Labour's Lack of Stars

Over at the perpetually shitty LabourList, some lackwit is arguing against the likes of Prescott appearing on TV to give the new regime a chance to hog the limelight:

Leaving Prescott's point aside for the moment, his Today programme appearance was almost entirely unhelpful. Throughout the interview he came across as a patronising parent ruefully dismissing the efforts of his offspring. What he may have thought was refreshing candour from an old hand, sounded more like a ghost of Labour past haunting its fledgling future. Or it might simply be that he finds the amorous approaches of the media too tempting to resist.

But resist the media he should, as part of the problem of the perceived silence of the Labour opposition is that old Westminster denizens continue to hog the limelight. Peter Mandleson, Jacquie Smith, Alistair Darling, John Reid and Prescott, to name but a few, have made regular media appearances, whereas the likes of Maria Eagle, Meg Hillier, Mary Creagh and Ivan Lewis have featured only sporadically. It's too easy to blame the media for continually seeking the opinions of well known former, or no longer front line, politicians. The media keep returning to Prescott et al because they know he is widely publically recognisable and will readily appear for them and provide comment. If Prescott really wants to give the new shadow cabinet the room to breathe he needs to make himself permanently unavailable for comment. And that goes for the rest of the old guard too.

In case anyone was wondering, Prescott's point was that the Shadow Cabinet should be speaking up and taking the fight to the Tories. Which in fairness to that fat, stupid lump of arrogant lard, is a valid point that should be made to the largely silent people making up her majesty's opposition.

Furthermore, Prescott et al are more then entitled to speak, not least to defend their record. Don't get me wrong, I think their record is completely indefensible. But at a time when this lot has either departed to the backbenches, to mediocrity outside Parliament or to the Lords, what else do they have to do other than try to defend their horrific records before the verdict of history is finally returned (no doubt against them).

Besides, from a pragmatic point of view, isn't there something that could be taken by the incumbent Labour party leadership from those who led the party over the past two decades? Like how to win three General Elections on the trot? Again, I'd like the Labour party to go on failing as badly as it did in 2010, but if I was leading it, then I would be looking to understand Blair's successes at the ballot box rather than dismissing the most successful Labour leader there has ever been.

And the very fact that Prezza et al can get into the media so often is not only a testament to their high visibility, but also to the complete lack of visibility of the Shadow Cabinet. Despite following politics closely, I've never really heard of Meg Hillier or Mary Creagh. I know of Maria Eagle because she is one half of Parliament's twins, while Ivan Lewis has only really crossed my radar for his outrageous opinions on journalists. And while I know it is difficult for members of the Shadow Cabinet to get the attention they might want or need, a crucial step in the rehabiliation of the Labour party in the eyes of the wider electorate is that they become visible as members of the opposition. Only then will people begin the process of seeing them as a credible alternative government.

So it is all very well for LabourList to snipe at the fading stars of Labour's yesteryear as they pontificate on the national stage. But until the supposed stars in Labour's current firmament actually start to make an impression, Labour's vacuous followers shoudn't expect anything more than the likes of Prezza clogging up the airwaves.

Car Insurance and Statism

The problem with a multi-author blog devoted to liberty is that people, almost by definition, have to be free to write what they want. And that includes, as this post at the Orphans of Liberty shows, giving them the right to write illiberal bilge.

At the end of a slightly rambling and definitely racist post, the Quiet_Man writes:

It strikes me that the system used if we must legally hold car insurance needs to be overhauled to a state where it would be difficult to own a car and not have insurance. Or more draconian would simply be the crushing of any vehicle found being driven without insurance or a license and jail time for the uninsured.
Yes I know that isn’t very liberal of me, but I do believe that if I abide by the rules (unfair as they sometimes are) then others should abide by them too, particularly when the cost of not abiding by the rules hits me in the pocket.

It strikes me that if the system needs to be overhauled the best way in which to do so is not to increase the ability of the government to seize private property and imprison its citizens - especially if that system of rules is unfair. Anything else is fundamentally statist, and fundamentally illiberal. Yeah, car insurance is far too expensive and yeah, the price is forced up by those who drive, and then cause accidents, while uninsured. But the answer is not greater state control, but rather a real attempt to reduce state intervention in the cost of getting cars and drivers on the road. Reduce road tax. Reduce the staggeringly high tax on petrol. And yeah, review the nature of car insurance in this country, which does play into the hands of insurance companies. But more car crushing and more people going to prison is nothing more than the solution of the draconian, illiberal statist.

