of the state. In his worldview, people have to be forced to be nice to each other, and to care about the welfare of others. And in doing so, he fabricates an ersatz sense of caring. Many of us who don't share his unthinking reverence for the state believe that if we are given increased freedom, many of us will quite naturally use that freedom to make sure others are Ok. And I'd argue that this is far more optimistic that anything in the statist outlook of Murphy and his ilk.

TB *Hearts* Nadine Dorries

Oh, Tory Bear - what's happened to you? You seem to have become a purely partisan blogger, slavishly defending the indefensible simply because she happens to be in the same party as you. And, ironically, you've adopted some of the traits that she uses.

TB swung by BBC Breakfast this morning to discuss the fact that despite being cleared by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Nadine Dorries is still being subjected to a vitriolic and partisan hounding online, especially from the more scummy, stalkerish elements of the otherwise maturing left-wing blogsphere.

There is nothing partisan about commenting on an MP whose lies have just been exposed. And since she is an elected representative paid from the public purse any vitriol against her owing to her deceit is more than acceptable.

Nadine claimed that she changed the names and locations of constituents she discussed in order to protect their privacy and her own. Funnily enough the BBC though this worthy of their airtime.

An MP lying about the details she shares with her constituents being newsworthy? Who'd have a thought it?

The quality is appalling, but someone managed to grab a recording of the discussion with lefty, but a nice one, Zoe Margolis.

I wonder what makes someone a nice "lefty"? And I wonder whether this particular "lefty" really wants to be considered "nice" by Tory Bear?

Anyhoo, at this point in his post TB has the video of his appearance on BBC Breakfast. He's right - the quality is appalling. As is his shirt - he seems to have adopted the two-tone shirts that one normally associates with bankers and Guido Fawkes.

Take note though Andrew Marr, not a basement dweller in sight. Though it's that sort of blogger keeping the attacks up.

No, it isn't - it is people like myself who keep the attacks going because we are sick to fucking death of politicians lie Dorries.

To those that say this isn't a left on right attack are wrong.

No, it isn't a left on right attack - I am neither left wing or right wing, and I am part of the attack. But even if I was right wing, I would still attack Dorries behaviour because for me, unlike TB, I'm not slavishly partisan.

It's precisely because of Nadine's views, that some might regard as controversial, that the left can whip themselves up into such a frenzy about her. But they are running out of attack lines, and funny how quiet they are about the accused fraudsters facing trial from their own side of the political divide.

Well, I object to Dorries's view on abortion, which are crass, illiberal and antediluvian. But that isn't the reason why I'm attacking her at the moment - it is because of her (self-confessed) mendacious behaviour. And I've not been silent on those expenses fiddlers who are facing trial - it is just that nothing is happening with that story, whereas with Dorries, this story is fresh and evolving.

Funny though that despite the countless attempts to bring her down, Nadine managed to increase her majority in May.

In a safe Tory constituency that has not returned anyone from another party since 1929* that isn't quite the achievement TB makes it out to be - particularly since in 2005 she was replacing an MP who had disgraced himself. And the increased swing towards her was only a bit more than the national swing towards the Conservatives. Quite how this current scandal will impact on her constituency vote next time remains to be seen, of course.

Something that along with her clearing by John Lyons is driving the local Labour Party and freaks many miles away in places like Guildford mad.

Well, she may have been cleared but in the process revealed that she has deceived people. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement of her behaviour now, is it?

She remains are popular local MP and would frankly be better ignoring the online nutters...

Well, her popularity may well take a bit of a battering over this. But that isn't the jarring moment in the final line. The use of the word "nutters" (which may well be tongue in cheek to some extent) is simply extending the banal insults thrown around by his fellow party member. Those who disagree with Dorries and call her on her lies are "nutters". The hypocrisy in TB's position should be clear to everyone - he's not a nutter when he attacks Labour politicians, but when someone attacks someone from his party... well, they must be mental.

TB is clearly a publicity hungry blogger determined to make himself into some sort of minor celebrity. Fair play. He's not doing badly at it. But he should bear in mind that there is nothing that damages a blogger's credibility quicker than being a slavish party loyalist. Nothing, that is, other than admitting that 70% of your blog's content is fiction...

UPDATE:

TB tells me in the comments section that he is not longer a Tory party member; sorry, my bad. However I still feel that tribal loyalty is playing a role in his judgement call on this one so when you read "same party" in the post above read "fellow right-winger" or similar instead.

*The boundaries of the constituency have changed over that period, of course.

More Dorries

A breathtaking bit of Dorries insanity from her Twatter feed:

In Politics, Twitter is the sewer of the social networking medium, in which on line bullies live and talk to each other, over and over

I want us all to pause for a moment and take in the wonderful irony of complaining about Twitter on Twitter. Ahhh. Excellent stuff. The image of Twitter as a sewer is brilliant, since it allows me to picture Nadine complaining about a sewer while standing in one. I rather think that if you don't like the sewer, you should get the hell out of it.

