Friday, March 1
That Mr. Littlejohn doesn't think much of our Tone, condemning his "shameless performance at Prime Minister’s Questions, during which he further debased his office, insulted Parliament and the intelligence of the electorate and demonstrated yet again his two-faced hypocrisy and total lack of integrity".
|
|
Another afternoon spent worrying about Mr. Blair and his future. Years ago, I remember hearing Alastair McAlpine, former Tory Treasurer who had abandoned them for the short-lived Referendum Party, saying on the radio that Major and Blair were two peas in a pod. I considered this an overstatement, and that Blair even then, was a lot shiftier. However, perhaps I was wrong. The indecisiveness, the peculiar habit they have of not wanting people to know what they really think about things. I suppose it was in the light of Matthew Parris's ramblings in the Spectator, where he suggests that Blair, even though he does it quite a lot, hates lying, and will rather evade and dissemble rather than tell an out and out porkie-pie. Not so very different from the rest of us, perhaps. Nonetheless, he could still end up like Major, who surrounded himself with hated sleazeballs, yet who never had the nerve to sack them. Major was considered a decent chap by the majority of the voters, and maybe the same will happen to Blair. Mandelson, Vaz, Byers, Robinson. Of course, no one could hang any sleaze on Major, whereas Blair has had Ecclestone, Mittal, Byers, and the Hindujas. Yet it all seems to wash over him, so maybe instead of being kicked out for being a dubious character, he could instead go for surrounding himself with same, while remaining, apparently, squeaky clean. But how would Major have behaved with a majority of 189? Or Blair with one of 20, and rapidly diminishing? I shudder to think about either. Major's lot were so rebellious and fractious precisely because the majority was so small. Blair's lot are so supine because the majority is so enormous. But it strikes me, and Jackie Ashley in today's New Statesman ( Is it on-line? I'll go check ) that New Labour really is a very small clique, and the backbenchers really only tolerate him while they remain popular with the masses. When things go wrong, as in when Tony gets unpopular, I imagine the insurrections will have only just begun. Which is something he appears to worry about all the time. Blair really never seems to realise just how popular he is, presumably because he feels he doesn't deserve to be.
|
|
And to confirm that the British love of compromise knows no bounds, here is the Guardian with its noted relish for negotiation where none is possible, which tells us in a leader, viz fox-hunting:
"If, as a nation, we have learned anything from the two earlier rounds of argument, it ought to be that there are respect-worthy issues of principle on both sides that should not be dismissed merely because one has a cultural distaste towards the people promoting them.
The challenge facing MPs on March 18, therefore, is to bring fresh minds and fresh eyes to old arguments. Both the earlier legislative efforts at Westminster and the bill recently adopted in Scotland provide ample warnings that this is a subject where poorly drafted legislation can easily fail to embody the principles intended by supporters and opponents alike.
The hunting debate calls for less mutual sanctimony and more mutual respect. It is time that the two sides each gave a little ground to each other in pursuit not of a outright kill but of a principled compromise".
Yes, well with the best will in the world it isn't possible. It's like saying you can compromise between Richard Dawkins and the Pope. This airy, patronising assumption that a bunch of Scrutonites who think killing foxes is a human duty and the pseudo-proles who regard it as close to murder could somehow come to a state of peace is so ridiculous. Get off your clouds, there is a real world down here!
|
"If, as a nation, we have learned anything from the two earlier rounds of argument, it ought to be that there are respect-worthy issues of principle on both sides that should not be dismissed merely because one has a cultural distaste towards the people promoting them.
The challenge facing MPs on March 18, therefore, is to bring fresh minds and fresh eyes to old arguments. Both the earlier legislative efforts at Westminster and the bill recently adopted in Scotland provide ample warnings that this is a subject where poorly drafted legislation can easily fail to embody the principles intended by supporters and opponents alike.
The hunting debate calls for less mutual sanctimony and more mutual respect. It is time that the two sides each gave a little ground to each other in pursuit not of a outright kill but of a principled compromise".
Yes, well with the best will in the world it isn't possible. It's like saying you can compromise between Richard Dawkins and the Pope. This airy, patronising assumption that a bunch of Scrutonites who think killing foxes is a human duty and the pseudo-proles who regard it as close to murder could somehow come to a state of peace is so ridiculous. Get off your clouds, there is a real world down here!
|
However, just when I thought the Independent might at last be seeing some sense, there is this other leader. Is this a spoof?
"There must be a limit to our support for America
Blair backs US over need to tackle Iraq weapons
Decisions on the next phase of the unwisely named war against terrorism are creeping closer, and most of the signs are that George Bush will get them wrong. After he used his State of the Union address to identify the equally unwisely named axis of evil, the pressing question is: what is to be done about Iraq?
That something ought to be done about Iraq should not be in doubt. The question is whether the US is going to act against its enemies in a way that creates even more enemies. The next question is whether Britain is going to support whatever President Bush does regardless.
Saddam Hussein is still a threat to his neighbours and – potentially – to the US and its allies. Even if the direct risk to the West from his proven wish to acquire weapons of mass destruction is small, the international community has a responsibility to act.
As Mr Blair accepted yesterday, there is no any evidence linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of 11 September. The country must be treated as a problem in its own right, and the issues remain much the same as they were before September last year. The main one is that of sanctions. To his credit, Mr Blair seems to realise that the present sanctions regime plays into Saddam's hands, allowing him to present the Iraqi people as victims of brutal US imperialism. The British attempt at the United Nations last year to lift sanctions on food and most trade foundered on objections by the Russians to the definition of dual-use technology. But it is right to pursue a collective approach, through the UN where possible. The legitimacy of the aerial harassment of Iraq over the past few years has been weakened by the fact that it has been a purely US-British operation.
The next phase of the campaign against various forms of international terrorism ought to be conducted through diplomacy, renewing the global coalition – about which Mr Bush seems to have forgotten already – and working for treaties to restrain the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Instead, the President seems determined to pursue the short-sighted and negative policy of asserting US might, which will provoke resentment and breed more terrorism. Mr Blair should not be seduced by the collaborationist argument that he will have greater influence over US policy if he expresses doubts in private. He should say, loud and clear, that US policy is in danger of becoming counterproductive".
It's all there, the 'diplomacy' 'coalition,' 'treaties', 'resentment' 'breed terrorism', 'counterproductive'. All that's missing is the phrase 'not very helpful' and a sarcastic reference to the Florida recount. I imagine the American bloggers will sink their teeth into this one, if they haven't done so already.
|
"There must be a limit to our support for America
Blair backs US over need to tackle Iraq weapons
Decisions on the next phase of the unwisely named war against terrorism are creeping closer, and most of the signs are that George Bush will get them wrong. After he used his State of the Union address to identify the equally unwisely named axis of evil, the pressing question is: what is to be done about Iraq?
That something ought to be done about Iraq should not be in doubt. The question is whether the US is going to act against its enemies in a way that creates even more enemies. The next question is whether Britain is going to support whatever President Bush does regardless.
Saddam Hussein is still a threat to his neighbours and – potentially – to the US and its allies. Even if the direct risk to the West from his proven wish to acquire weapons of mass destruction is small, the international community has a responsibility to act.
As Mr Blair accepted yesterday, there is no any evidence linking Iraq with the terrorist attacks of 11 September. The country must be treated as a problem in its own right, and the issues remain much the same as they were before September last year. The main one is that of sanctions. To his credit, Mr Blair seems to realise that the present sanctions regime plays into Saddam's hands, allowing him to present the Iraqi people as victims of brutal US imperialism. The British attempt at the United Nations last year to lift sanctions on food and most trade foundered on objections by the Russians to the definition of dual-use technology. But it is right to pursue a collective approach, through the UN where possible. The legitimacy of the aerial harassment of Iraq over the past few years has been weakened by the fact that it has been a purely US-British operation.
The next phase of the campaign against various forms of international terrorism ought to be conducted through diplomacy, renewing the global coalition – about which Mr Bush seems to have forgotten already – and working for treaties to restrain the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Instead, the President seems determined to pursue the short-sighted and negative policy of asserting US might, which will provoke resentment and breed more terrorism. Mr Blair should not be seduced by the collaborationist argument that he will have greater influence over US policy if he expresses doubts in private. He should say, loud and clear, that US policy is in danger of becoming counterproductive".
It's all there, the 'diplomacy' 'coalition,' 'treaties', 'resentment' 'breed terrorism', 'counterproductive'. All that's missing is the phrase 'not very helpful' and a sarcastic reference to the Florida recount. I imagine the American bloggers will sink their teeth into this one, if they haven't done so already.
|
The papers are full of the news that a bill to abolish fox-hunting is to be presented yet again to the Commons. Mary Ann Sieghart suggests that a compromise might be possible. I can't see it myself. It appeals so much to the Labour class warrior, and there are simply too many of them. Regulating it, whatever that mean, will fool no one. Yet the same paper's leader makes the same point. Michael Brown, on the other hand, in the Independent, thinks that the Lords will scupper it once again. Their leader, however agrees with me, for once:
"Labour backbenchers are not so stupid that they can be bought off with yet another meaningless vote that allows them to express their opinions and is then forgotten. Equally, public opinion, which on this issue is wrong but unmistakable, would not easily understand another marching of the abolitionist troops up the hill only for them to be marched down again…
A compromise between a ban on hunting and no ban is dishonest. The idea of licensed or regulated cruelty makes no sense. It would be better if the Prime Minister and all those MPs who vote for a ban simply to earn easy applause from a vocal and passionate minority of their constituents were courageous enough to explain to the voters that, while some activities may offend our sensibilities, they should not all be banned.
The Middle Way is a classic Blairite fudge. It is unlikely to satisfy either side – although the anti-hunters are likely to be the more disappointed, because hunting would continue, with only some of its more repellent excesses curtailed. The Prime Minister would earn a great deal more respect if he said what he really thought and explained and defended that, instead of trying to fix his way out of a political problem".
|
"Labour backbenchers are not so stupid that they can be bought off with yet another meaningless vote that allows them to express their opinions and is then forgotten. Equally, public opinion, which on this issue is wrong but unmistakable, would not easily understand another marching of the abolitionist troops up the hill only for them to be marched down again…
A compromise between a ban on hunting and no ban is dishonest. The idea of licensed or regulated cruelty makes no sense. It would be better if the Prime Minister and all those MPs who vote for a ban simply to earn easy applause from a vocal and passionate minority of their constituents were courageous enough to explain to the voters that, while some activities may offend our sensibilities, they should not all be banned.