Idiot of the Day

Apparently, atheists are so dangerous that they need to be on a register

Internet pastor Mike Stahl has come up with an interesting idea to assist Christians in day-to-day life. According to Stahl, the nation should set up an “Atheist Registry” in order to provide an updated list of anyone who is a “self-proclaimed atheist,” just as you would do for people convicted of sex crimes or associated with terrorist groups.

...

Although Stahl’s registry would only have a name and perhaps picture of the avowed, publicly declared atheist, and no physical address, he also believes that knowing who are the atheists in your neighborhood could lead to a wonderful opportunity to try and convert, too!

Yeah, put me on a registry for not believing in a mythical sky fairy and then come and try to convert me. See how well that goes!

TUC and the Rally Against Debt

A TUC spokesperson on the Rally Against Debt:

"Half a million people joined the TUC march for the alternative to deep, early spending cuts.

"The fact that only a few hundred people rallied for more Sure Start centre closures and punitive cuts on disabled people, shows how little support there is for the government's economic plans."

Where to begin with this utter bilge? Firstly, no alternative has been offered to the government's reduction in spending other than "we'd prefer them not to do it" - a position which, given how crippled this country is with debt, just doesn't work.

Secondly, it is pretty offensive to claim that people were rallying for Sure Start closures and punitive cuts on disabled people. They weren't. They were rallying against the idea of future generations being burdened with completely unneccessary debt - something the TUC seems to be completely ok with.

Furthermore, I'd imagine most of these people don't support the government, and would like a more radical debt reduction plan combined with a refusal to contribute to further EU bailouts - neither of which the present government seems willing to do.

And yeah, only a few hundred people turned up - to a grassroots rally designed to advocate the taking of difficult decisions now for future generations. As opposed to the TUC backed march, organised by backers with thousands, if not millions, of pounds to spend and thousands of members to call upon. Furthermore, it is always easier to get people marching in favour of naked self-interest - which is what the TUC backed march earlier this year was about.

Cable V Murdoch

Yet more proof that what I, and other wise heads such as myself, have been saying for ages - namely, that Vince Cable is an idiot. Why else would you put yourself in a position where you have effectively declared war on Rupert Murdoch? I mean, it is the political equivalent of walking up to the scary looking guy in the pub - the one with bruised knuckles, wide angry eyes, with the physique of a shaved ape and sporting a "you are a cunt" tattoo on his forehead - and asking him to step outside. He's going to fuck you up without evening breaking a sweat. You're going to be picking bits of your shattered teeth from your shattered face while he goes back to his pint.

Maybe Cable is self-destructing a bit - I don't know. But whatever he's thinking and trying to achieve, taking on possibly the most powerful media tycoon in the world means his days in frontline politics are coming to an end. It is just a question of how quickly...

Public Transport

Every government, at some point, seems to want more people to use public transport. Be it to reduce congestion, to make the planet "greener" or just because they can't stop coming up with bullshit proposals. However, as someone who regularly uses public transport (as I hate driving) I see two flaws with trying to get people to use public transport. They are:

1. The public is allowed on them. Which is generally ok, but we shouldn't lost sight of the fact that some members of the public are not that nice. Like the chap on my bus ride this morning who turned up singing to his copy of the Metro, before preceding to burp, fart and chunter his way through the first part of the journey. Before passing out and then having a tiny chunder. He was clearly wasted; no mean feat, given it was nine thirty in the morning. And frankly I don't want to have to deal with people like that at all - let alone when I can still taste the toothpaste.

And he's just one (albeit extreme) example. On our nation's buses I have seen a passed out woman who had wet herself, had to listen to some feral youth having a blazing (and profane) rant against his mother on his mobile and a woman sobbing hysterically at lunchtime. And this is all since October. Frankly, the public are often rubbish and I don't want to have to bear witness to the worst of them as I am transported from one location to another.

2. It is shit at transporting you. Seriously, trains and buses are generally unreliable and prone to stopping their service at the slightest provocation. Take the snow; it has made the buses of York and Leeds more inefficient than ever despite the fact that the roads are clear! There is no reason for it, none at all. But still four buses drove past me yesterday - for no reason other than, presumably, the drivers are jumped up little jobsworth pricks. And the trains aren't much better. The wrong kind of leaves on the line, snow, rain, sun, too many passengers, too few - pretty much anything will stop them operating effectively. I don't who designed trains, but they must have done so with a view to operating them in a vacuum - or at least for use in a world without weather.

