(Really Rather Long) Quote of the Day

Matthew Norman powerfully dismissing Gordon Brown's vengeful anti-NI appearance in the Commons:

And still he cannot see his complicity. "This is an issue about the abuse of political power..." he said of Murdoch's news-gathering tactics. Well, duh!, you might say. But oddly enough it isn't, or not as he meant it. At its core, it is an issue of the abuse of political power not by Murdoch, but by Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, David Cameron and every other elected quisling who supped with the devil not with a long spoon but from the devil's own satanic hands. "I came to the conclusion," Mr Brown went on of his urge for a judicial inquiry, "that the evidence was becoming so overwhelming about the underhand tactics of News International to trawl through people's lives, particularly the lives of people who were completely defenceless." Sweet Lord Jesus, isn't the point of a Labour prime minister to defend the defenceless? "I'm genuinely shocked to find that this happened," added the Captain Renault of Kirkcaldy. "If I – with all the protection and defences that a chancellor or prime minister has – can be so vulnerable to unscrupulous and unlawful tactics, what about the ordinary citizen?"

Frankly, it's a struggle to continue parsing this statement, because it feels like bullying a simpleton for being a simpleton. So it's worth recalling that Gordon Brown was the most fearsome juggernaut of a machine politician Britain has ever known – and here he is courting sympathy as the impotent victim whose "senior officials" overruled his request for an inquiry. The senior official to whom he refers, if subconsciously, is the ringer for Davros ("My vision is impaired," as his daleks often croaked, "I cannot see") who flew in on Sunday to smile at the cameras as he squired Mrs Brooks to dinner in Mayfair.

Makes the point perfectly, as far as I am concerned. Gordon was at the heart of government for 13 years, including a stint as a Prime Minister with a healthy majority. At any point he could have taken on News International; he could have tried to stop them at any time. It would have been a brutal battle and he would not have emerged unscathed. But had he taken on that fight, perhaps he would have made a real positive difference in Britain. However, his bleating at the moment is simply the angry revenge of a jilted man who cannot come to terms with the fact that News International stitched him up at a party conference by withdrawing support for him just after his big speech. He had his chance to take on News International in his 13 years at the top of government in this country. He didn't take it. So right now he'd be best off shutting the fuck up because all this sort of speech does is highlight what an inveterate coward he is since he did not, despite being on of the most important politicians in this country, take on News International when they came to fuck around with his family. Brown remains what he has always been - a spineless little weed of a man.

Labour's Royal Wedding Snub Bleatings

Here's a wonderful example of absolutely manufactured and completely unconvincing ersatz rage from the modern Labour Party:

St James's Palace has dismissed any suggestion of a "snub" towards Mr Blair and Mr Brown, but shadow justice minister Chris Bryant said he was unhappy with their exclusion.

"I really don't want to rain on anybody's parade because I really wish the happy couple a lovely day on Friday," he said. "I just think they've been let down by their advisers, or by Number 10, because I'm sure this list will have been passed through Number 10.

"I think the same same proprieties should have been followed as for Charles and Diana's wedding and that was that all former prime ministers should be invited."

Mr Bryant added: "I think it shows a bit of vindictiveness from Number 10."

First up, quite why anyone would care what Chris Byrant thinks is beyond me. But the whole tone of the protest from the Labour party follows a particular pattern. Firstly, find a perceived snub against the Labour party. Second, find a way - no matter how unlikely - that the Prime Minister or his team was somehow involved in that snub. Thirdly, use a tone of hurt indignation. Finally, studiously ignore any facts that might impact on your fabricated bit of pointless outrage.

For example, some Labourites have made much of the fact that Margaret Thatcher and John Major have been invited to the wedding, while Blair and Brown haven't. This handily ignores that fact that the rather frail Thatcher effectively retired from public life a long time ago, and was always unlikely to be able to accept an invite to the wedding. Plus, to snub a frail old lady right at the end of her life would have provoked far more general, and real, outrage from people than not inviting two wealthy men who are proactively pursuing lucrative careers for themselves. And on John Major - my understanding is that he is guardian to both William and his brother Harry. Seems a natural person to be invited to the wedding, then. Then there's the whole Knights of the Garter thingy, which is best summarised as Thatcher and Major are, Brown and Blair aren't.

Then there's the fact that the Royal Household probably have a veto over who No. 10 wants to be invited to this bloody wedding. If they wanted Blair and Brown to be there, then they could have made it happen. I almost suspect that they didn't, and who can blame them? One dragged this country into a brutal, unnecessary war that has made it more vulnerable to terrorism, while the other did his level best to bankrupt the fucking country. I can understand why the future king might not want those two at his wedding...