Yet in this incredible tweet we have another level of irony - a bully complaining about other bullies. Because the only reason why Dorries doesn't talk to the other bullies "over and over" on Twitter is because she tends to call those who don't agree with her "stalkers" or "nutters" and then run away.

The reality is, Nadine, that this could all go away if you admitted you were wrong to lie to constituents 70% of the time on your blog and showed a little humility. Unfortunately, that seems to be beyond you. However, the more you dig and the more you throw insults around, the worse you will look. And every intervention that you make that isn't an apology will simply keep this story going.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nu Labour: Making You Safe With Child Porn

This cracks me up:

Campaigners have claimed the images taken by the controversial machines could breach legislation making it illegal to create indecent images of children, as well as threatening the privacy of other passengers.

Excellent stuff, albeit pretty bloody obvious. Let's start with the privacy issue:

Simon Davies, of human rights campaign group Privacy International, said he also feared that scans of celebrities or of people with unusual body profiles could prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees, leading to their potential publication on the internet.

There's nothing potential about the publication of such images; if these machines go ahead, this will happen. Just think about it. The first time a funny image or body shape goes through, the captured image will be e-mailed to a friend. It might be a man with a button mushroom penis, or a woman with more folds of fat than an opulent pig. And once that first e-mail is sent, it becomes a done thing. After that, more e-mails will be sent, and the whole thing will become normalised. And then, at some point, the images will be sent from one organisation to another, from one recipient to another, and the captured image will go viral.

So what if someone gets embarrassed? I can hear the shrill, "makemesafeatallcosts" brigade asking that question. After all, these machines are going to save lives. Except there is no guarantee that they actually will save lives. And just imagine if it was you - your body image - that went viral. How would you feel if you were exposed to international ridicule because you happened to want to get onto a plane in this increasingly insane, Orwellian country?

Moving on to the child porn accusation:

Terri Dowty, of civil rights group Action On Rights For Children, told The Guardian the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.

I don't know about the technicalities of the law around this, but it does seem logical that taking thousands of pictures of children effectively in the nude might become a problem at some point. Given the government's record with sensitive information, something will leak, sooner or later. And the outcry if it happens to be nude pictures of children will be absolutely staggering.

But it is the irony here that really startles and amuses me. In their haste to make us safe from a largely ersatz, manufactured threat, the government may be proposing the production of what could be considered child porn on a massive scale. Which is perhaps the perfect summation of the idiotic "War On Terror" and the startling inability of this Labour government to get anything right.

Norwich North Labour - Brought To You By John Lewis

The Labour candidate in the Norwich North by-election - provoked, lest we forget, by the resignation of a Labour MP over expenses:

The Labour candidate for Norwich is Chris Ostrowski, who by coincidence works for the retailer that came to symbolise the Westminster allowances culture, John Lewis.

Nice. John Lewis employee. Way to rub the expenses scandal further into the faces of the voters of Norwich North. Still, I have faith in those voters. I'm sure that they won't use Ostrowski's employment situation against him. If anything signs the death knell for Ostrowski's bid for Parliament, it will be running as a Labour candidate at a time when Labour is dead in the water. 

Gordon Brown on banks:

"(They should be) servants of the economy and society and never its master".

Funny that. I'd say exactly the same thing about the Prime Minister. He should be the servant of the people rather than the master of them. Which makes it a real shame that our Prime Minister is an ego-driven fuck up of the very highest order who is driven by the trappings of office and an absurd believe that he is destined to be in charge of this increasingly crippled nation. Gordon Brown doesn't understand the concept that he should be our servant. His hideous self-delusion means he just does not understand the idea that he should be servant of anyone. For him, it just does not compute. 

Hypocrisy? Insanity? Delusion? Nu Labour.

Peter Hain on The Electoral Commission:

"I do think the Electoral Commission does need to be much more accountable and needs different leadership from what it has had in the first stage of its work. I must say, and I won't go into detail, I found it to be incompetent, dysfunctional and unworldly, politically."

Let's rewrite that to be a comment on the current government:

"I do think the Labour government does need to be much more accountable and needs different leadership from what it has had. I must say, and I won't go into detail, I found it to be incompetent, dysfunctional and unworldly, politically."

Honestly, I don't think Hain gets the irony of what he is saying. But is anyone knows incompetence, it is him.

Gordon Brown: Spend, spend, spend!

Gordon Brown:

"We will bring the same focus and determination to the task of safeguarding jobs and homes and small businesses, as we have done to avert the threatened meltdown of financial systems."

That's us fucked then.