So public transport is undermined by the fact that the public use it and it isn't good at transporting you. Generally speaking, using public transport will leave you running late, a bit angry and having had to share a compact space with people you would normally cross the street to avoid. There is nothing relaxing about it. And, these days, it isn't that cheap either.

Fuck it. I'm going to get a car.

Cablegate Boredom

Yet more genius from The Daily Mash:

Meanwhile, Julian Cook, professor of international news stories at Reading University, explained: "Everyone that America has been spying on would have already assumed that America was spying on them and if they didn't then they are even more cretinous than these leaks confirm them to be."

He added: "Nevertheless, the point about Wikileaks undermining the safety of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan would have some validity, if only it wasn't such a humongous vat of liquidised monkey-shit from start to finish.

"Because -and you might want to write this down and keep it somewhere safe - the key thingthat has undermined the safety of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is them firing their big fucking guns at Iraqis and Afghans.

"And of course that is usually on the orders of weasely little inadequates with penis issues who like to keep everything secret in a bid to make their imaginary cocks even bigger."

Can't fault any of that. And I'm not going to comment on "cablegate" or whatever the chuff it is called because, quite frankly, I don't give a fuck. The idea that diplomats might say shitty things behind the backs of other people when they believe it to be on confidence is not a news story in any way, shape or form.

Those Protestin' Blues

The usual caveat that students, like everyone in our increasingly limited democracy, applies to this post. That said...

...the latest protest against spending cuts in education/tuition fee rises left me wondering just what the hell those involved wished to achieve. If it managed to achieve anything, it was simply alienating even more people. You could, as the students protested again, hear the whole of Middle England tutting in unison as their preconceptions about students were reinforced. Hell, even I muttered something under my breath about that combined "workshy" and "students", and I'm one myself at the moment. Way to win support, ladies and gents. Next up, you should have someone punching an old woman to make your "point". That should work even better. Assuming, of course, that your objective is to alienate as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

I dare say that the point of these protests was to draw attention to their cause. Which, in a sense, meant that these protests worked. In the same way that the tramp on the bus on the way home who has pissed himself also gets attention. Another protest so soon after the last one and before any real negotiation with the government takes place is the clearly the best way to make all those protesting look like gargantuan tools. And in the long term, it will cease to even get them attention. Tedious people doing tedious things over and over again is never the best way to capture the national imagination.

Of course, I suspect that there is a sense in which this was not a protest to actually make a point, but rather because protesting has become (probably briefly) very fashionable again. It's what all the cool kids are doing, see? At least until they get bored and find some other way of posturing.

Sure, I sound cynical - but guess what? That cynicism is borne from experience. These protests will achieve nothing - and the more there are of them, the more self-indulgent the students will look and the more powerful the government will become in this matter. If you want to stop these rises in tuition fees, then you need to work out a much better way of doing so. The efficacy of protesting can always be questioned; continued protesting is just plain dumb.

The Student Protest(s)

So... the student protests. How did they work out for you, my student brethren? Well? Do you think you achieved something positive? Because if you do, then you're an idiot.

Before we start out on just why the protest/demonstration/second-rate riot was a shit idea, let me first declare categorically that it is the right of everyone in this country to protest on any issue they so wish. It is one of the few remaining privileges our increasingly misanthropic and patronisingly paternalistic leaders allow us. We should protest; it gives volume to our often muted and forgotten voices.

However, before anyone does protest they need to work out (a) what they are protesting about and (b) what they hope to achieve from the protests. And on both of these counts, the student protest(s) on Wednesday failed.

First up, let's look at what the protest was about (and in the process, what it wanted to achieve). It wanted to make a near bankrupt government (consisting mainly of Tories, with some Liberal Democrats thrown in for good measure) reverse its decision on tuition fees. Fair enough - self-interest has always been a big part of politics, and it always will be. The problem, though, lies in some of the messages being broadcast by the protestors. To claim that Nick Clegg was nicking the money of students, or carrying signs and shouting chants along the lines of "Tory scum" is hardly likely to get the incumbent government onside. But the fundamental question (and challenge) remains - what are you protesting about? The fact that tuition fees will go up in the future? Or that the incumbent government happens to be Tory and is propped up by an increasingly compromised Liberal Democrat party?