The Middle Way is a classic Blairite fudge. It is unlikely to satisfy either side – although the anti-hunters are likely to be the more disappointed, because hunting would continue, with only some of its more repellent excesses curtailed. The Prime Minister would earn a great deal more respect if he said what he really thought and explained and defended that, instead of trying to fix his way out of a political problem".
|
Thursday, February 28
Matthew Parris has one of his better articles in this week's Spectator about lying, and has some stuff about Blair's attitude to the truth which is unusually charitable. When Parris is good, he's really good. It's just too often he likes to be different and unpredictable, and this must be because he gets bored, and because he writes too much. And he likes the attention. Sure, most politicians lie, dissemble, and so on. Who indeed, doesn't? The more subtle question is: why? And that's what makes Byers such a gangster. He lied to save his own skin and nobody else's. And he was prepared to sacrifice two civil servants in the process. So why does Blair stand by him? You'll note that the Alsatian riddle has yet to be denied.
|
|
Iain Murray is stumped by a cricket question. It's Jim Laker, I think you'll find. The only other guy to get every single opponent's wicket during a test match. I thought everybody knew that.
|
|
The Mirror is going upmarket, muscling in on my left-of-centre middle class territory. Therefore there will now be a gap in the market for naked women, football, in-depth interviews with Will Young, and righteous indignation about fat cats' pay. Stay tuned.
|
|
Emily Jones, the notorious Hawkgirl, calls me a pip, when I defend the British interest in Sixsmithgate, Byersgate, Spingate, whatever. She describes it as 'the dullest poltical scandal ever'. I said:
"No way. It's a thrill-a-minute rollercoaster ride that makes Enron look like a vicar's tea party. Well for us Brits, anyway. It's about lying and stuff, and sacking two people for, apparently, no reason at all".
She then replied:
"Excepting the fact that Enron is painfully dull as well. At least the Vicar's tea party serves refreshments.
Here in the U.S., in order for lying to be exciting, it has to involve lying about sex, drug use, criminal history (and it has to be juicy stuff - no jaywalking or un-paid parking tickets), or illegal campaign contributions from coke-snorting hookers".
Which got me thinking. She could be right. What exactly is the hold Byers has on Blair? Do they have they same coke-dealer? Did Byers walk in on Number 10 one day and find Tony committing a compromising act with David Blunkett's Alsatian? I'm not saying these things happened, and if anyone were to spread this rumour for which there is not even the smallest scintilla of truth, I for one would be outraged. Nonetheless, I think we have a right to know and it would be as well for them all to put an end to these stories once and for all so they can get get on with the important work of getting the trains to work. In the meantime go check her site. I'll probably permalink to her, if I ever get to figure that stuff out. She's very funny.
|
"No way. It's a thrill-a-minute rollercoaster ride that makes Enron look like a vicar's tea party. Well for us Brits, anyway. It's about lying and stuff, and sacking two people for, apparently, no reason at all".
She then replied:
"Excepting the fact that Enron is painfully dull as well. At least the Vicar's tea party serves refreshments.
Here in the U.S., in order for lying to be exciting, it has to involve lying about sex, drug use, criminal history (and it has to be juicy stuff - no jaywalking or un-paid parking tickets), or illegal campaign contributions from coke-snorting hookers".
Which got me thinking. She could be right. What exactly is the hold Byers has on Blair? Do they have they same coke-dealer? Did Byers walk in on Number 10 one day and find Tony committing a compromising act with David Blunkett's Alsatian? I'm not saying these things happened, and if anyone were to spread this rumour for which there is not even the smallest scintilla of truth, I for one would be outraged. Nonetheless, I think we have a right to know and it would be as well for them all to put an end to these stories once and for all so they can get get on with the important work of getting the trains to work. In the meantime go check her site. I'll probably permalink to her, if I ever get to figure that stuff out. She's very funny.
|
"Europe needs a new constitution that brings it closer to its people"
says this leader in the Independent. The second leader then says
"There is little to fear from therapeutic cloning".
So what happens when an EU constitution bans it? I never quite get it with people who are gung-ho on constitutional reform and human rights and stuff. They always seem to assume that their vision of a constitution and their vision of human rights will prevail. Why?
|
says this leader in the Independent. The second leader then says
"There is little to fear from therapeutic cloning".
So what happens when an EU constitution bans it? I never quite get it with people who are gung-ho on constitutional reform and human rights and stuff. They always seem to assume that their vision of a constitution and their vision of human rights will prevail. Why?
|
Oliver Letwin:
"Over the past few years, we have witnessed a police recruitment crisis, with resignations increasing by 60 per cent. Special constables, so crucial to the renewal of our communities, have dropped by more than 7,000.
Against this backdrop, the Government introduces a Police Reform Bill that, far from restoring morale and increasing the effectiveness of the police, ends up with the worst of both worlds: a national police force, run by the Home Secretary, and a degrading of neighbourhood policing with an array of lower-level auxiliaries exercising a bewildering collection of sub-police powers".
Quite right. But as the point below suggests, the totalitarian instincts of the Blairites knows few bounds.
|
"Over the past few years, we have witnessed a police recruitment crisis, with resignations increasing by 60 per cent. Special constables, so crucial to the renewal of our communities, have dropped by more than 7,000.
Against this backdrop, the Government introduces a Police Reform Bill that, far from restoring morale and increasing the effectiveness of the police, ends up with the worst of both worlds: a national police force, run by the Home Secretary, and a degrading of neighbourhood policing with an array of lower-level auxiliaries exercising a bewildering collection of sub-police powers".
Quite right. But as the point below suggests, the totalitarian instincts of the Blairites knows few bounds.
|
Boris Johnson:
"It would appear, at least from the Byers case, that any minister who lies will receive the Prime Minister's full and unqualified support.... Labour's fundamental psychological problem is that too many of them (like Byers) are ex-Marxists, and find it impossible to make the distinction between party and state".
The latter point is seldom made. What kind of former Communist becomes a Blairite?
|
"It would appear, at least from the Byers case, that any minister who lies will receive the Prime Minister's full and unqualified support.... Labour's fundamental psychological problem is that too many of them (like Byers) are ex-Marxists, and find it impossible to make the distinction between party and state".
The latter point is seldom made. What kind of former Communist becomes a Blairite?
|
67% of the public think Byers should resign, while 66% "believe his ability to do his job had been affected" [by Sixsmithgate], says the Telegraph.
I'm surprised about the first and amazed at the last. How can he not have been affected, one way or the other? Weird. Even Byers admitted that he has civil servants, still in their jobs ( yes, there are a few left ) who are out to get him. Maybe the 34% didn't believe this bit, and therefore think everyone is rallying round. I kind of doubt it, though.
|
I'm surprised about the first and amazed at the last. How can he not have been affected, one way or the other? Weird. Even Byers admitted that he has civil servants, still in their jobs ( yes, there are a few left ) who are out to get him. Maybe the 34% didn't believe this bit, and therefore think everyone is rallying round. I kind of doubt it, though.
|
According to Martin Sixsmith, when Byers went to Parliament on Tuesday to apologise for lying, he was lying. The guy can't help it.
|
|
"If Martin Sixsmith was given no option but to resign, he would win his case," said the Lib Dem employment expert, Norman Baker MP. in the Guardian.
Constructive dismissal and all that. We haven't heard the last of Sixsmith, and I can't see how Byers can cast him off now. They're not really in a position now to do any deals, now that it's all out in the open. This will continue.
|
Constructive dismissal and all that. We haven't heard the last of Sixsmith, and I can't see how Byers can cast him off now. They're not really in a position now to do any deals, now that it's all out in the open. This will continue.
|
Hugo Young sees the light:
"Martin Sixsmith, who contested the truth-manipulations of the special adviser, Jo Moore, has been expelled from the system, for no good cause except to save the face of Stephen Byers. The minister is permitted to lie to the public at his own convenience, and is then carried in triumph over the threshold of Downing Street, his conniving permanent secretary at his side, once Labour MPs, at their most nauseatingly cynical, have given their blessing to his performance. It's a moment to note, in the evolving pathology of New Labour as a party that respects no values except those that sanctify, come what may, its own ineffable rectitude".
|
"Martin Sixsmith, who contested the truth-manipulations of the special adviser, Jo Moore, has been expelled from the system, for no good cause except to save the face of Stephen Byers. The minister is permitted to lie to the public at his own convenience, and is then carried in triumph over the threshold of Downing Street, his conniving permanent secretary at his side, once Labour MPs, at their most nauseatingly cynical, have given their blessing to his performance. It's a moment to note, in the evolving pathology of New Labour as a party that respects no values except those that sanctify, come what may, its own ineffable rectitude".
|
Wednesday, February 27
This is a good place to go to catch up on all the weirdoids and what they were saying about September 11. I do think Barbara Kingsolver clinches it, myself. She's just so... annoyed. Shame the link isn't there.
|
|
Simon Jenkins in the Times:
"I could not work up the slightest indignation over the Martin Sixsmith/Jo Moore affair".
Well there's a surprise. There could be riots in the streets, a mushroom cloud on the horizon, and Simon Jenkins would be staring disdainfully out of the window, sipping his tea, eating his toast, and wondering what all the fuss is about.
|
"I could not work up the slightest indignation over the Martin Sixsmith/Jo Moore affair".
Well there's a surprise. There could be riots in the streets, a mushroom cloud on the horizon, and Simon Jenkins would be staring disdainfully out of the window, sipping his tea, eating his toast, and wondering what all the fuss is about.
|
Leader in the Independent:
"Mr Blair must unilaterally resign Mr Byers, as the new phrase goes. And with this sacking, there should be no confusion".
But he ain't gonna do it now, will he?
|
"Mr Blair must unilaterally resign Mr Byers, as the new phrase goes. And with this sacking, there should be no confusion".
But he ain't gonna do it now, will he?
|
Simon Carr in the Independent:
"On the Jonathan Dimbleby programme, Mr Byers said that he had no responsibility for personnel matters, but if Miss Moore had to go, "it would be good if Martin Sixsmith went as well". In those two contiguous statements we can see that, even when Mr Byers is telling the truth, he is lying. This is ability of a very high order".
|
"On the Jonathan Dimbleby programme, Mr Byers said that he had no responsibility for personnel matters, but if Miss Moore had to go, "it would be good if Martin Sixsmith went as well". In those two contiguous statements we can see that, even when Mr Byers is telling the truth, he is lying. This is ability of a very high order".
|
Telegraph leader:
"The statement made yesterday by Stephen Byers, the Transport Secretary, was perhaps the most distasteful ever to have been made by a minister to the House.
Never before can we remember a Secretary of State standing up in the Commons to attack the employees of his own department in order to save his own neck. It is something entirely new for a minister to try to justify his own survival by saying that he has been served by fools and scoundrels".
|
"The statement made yesterday by Stephen Byers, the Transport Secretary, was perhaps the most distasteful ever to have been made by a minister to the House.
Never before can we remember a Secretary of State standing up in the Commons to attack the employees of his own department in order to save his own neck. It is something entirely new for a minister to try to justify his own survival by saying that he has been served by fools and scoundrels".
|
The beleaguered and embattled one categorically denied, on Sunday's Dimbleby programme that he had had anything to do with Sixsmith's resignation, thus:
"Jonathan Dimbleby: Did you block a compromise that was apparently proposed by the permanent secretary [Sir Richard Mottram] to the effect that Sixsmith could retrospectively resign and have another post in the Civil Service, as is alleged?
Stephen Byers: These are personnel issues.
Dimbleby: You had nothing to do with it?
Byers: No. These are personnel issues between Martin Sixsmith and the department and they will be dealt with by Sir Richard Mottram as his employer.
Dimbleby: And you had no conversation about that with Sir Richard Mottram?
Byers: No. These are personnel matters.
Dimbleby: You are claiming that beyond stating publicly that he had resigned, you had nothing more to do with that at all.