Despite some of the spin that continues to float around like the odour of rancid feet, Gordon Brown is no economic genius. In fact, he would struggle to hit the level of economic lackwit. I reckon I know more about sensible economic policies that Gordo, and you could sum up what I know about those policies on the back on an envelope. You know, one of those really small envelopes that come with those tiny cheap Christmas cards that you send to those relatives you never really see and don't really like.

Of course, the big problem isn't that Gordon is an economic incompetent. In fact, he shares that dubious accolade with a whole host of other people in this country who failed to take into account the simple economic law that you can't spend more that you actually have in funds without something going wrong at some point. The big problem is, though, that Gordon is using the national purse to pursue his absurdly inane economic travesties. Yep, when he talks about spending his way out of this downturn, what he means is we'll be spending our way out of this economic downturn through our taxes. Whether we like it or not.

I'd have less of an issue with this if Gordon wasn't so shite. Unfortunately, I have as much confidence in Gordon to manage the economy as I do in that piss stained tramp I saw in St James' Park this morning managing to get through the day without buying some super strength lager. Seriously, as soon as Gordon tries to do anything it goes down the toilet. He has the touch of the reverse alchemist - give him a bar of gold, and he will turn it into water. Politicians make good calls and bad calls; Brown is unique in pretty much only being able to make the latter. We may as well have that piss-stained tramp in St James' Park this morning as our Prime Minister. The tramp is probably more socialble.

Look at what happened with the banks that Brown half-nationalised. Their share value has plummeted, and the position of those banks will get worse as the government uses its influence to try to manage those banks. Gordon took billions of pounds to buy substantial shares in those banks; the sagacity of his investment (of our money) can be seen in the share prices of those organisations. So what do we think will happen when Gordo spends even more of our hard earned cash trying to spend his way out of a recession? Fuck me, forget about recession; we'll probably be in in a depression by the end of the week.

But Gordon has to do something; his usual strategy of sitting still in an angry panic is no longer applicable in the current economic climate. People are screaming for action; even Gordon can't ignore that. The problem is that Gordon doesn't really understand how to alleviate the problems of the coming recession. Like the *good* socialist he is, he thinks the only way to save the country is by spending money like it is going out of fashion. However, the real solution that might help to kickstart the economy is a tax cut. A tax cut in an area that would allow consumers to regain some confidence and start spending again (even if that tax cut needs to be balanced with a tax increase in another area). The current economic slowdown is caused in part by a complete lack of confidence on the part of the people. A tax cut might help to persuade them that the government isn't going to use this crisis as an excuse to rob them of every single penny they earn, and might allow them to get enough confidence to start spending again.

However this idea will never, ever be taken up by the likes of Brown. The concept of tax cuts is alien and scary for Gordo, and the idea that the people might be able to spend the way out of this recession themselves is just insane in Gordonland*. Brown will never look at the facts, like the role the government played in creating the current economic situation or the inept way in which they have tried to handle it. Instead he will repeat the mantra "government knows best, government knows best, government knows best" as he heads to the bank with the taxpayer's credit card in his hands.

Forget the spin, forget the rhetoric - ignore anyone who states anything that contradicts the simple indisputable truth that Gordon Brown is an economic incompetent. And ignore anything that says that Nu Labour are solving the current economic crisis. The policies that Brown's government are pursuing are the equivalent of poking an angry bear with a stick: it is going to make things a whole lot worse before they get any better.

*A horrific place where nightmares come true...

"See, some of my bestest friends are..."

So, some priest or other has got himself into hot water over some comments he made about homosexuality. The BBC sums up these comments really nicely:

He suggested in his internet blog that homosexuals should have their backsides tattooed with the slogan: "Sodomy can seriously damage your health."

Apparently these comments were meant to be satirical. Hmmm. I love a bit of satire. But these comments appear to be more grossly offensive than satirical. I'd like to say that there is a fine line between satire and rampantly homophobic ignorance. Unfortunately, there isn't.

Still, his "satire" allows me to propose my new scheme, which is tattooing the words "Believing in a invisible, fictional sky fairy can seriously damage your common sense and tolerance for others" on the foreheads of Christian bigots everywhere.

And the Rev Mullan has some other thoughts on homosexuality as well:

In the same blog, Mr Mullen called for all gay pride parades, which he branded "obscene", to be outlawed.

So not just branding gay people, Mr Mullen also wants to suppress them. Although in fairness his desire to suppress gay people was also clearly demonstrated by his idea of tattooing them.

But what gets to me - what really gets to me - is this classic justification for his atrocious views:

"I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion."

Oh, bless you, Rev Mullan. Bless you. I haven't heard this justification used (in an apparently serious way) for a good long time. But it really is the classic excuse for pig ignorant comments. There is no difference between Rev Mullan's comment and a member of the BNP saying "I have nothing against immigrants, some of my best friends are immigrants..." Or the redneck in America stating "I have nothing against black people, some of my friends are black people but..." Or even a Nazi concentration camp guard stating "I have nothing against Jews. Some of my best friends were Jews, but..." And all I have done with those phrases is adjust them slightly; the sentiment is the same. As is the response to all such statements - having friends who are gay/black/immigrants/whatever doesn't stop you from being an ignorant prick. If, you know, you are an ignorant prick.