And to close of this post, I'd just like to note how far the Labour party has drifted from its socialist roots if now it can have its MPs bemoaning the exclusion of its wealthy former Prime Ministers from an occasion of privileged extravagance at a time of national austerity. At times like this, I do wonder "what would Nye Bevan have said?" It would be memorable, but not positive...

Stuff I Couldn't Give a Fuck About Part One: The AV Referendum

Can we have the referendum on AV right now please? Because I'm mightily sick of the whole thing.

I get the impression that we are supposed to be surprised by elements of how the whole campaign has gone - like it is supposed to be some sort of revelation that David Cameron and the ever thuggish John Reid should share the same platform. Of course they can share the same platform; they've both spent enough of their careers chasing Daily Mail headlines. Likewise, seeing Ed Miliband and Vince Cable on the same stage is meant to be news, but I can't really see why. They are very much the same, both in terms of the way they think and the (generally idiotic) way they act. Cable and Miliband Minor together isn't so much a campaign as the queue for the audition for a political version of Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em.

And then there's been the proper campaign (by which I mean the one not conducted by jobbing politicians looking for a photo opportunity). What is striking about it is that neither side has ever made the case for their particular voting system. No To AV have stuck resolutely with the twin pronged attack of "ooo, AV'll cost ya" (ironically spending vast sums of money to convey that message) and "AV works for the BNP"* while Yes To AV have fought (judging by the completely unsolicited and unwelcome e-mails they insist on sending me) a purely reactive campaign, indignantly rebutting charges from the other side with the playground logic of "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?" at the same time as thinking the use of the word "Fair" will automatically win people over to their side. As I say, neither campaign has truly set out to make an effective case for or against AV - in part, I suspect, because they know that their system is just as flawed (albeit in different ways) as the other side's.

And, of course, this referendum is basically on nothing - it is on a minor change to our unwritten constitution that will have precious little impact on the problems of politics in this country regardless of the outcome. The problem isn't the voting system - it is the political class, and those vainglorious turds who enter it. Show me a way of changing the type of person and raising the calibre of the individuals who enter our political elite, and I'll be listening. Hell, if it works, I'll campaign for it. But given the amount of power that has been ceded to the EU without a referendum and the wars we have entered/the near bankrupting of our country that took place without consulting the British people, you'll have to forgive me if I consider the AV referendum little more than a sideshow in British politics. The fact is, the real stuff is happening elsewhere while some people bicker about the system we use to vote.

*The irony is that the voting system impacts on the BNP remarkably little. Their grubby little star is in ascendance when mainstream politicians fail to make the strong and inclusive case for immigration, while it is in freefall when the BNP actually get some of the limelight and people see what nasty, ignorant and pointless thugs they are.

Bob Geldof, in self-pity mode:

I'd love people to hear it, but I don't think people will. You've got all the baggage that comes with me: The Boomtown Rats, all the tabloid stuff... You've got to get through an awful lot of stuff, then put it aside and say, "well, I'll have a listen, I'll give him a go".

But bizarrely enough, people do buy my stuff, so I get to play great theatres all over the world. Except in the UK, where they don't give a crap.

You could put up a poster with 'Tonight! Bob Geldof!' on it, and people would see it and say, "OK, fair enough…" then wander off saying, "Doing what? Is he gonna rant at us about Africa?"

Yeah, that's all true, Bob, but I do think that there is another reason why people won't want to hear your record - it's the fact that you haven't actually produced anything worth hearing since 1982. A 20 year gulf in the production of anything of real artistic merit is a big jump for any artist to overcome, Bob, even one as arrogant and self-assured as your good self.

UK Uncut Cretins

From UK Uncut - a group that seems determined to make student politics seem credible and forward thinking by comparison - I give you the concept of a bail-in. What is a bail-in, you might ask. You really don't want to know, I'd reply. But I'll tell you anyway:

Our next wave of actions will be even more exciting. A Bail-In means marching into our broken banks and building something better. Make your silent, sterile Barclays branch sing, dance, explode with life! Reclaim the space and make it into something thrilling, something that shows how much creativity the anti-cuts movement has. Let’s smash austerity with a smile on our faces. We are Cameron’s nightmare, a real big society with the vision and bravery to transform the institutions at the rotten heart of our system.

Right. So... a broken bank is what, then? One with a leaky roof or a run-down cash machine outside? Or is it one that we had to bail out? Because if it is, then you shouldn't be heading to Barclays because, as Jackart points out, they found other ways to keep going. I guess we're back at the idiot's equation when it comes to banks. The (il)logic runs something like this: I don't like bankers therefore bankers must be bad and therefore banks must be broken. It is audacious in its breathtaking stupidity.