Byers: Oh, I was being kept informed of the developing situation, but I do not get involved with personnel matters. I really must state very clearly, this is a matter between Martin Sixsmith and the department who employs him and Sir Richard Mottram, not me as secretary of state".
Yesterday, however, to Parliament he said: "if my answers on the programme gave the impression that I did not put forward a view, or make clear my views to others inside and outside the department, that is obviously something I regret and I welcome this opportunity to clarify matters".
Well there are lies and there are lies. Yet even the 'apology' is a lie. If he welcomed the opportunity to clarify matters then why didn't he do it earlier? He had the rest of Sunday, the whole of Monday, and until 3 in the afternnon yesterday to do so. The bigger question though is, why did he lie? At least when Clinton lied about sexual relations with Lewinsky, he could say it was a private matter, and was nothing to do with anyone other than his family, and that it was others not him he was trying to protect. But here, Byers lied, not to save anyone else but himself, and only came clean because nobody believed him anyway. So, from now on, it will be "self-confessed liar Stephen Byers..." whenever he is referred to in the press. He must have a hell of a thick skin, and Blair must revere him. Purer than pure, eh? It's quite possible that this is Labour's Black Wednesday. The press won't let go, neither will Sixsmith. Presumably his 18000 words will end up in the Sunday Times at the weekend to be pored over by experts looking for more. And if Sixsmith doesn't end up with something out of this, ( and will he go to work today? And if he does, will anybody stop him? ) he should stand against Byers at the next election as the anti-sleaze candidate.
|
"Jonathan Dimbleby: Did you block a compromise that was apparently proposed by the permanent secretary [Sir Richard Mottram] to the effect that Sixsmith could retrospectively resign and have another post in the Civil Service, as is alleged?
Stephen Byers: These are personnel issues.
Dimbleby: You had nothing to do with it?
Byers: No. These are personnel issues between Martin Sixsmith and the department and they will be dealt with by Sir Richard Mottram as his employer.
Dimbleby: And you had no conversation about that with Sir Richard Mottram?
Byers: No. These are personnel matters.
Dimbleby: You are claiming that beyond stating publicly that he had resigned, you had nothing more to do with that at all.
Byers: Oh, I was being kept informed of the developing situation, but I do not get involved with personnel matters. I really must state very clearly, this is a matter between Martin Sixsmith and the department who employs him and Sir Richard Mottram, not me as secretary of state".
Yesterday, however, to Parliament he said: "if my answers on the programme gave the impression that I did not put forward a view, or make clear my views to others inside and outside the department, that is obviously something I regret and I welcome this opportunity to clarify matters".
Well there are lies and there are lies. Yet even the 'apology' is a lie. If he welcomed the opportunity to clarify matters then why didn't he do it earlier? He had the rest of Sunday, the whole of Monday, and until 3 in the afternnon yesterday to do so. The bigger question though is, why did he lie? At least when Clinton lied about sexual relations with Lewinsky, he could say it was a private matter, and was nothing to do with anyone other than his family, and that it was others not him he was trying to protect. But here, Byers lied, not to save anyone else but himself, and only came clean because nobody believed him anyway. So, from now on, it will be "self-confessed liar Stephen Byers..." whenever he is referred to in the press. He must have a hell of a thick skin, and Blair must revere him. Purer than pure, eh? It's quite possible that this is Labour's Black Wednesday. The press won't let go, neither will Sixsmith. Presumably his 18000 words will end up in the Sunday Times at the weekend to be pored over by experts looking for more. And if Sixsmith doesn't end up with something out of this, ( and will he go to work today? And if he does, will anybody stop him? ) he should stand against Byers at the next election as the anti-sleaze candidate.
|
Tuesday, February 26
Richard Littlejohn in the Sun:
"Martin Sixsmith and Jo Moore are merely surface tumours. The whole body is rotten. This is by far and away the most disgusting, amoral Government this country has ever had the misfortune to elect.
It is built on lies, lies and more lies. Quite why so many so-called journalists are on the payroll is beyond me.
The incestuous relationship between the BBC and the Government is a disgrace.
Lord Haw-Haw would have been proud of the corporation’s output recently.
Prime Minister, would you kindly explain why taxes must rise?
Downing Street today denied any wrongdoing in the Garbagegate affair.
And so on and so on and shooby-dooby-dooby. Alastair Campbell doesn’t even have to identify himself when he calls the Beeb with his instructions these days.
He just leaves a message: “Oedipus — ring your mother.”
Ally’s got plenty of tame monkeys in Fleet Street, too. Hugo Young, the preposterously pompous moral conscience of The Guardian last week announced that the Prime Minister had only supported an Indian tax-dodger’s bid to buy a Romanian steelworks because of his deep concern for the wellbeing of the people of Romania.
Nothing to do with said Indian tycoon bunging New Labour £125 grand. Perish the thought.
How does he keep a straight face? Hugo might be so far up himself he needs colonic irrigation to clean his teeth and is probably being measured up for ermine as we speak but at least he isn’t on wages".
|
"Martin Sixsmith and Jo Moore are merely surface tumours. The whole body is rotten. This is by far and away the most disgusting, amoral Government this country has ever had the misfortune to elect.
It is built on lies, lies and more lies. Quite why so many so-called journalists are on the payroll is beyond me.
The incestuous relationship between the BBC and the Government is a disgrace.
Lord Haw-Haw would have been proud of the corporation’s output recently.
Prime Minister, would you kindly explain why taxes must rise?
Downing Street today denied any wrongdoing in the Garbagegate affair.
And so on and so on and shooby-dooby-dooby. Alastair Campbell doesn’t even have to identify himself when he calls the Beeb with his instructions these days.
He just leaves a message: “Oedipus — ring your mother.”
Ally’s got plenty of tame monkeys in Fleet Street, too. Hugo Young, the preposterously pompous moral conscience of The Guardian last week announced that the Prime Minister had only supported an Indian tax-dodger’s bid to buy a Romanian steelworks because of his deep concern for the wellbeing of the people of Romania.
Nothing to do with said Indian tycoon bunging New Labour £125 grand. Perish the thought.
How does he keep a straight face? Hugo might be so far up himself he needs colonic irrigation to clean his teeth and is probably being measured up for ermine as we speak but at least he isn’t on wages".
|
This wasn't on-line yeterday but now it is. Nick Cohen in the New Statesman. He ends:
"the remnants of the British centre left cannot cling to their comfort blanket while they are led by a man who backs Murdoch, Mittal, Enron, Andersen, Ecclestone and the Hindujas.
Gordon Brown would be better. David Blunkett would be better. Charles Clarke would be better. My bloody gran would be better. Face it, he's got to go. Let's drain the swamp".
But read the whole thing.
|
"the remnants of the British centre left cannot cling to their comfort blanket while they are led by a man who backs Murdoch, Mittal, Enron, Andersen, Ecclestone and the Hindujas.
Gordon Brown would be better. David Blunkett would be better. Charles Clarke would be better. My bloody gran would be better. Face it, he's got to go. Let's drain the swamp".
But read the whole thing.
|
Trust the Guardian. Nine national newspapers called for his resignation yesterday and the Guardian didn't even have a leader on it. Quick on the uptake as ever, it weighs in today: "Not a resigning matter, but reshuffle may be Stephen Byers's fate" which is quirky to say the least. I don't think anyone seriously thinks this is the likely outcome. I do hope it is, however. As a good mischief-maker, I have now come round to the view that the longer Byers sticks around the better it is for the opposition. We'll miss him when he's gone. Still, consider the arguments:
"Add up the specifics that have been alleged against Stephen Byers and what does the indictment amount to? First, that the transport secretary failed to sack Jo Moore over her September 11 "bury bad news" email - though Ms Moore was eventually forced to quit. Second, that he said his departmental press chief Martin Sixsmith had resigned on the same day as Ms Moore, when Mr Sixsmith had not, as statements yesterday confirmed. Third, that out of loyalty to Ms Moore he blocked a face-saving deal for Mr Sixsmith to be transferred to a new government job. The first charge has been overtaken by events. The second and third remain in dispute. And, er, that's about it. True, there is not much of great credit to Mr Byers there. But it is not much of a charge sheet either".
No? What exactly is in dispute here? Telling the world that someone has resigned, who hasn't? Well Byers could have then said he'd been misinformed, that Sixsmith hadn't resigned. But no, Byers did the homourable thing and decided to stick with the mistake. Sixsmith was kicked out for... well nothing. Sixsmith loses his job for doing nothing. Or rather, to satisfy the cravings of someone who had already resigned, Jo Moore.
"No one comes out of the Moore-Sixsmith saga with great credit. Ms Moore, who was a trustworthy official in earlier days, indulged a cynicism and contempt for the public's judgment that have characterised too much of New Labour. Mr Sixsmith, quietly penning an 18,000-word account of his problems at the office, shared his own version of events too readily with the world for anyone's comfort, least of all of colleagues who had to feel they could rely on him".
Well if he's no longer working for them what loyalty does he owe them? They just lost him his job! And as for telling the world 'all too-readily', the opposite is the case. Sixsmith was happy to stay quiet, in order to get a big severance pay or to be pushed sideways. Byers blocked it, so he went to the Sunday Times to spill the beans. Fair enough. Where else should he go? The Guardian? Elsewhere Hugo Young announces that Blair must go for the Euro, 'even if it costs him his job'. So, Blair is expendable, Sixsmith deserved to lose his job for doing nothing wrong at all, and Byers should keep his, or rather be moved sideways. Rum world, these guys live in. And if this isn't bad enough. Look at what they have to say about Donald Rumsfeld.
"US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld has become a household name in America since September 11. But the same qualities that have brought the
Pentagon chief fame at home have brought him a certain uneasy notoriety abroad".
Uneasy for whom, exactly?
"But it as well to remember that Mr Rumsfeld is about as house-trained as a caged puma with an itch. That was amply demonstrated by his snarling dismissal of protests over Afghan civilian casualties and Guantanamo detainees.
Given the degree to which his stock has risen in recent months, and the extent to which he influences Mr Bush, Mr Rumsfeld's character strengths and weaknesses matter more to Europeans than do those of most of their own leaders".
Thank God.
"This is the man who is presiding over the biggest expansion in US military spending since the Reagan era",
which is a bit like saying that Tony Blair is the worst Prime Minister since John Major
[who] "is tasked with carrying out Mr Bush's "mission" to save the world for freedom-loving peoples, is a key proponent of global missile defence and the pre-emptive projection of American power, who barely disguises his contempt for America's less bellicose allies, and who is now, slowly but surely, gearing up the Pentagon for war in Iraq. Unfortunately, Mr Rumsfeld matters. He will continue to bear very close watching".
And we know who's going to do it, don't we?
|
"Add up the specifics that have been alleged against Stephen Byers and what does the indictment amount to? First, that the transport secretary failed to sack Jo Moore over her September 11 "bury bad news" email - though Ms Moore was eventually forced to quit. Second, that he said his departmental press chief Martin Sixsmith had resigned on the same day as Ms Moore, when Mr Sixsmith had not, as statements yesterday confirmed. Third, that out of loyalty to Ms Moore he blocked a face-saving deal for Mr Sixsmith to be transferred to a new government job. The first charge has been overtaken by events. The second and third remain in dispute. And, er, that's about it. True, there is not much of great credit to Mr Byers there. But it is not much of a charge sheet either".