I don't know the Rev Mullan, but judging by his comments he comes across as the sort of nasty little bigot who is hiding behind his prayer book and church frock. And in being bigoted, he is missing perhaps the key teaching of his Messiah - "Love Thy Neighbour". And to clarify for the Rev Mullan and his knuckle dragging ilk, that is love thy neighbour. Not love thy neighbour unless they are gay, in which case you can tattoo them and suppress them.

Still, it would be wrong to brand all Christians as bigoted little shits based on the words of the Rev Mullan. It is only some of them who are bigoted little shits. And I can say that with a good degree of confidence - see, many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion.

Post of the Day

From the archives of the frankly loopy Dirty European Socialist (tag line: I LIKE POLITICS):

Tebitt said get on your bike. What if you have no bike.
He did not think of that did he. What if you have no shoes or no money? We have to have a welfare state so people can get back on gear.
The government should provide opportunities for people.

We have to assume he is talking about Norman Tebbit, but spelling is not one of Dirty European Socialist's strengths. And presumably he is talking about this comment Tebbit made about his father:

I grew up in the 30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot; he got on his bike and looked for work and he kept looking 'til he found it.

I'm not sure whether DES is being intentionally obtuse or is just a fucking moron, but he seems to have missed the point of Tebbit's comment, which is about being pro-active when trying to find work. Whether you have a bike or not is irrelevant. Tebbit was banging on about taking responsibility for your own actions. Although such concepts as taking responsibility and ownership for your own actions and life may well be alien to the type of trogg who proudly adopts the moniker of Dirty European Socialist.

Still, we get an insight into the mind of a simple socialist. I can imagine DES's campaign slogan if he ever won power. "Bicycles for all under the Dirty European Socialist!" Yeah, that'll sort everything out!

What a colossal chopper.

Protect yerself

We hear it a lot from our elected leaders, don’t we? That crime is going down. That the streets are safer. That their policies mean you can walk anywhere in your home city without fear of being attacked and stabbed.

It is just that you need to take some responsibility for yourself, that’s all. As Harriet Harman showed when she went on a walk about with the police in her home constituency. Wearing a stab proof vest. Take a look:


And Harman’s insensitivity is so great that she actually put that photo on her own website. Jeez.

Of course, this is Nu Labour. So rest assured that there is a reason why she was wearing a stab proof vest whilst she was walking the streets that she purports to represent. It was to fit in with the police, you see. They were all wearing them, so she felt she had to too:

"It was just a courtesy, there was no security issue whatsoever, it was almost like wearing the kit when you go out with the team."

Which could, I suppose, be true. Maybe she does view police officers as so insecure that they need her to wear the same personal protective equipment as them so they don’t feel like freaks. I rather doubt that, but you never know. And God help us if Harman ever visited a Wrestling event. She's probably end up wearing a leotard to be like Hulk Hogan or something.

What is much more interesting, and what hasn’t been mentioned in any of the coverage I’ve seen, is the fact that the police wear these stab vests day in, day out when they are patrolling the streets. Harman may feel safe enough to walk through her own constituency without protection, but the police don’t.

And, of course, the police are at the front line of fighting crime, so they are more at risk than, say, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party who lives in a self-constructed, protective bubble. But the real issue is the police feel the need for extra protection, and one of the reasons might be this inconvenient (both for Harman, the police and for anyone living in the area) little stat:

Incidents of violent crime in the borough of Southwark, which includes Peckham, have increased by 6.9 per cent in the last 12 months.

Enough said.

New Look Seven Deadly Sins

The seven deadly sins have been updated by the Catholic Church. I'd have loved to have been on that committee. I'd have made watching reality TV a deadly sin, obviously.

So what have they decided on as the new deadly sins?

Mgr Girotti (some random papal spokesman) said genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, polluting the environment, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs were all mortal sins.

What a stupid list. What a really, really stupid list. It is like the church went to Polly Toynbee, and asked for her wishlist of random hippy crap. And since when has the Catholic Church not been "obscenely wealthy?"

And what do you get if you break the rules above?

Eternal death.

Which sounds pretty fucking scary. Until you realise that all death is eternal. What's the alternative? Coming back as a zombie, shuffling around with lumps of flesh falling off you whilst muttering "brains"? Because if that is the alternative to eternal death, then I'm off to do some genetic modification through carrying out experiments on humans, to make a shit load of socially unjust cash that I will use to increase the misery in the world. And once I am done, I'm going to throw everything I own that is not biodegradable into the sea. Whilst high on drugs.