But there is another problem inherent in the protest(s) - the idea that students are in some way owed this money. If the money is coming from the government, then it isn't their money. It isn't even the government's. It is taken by the government from the taxpayer using inherently coercive measures. If you want the money supplied by the government, then you need to convince the person who ultimately parts with the case - the British taxpayer - that you deserve the money. And a lacklustre protest that occasionally flared into vandalism and violence is not the best way to do that.

The reality is that universities will get less money moving forward, and that fees will rise. Therefore, what students needs to do is convince the government (and, I'd humbly suggest, the taxpayer) that their courses, and their institutions, contribute something to society that warrants the cost incurred by that society - if, that is, they want to keep the fees down and the funds up. So guess what? You have to sell your course and your university. And yes, that will be easier if you are talking about PPE at Oxford than if you are talking about Media Studies as De Montfort. But it can still be done, even if you are studying the latter.

The point is this, though - you have a democratic right to protest. But if you want to get the government and the people of this country on your side then you need to do something a little more convincing that heading out on a midweek protest that descends into political point-scoring, anti-Tory chanting and pathetic vandalism. This protest will have set you back, Mr and Ms Student. It will have set you back one hell of a lot. You have come across as feckless, unthinking morons. And I say this both as a postgraduate student, and as someone who hopes before to long to teach at university level.

The Vodafone Protest

So, you’re concerned about government spending cuts, and you believe that Vodafone has not given the tax man – or HMRC – what it should. So you decide to protest this apparent oversight at the source. The first flaw in your plan is that, well, HRMC actually aren’t asking for the money:

"We cannot comment on the detail of the settlement but we can confirm that it was reached by HMRC following a rigorous examination of the facts and an intensive process of negotiation that tested the arguments of both parties.

"As a result it was agreed that Vodafone’s liability was £1.25bn and at no point was a liability greater than that established.

"There is no question of Vodafone having an outstanding tax liability of £6bn. That number is an urban myth."

So you’re protesting over an urban myth. Nice. Good going there. Unfortunately it makes this protest anything other than legitimate – in fact, it turns it into a form of chugging: demanding donations from Vodafone for your favourite charity (in this case, the government).

And if we take the idea that paying as much tax as possible is good, at least in the eyes of these protestors, then surely you would want Vodafone to make as much money as possible so they can pay as much tax as possible in the future. Therefore, what is one of the last things you would want to do? Perhaps closing down their flagship store through protesting.

Far be it from me to say that this protest hasn't been thought through, but to protest about a non-existent tax bill in such a way that you may end up diminishing future tax revenues strikes me as the very definition of dumb.

Timing Your Strike Right

Now I understand why people feel the need to strike - it is an extreme, but sometimes effective, tactic in negotiations and conflicts between employee and employer. And I also understand how striking can be an effective publicity stunt - it brings attention to your cause, even if a lot of the attention is people shaking their heads and wondering why the hell you are bothering (which tends to be my default position with regards to strikes).

Like comedy, I suppose, the secret of great striking is timing. Which is why the Fire Service threatening to strike over Bonfire Night strikes me as an extremely dumb idea. Because, when you think about it for more than 2 consecutive seconds, this is clearly one of the nights when we need the Fire Service more than ever. It moves striking away from being a legitimate negotiation tactic and places it squarely in the negligence box. You're not going to get the best publicity for you cause if the end result of your strike is some kid getting his face burnt off in a Bonfire Night accident.

Still, given the striking union (lack of) intellect this hasn't appeared to occur to them:

FBU general secretary Matt Wrack said they had been left with no choice.

"The alternative is to allow London's firefighters to become doormats for their employers to walk on," he said.

Yeah... you've got no choice. You couldn't, say, strike on some of the other 360 plus days of the year now, could you? You dumb wanker.

On Anonymity

DK has dealt rather nicely with Andrew Marr’s simplistic and clichéd take on bloggers – go read the whole thing for a wonderful slap down of Marr’s nonsense. However, I wanted to add my own thoughts on this subject and in particular, some observations on anonymous blogging. On this subject, Marr writes:

"Terrible things are said on line because they are anonymous. People say things on line that they wouldn't dream of saying in person."

First up, I’m going to have be pedantic – this blog is not anonymous as such – its author employs a pseudonym, exactly as is the case with many similar blogs to this one. Sure, you may not get the full name of its author on each post on this blog, but you do get the right to comment on what I write and to contact me via e-mail. Which, generally speaking, is more or less the same as you get on many blogs where the authors use their own names (other than the real name, obviously.)