No? What exactly is in dispute here? Telling the world that someone has resigned, who hasn't? Well Byers could have then said he'd been misinformed, that Sixsmith hadn't resigned. But no, Byers did the homourable thing and decided to stick with the mistake. Sixsmith was kicked out for... well nothing. Sixsmith loses his job for doing nothing. Or rather, to satisfy the cravings of someone who had already resigned, Jo Moore.
"No one comes out of the Moore-Sixsmith saga with great credit. Ms Moore, who was a trustworthy official in earlier days, indulged a cynicism and contempt for the public's judgment that have characterised too much of New Labour. Mr Sixsmith, quietly penning an 18,000-word account of his problems at the office, shared his own version of events too readily with the world for anyone's comfort, least of all of colleagues who had to feel they could rely on him".
Well if he's no longer working for them what loyalty does he owe them? They just lost him his job! And as for telling the world 'all too-readily', the opposite is the case. Sixsmith was happy to stay quiet, in order to get a big severance pay or to be pushed sideways. Byers blocked it, so he went to the Sunday Times to spill the beans. Fair enough. Where else should he go? The Guardian? Elsewhere Hugo Young announces that Blair must go for the Euro, 'even if it costs him his job'. So, Blair is expendable, Sixsmith deserved to lose his job for doing nothing wrong at all, and Byers should keep his, or rather be moved sideways. Rum world, these guys live in. And if this isn't bad enough. Look at what they have to say about Donald Rumsfeld.
"US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld has become a household name in America since September 11. But the same qualities that have brought the
Pentagon chief fame at home have brought him a certain uneasy notoriety abroad".
Uneasy for whom, exactly?
"But it as well to remember that Mr Rumsfeld is about as house-trained as a caged puma with an itch. That was amply demonstrated by his snarling dismissal of protests over Afghan civilian casualties and Guantanamo detainees.
Given the degree to which his stock has risen in recent months, and the extent to which he influences Mr Bush, Mr Rumsfeld's character strengths and weaknesses matter more to Europeans than do those of most of their own leaders".
Thank God.
"This is the man who is presiding over the biggest expansion in US military spending since the Reagan era",
which is a bit like saying that Tony Blair is the worst Prime Minister since John Major
[who] "is tasked with carrying out Mr Bush's "mission" to save the world for freedom-loving peoples, is a key proponent of global missile defence and the pre-emptive projection of American power, who barely disguises his contempt for America's less bellicose allies, and who is now, slowly but surely, gearing up the Pentagon for war in Iraq. Unfortunately, Mr Rumsfeld matters. He will continue to bear very close watching".
And we know who's going to do it, don't we?
|
Monday, February 25
Lawrence Garvin fights back. "Peter Briffa, who proudly proclaims that his blog is 'Britain's most reactionary website,' sends along some... thoughts".
I think he's being ironic there. He then quotes the whole of my response, then comments: "I guess he told me!" Well I guess he's got better things to do and is probably bored of the whole subject, seeing as he makes two very long entries lower down the page. But the point remains. Robert Fisk, Barbara Kingsolver and co do not mind about the ridicule they've been getting these past few months. Sure they won't like it if it gets personal, but they're famous now. And they still think they're right. Likewise people who sign petitions. Some will agree with them, some won't. So what's new? And as for his point about digging up the cost of their houses, well that is completely different, as it is irrelevant, just as it would be if someone were to say that Robert Fisk is an ugly freak. Whether it's true or not it's irrelevant, and if someone were to write that then they too would be exposed for all the world to see. There are idiotarians knocking around on all these issues, and it's the merits of their arguments that matter. And that's what is being debated.
|
I think he's being ironic there. He then quotes the whole of my response, then comments: "I guess he told me!" Well I guess he's got better things to do and is probably bored of the whole subject, seeing as he makes two very long entries lower down the page. But the point remains. Robert Fisk, Barbara Kingsolver and co do not mind about the ridicule they've been getting these past few months. Sure they won't like it if it gets personal, but they're famous now. And they still think they're right. Likewise people who sign petitions. Some will agree with them, some won't. So what's new? And as for his point about digging up the cost of their houses, well that is completely different, as it is irrelevant, just as it would be if someone were to say that Robert Fisk is an ugly freak. Whether it's true or not it's irrelevant, and if someone were to write that then they too would be exposed for all the world to see. There are idiotarians knocking around on all these issues, and it's the merits of their arguments that matter. And that's what is being debated.
|
"NOVELIST Iris Murdoch was one of our national treasures.
The success of the movie which told her life story — Iris — at last night’s BAFTAs should remind us that Britain has much of which to be proud.
We didn’t just produce Iris Murdoch — a writer whose magic on the page was Shakespearean.
We didn’t just produce John Bayley — the gentle soul who was married to Iris — and on whose book the movie was based.
We also produced Kate Winslet, who played the young Iris, and BAFTA winner Dame Judi Dench, who played the mature Iris.
In addition, we produced Jim Broadbent who beautifully played John Bayley AND Sir Richard Eyre — a man who probably will be slightly surprised to be praised in The Sun ... .
This is Eyre’s first big movie as director and screenwriter.
He should be proud of what he has brought to the screen.
And we, as a country, should be proud of him — of the late Iris — and of the artistic talent we breed".
Today's second leader in the Sun. Call me a snob, and believe me I am one, but how many Sun-readers had ever heard of Iris Murdoch until this movie, let alone read one of her books?
|
The success of the movie which told her life story — Iris — at last night’s BAFTAs should remind us that Britain has much of which to be proud.
We didn’t just produce Iris Murdoch — a writer whose magic on the page was Shakespearean.
We didn’t just produce John Bayley — the gentle soul who was married to Iris — and on whose book the movie was based.
We also produced Kate Winslet, who played the young Iris, and BAFTA winner Dame Judi Dench, who played the mature Iris.
In addition, we produced Jim Broadbent who beautifully played John Bayley AND Sir Richard Eyre — a man who probably will be slightly surprised to be praised in The Sun ... .
This is Eyre’s first big movie as director and screenwriter.
He should be proud of what he has brought to the screen.
And we, as a country, should be proud of him — of the late Iris — and of the artistic talent we breed".
Today's second leader in the Sun. Call me a snob, and believe me I am one, but how many Sun-readers had ever heard of Iris Murdoch until this movie, let alone read one of her books?
|
"Tony Blair cannot afford to leave Mr Byers on the political equivalent of death row for four months before removing him. He has to act now".
The Times leader today. Indy also want him sacked. I do hope so. A sacking is always much more fun than a resignation.
|
The Times leader today. Indy also want him sacked. I do hope so. A sacking is always much more fun than a resignation.
|
"Stephen Byers is not only useless. He is nasty as well. A man of mediocre ability, negative administrative skills and recurrent problems with factual accuracy, he can claim only one achievement during his tenure at Transport – though this was, admittedly, a feat verging on the miraculous. Mr Byers has made John Prescott look good".
And that's just the beginning. Bruce Anderson in the Independent.
|
And that's just the beginning. Bruce Anderson in the Independent.
|
"having exactly what we want when we want it is a myth peddled by a consumer society which profits no one".
Yvonne Roberts in the Guardian.
|
Yvonne Roberts in the Guardian.
|
A Canadian blogger named Lawrence Garvin has taken exception to the slobogoogling phenomenon, on the grounds that it is unfair to expose people's opinions to ridicule, as it as an abuse of free speech. Check him out here, and check out Damian Penny's comments here. Here, however are mine, which I have forwarded to them both:
"Garvin is being far too 'sensitive' to the numbskulls. He seems to assume the Slobophiles know that their every opinion and utterance is somehow worthless. Says who? Think of it from their point of view, goon! The way I see it, they'll be only too delighted at being slobogoogled and having their views exposed to a wider audience. These guys think they're right! Garvin appears to think that somehow in a moment of weakness they rashly typed out an opinion two years ago and are now hanging their heads in shame. Where's the evidence? Take them seriously. They think they're right, that's why they make these statements and sign these petitions. They're not being 'stifled', 'embarrassed' and they certainly don't think their opinions are stupid or even 'very stupid'. They do however, think that you, Lawrence my friend, are a wimpish liberal who, come the revolution, will end up on the pyre just like the rest of us. I mean, supposing the slobophiles had a Slobophobes-googling fad, and named Garvin and Penny and the rest among the suspects, would Garvin be outraged? Get a grip!"
|
"Garvin is being far too 'sensitive' to the numbskulls. He seems to assume the Slobophiles know that their every opinion and utterance is somehow worthless. Says who? Think of it from their point of view, goon! The way I see it, they'll be only too delighted at being slobogoogled and having their views exposed to a wider audience. These guys think they're right! Garvin appears to think that somehow in a moment of weakness they rashly typed out an opinion two years ago and are now hanging their heads in shame. Where's the evidence? Take them seriously. They think they're right, that's why they make these statements and sign these petitions. They're not being 'stifled', 'embarrassed' and they certainly don't think their opinions are stupid or even 'very stupid'. They do however, think that you, Lawrence my friend, are a wimpish liberal who, come the revolution, will end up on the pyre just like the rest of us. I mean, supposing the slobophiles had a Slobophobes-googling fad, and named Garvin and Penny and the rest among the suspects, would Garvin be outraged? Get a grip!"
|
Sunday, February 24
I scored 100% Plato and 90% Rand on this test that's going the rounds in Blogworld. Plato's okay, but Rand? She was nuts.
|
|
Nick Cohen has a point about political bias in the Observer. It's not that the BBC is biased, so much as its pretence to be objective all the time that does for it. This is an on-going debate in the US, but here not much is said about it. My complaint with the BBC, especially the Today programme from which Sue McGregor finally and thankfully gets her cards this week, is that it is often more interested with 'the perception' of how a story will play with us, the listeners, than with the truth of the story itself. How we the listeners will react to it, is what gets Jim, Sue and John all excited. They'd rather dwell on this then tell the story and let us make up our own minds. This, they clearly feel, puts them ahead of the game - they're so knowing that before the story has unravelled they seem to know what we the public will end up thinking about it. Thus, in Garbagegate, it's not the corruption that is the problem, but the perception of corruption that counts. So the patronising creeps seem to think that we can't tell corruption from the perception of same. Well we could, if they gave us the facts. But they don't have the facts. They think they're being ever so sophisticated and knowing, whereas in fact they're simply not doing their job, and getting down to the basics of the story. And so it goes.
|
|
Sunday Telegraph also has Matthew D'Ancona getting worked up about our splendidly corrupt Goverment and the small matter of Garbagegate. There's plenty of this stuff around in the papers, but the best is in the Sunday Times, where, the apparently unfairly lampooned Martin Sixsmith turned when the Government refused to bail him out. If even half this stuff is true, then Byers has maybe a couple of days before he's out. I wonder what his talents are. Not discernible to the naked eye, they appear to be far out-manoeuvred by his vices, which include dishonesty, corruption, and cowardice. I know that in some New Labour circles these are regarded as virtues, but even so, it's all a bit obvious, isn't it? The key question though, is how much of this rubs off on Blair?
|
|
Sunday Telegraph has a story which I first read about a month ago in the Times of Malta, about a massacre of swans, by black-clad balaclava-wearing gun-toting hoodlums. Unfortunately, and as so often happens with the British press, more is promised by the first paragraph than is justified by the rest of the story. The massacre 'prompted calls for Malta to be barred from entering the European Union'. Now if it were that easy - and the guys were arrested within twenty-four hours of the act - then you can catch me out in Regent's Park armed with a hammer this time tomorrow. Sure, it's been a bit wet and snowy even the past few days, but if that's all it takes to get expelled from the EU then I'm your man. But of course, it's a lie. Or if it's true, then why doesn't the paper have a quote for it? Come on, you journos, get a grip! If someone called for it, then quote them. Put up or shut up. And Malta is not led by a Christian Democratic Government. They're called the Nationalists, cretins. Who wrote this trash? Bruce Johnston and Andrew Alderson. Well guys, this is the internet and we can fact check your ass. Consider yourselves warned.
|
|
Friday, February 22
Sorry, no posting the past few days but I've been away practising my curling, in readiness for the 2006 Winter Olympics. Four years rehearsing in Ta'xbiex and Team Malta will be ready to fly. Watch this space.
