Blue Sky Thinking

Anyone who has ever worked in business and heard the ominous phrase "blue sky thinking" will not be surprised with the sort of unrealistic toss Steve Hilton has apparently been spouting in the hallowed halls of the Prime Minister's home. "Blue sky thinking" is a euphemism for chatting nonsense that quite simply isn't ever going to happen. I have no idea why Hilton - who seems to just say that the first that floats into his brain - is employed by the incumbent Prime Minister, who is the most risk averse and anodyne politician to climb out of the bog of mediocrity that is modern politics in this country.

Although I do like this observation in the Telegraph (emphasis mine):

Mr Hilton, who often walks around the Prime Minister's office without shoes, is an increasingly influential figure who often suggests seemingly crazy ideas in an attempt to spark creative debate.

Must be fucking mental to walk around without shoes. What a crazy fool. Definitely want to certify someone for not wearing shoes.

Purnell Preaching For The State

James "Workhouse" Purnell has had time to think since he resigned from the Cabinet. Unfortunately, thinking doesn't appear to his strongest ability. Since he comes up with platitudinous crap:

"People on the right are very sceptical about the state but people on the left believe the state is a good thing."

So, for lefties like Purnell, the state is automatically a good thing. Probably why Purnell and others who identify themselves as left-wing try so hard to expand it. But was the state under, say, Stalin a good thing? Is the massive state apparatus in North Korea a good thing? And fuck it, let's have a bit of Godwin's Law and ask whether the Nazi state was a good thing?

The people who Purnell puts on the right-wing are sceptical about the state, and with good reason. The state can be a good thing, but only if it is closely controlled and governed using the basic principle that the state should serve the people and not the other way round. And anyone who can say something as stupid, simplistic and wrong as "the state is a good thing" reveals a crucial truth about themselves - they are too dumb to be in government. 

Talking Seven Shades of Shite

This is, believe it or not, Alastair Darling talking about Gordon Brown:

"I have every confidence in Gordon Brown. I believe he is the right person to lead this country and to lead our party and I know that at the conference next week he will set out his vision for the future."

Now, I thought Gordo's reason for not holding an election last year was so he could spell out his vision for the future. A year on, and the vision thing still isn't happening. And I can't be alone in maybe thinking that Brown doesn't have a vision for the future. I can't be alone in thinking that Brown has nothing going round in his mind other than blind panic. Which should be evident to anyone who is not deaf, dumb, blind, stupid or a member of the Labour Cabinet.

But that is not my main point. Rather, I am wondering precisely what Darling hopes to achieve by spouting this half baked shite at the nation? I know he is fucking stupid - he is a Nu Labour minister, so it is pretty much a pre-requisite for his job. But I can't believe that he is so stupid that he really believes this empty rhetoric that is spewing from his mouth like tramp sick. And surely he can't think that he is going to convice anyone. Darling is the most compromised of politicians - pretty much ever knows that he is a cross between a puppet chacellor and an incompetent dick head. He can't think that anyone is really going to listen to him, and if they do, actually heed his advice.

And why is he doing this? Why stand up and spout these lies at the media and at the people? Does he think it will help him to keep his job? That ain't ever going to happen - rather like his boss, Darling's removal from office is a case of when, now, not if. The best I can think is that this is some sort of loyalty - a deeply misguided, utterly insane version of loyalty. But if it is down to loyalty, Darling needs to learn that loyalty is only a virtue if you are being loyal to something that is actually worth it. And Gordon Brown, most certainly, is not worth it.

Darling, and all the other minister currently running to the aid of the floundering PM during this increasingly impotent looking coup, should give up and try a different tactic. They should hold up their hands and admit they made a mistake with Gordon. They should just be honest, and say their choice of PM was a fuck up and they are sorry. Because anything else - and in particular this absolute nonsense fucking loyalty to a man who is about as popular and useful as syphilis, is patronising and deceitful. They know Brown is a cunt, we know Brown is a cunt. Please can we all stop pretending, kick the fucking cock out of office, and just move on?

Jamie Oliver: The Wisdom of a Moron

The BBC carries this story about Jamie Oliver:

In an interview with Paris Match magazine, Oliver suggested people in the UK cared more about getting drunk than they did about eating well.