This idea of making banks thrilling through singing and dancing also seems curious. To me, banks aren't cold and sterile - they are trying to project an image of being professional places where you can do business and where you can safely store your money. There is a reason why they don't normally have singing and dancing, my people. It's because it would be a fucking stupid idea for a bank.

And while we're on the subject, the talk of "reclaiming" a bank is also pretty stupid - at least until you realise that what we're talking about here is people invading the private property of others. Then it becomes downright malign. Think about how you would feel, Mr and Mrs UK Uncut, if I came round to your house and invaded your front room because I happen to think you are total dickheads disagree with you on this one. Wouldn't be fun, would it? But that's exactly what your bail-ins are about.

Oh, and by the way, you are not Cameron's nightmare. You are a minor irritant - like a mosquito bite on the butt cheek. If Cameron ignores you for long enough, you'll vanish. You're not going to change any institutions, rotten or otherwise, with your bland, anodyne and pathetic protests. All that will happen is that you'll look like cocks on Saturdays until you find something better to do at the weekend.

Which is rather the point. Far be it from me to champion Cameron's Big Society, but I dare say his response to this sort of guff would be "if you genuinely want to make a difference, stop interrupting businesses and do some constructive, voluntary work in your spare time". But that would be too difficult, wouldn't it? To do something that might actually be constructive. But that wouldn't get the media's attention.

Anyway targeting businesses like Barclays - which has done nothing more than trying to avoid (not evade) tax - is targeting the wrong people. Any tax bill has to be agreed with HMRC - if you don't agree with that tax bill, go bellyache to them. Furthermore, by damaging the trade of banks such as Barclays through these tedious sit-ins, you will potentially damage their future revenue and therefore decrease the amounts they will have to pay in tax in future. Which is the final irony - with behaviour like this, UK Uncut may actually be making future cuts more likely.

Absolute wankers.

Bus Etiquette

Now, I can understand why people might not want other people to eat really smelly food, or to listen to music too loudly on their headphones, or to have outrageously loud conversations on their mobiles while they are on a bus. But there is a reason why, personally, I end up listening to my headphones while I am enduring a bus ride. It’s this: I cannot bear the loud, endless and tedious conversations about nothing of other people. You might think your life is so important that you have to let not only your friend/relative know about it, but you’d be wrong. Your life is dull. It is tedious. And the very fact that you seem to find it so interesting that you have to inflict it on your fellow bus travellers is further proof of what a boring, self-absorbed shite you are.

So I’ll do a deal with you: I’ll not listen to music if you, my slack-jawed bus brethren, learn to shut the fuck up. Otherwise, I’ll be listening to Primal Scream et al at a loud enough volume to drown your tedium out. Because, quite frankly, it is the only thing stopping me from ripping out your super strength, endlessly flapping tongue and beating you to death with it.

*Retches*

Self-regarding, self-pitying shite.

It has already been commented on to death, but I can't let this piece of self-pitying, utterly delusional piece of written onanism pass without comment. In particular, this bit had me simultaneously aghast and outraged:

These days, I am lucky if I earn £500 a week as a writer.

£500? £500? You're fucking lucky that you earn £5 a month given your writing reads like the nasal whining of a spoilt materialistic teenager whose grip on reality is practically non-existent.

Royal engagement bullshit

Helpfully, The Daily Mash has put together a list of the most gushing, fawning tripe written in the aftermath of the announcement of the royal engagement. It is reproduced in full below - be warned, though, dear reader, you'll need a strong stomach to get through it all:

Each and every one us will be deeply affected by the looming royal marriage... (Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph)

In an important sense, this betrothal has far more to teach a new generation about relationships - and fidelity, too. (Bel Mooney, Daily Mail)

For Kate and William, their engagement has profound national significance. They will help form our collective imagination. They are now part of what we are as a nation, how we define ourselves as individuals. (Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph)

As somebody whose business it is to study the human heart.. (Bel Mooney, Daily Mail - she actually wrote those words)

Today we are wiser and perhaps more humane. The unrealistic expectations that destroyed Charles and Diana have gone. (Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph - he's playing a blinder)

It is rare these days that we glimpse broad sunlit uplands, but this is one such moment. (Daily Telegraph editorial - sweet fucking Jesus)

And the winner is (obviously)...

Diana, the bride at every royal funeral and the mourner at every royal wedding, was present in more than just the engagement ring which sat so heavily on the hand of this young woman who must now walk a mile in her bloodied shoes, on a road leading who knows where. (Julie Burchill, The Independent)

And the worst thing? People are paid to write this tripe...