In between rounds I've spent this afternoon reading the papers and catching up with the blogosphere. Those guys, how do they work, play, eat and post? What's going to happen when Glenn Reynolds goes on holiday?
Anyway, because I have nothing to say about three day old newspapers, I thought I'd write about tomorrow's Independent. They go on line at about ten o'clock the night before press, which is eccentric. However, there's nothing there to get me going. There is Deborah Orr, though who, yesterday, or today really, wrote this stuff:
"Some mornings you wake up, check out what the news is, and find that it is all about human hate, anger and violence. Some mornings you can divert and console yourself with the nice pictures of, say, Kylie and Dido provided for that purpose. Other mornings the bulletin is just too unbearably dark and sad to be dismissed".
It's just like Madeleine Bunting from last week, isn't it?
"Among yesterday's heavy harvest of war, famine, pestilence and pop, was the news that the body of a boy had been found in a suburban park, battered, burned, naked".
Okay, this is serious stuff, and maybe I shouldn't joke. But what's with the pop music references, then? Is that good taste, too?
"In this wealthy country, forever poised on the promise of even better tomorrows, a child had died utterly, decisively remote from love and care and mourning".
Now, after a while going into grisly detail she moans:
"The set of "what ifs" prompted by this situation are all quite plausible and speak volumes about the society we live and die in – the fragmentation, the uncertainly, the distrust, the alienation, the horror and, worst of all, the casual, unthinking and hopeless neglect".
Again, after yet more futile speculation, she adds:
"There may be a racial motive for the killing of this child. There may be a sexual one. This society is no stranger to these crimes either. All in all, there are far, far too many possible explanations for this crime and the anonymity of its victim, with far, far too many actual precedents for us to draw on in our attempts to understand.
What all this suggests to me, with some force, is that the system itself is at fault. In this country, and worldwide, too many people are unable to care for themselves and for their children. Too may others insist that this is nothing to do with them. We are awash with money and surrounded by poverty – spiritual as well as financial poverty. How much longer can we stand by and let all the victims of our system bear the blame for their own misery? How many dead, nameless children do we need on our conscience?
Our system, we tell ourselves, is one of meritocratic capitalism, in which the talented citizens who are willing and able to play the game are rewarded. Even if we accept the ludicrous myth that there is a level playing field for this happy race to be run on, we are less keen on telling ourselves about what inevitably happens on the other side of the coin.
The less talented citizens who don't or can't play the game are either punished, or decide to mete out a little punishment themselves. Sometimes it's hard to tell which".
So it's meritocratic capitalism that killed this kid, is it? Any evidence that children don't get murdered in socialist states, anarcho-syndicalist ones, theocratic dictatorships or indeed anywhere else? What does Orr want exactly? She doesn't like all this money everywhere, material wealth ain't enough for her, she wants spiritual wealth now. Last week 'we' couldn't cook, this week 'we' tolerate murder. That's the trouble when you start extrapolating from one incident and try and turn it into a whole critique of society, be it murder or boiling eggs, 'we' end up making some pretty ridiculous assertions. Stop it, Debs, it isn't big and it isn't clever. And it'll stop you enjoying your Dido records.
|
In between rounds I've spent this afternoon reading the papers and catching up with the blogosphere. Those guys, how do they work, play, eat and post? What's going to happen when Glenn Reynolds goes on holiday?
Anyway, because I have nothing to say about three day old newspapers, I thought I'd write about tomorrow's Independent. They go on line at about ten o'clock the night before press, which is eccentric. However, there's nothing there to get me going. There is Deborah Orr, though who, yesterday, or today really, wrote this stuff:
"Some mornings you wake up, check out what the news is, and find that it is all about human hate, anger and violence. Some mornings you can divert and console yourself with the nice pictures of, say, Kylie and Dido provided for that purpose. Other mornings the bulletin is just too unbearably dark and sad to be dismissed".
It's just like Madeleine Bunting from last week, isn't it?
"Among yesterday's heavy harvest of war, famine, pestilence and pop, was the news that the body of a boy had been found in a suburban park, battered, burned, naked".
Okay, this is serious stuff, and maybe I shouldn't joke. But what's with the pop music references, then? Is that good taste, too?
"In this wealthy country, forever poised on the promise of even better tomorrows, a child had died utterly, decisively remote from love and care and mourning".
Now, after a while going into grisly detail she moans:
"The set of "what ifs" prompted by this situation are all quite plausible and speak volumes about the society we live and die in – the fragmentation, the uncertainly, the distrust, the alienation, the horror and, worst of all, the casual, unthinking and hopeless neglect".
Again, after yet more futile speculation, she adds:
"There may be a racial motive for the killing of this child. There may be a sexual one. This society is no stranger to these crimes either. All in all, there are far, far too many possible explanations for this crime and the anonymity of its victim, with far, far too many actual precedents for us to draw on in our attempts to understand.
What all this suggests to me, with some force, is that the system itself is at fault. In this country, and worldwide, too many people are unable to care for themselves and for their children. Too may others insist that this is nothing to do with them. We are awash with money and surrounded by poverty – spiritual as well as financial poverty. How much longer can we stand by and let all the victims of our system bear the blame for their own misery? How many dead, nameless children do we need on our conscience?
Our system, we tell ourselves, is one of meritocratic capitalism, in which the talented citizens who are willing and able to play the game are rewarded. Even if we accept the ludicrous myth that there is a level playing field for this happy race to be run on, we are less keen on telling ourselves about what inevitably happens on the other side of the coin.
The less talented citizens who don't or can't play the game are either punished, or decide to mete out a little punishment themselves. Sometimes it's hard to tell which".
So it's meritocratic capitalism that killed this kid, is it? Any evidence that children don't get murdered in socialist states, anarcho-syndicalist ones, theocratic dictatorships or indeed anywhere else? What does Orr want exactly? She doesn't like all this money everywhere, material wealth ain't enough for her, she wants spiritual wealth now. Last week 'we' couldn't cook, this week 'we' tolerate murder. That's the trouble when you start extrapolating from one incident and try and turn it into a whole critique of society, be it murder or boiling eggs, 'we' end up making some pretty ridiculous assertions. Stop it, Debs, it isn't big and it isn't clever. And it'll stop you enjoying your Dido records.
|
Tuesday, February 19
Quick also points out this rather more sanguine response to the Axis of Evil speech than that provided by Patten, coming from no lesser light than Peter Mandelson. An unlikely source I know, devious, smarmy, pompous, Europhiliac, and unloved by virtually everyone. Yet he also has a bit of a knack of being right about crucial matters, whcih is presumably why Blair relied and still relies on him so much.
|
|
Nice piece by Bill Quick pointing out how Bush did to Zimbabwe back in December what the EU did yesterday. And we're the civilisers.
|
|
Monday, February 18
Will Hutton update. J Griffin Cole has further thoughts over at Balloon Juice about the esteemed ex-stockbroker. I may return to this, as I couldn't stop myself thinking more beautiful thoughts about the ludicrousness of the whole spiel.
|
|
However, it's the Telegraph that has the most vitriol levelled at the Blairites viz Garbagegate. I do wonder how this will develop. Or if they're right, and next week it'll be something else.
|
|
In the Guardian Roy Hattersley confirms his numbskulled belief in Rawlsian egalitarianism, while reminiscing about the death of his hero Tony Crosland, which happened twenty-five years ago. He may have been a swell guy, but I don't think we've missed his politics. Deeming them "not only right but incontrovertible.
Those beliefs were set out in The Future of Socialism. "In Britain, equality of opportunity and social mobility... are not enough. They need to be combined with measures... to equalise the distribution of rewards and privileges so as to diminish the degree of class stratification, the injustices of large inequalities and the collective discontents" which they cause. I speak again for myself when I say that I have yet to hear a convincing argument against that definition of the good society".
Read some Nozick, then. Or read this: Pretending that inequality and injustice are the same is moronic. Think about it. Lie down in a dark room and think about it.
|
Those beliefs were set out in The Future of Socialism. "In Britain, equality of opportunity and social mobility... are not enough. They need to be combined with measures... to equalise the distribution of rewards and privileges so as to diminish the degree of class stratification, the injustices of large inequalities and the collective discontents" which they cause. I speak again for myself when I say that I have yet to hear a convincing argument against that definition of the good society".
Read some Nozick, then. Or read this: Pretending that inequality and injustice are the same is moronic. Think about it. Lie down in a dark room and think about it.
|
Good article by Peter Lilley on ID cards, tearing into Blunkett. He's against them, by the way, and points out numerous practical problems. I hope a Tory front-bencher joins in. One of Hague's major defects was in not backing civil liberties enough. Aside from being a good idea, it would have endeared him a little to the Independent and Guardian reading classes which, although it counts for zilch in terms of votes, could have helped stalled his authoritarian image. IDS oughtn't, in my humble view, make the same mistake.
|
|
And the Times:
"No 10 dismissed the latest welter of accusations as “hysteria overload” and the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said that the controversy over taxpayers’ £6 million contribution to the £70 million loan was “boring”.
These guys do suffer from attention deficit disorder. Matthew D'Ancona made this point yesterday, and he may be onto something. House of Lords, fox-hunting? Blair has the attention span of a goldfish.
|
"No 10 dismissed the latest welter of accusations as “hysteria overload” and the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said that the controversy over taxpayers’ £6 million contribution to the £70 million loan was “boring”.
These guys do suffer from attention deficit disorder. Matthew D'Ancona made this point yesterday, and he may be onto something. House of Lords, fox-hunting? Blair has the attention span of a goldfish.
|
Bruce Anderson also makes a contribution:
"Mr Blair is not a fool; that defence is not open to him. When he insisted that Mittal is a British company, he must have known that he was lying.