Now, it is a myth that those who blog under pseudonyms are shadowy individuals who closely guard their real identities. In fact, their online monickers are often easy to circumvent. For example, Guido Fawkes, DK, and Tory Bear use online nicknames – but you only have to spend minutes on Google to find out what they are actually called. Furthermore, those who don’t necessarily have their names on their sites are not necessarily hiding – it is just that their blogs maybe haven’t reached the point where someone either wants to find out their identity or they appear on a more mainstream media outlet that reveals their identity.

Furthermore, in my experience, bloggers are actually quite a sociable bunch who are more than happy to meet in real life and share their identities, thoughts and ideas. When I’ve met with pseudonymous bloggers, I haven’t found them to be shady types desperate to hide their identities. Generally, they say hello, give their names, and then ask whether you want a pint (a question to which the answer is always, in my case, yes). Indeed, through my contacts with other bloggers I can guess at the identity of some of those I haven’t met. I’ve never met Mr Eugenides, for example, but I could take an educated guess at who he is just by the friend suggestions that pop up on Facebook.

And let’s slay the myth that using a pseudonym to blog is always an advantage. In fact, Marr’s attack shows the opposite is true. It is easy to dispel that notion that some named bloggers adhere to the cliché tritely trotted out by Marr – you only have to look at the sites of Charlotte Gore or Sunny Hundal to see that they are not the type of sad dweebs that Marr attempts to paint bloggers as. Whereas when you look at this site, you don’t necessarily get a feel for who I am and what I look like. Sure, I could change that by putting my name and a picture on here (something I lack the intention and interest to actually do) – but my point is that having a pseudonym is not the get out of jail free card that it is sometimes made out to be as people can launch attacks on me (and others like me) because of the pseudonym.

But all this is not getting down to perhaps the most pertinent, and controversial, point. Does using a pseudonym make it easier to launch unpleasant attacks on other people? That’s a difficult one to answer, so I’ll rephrase the question slightly – would I use a phrase like “worthless cunts” (a tag on this blog, fact fans) if I was meeting someone face to face and they knew who I was?

The simple answer is – yes I would. But only if they deserved it. Which is rather the point as far as I am concerned. I don’t call my friends or those I meet on a day-to-day basis “worthless cunts” or “witless morons” because they don’t act like “worthless cunts” or “witless morons”, and at most they mildly inconvenience me rather than wrecking the whole country. However, I’ll happily refer to Blair or Brown both as such on this blog and in real life because they have done a lot to fuck up this country and to earn those particular highly offensive tags. The point is that I don’t verbally attack others because I use a pseudonym – I do it because I believe those people deserve to be insulted for what that have done to damage this country and its citizens.

Finally, those who want to be truly anonymous tend to be those who comment on these blogs as, well, anonymous. The rest of us – whether we use our real names or a nickname – are a disparate bunch of people who just happen to be using online media to make our voices heard. The fact that we might not advertise our actual names or always say what others want us to say doesn’t mean that we can be dismissed using the fallacious and clichéd attacks unleashed by Andrew Marr and his ilk.

Why We Shouldn't "Respect the Government"

Via the Angry Teen, a gem from our old friend Richard Murphy:

Respect the right of government. Don’t try to undermine their income streams. Pay the tax they expect. Enjoy the benefits that flow from doing so.

AT does a lot to rebut the idiocy of this statement:

Tax destroys growth, allows politicians to get us involved with wars which kill thousands—sometimes millions—of people, allows the state to decimate our civil liberties, and countless other things. It is impossible to overestimate the damage done to society by government. Its services are always inferior to the services of the private sector The NHS is a good example of this. It seems to only be able to "improve" when the price is skyrocketing.

In fact, I've got little to add beyond this observation - there is something very dangerous in the fundamental assumption that underlies this argument. It assumes that the government will always be benign, working in the best interests of the people. By accident or design, that is not always the case. Think about it: there are no shortage of governments in history that have actively damaged their people, and many more who have done so by accident or through negligence. The benefits that Murphy sees flowing forth from government are by no means guaranteed. For example, our taxes payed for the war in Iraq - something that cannot be described as a benefit by anyone other than a Nu Labourite politician.

Now, I'm a Libertarian, not an anarchist. I do believe there needs to be some sort of government in place. But I don't believe that we should "respect the right of government" - quite the contrary, the government needs to respect our rights. And they need to justify every penny and any liberty that they take from us. A healthy attitude towards government isn't blind obedience and thoughtless compliance - it is a constant suspicion of the political class and the resulting scrutiny to ensure that they act in our interests, not their own.