Memo to the World

Dear World,

Please shut up about The X Factor.

Best regards,

The Nameless Libertarian.

Another Non-Story

As reported on the BBC:

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

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

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

Pastor Terry Jones Speaks!

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

[First words inaudible]...

Best part of the speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American people do not want the mosque there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blair, Protest, and the BNP

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE:

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

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

Pay Gordon to work for free

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

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

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

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

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

Blair the Greedy vs Brown the Noble

From the Twitter feed of Gus Baker:

Tony Blair wants £150 4 a signed copy of his memoir. Gordon Brown affirms that all proceeds from his book will go to charity. #justsaying

Probably being a bit cynical here, but I rather think that the reason why Blair is charging £150 for a signed copy of his book is because people are willing to pay £150 for his book. Fuck knows why, though. However, I think the chances of anyone paying that amount for a signed copy of Brown's book is less than zero, so why on earth would he embarrass himself by trying to ask for it?

I think we're all supposed to be impressed by the fact that Gordon is giving the proceeds of his no doubt entirely self-serving and largely unreadable book to charity. I'd be more impressed is (a) Brown wasn't writing said book at the expense of the taxpayer while neglecting his duties as an MP and (b) if this book was destined to be in the remainder bins across the country within weeks of its release.

Just sayin' is all.

UPDATE:

And now Blair's got in on the charity act - he's giving millions to the Royal British Legion. I'm sure I won't be alone in noting that if Blair really wanted to help soldiers, then he might not have sent them into an illegal war without the equipment they so clearly needed.

What is nice about this, though, is that it is likely to be a yet another way in which Blair will best Brown. Since his book will almost certainly sell more than Brown's, he'd going to be better at the "giving book proceeds to charity" competition that he has just started. And what's the betting that's a big part of the reason for this announcement?

Oh sweet merciful Jesus, your ears may be about to be violated: Paul McCartney is writing the music for a ballet:

"I'm interested in doing things I haven't done before," he said.

How about you shut the fuck up and duck out of the limelight forever, Paul? After all, you've never done that before...

Where's Gordo? Who Cares?

Gordon Brown - where is he now? asks The Daily Telegraph. I'd like to answer a question with a question here - who fucking cares?

The fact that Gordo seems to have disappeared off the radar since the General Election can only be a good thing. I mean, it took long enough for him to leave Downing Street after that election - normally, Prime Ministers go if they are defeated. Not Gordo. Showing a complete lack of dignity, he clung on until the Liberal Democrats made it very clear that they fancied the Tories more than the Labour party. Only then, when there was absolutely no case to be made, however tenuous, for his ongoing occupancy of Number 10, did he go.

And when he was Prime Minister (and, for that matter, Chancellor) the truth is that he was a complete disaster. Basically, he did more than anyone else across the 13 years of Nu Labour misrule to completely fuck up this country. Every decision that was made he was either at the heart of, or he failed to resist it - and he was consistently at the top of the Nu Labour tree.

Where's Gordon Brown? Sulking in Scotland - powerless and rejected. And you'll have to forgive me if I express the hope that we never, ever hear from Gordon Brown again. Unless he happens to come forward to offer his sincere apologies to the British people for his myriad failings while in power. And he should, preferably, offer reparations to the British taxpayer at the same time.

Diane Abott, Leadership Contender

Diane Abbott, summed up in three easy steps:

The left-winger said all the other candidates were "policy wonks" and "men in their 40s who played football together".

Ms Abbott insisted: "That's too narrow a section of the party. We risk losing touch with women. We risk losing touch with where our supporters are.

"The other candidates would make good leaders of the Labour Party but they all look the same. We cannot be offering a slate of candidates who all look the same. The party is much more diverse than that."

So the reason why Abbot is running is not because she thinks that she is the best person of the job, but because the other contenders "all look the same" and she represents diversity. Hmmm...

But rest assured, it isn't the only reason. No, Abbott is flying the flag for socialists as well as women and ethnic minorites:

Cambridge graduate Ms Abbott, 57, who became Britain's first black woman MP in 1987, said she was running to make sure there was a "voice of the left" in the contest

Do we really need a voice of the left running? I can't ever remember a voice of the left saying anything worth hearing. Still, I guess I'm biased. Based on the fact that I find socialism abhorrent.

She rejected suggestions she had been damaged by sending her son to a fee-paying school.

Brilliant! Well done Diane. Do you want some champagne with your socialism?

So, let's sum up Abbott, shall we? She's running not because of she believes herself to be the most capable candidate, but because of her gender and her ethnicity. And she's a socialist, of course, but like so many other people of that inclination, she doesn't let her beliefs impact on her actions.