So what led him not only to lie, but to lie in such a feeble and self-destructive fashion? A simple explanation would be a combination of arrogance and naïveté. Power has gone to Mr Blair's head. A combination of apparently unlimited electoral puissance and an underlying lack of both intellectual self-confidence and political principle has destabilised him. Mr Blair has never been much good at explaining his beliefs; he no long sees why he should even have to try. Recently, as was demonstrated over the "wreckers" speech on public services, his response to the rough probing and disrespect which are inescapable in democratic politics was a loss of temper. He no longer accepts the requirement to submit himself to any questioning whatsoever. Yet once a premier ceases to respect his questioners, he also ceases to respect his voters.
The one set of persons to whom Mr Blair is, if anything, more respectful is the rich".
|
"Mr Blair is not a fool; that defence is not open to him. When he insisted that Mittal is a British company, he must have known that he was lying.
So what led him not only to lie, but to lie in such a feeble and self-destructive fashion? A simple explanation would be a combination of arrogance and naïveté. Power has gone to Mr Blair's head. A combination of apparently unlimited electoral puissance and an underlying lack of both intellectual self-confidence and political principle has destabilised him. Mr Blair has never been much good at explaining his beliefs; he no long sees why he should even have to try. Recently, as was demonstrated over the "wreckers" speech on public services, his response to the rough probing and disrespect which are inescapable in democratic politics was a loss of temper. He no longer accepts the requirement to submit himself to any questioning whatsoever. Yet once a premier ceases to respect his questioners, he also ceases to respect his voters.
The one set of persons to whom Mr Blair is, if anything, more respectful is the rich".
|
Independent join in on Garbagegate, though it's typically understated:
"The more that we learn about the Mittal affair, the less satisfactory the Government's conduct seems".
|
"The more that we learn about the Mittal affair, the less satisfactory the Government's conduct seems".
|
Sunday, February 17
Garbagegate rumbles on, getting ever murkier according to the Sunday Telegraph, with this story. The paper also asks the pertinent questions in its leader. Matthew D'Ancona gets in on the act too, and very angry he is too, by his standards. He ends:
"When he is abroad, saving the world, Mr Blair evidently feels free and at peace with himself. But at home the Prime Minister looks increasingly impatient. He is irritated by the questions we ask, the demands we make, the lack of understanding. I mean, really: you go to Africa to do great things, and when you get back, the whole country's bleating about some obscure steel deal. You can imagine him storming upstairs in Number 10 and saying: why do I bother? I think Mr Blair's bored with Britain. Maybe that's why he's put it up for sale".
Over at the Observer, the guys are also getting narked. Of course it's all intertwined now with the Jo Moore/Martin Sixsmith business. Those New Labourites really do hate each other, which is good for the Tories, but bad for the country. Nothing ideological, purely personal. Nice. And some of their most abject supporters, like Andrew Rawnsley are getting fed up. About time. "Relatively speaking, British politics is pretty clean", he naively asserts, though he then lets rip.
"one of the reasons that Mr Blair just does not get it, is that he still believes that he is pure. So convinced is the Prime Minister of his own probity that he simply cannot comprehend why so many others are challenging it. Office has corrupted him. Not in the sense that he is personally venal. What I fear is that power has corrupted him intellectually".
"Let us grant Mr Blair the benefit of the doubt. Let us believe him when he says that he has not knowingly met Mr Mittal, even when they mingled at a party organised by his fundraiser. Let us believe him when he says that he signed the letter in ignorance that the tycoon had only recently donated a large sum to the Labour Party. Why did no one in Downing Street demand further and better particulars about a tycoon the Prime Minister had never heard of before Mr Blair put something as valuable as his signature to a letter to the Prime Minister of Romania? Not, I think, because it was a crude pay-off. The problem is more insidious. New Labour in general and the Prime Minister in particular are hopelessly indiscriminatory. So obsessed is Mr Blair by the idea of championing business, so suborned are all the other values of government to corporate interests, that he and his closest staff fail to ask themselves the most basic questions about what sort of entrepreneur the Prime Minister is championing. When cornered by the inevitable scandals this reckless behaviour throws up, the Prime Minister is driven to tawdry pleas in mitigation. He railed to the Commons that he would take no criticism from the Tories, when some of them have gone to jail. Has it really come to this, Tony? What a falling away from the ideals he once expressed that the best argument for his government is that none of its members has yet been to prison".
We can live in hope. Another fourteen years and I dare say quite a few will be banged up at her Majesty's pleasure. Mandelson could be if the Filth had nailed him for lying to his bank, and the Hinduja affair might yet get a few scalps. Keith Vaz is one of the lucky ones too Suspended on full pay for a month - that'll learn him.
This stuff about the Brits being all honest is savaged by the same paper's Nick Cohen makes in the same paper, pointing out that we don't have the machinery for finding out, so how do we know? I like Cohen. He's a bit like Christopher Hitchens, he may be a leftie, but he's got a burning sense of righteousness, he writes well, and at least he looks at the detail. And he sees it as personal. Blair is flaky at best, and a liar at worst, yet I can live with people voting for him, jsut so long as they see him for what he is. All this stuff about sincerity - that's the one thing he doesn't have. Cohen is worth reading, if only to learn that Straw too joins the rogue's gallery of liars and charlatans. Even I remember Zola Budd, you sleazeball.
On the other hand, there are a couple of goons working there.Terry Jones writes another fatuous anti-war article, a heavy-handed 'satirical' piece about bombing Ireland. It might work if he could understand a few basic point about just war theory, proportionality, and the allowable utilitarian calculation about whether the response of violence causes more problems than it solves. Clearly this is all beyond him. He was the least funny of all the Pythons, the worst actor, and now proves himself the worst writer.
Pride of place, though, goes to Will Hutton for these inaninites, in a piece entitled, Time to stop being America's lapdog. beginning:
"The most important political story of our time is the rise of the American Right and the near collapse of American liberalism".
If only.
"This has transformed the political and cultural geography of the United States and now it is set to transform the political and cultural geography of the West".
Here's hoping.
"Britain's reflex reactions to an ally with whom we apparently share so much and which has served us well are going to be tested as never before.
The signals are all around. It takes extraordinary circumstances to produce the kind of warnings voiced over the last week by Chris Patten".
No iit didn't. He comes out with this sort of stuff like a parrot.
"Tony Blair is reported to have said privately that 'if we can get rid of Baghdad, we should', a devastatingly naive remark which so far stands uncorrected".
Maybe he did say it. But I doubt it. Tony couldn't come out with anything so damn right. There is an if in there, Will.
"Unilateralism, as Patten argues, is not in itself ignoble - states pursue their self-interests - but US unilateralism is uncompromisingly absolutist because it is ideological, which is what it makes so dangerous".
No, it's not. The US would love it if the EU backed it. But it knows it's wasting its time. It's called realism. He then describes Clinton as "an essentially progressive President"!
"The Supreme Court's suspension of the Florida recount in December 2000, to gift the presidency to Bush, is part of the same story.
This destructive conservatism is contested fiercely, especially on the liberal, internationalist seaboards. Many good Americans are as bewildered by their current leaders and ideas as we are".
Love the gratuitous Florida recount reference. And what about those many good Americans who think things are just dandy?
"Mr Blair should beware. Trying to be both pro-European and pro-American will no longer work. There is a choice and, if he does not make it, ultimately it will wreck his premiership. In an era of globalisation, it is international affairs that determine the fate of governments, because party Whips cannot contain the consequent passions. The Tories broke over Europe. Labour will break over too-slavish fealty to this US. This is the new political drama. Watch out".
No it won't. My money's on domestic corruption. Tony will be caught out in a bare-faced lie from which there is no escape. He'll resign over night and Gordon Brown will take over within minutes. Watch out.
|
"When he is abroad, saving the world, Mr Blair evidently feels free and at peace with himself. But at home the Prime Minister looks increasingly impatient. He is irritated by the questions we ask, the demands we make, the lack of understanding. I mean, really: you go to Africa to do great things, and when you get back, the whole country's bleating about some obscure steel deal. You can imagine him storming upstairs in Number 10 and saying: why do I bother? I think Mr Blair's bored with Britain. Maybe that's why he's put it up for sale".
Over at the Observer, the guys are also getting narked. Of course it's all intertwined now with the Jo Moore/Martin Sixsmith business. Those New Labourites really do hate each other, which is good for the Tories, but bad for the country. Nothing ideological, purely personal. Nice. And some of their most abject supporters, like Andrew Rawnsley are getting fed up. About time. "Relatively speaking, British politics is pretty clean", he naively asserts, though he then lets rip.
"one of the reasons that Mr Blair just does not get it, is that he still believes that he is pure. So convinced is the Prime Minister of his own probity that he simply cannot comprehend why so many others are challenging it. Office has corrupted him. Not in the sense that he is personally venal. What I fear is that power has corrupted him intellectually".
"Let us grant Mr Blair the benefit of the doubt. Let us believe him when he says that he has not knowingly met Mr Mittal, even when they mingled at a party organised by his fundraiser. Let us believe him when he says that he signed the letter in ignorance that the tycoon had only recently donated a large sum to the Labour Party. Why did no one in Downing Street demand further and better particulars about a tycoon the Prime Minister had never heard of before Mr Blair put something as valuable as his signature to a letter to the Prime Minister of Romania? Not, I think, because it was a crude pay-off. The problem is more insidious. New Labour in general and the Prime Minister in particular are hopelessly indiscriminatory. So obsessed is Mr Blair by the idea of championing business, so suborned are all the other values of government to corporate interests, that he and his closest staff fail to ask themselves the most basic questions about what sort of entrepreneur the Prime Minister is championing. When cornered by the inevitable scandals this reckless behaviour throws up, the Prime Minister is driven to tawdry pleas in mitigation. He railed to the Commons that he would take no criticism from the Tories, when some of them have gone to jail. Has it really come to this, Tony? What a falling away from the ideals he once expressed that the best argument for his government is that none of its members has yet been to prison".
We can live in hope. Another fourteen years and I dare say quite a few will be banged up at her Majesty's pleasure. Mandelson could be if the Filth had nailed him for lying to his bank, and the Hinduja affair might yet get a few scalps. Keith Vaz is one of the lucky ones too Suspended on full pay for a month - that'll learn him.
This stuff about the Brits being all honest is savaged by the same paper's Nick Cohen makes in the same paper, pointing out that we don't have the machinery for finding out, so how do we know? I like Cohen. He's a bit like Christopher Hitchens, he may be a leftie, but he's got a burning sense of righteousness, he writes well, and at least he looks at the detail. And he sees it as personal. Blair is flaky at best, and a liar at worst, yet I can live with people voting for him, jsut so long as they see him for what he is. All this stuff about sincerity - that's the one thing he doesn't have. Cohen is worth reading, if only to learn that Straw too joins the rogue's gallery of liars and charlatans. Even I remember Zola Budd, you sleazeball.
On the other hand, there are a couple of goons working there.Terry Jones writes another fatuous anti-war article, a heavy-handed 'satirical' piece about bombing Ireland. It might work if he could understand a few basic point about just war theory, proportionality, and the allowable utilitarian calculation about whether the response of violence causes more problems than it solves. Clearly this is all beyond him. He was the least funny of all the Pythons, the worst actor, and now proves himself the worst writer.