Murphy - and all other statists - assume that government will always be benign. Those with even the smallest knowledge of history know that this is not always going to be the case. Which is why government must always be challenged and restricted. The blindly obedient and the meekly compliant like Richard are like the devoutly religious - they hope those they have put their faith in will do good, while ignoring the damage done by the political class in our name and at our expense.

Climate Change - Blowing Up the Enemy

Once again, I'm late to the party. But I'd now like to add my own little voice to all the other angry statements being thrown around about this video:

It is supposed to be a joke, apparently. But as DK points out, it isn't funny. Not even in a bad taste sort of a way. It is simple, stupid and offensive. It's crass. It is, at best, a massive misjudgment on the part of the 10:10 campaign. But I'd also agree with Mr Eugenides - I don't quite believe this is an incitement to murder, and anyone who genuinely takes it as such is getting a little hysterical.

However, for me this is very revealing of the mindset of many people involved in the environmental movement. They have become convinced that they have found a "truth" - that the survival of the human race is dependent on pursuing the policies they back. And this is not something that is open to debate anymore - what they believe in is the truth. Those who don't agree aren't equal parties in a debate. They are wrong. Worse, they are being obstructive in the creation of a better tomorrow. And, as this video shows, they are lacklustre, lazy people who just can't be bothered to help build a utopia and avoid future dystopia. Hell, you wouldn't miss them if someone in authority blew them up.

Of course, it isn't just the environmentalists who fall foul of this sort of thinking. Pretty much anyone who has discovered the truth starts to believe that those who oppose them are a little less than human. That's how Stalinism came into being. That's how the nightmare of the Khmer Rouge came about. And so on. And that's what environmentalists have to avoid. Those who oppose them aren't doing so because they are bad in some way - they do it because they are not convinced by the evidence and/or the suggested policies to change the world.

Which is the point of plurality, democracy and debate. If you want to silence people, then win them over through talking with them. Because whatever this video was trying to achieve (and I genuinely don't know what that was), it has done nothing other than further alienate me from their cause.

Blindingly Obvious Statement of the Day

From the coverage of the latest execution in the US:

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

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

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.

Some Tory twat of an MP on AV:

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

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

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

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

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

There is an answer, of course.

The answer is more tax inspectors.

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

Moronic Bigot of the Day: Richard Carvath

Oh, looky, we've got a hate-filled, god-bothering Neanderthal on our hands. Ladies and gents, I give you - Mr Richard Carvath:

Hmm... I've a lot of time on my hands right now and so I've been bobbing about the web a few places I haven't been for a while. I just happened to look up homosexual-pervert LGBTory Chairman Matthew Sephton who is over at a homosexual-pervert event in Liverpool today (the first Liverpool Pride).

"Homosexual-pervert" - good fucking God, we're back in the dark ages here. What a pig-ignorant thing to say. Only a bone-headed lackwit would even consider using such a deplorable phrase.

[Matthew was my rival candidate for Salford and Eccles at the last General Election. Despite having an easy ride - all the money, media and machine that any candidate could wish for - Matthew only managed to come in third as the Conservative Party candidate. It's a shame the Tories didn't pick a real conservative candidate rather than this homosexual-pervert activist. Any Tory candidate worth his salt and with those resources available should've at least beaten the weak Lib Dem Norman Owen into second place. Sephton failed to do so. Indeed after the count Hazel Blears appeared to be grateful above all to her Tory rival!]

The phrase "a real conservative candidate" links, inevitably, to a picture of Carvath - and he has a face only a mother could love. He also seems to miss the point that conservatism is not the same as being a reactionary; in case of doubt, Carvath is definitely the latter.

And let's look at the results from the particular election Carvath is talking about. He's right, Sephton did come third - which is not a great result but probably par for the course in a seat held by a high-profile former Labour minister. It is also worth noting that Sephton got 8,497 votes while our new friend Carvath came last with 384 votes. Which means that Carvath got just 4% of the support afforded to Sephton. Not that Carvath is bitter, of course. No doubt that Carvath would blame that on the lack of a party machine behind his candidacy, but that misses the point that the reason why he doesn't have a party machine behind him is because he's a despicable, reactionary bigot with intolerant homophobic views.

Will Matthew be gyrating on the back of a float wearing only a thong through the streets of Liverpool? Who knows, the mind boggles. Well, whether or not he's wearing bondage trousers and nipple clamps on the back of a lorry today, I have no doubt that my old chum Matthew Sephton supports the recent overturning of Prop 8 by a judge in San Francisco.