Hard to imagine that there could be a candidate out there who could make Balls or Burnham look like credible contenders, but you know what? I think Abbott might just have managed it.

Nu Labour and the Celebrity Endorsement

Over at LabourList, I see that some sort of Nu Labour drone* has managed to write a book. It’s a short book, mind, but that’s understandable when you consider the topic – Why Vote Labour. Frankly, I’m amazed she managed to produce enough text even for a small book. I’d have thought this sort of tome could have been written on the back of a bar mat. And since it is about reasons to vote for Labour, written on the back of a bar mat after a substantial session of absinthe drinking.

But then we see Ms Reeves’ secret – she’s got other people to help her write her “book”:

"Why Vote Labour" tells the inspirational stories of people and families from up and down the country about the difference Labour has made to them. It also includes personal accounts from Jo Brand, Gurinder Chadha, Bono, Eddie Izzard and others on the difference Labour has made.

Right, so, we should vote Labour because a sarcastic bag of lard, someone I’ve never heard of, a twat whose egregious personality is summed up perfectly by his idiotic sunglasses, and a long past prime comedian happened to have scrawled some meaningless gibberish in a lightweight tome penned by a Labour PPC. In the whole broad spectrum of shitty reasons to vote Labour, that has to be one of the worst. In fact, the only way that list of celebrities could have been made even more repellent is by including the chopper to end all choppers – Sting.

And I can’t stand it. I just can’t stand it. I cannot cope with this notion that because someone has a hit record, they suddenly become an expert on politics who is worth quoting by someone aspiring to become a legislator. And I despair of the fact that she would quote comedians as a reason to vote for her shit awful party without even a hint of irony.

I want to write a book. It would be called “Why celebrities are cunts, and how they have helped to destroy politics.” Because that’s what this is – the debasement and destruction of political discourse in this country. Soon, we’ll be in a position where parties cease to publish manifestos, and instead commission a special edition of Hello! magazine that contains celebrities as charismatic and convincing as Chris Martin out of Coldplay wibbling on about why we should vote Labour because “it’s like good, and stuff.”

So fuck off. Fuck off the lot of you. To celebrities – do what your best at. Which isn’t political interventions. To politicians, get a grip. If you have now become dependent on “celebrities” to make your case and connect you to the people, then you have lost your way, and you have lost your Raison d'être. And know this – any party that uses the likes of Bono fucking Vox as an expert on anything other than making largely shitty records is not getting my vote. Not now, not ever.

*Seriously, where the fuck do they get these people from? Is there a factory somewhere outside Wigan mass-producing these tools?

Nicholas Winterton - Wanker

Sir Nicholas Winterton, showing all the charm and sophistication that has made him one of our most hated MPs:

Sir Nicholas Winterton has angrily denounced plans to reduce first-class travel by MPs - telling the BBC he needs "quiet" and privacy to work.

Oh my, this is going to be a good one. Let's see dig down and examine exactly why Winterton doesn't want to travel the way the vast majority of people travel in this country:

The veteran Tory MP said there was a "totally different type of people" in standard-class train carriages.

Yes, there is a totally different type of person, Nicky boy. The people you represent - or, at least, supposed to represent. And God forbid that an MP might have to interact or spend time with ordinary people. That would be fucking terrible. But it isn't just a general snobbery that is stopping Winterton from sharing a train carriage with those that Alan B'stard might refer to as the ordinaries. No, he also needs to work:

"If I was in standard class I would not do work because people would be looking over your shoulder the entire time, there would be noise, there would be distraction."

Yes, yes there would be distraction. Which is why most people either learn to manage their workload so they don't have to work on the train. Or they learn to get over the distractions on the train.

But Nicholas still doesn't think that a train is necessarily a nice environment. And you know what? He'd be right:

"There's lots of children, there's noise, there's activity. I like to have peace and quiet when I'm travelling."

I like to have peace and quiet when I am traveling - unfortunately, I know that if I am on a train, that is not likely to happen. I also know that the option of first class is available to me. I choose not to take it because I am too cheap to upgrade. And this is the option open to Winterton - he could upgrade too. But the idea that the taxpayer should pay for him and his idiotic, odious ilk is repugnant. Why should Winterton - or any other fucking MP, for that matter - be able to enjoy luxury traveller at the expense of those very people he/they are supposed to be serving.

Frankly, Winterton can travel in any style he wishes - on a gold-plated unicorn for all I fucking care. But I'll be damned if I - or any other taxpayer in this country - is going to pay for him to do so.