Pride of place, though, goes to Will Hutton for these inaninites, in a piece entitled, Time to stop being America's lapdog. beginning:
"The most important political story of our time is the rise of the American Right and the near collapse of American liberalism".
If only.
"This has transformed the political and cultural geography of the United States and now it is set to transform the political and cultural geography of the West".
Here's hoping.
"Britain's reflex reactions to an ally with whom we apparently share so much and which has served us well are going to be tested as never before.
The signals are all around. It takes extraordinary circumstances to produce the kind of warnings voiced over the last week by Chris Patten".
No iit didn't. He comes out with this sort of stuff like a parrot.
"Tony Blair is reported to have said privately that 'if we can get rid of Baghdad, we should', a devastatingly naive remark which so far stands uncorrected".
Maybe he did say it. But I doubt it. Tony couldn't come out with anything so damn right. There is an if in there, Will.
"Unilateralism, as Patten argues, is not in itself ignoble - states pursue their self-interests - but US unilateralism is uncompromisingly absolutist because it is ideological, which is what it makes so dangerous".
No, it's not. The US would love it if the EU backed it. But it knows it's wasting its time. It's called realism. He then describes Clinton as "an essentially progressive President"!
"The Supreme Court's suspension of the Florida recount in December 2000, to gift the presidency to Bush, is part of the same story.
This destructive conservatism is contested fiercely, especially on the liberal, internationalist seaboards. Many good Americans are as bewildered by their current leaders and ideas as we are".
Love the gratuitous Florida recount reference. And what about those many good Americans who think things are just dandy?
"Mr Blair should beware. Trying to be both pro-European and pro-American will no longer work. There is a choice and, if he does not make it, ultimately it will wreck his premiership. In an era of globalisation, it is international affairs that determine the fate of governments, because party Whips cannot contain the consequent passions. The Tories broke over Europe. Labour will break over too-slavish fealty to this US. This is the new political drama. Watch out".
No it won't. My money's on domestic corruption. Tony will be caught out in a bare-faced lie from which there is no escape. He'll resign over night and Gordon Brown will take over within minutes. Watch out.
|
Friday, February 15
Terence Blacker asks in the Independent "who, in their right mind, would want to be shoulder
to shoulder with Freddie Forsyth and Roger Scruton?" in lieu of fox-hunting. Hey, there are millions of us. Indeed, so is he, as he volunteers for the job in the next sentence. The papers are full of this today, the news being that going round on a horse trying to murder foxes is soon going to be a crime in Scotland. The Times has a curious leader on the subject which assumes, and assumes that Blair feels the same way, that the bill passed will be overturned by the Human Rights Act. But I thought Human Rights legislation meant judges could only interpret laws in the light of Human Rights, it couldn't just send them back to the drawing board. Assuming I'm right, which I usually am, more likely will happen in the month long lead-up to the bill becoming law the hunters will be out in force in Scotland, and on the day itself there will be all sort of eye-catching, arrest-me hunts, some of which will start in Scotland and end up a miles acroos the border in England. What will the cops do? Turn a blind eye and get savaged by the politicos for gutlessness? Or make a few token arrests, with Freddie and Rog being frogmarched into Black Marias? Thus drawing the enmity of me, Terence Blacker and all right-thinking people? Can't wait myself.
|
to shoulder with Freddie Forsyth and Roger Scruton?" in lieu of fox-hunting. Hey, there are millions of us. Indeed, so is he, as he volunteers for the job in the next sentence. The papers are full of this today, the news being that going round on a horse trying to murder foxes is soon going to be a crime in Scotland. The Times has a curious leader on the subject which assumes, and assumes that Blair feels the same way, that the bill passed will be overturned by the Human Rights Act. But I thought Human Rights legislation meant judges could only interpret laws in the light of Human Rights, it couldn't just send them back to the drawing board. Assuming I'm right, which I usually am, more likely will happen in the month long lead-up to the bill becoming law the hunters will be out in force in Scotland, and on the day itself there will be all sort of eye-catching, arrest-me hunts, some of which will start in Scotland and end up a miles acroos the border in England. What will the cops do? Turn a blind eye and get savaged by the politicos for gutlessness? Or make a few token arrests, with Freddie and Rog being frogmarched into Black Marias? Thus drawing the enmity of me, Terence Blacker and all right-thinking people? Can't wait myself.
|
Thursday, February 14
Two notable articles in the Spectator. One, has Matthew Parris giving a lame attempt to justify his Americo-scepticism. I think what I find annoying about Parris is that he so often wants to see issues in personal terms. I backed the US in the war on Afghanistan because I think it was entirely justified. He sees it because I like Coca-Cola, or because I hate the EU. Irrelevant. Reading this one, it seems to me that he is back-tracking pretty much from his very sniffy and much-criticised position of two weeks ago. Read the final two paragraphs:
"What, however, I want to say is that in the end governments do not act in good faith. They act in their interests. Their interests are driven mostly by domestic considerations. It will often be the case that the interests of one government will for a while coincide with those of another. The mistake against which I warn is to hope that when interests cease to coincide, gratitude or amity will continue to bind one government to another; to bind, in particular, a superpower to the support of a smaller ally.
France was right to insist that her independent nuclear deterrent was independent; Britain was foolish not to. I offer this last small example... as an illustration of why ‘where do we presently disagree?’ is not the question. Sooner or later we will disagree. When we do, years of shoulder-to-shouldery with America will not be worth a tinker’s cuss in Washington — and Tory sentimentalists had better believe it".
Yeah? Another contestant in the stating the bleeding obvious stakes, but if it's all the same to you we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. In the mean time...
And Roger Scruton defends himself in the Scrutongate affair. I think he should have been even more belligerent about it, but then that's his style. Act sweet and reasonable, it only gets your opponents foaming at the mouth even more. For those not following it, the great philosopher got sacked by the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal because he had been soliciting work from cigarette firms offering to write favourable articles on behalf of the industry. So? Why is that shocking? It's like discovering that Andrew Sullivan had been soliciting work on behalf of Gay-Catholic groups, or Andrea Dworkin on behalf of Lesbian separatists. What exactly is the deal? I can understand the Guardian's attitude in this. They felt they had a scoop, and subsequent events have proved them right. But as to Scruton's employers - gutless both of them. Sign him up for the Spectator. He's always been an arresting journalist at the very least, and he writes far better than half the crew there. And as we've seen, he'll write for anyone. He even writes for the New Statesman, so hats off to them for keeping him on and not capitulating to the Liberal Terror. I myself was rather pleased to learn that he was feathering his nest, having always imagine our Rog was a bit too head in the clouds, worrying about the nature of time and Hegel and Heidegger, and stuff. Nice to know he likes a quick buck just like the rest of us.
But where is Steyn? And how come no one in the Uk has published his article on Princess Margaret? Maybe the Telegraph will at the weekend.
|
"What, however, I want to say is that in the end governments do not act in good faith. They act in their interests. Their interests are driven mostly by domestic considerations. It will often be the case that the interests of one government will for a while coincide with those of another. The mistake against which I warn is to hope that when interests cease to coincide, gratitude or amity will continue to bind one government to another; to bind, in particular, a superpower to the support of a smaller ally.
France was right to insist that her independent nuclear deterrent was independent; Britain was foolish not to. I offer this last small example... as an illustration of why ‘where do we presently disagree?’ is not the question. Sooner or later we will disagree. When we do, years of shoulder-to-shouldery with America will not be worth a tinker’s cuss in Washington — and Tory sentimentalists had better believe it".
Yeah? Another contestant in the stating the bleeding obvious stakes, but if it's all the same to you we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. In the mean time...
And Roger Scruton defends himself in the Scrutongate affair. I think he should have been even more belligerent about it, but then that's his style. Act sweet and reasonable, it only gets your opponents foaming at the mouth even more. For those not following it, the great philosopher got sacked by the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal because he had been soliciting work from cigarette firms offering to write favourable articles on behalf of the industry. So? Why is that shocking? It's like discovering that Andrew Sullivan had been soliciting work on behalf of Gay-Catholic groups, or Andrea Dworkin on behalf of Lesbian separatists. What exactly is the deal? I can understand the Guardian's attitude in this. They felt they had a scoop, and subsequent events have proved them right. But as to Scruton's employers - gutless both of them. Sign him up for the Spectator. He's always been an arresting journalist at the very least, and he writes far better than half the crew there. And as we've seen, he'll write for anyone. He even writes for the New Statesman, so hats off to them for keeping him on and not capitulating to the Liberal Terror. I myself was rather pleased to learn that he was feathering his nest, having always imagine our Rog was a bit too head in the clouds, worrying about the nature of time and Hegel and Heidegger, and stuff. Nice to know he likes a quick buck just like the rest of us.
But where is Steyn? And how come no one in the Uk has published his article on Princess Margaret? Maybe the Telegraph will at the weekend.
|
Broadsheets are boring today. Boris Johnson writes an article in the Telegraph stating the obvious, saying you don't need the Euro on holiday any more, what with credit cards and everything. In the Guardian Howard Jacobson spends a week without email, or telephone. He makes it sound very dull. Hugo Young says that "It's sick to ignore our part in the making of Milosevic". Actually, he doesn't feel guilty about it at all, and blames John Major. Seamus Milne moans about 'this absurdly named' Axis of Evil ( you really don't have to read it to know what he's getting at ).
Best of the day is probably The Telegraph's Neil McCormick predicting that Will Young will only be a Pop Idol for only a year before the bubble bursts. I wonder. Still, the Spectator goes on-line in a few hours' time.
|
Best of the day is probably The Telegraph's Neil McCormick predicting that Will Young will only be a Pop Idol for only a year before the bubble bursts. I wonder. Still, the Spectator goes on-line in a few hours' time.
|
Wednesday, February 13
And the best article in the Independent is also about rock and roll, with Pete Townsend talking about Tommy and going out with Princess Margaret.
|
|
Best article in the Guardian today is about your CD collection. We've got ten of them. But we like them more than he does, or seems to think other people do. Sure, Graceland is ghastly, but Dido really is good. So there.
|
|
Amazing. Here is someone even more right-wing than me, and he could be London's next mayor. Don't laugh. Red Ken has disappointed everyone, Shagger Norris has alienated the Tory top brass by being so scathing of IDS that his only chance is the much-rumoured 'stand as an Independent' route, with tacit support from Tony Blair, which could work but for the fact that Old Labour would never not submit a candidate, and if they tried it would send the whole party into paroxysms of confusion. Shagger's a likeable card, as is Ken, but they are polar opposite politically, and Shagger would be hated by the Labourites. And the Liberals are an irrelevance here, so it should be interesting. We shall see.
|
|
I'm a bit late today as I'm still recovering from the only very good episode of the Office of Monday night. ( I watched it last night, it doesn't take me that long to get over these things ) It took the easy route, which Alan Partridge had also succumbed to, of making David Brent too pathetic. It would have been much more believable, and annoying, and thus perversely enjoyable if he'd really charmed the new secretary, and if he'd been a little bit more successful with the women. It's now gotten too PC, with the women being the sassy, in control ones, and the guys all the goons. Shame. Still looking forward to next week, though. And it's still better than everything else on TV. Sorry if this means nothing to my Non-UK readers but I had to get it off my chest.
|
|
Tuesday, February 12
Van Der Valk has popped his clogs. Mysteriously, this obituary misses out on After Pilkington, which was one of the best tv plays I've ever seen.
|
|
Monday, February 11
Reader David Bowman sends me this link concerning Amy Gehring. "If Gary Glitter had come out and said 'These boys weren't stupid - they knew what they were doing' I get the feeling that he may have been strung up from the nearest lampost. Grand Sexism or what?!?" I think he may be onto something. But hey, she's innocent, remember?