He probably does support it, what with it being a triumph for LGBT campaigners. Then again, most open-minded people will also support the over-turning. What with it being the right thing to do 'n' all.

This development is alarming because it'll probably end up in the US Supreme Court for a definitive legal decision as to whether the United States defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman (or not).

Yes, it probably will end up in the Supreme Court. It is the, well, supreme court in that land. And as such it is where all appeals fight their final battles.

This is the way that abortion was legalised in the US (in the Supreme Court with Roe vs Wade in 1973): abortion was legalised in the US not by legislation but by judicial activism.

No. This is wrong. Carvath's view is completely the wrong way round. The 1973 Supreme Court decision did not legalise abortion - it said that restricting access to abortion was unconstitutional and therefore illegal. According to this judgement, it was the constitution that legalised abortion when it was first written centuries ago. Carvath may disagree with this interpretation of the US constitution, but it doesn't change the basic fallacy of his assertion that Roe v. Wade legalised abortion.

Is the same about to happen with the homosexual-perverts' 'holy grail' of completely subverting the definition of marriage?

Hopefully.

I hope not, but with Barack Obortion in the White House and backing the perverts, who can safely predict that sanity will prevail in the Supreme Court?

Barack Obortion? Hilarious, Dickshaft Cuntvath.

And this notion that the Supreme Court is a naturally liberal body or one that naturally follows the sitting President is also fallacious. You only have to look at the notorious ruling in favour of Bush Junior after the 2000 Presidential election to see that.

Here in the UK it is tragic that David Cameron, Nick Clegg and David Miliband are all pro-pervert and do not recognise that marriage is an exclusively heterosexual institution.

Erm, David Miliband isn't Labour leader yet.

And in this example, Cameron, Clegg, and (I'd imagine) all of the candidates for Labour leadership are simply following the wishes of the electorate: both the LGBT campaigners who want equal rights under the law, and those tolerant voters who don't want to see discrimination based on sexual orientation (or in any other way, for that matter).

We are more likely to see the perverts get their way here by means of parliamentary legislation in the next four years. The perverts don't need to pursue their cause through the courts here because top-level British politicians from the major parties are already doing their bidding.

Goddamn those politicians! Doing the bidding of the electorate. What a crazy fucking notion for a democracy.

Well, you know what I think about marriage and about the homosexual-perversion: I've spoken out on these themes plenty of times. I sincerely hope that marriage remains correctly defined in both the USA and the UK in the years to come. As for Matthew Sephton and his pervert pals at Liverpool Pride, they can get the help they need here and here and good luck to them.

The links lead to ignorant organisations who dismiss homosexuals and bisexuals as sinners, and offer them a cure for their sexual orientations. They are the sort of bigoted and malign organisations that a malign bigot like Carvath would know about. I'm not going to link to them as they turn my stomach.

Carvath is simultaneously the worst kind of Christian and conservative: he is a close-minded bigot who hides behind scripture, and uses religious and political beliefs as a smokescreen that he believes, falsely, validates his atrocious views. Both the Conservatives and genuinely tolerant Christians should speak out against the likes of Carvath - him and his odious ilk do nothing but harm for their causes.

Whining Intern Wanker

Any article that carries the title "Is IPSA going to let me starve?" is clearly going to be hysterical, self-serving nonsense. And the question is very easy to answer - no, IPSA won't let you starve, you whining intern shithead. The only person who will let you starve is yourself - by not getting some gainful employment.

But, as always, let's break down the rest of the article to truly see what freeform nonsense this idiot is spouting:

The head of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s communications operation receives an annual salary of £85,000. I am a communications and research intern for a Member of Parliament and earn nothing.

Well, one of you is overpaid, but the head of a communications operation is always going to earn more than someone who works as, effectively, an MP's bitch. You might not like it, but that is life.

In fact, I will be soon be faced with the choice between starvation and eviction because the MP who engaged me in good faith cannot wade through IPSA’s layers of bureaucracy and provide me with a wage.

There's a question of value here. The MP could wade through the layers of bureaucracy and get you a wage. However, the MP doesn't see enough value in what you do to do so. Therefore, you are effectively redundant. And you know what happens to those who are effectively redundant? They get another job. Which is what I suggest the author of this article does.