Hm. Now, I'm not a massive fan of Jamie Oliver. In fact, my hatred for Jamie Oliver is nearly matched by my hatred for one G. Brown, presently residing in Downing Street, London. And when I read something said or written (no doubt by a ghost writer) by Jamie Oliver, the red mist descends. I disappear into the sort of murderous rage normally associated with Serbian Warlords, or British Prime Ministers seeking a historical legacy through the medium of war. There is just something about that dumb looking mockney cunt that makes me want to punch a hole in my own head.

And hearing Jamie Oliver giving advice about the binge drinking problem in the UK leaves me shaking my head with incredulity. We may as well get Bill Cosby to lecture us on the situation on Iraq. Or Bobby Davro to offer us advice on avoiding recession. Oliver is qualified - barely - to comment on food preparation. Anything else is Oliver over-reaching massively, like a retarded infant reaching for the fireplace.

Now, I'm speaking just for myself here, but I can't help but think that the nation's binge drinking problem might be a much less of an issue if there was some sort of incentive for people to stay in of an evening, rather than going out and getting absolutely shitted on special offer booze. Like, say, something good on the television. Rather than an endless parade of talentless TV chefs like Jamie Oliver patronising viewers into believing they are inferior because they have neither the time not the impetus to spend three hours an evening creating a four course dinner. You know, something like hardcore pornography or midgets fighting each other over a steak dinner might be more fun, more educational and more likely to make people stay in with a cup of tea than the latest half-baked culinary "crusade" from Jamie Oliver.

However, whilst I despise Oliver's inane, idiotic dribblings, I will concede it is not his fault. He talks shite; but that will happen if you give a moron a microphone to spout into and a platform to spout from. No, the reason why I hate Jamie Oliver is what he stands for. He is living, breathing, grinning proof that in this day and age, the idiot with the telegenic smile has somehow become worth listening to. Rather than tutting at, and ignoring. The age of the experts is gone; now the general populace seems happy to take advice from a gurning fool simply because of a very minor celebrity.

We need to move on from this ridiculous age when the likes of Oliver are not only encouraged to pontificate, but have their words reported as newsworthy and something approaching the truth. Because Jamie Oliver is about as qualified as my good self to offer advice on binge drinking. And my advice is very different to that of Oliver - I say get pissed whenever you can. Go on, get on it now. Drink until you are utterly fucked. Go the whole hog, and have a bit of a spew at the end. Oh, and if you listen to me you are just as moronic as if you listen to Oliver's advice on anything other that "tukka" - a total tool.

The reason why I would consign Jamie Oliver to Room 101 (and the Orwellian vision of Room 101, not the tedious British TV show version) is not so much because of his personality - although Lord knows his personality makes my teeth ache and my tear ducts bleed. No, the reason why I despise Oliver is because of what he stands for - in the kingdom of the dumb, the fat tongued TV chef is king.

Christian Calls For Sharia Law. Eh?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has opened his mouth again - this time to argue for the partial introduction of Sharia law here in the UK. Inevitably, the rubbish that spews forth when he opens his gob is not unlike the vomit from the mouth of a cretin who has consumed too much pizza: useless, unpleasant and with a nasty aroma of cheese.

I don't really know what his latest speech is meant to achieve, other than alienate the flock he is meant to be leading and most of the other people in this country, but it does show a staggering ignorance when it comes to the law. Ultimately, the law is catch-all - it does apply to everyone who lives in this country, regardless of what community they live in. You can live in different ways, according to your beliefs, if you so wish and if it is in line with the law. Ultimately, any other way leads to anarchy, and the breakdown of the rule of law.

I can't muster the same levels of rage that DK has over Williams - Williams is a stupid man, clearly unsuited to his position, and with an apparent inability to talk sense. And as such, he is not unlike many other people who hold senior positions organisations in this country. And like all stupid people who open their mouths and babble incoherent rubbish, he should be ignored.

The staggering stupidity of what Williams has said is put into sharp focus by the fact that he has made a Liberal Democrat appear to be the voice of reason. So, Calamity Clegg, over to you:

"Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another. There is a huge difference between respecting peoples' right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law."

Quite.