The plight of interns has been recognised by most of the candidates for the Labour leadership. Interns Aware has received backing from all but Ed Balls for its campaign for interns to be paid at least the national minimum wage. This is not an issue that the Labour Party or the wider labour movement should ignore. We are supposed to stand or fall on solidarity and working for an MP should not make anyone less worthy of that support. Of course, I am partially motivated by self-interest, but there are serious issues around IPSA and the wider access to politics.

I, like many others, am also motivated by self-interest. And that self-interest makes me reluctant to allow MPs to spunk money up the wall with precious little oversight.

IPSA was created as a knee-jerk response to public outrage. Bad legislation is something that can sometimes be repented at leisure, but this body is an abomination; bloated beyond control by its sense of moral self-importance.

Ha! Sounds a lot like the Labour party to me.

Tory blogger Iain Dale has brought a video to wider attention on his website. This shows Ken Osila, a member of the IPSA board, desperately trying to justify IPSA’s inflated salaries and vast, bureaucratic machine.

Whereas this article is the work of someone desperately trying to justify a salary out of naked self-interest. What's supposed to be the news here? That people try to justify what they do and the money they receive? Of course they fucking do. And the fact that they do it doesn't automatically invalidate their point.

Labour created this and the party should now show the moral courage necessary to undo the harm it has caused.

In terms of admitting the harm it caused, Labour should prioritise a number of things to show contrition about before it gets to IPSA. Like, say, the Iraq war and the decimation of civil liberties during its tenure in office.

The arguments around access to politics are well worn, but my experience is relevant and applicable. If internships are only accessible to one social group, what does this do for the representative nature of politics and political parties? Clearly, it restricts both and is inherently bad for democracy.

Why is it bad for democracy that some self-important little shite can't be paid in return for doing busy work for an MP? Interns are not vital for democracy. In fact, if anything, they are pretty damaging to genuine democracy, as they assist in the creation of a professional political class that has no experience of real-life, and have only worked with the increasingly inward looking and self-regarding political system of this country.

IPSA’s moral piety is unjustified. Far from defending democracy, the organisation is actually choking it and souring politics in Britain.

Shite. IPSA may be a bloated bureaucracy (which is hardly surprising as it was created by another bloated bureaucracy) but it is a response to the souring of politics in Britain by greedy MPs with a determination to put their hands in the till. And there is nothing undemocratic about IPSA because an MP is not prepared to jump through the hoops necessary to get payment for an intern. If anything, the fault (if there is one) lies with the MP, not the system.

It has yet to be explained to me why there are adequate grounds to consider internships as different from other forms of apprenticeship.

It probably has been explained to you, but you refuse to see it because naked self-interest dictates that you cannot acknowledge the validity of the argument against your line of work.

Making politics less professional does not engender some kind of mythic purity in the system.

No, but as we've seen, a professional political class is far from pure either. Furthermore, said class develops a clear disconnection from the people it is meant to serve and ends up with an unhealthy sense of entitlement.

In fact, it is making politics amateurish that breeds corruption, stifles meritocracy and encourages exploitation.

Really? Prove this. Because it sounds like bollocks to me.

Although people who want politics to be less like a “normal” career may mean well, what that would bring about would be the opposite of what they intend. The system would not become fairer and more transparent, but the reverse.

So having more normal people in politics would make the system less fair and less transparent. Again, precisely how is this the case? And how is it anything other than a completely unsupported, deeply biased assertion? As it stands, the creation of a professional political class actually makes politics less fair and less transparent. We're ending up with a self-perpetuating oligarchy rather than a genuine democracy.

Politics is in danger of becoming the province of the rich. That might suit the current Cabinet, but would be very bad for the rest of us.

Oh, for God's sake, not the age old bollocks about the Tories wanting only the wealthy in politics. It is, with the greatest respect, shite. And also misses the point that those running for Labour leader are also not short of funds. In part because, in the case of Balls for example, they exploited the expenses system. And at the moment politics is increasingly becoming the preserve of those who have done nothing other than politics for their entire career. Which is just as unhealthy and unrepresentative as making politics the province of the rich.

The system of parliamentary expenses has moved from one extreme to the other – from a chaotic vacuum to a bureaucratic nightmare.

Bureaucratic nightmare? Excellent - this means MPs are finally getting a taste of their own medicine, and getting to understand what it is like for the people in almost all their dealings with the state.

Labour must defend the sort of politics that is open to all and not get lost in the mood of the moment.

Labour has shown itself that it has no interest in politics open to all - it will only consider listening to those who agree without questions with what they say and do. Labour party politics is not about openness - it is about closing down debate and as such is fundamentally undemocratic.