Update: Actually, having thought about it, none of it convinces, as she also said they were all so drunk nobody even knows if they got their ends away or not, which is a strange definition of 'knowing what they were doing'. Perhaps they should lock her up and throw away the key.
|
Update: Actually, having thought about it, none of it convinces, as she also said they were all so drunk nobody even knows if they got their ends away or not, which is a strange definition of 'knowing what they were doing'. Perhaps they should lock her up and throw away the key.
|
Madeleine Bunting gets today's frog award, in a column promisingly entitled:
"Of course we're guilty"
"Tony Blair is back in Downing Street and after a brief flurry of interest
in the what-do-we-do-about-Africa question, we can all go back to such
important issues as why Gareth, the bookies' favourite, did not win Pop
Idol.
In the last few days, we have been doing the moral equivalent of
weightlifting. We have spared a few minutes to ponder why Africa is in
such a mess, and we have flirted with interesting notions about guilt
which conclude with jibes against "liberal guilt" and fake apologies of
the "I'm sorry but I don't see why I should have any" variety. Guilt over
Africa has gone out of fashion; these days we prefer to save guilt for big
things such as eating a tub of Hägen Daz or getting plastered.
If you want to keep it that way, don't read further. Turn to coverage of
the Davis Cup or concentrate on the pre-match build up for Holland v
England on Wednesday..."
If you say so.
|
And there's a good article from a couple of weeks back in the Observer about the dangers of instant tv fame from Josh out of Big Brother 2. I hope Will reads this.
|
|
Sunday, February 10
Hideous article from India Knight today. Watch the frog in her pocket go to the frog in your pocket.
"Cookery has been a spectator sport for some time now. We can’t get enough of Jamie or Nigella or Delia. We scrutinise them on the telly, murmuring, “Ooh, nice kitchen” or “I wonder if that top’s cashmere”, and buy their books by the truckload. But do we actually cook anything from them? Not necessarily. Cookery has become a celebrity pastime, a specialised skill open only to the sexy and the glamorous. You drool over Nigella and Jamie faffing about with eggs, but being a lesser mortal, you regretfully — crazily — come to the conclusion that this cooking malarkey isn’t for you".
and so on.
|
"Cookery has been a spectator sport for some time now. We can’t get enough of Jamie or Nigella or Delia. We scrutinise them on the telly, murmuring, “Ooh, nice kitchen” or “I wonder if that top’s cashmere”, and buy their books by the truckload. But do we actually cook anything from them? Not necessarily. Cookery has become a celebrity pastime, a specialised skill open only to the sexy and the glamorous. You drool over Nigella and Jamie faffing about with eggs, but being a lesser mortal, you regretfully — crazily — come to the conclusion that this cooking malarkey isn’t for you".
and so on.
|
And he did. So you can win a British election against the odds in spite of being called William. Just goes to show that a stuttering nice chap who all the mums and dads take to their hearts, like shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin might not come good when the chips are down. Beware.
|
|
Friday, February 8
The Leader in the Sun is worth a look today, for two reasons. One, following up Alice Thompson's claim about the disappearing British workman it suggests letting in lots of funny foreigners as replacements. For all that talk about how the tabloids are xenophobic - a repeated bleat by the Indy and the Guardian - here is the counter. And two, again on the racism theme, they congratulate the New Statesman which has apparently apologised for its antisemitic front page of a month ago.
Don't knock the tabloids. It's the liberal-socialist-Europhiliac broadsheets that are the real menace. Hence this blog.
|
Don't knock the tabloids. It's the liberal-socialist-Europhiliac broadsheets that are the real menace. Hence this blog.
|
Word just in - Keith Vaz gets suspended from the Commons for a month. Only a month? What's wrong with Guantanamo Bay?
|
|
"Jack Straw was happy to toughen the party’s policies on crime when he was Shadow Home Secretary. He was under no illusions that the activists at Labour Party conference represented the average Labour voter’s view. He knew that on one estate in his Blackburn constituency people routinely unplugged their video-recorders and took them down to the pub, so that they could not be stolen while they were away".
Mary Ann Sieghart today in the Times. Again, I say unto you, is this true?
|
Mary Ann Sieghart today in the Times. Again, I say unto you, is this true?
|
In the Times today Simon Jenkins did his usual "I am sensible, everyone else is hysterical and irrational" bit, this time about the MMR vaccine. It's no consolation that I agree with the thrust of his argument. Why does he have to be such a poncy twit about it all, though?
|
|
"Britain, like the rest of Europe, is in demographic stagnation. To keep its working-age population stable, the EU needs to import 1.6 million people a year until 2050".
Really? That's 48 multiplied by 1.6 million, which is something over 70 million. Now even allowing for natural wastage, collateral damage and the odd drive-by shooting that seems like an awful lot of humans. And some of them will probably breed too, into the bargain. Maybe she's right. I don't mind. My dad's an immigrant so even if I wanted to complain it would like a bit hypocrital, but I'd like to see how she came up with this figure.
Alice Thompson in the Telegraph.
|
Really? That's 48 multiplied by 1.6 million, which is something over 70 million. Now even allowing for natural wastage, collateral damage and the odd drive-by shooting that seems like an awful lot of humans. And some of them will probably breed too, into the bargain. Maybe she's right. I don't mind. My dad's an immigrant so even if I wanted to complain it would like a bit hypocrital, but I'd like to see how she came up with this figure.
Alice Thompson in the Telegraph.
|
"New Labour is a daisy chain of hatred. Start by plucking one flower at random. Jack Straw hates David Blunkett, who he thinks is trashing everything he, Straw, did at the Home Office. Blunkett is disliked and mistrusted by Gordon Brown, because No 10 is trying to build the home secretary up as Blair's replacement.
Gordon Brown and Robin Cook hate each other for some obscure, distant reason already lost in Caledonian mists. Cook also hates Peter Mandelson, but then so does everyone else".
Simon Hoggart in sparkling form in the Guardian
|
Gordon Brown and Robin Cook hate each other for some obscure, distant reason already lost in Caledonian mists. Cook also hates Peter Mandelson, but then so does everyone else".
Simon Hoggart in sparkling form in the Guardian
|
However, just to prove that not everyone in the Independent is operating with a full deck, Deborah Orr wins today's Frog in your Pocket Award
"The truth is that our heightened, fetishistic interest in the preparation of
food is indeed the other side to a story that sees us developing an less and
less healthy relationship with it. We are obese, we are anorexic. We never stop
watching food programmes on the telly. We cannot boil an egg. We know more about
good nutrition now than ever. Our diets have never been so unhealthy. This is
indeed messed up. but it's not a problem for women only, one that will be
banished with some remedial teaching of feminine skills. It's a problem for
everyone to tackle".
We? Who is this we?
|
"The truth is that our heightened, fetishistic interest in the preparation of
food is indeed the other side to a story that sees us developing an less and
less healthy relationship with it. We are obese, we are anorexic. We never stop
watching food programmes on the telly. We cannot boil an egg. We know more about
good nutrition now than ever. Our diets have never been so unhealthy. This is
indeed messed up. but it's not a problem for women only, one that will be
banished with some remedial teaching of feminine skills. It's a problem for
everyone to tackle".
We? Who is this we?
|
Thursday, February 7
The Times, among others, reports that Labour is on the point of revamping the 'free at the point of use' principle behind the NHS, by preceding it with the adverb 'overwhelmingly', Beside the rights and wrongs of this one, what is most annoying here is that they will first deny it, then lambast their critics for being 'wreckers', then insist they are 'modernising' it, claiming all the while that there is of course no contradiction between being competitive and having the highest regard for social justice. And then they will say the Tories of course have secret plans to 'privatise' it, while offering no proof. And the papers will then just lie down and accept it.
It seems to me that the only thing New Labour stands for is - well, at least we're not as bad as the Tories. Not much of a rallying cry, really.
|
It seems to me that the only thing New Labour stands for is - well, at least we're not as bad as the Tories. Not much of a rallying cry, really.
|
Boris Johnson in the Telegraph joins in the great woman has sex with teenagers, or does she? debate with what is basically a retread of yesterday's leader, in the course of which he bashes Deborah Orr, but puzzling refuses to name her. Why?
"It is hard to agree, frankly, with the female columnist in yesterday's Independent, who said that Gehring should have been found guilty of rape and paedophilia. The article appeared to go on to question the sanity of the jury, who cleared Gehring, and called upon society to have a fundamental rethink about our legal system. "What," wailed the female columnist, as so many others have wailed over the last few weeks, "if those boys had been girls? What if Amy Gehring had been a man, ruthlessly preying on innocents in his care?"
To which the simple answer is that they weren't girls. They were acnoid hormonally supercharged teenage boys, none younger than 14".
There must be some in-house Telegraph reason here. They can name the innocent ( remember? ) schoolteacher, but not the journalist from a rival paper.
"In acquitting Gehring, the jury showed magnificent British common sense. To say that she was guilty of raping her pustulent and enthusiastic charges, or that she was guilty of "assault" upon them, is simply to abuse the language".
No. The jury just found her not guilty. But here again, he seems to think she did commit the crime, but the jury didn't want to send her to prison. I don't see why that's common sense exactly. It's more of an argument for changing the law, surely? Moreover, well you know the rest of what he has got to say, but he does make another point about
"poor weeping Miss Gehring. She may have been found innocent, but she has been professionally finished. As far as teaching goes, she is not biology; she is history. She has been put on some "list 99", a proscribed list of all those the state deems must never work with children again".
Can that be true? If she is innocent surely she ought to get her job back. Or am I wrong?
"It is a cruel fate for a well-mannered and highly intelligent Canadian farm girl, recently spurned in love".
Of course if she'd been ill-mannered and a moron... well.
Imagine how they'd have let rip if she'd been found guilty.
|
"It is hard to agree, frankly, with the female columnist in yesterday's Independent, who said that Gehring should have been found guilty of rape and paedophilia. The article appeared to go on to question the sanity of the jury, who cleared Gehring, and called upon society to have a fundamental rethink about our legal system. "What," wailed the female columnist, as so many others have wailed over the last few weeks, "if those boys had been girls? What if Amy Gehring had been a man, ruthlessly preying on innocents in his care?"
To which the simple answer is that they weren't girls. They were acnoid hormonally supercharged teenage boys, none younger than 14".
There must be some in-house Telegraph reason here. They can name the innocent ( remember? ) schoolteacher, but not the journalist from a rival paper.
"In acquitting Gehring, the jury showed magnificent British common sense. To say that she was guilty of raping her pustulent and enthusiastic charges, or that she was guilty of "assault" upon them, is simply to abuse the language".
No. The jury just found her not guilty. But here again, he seems to think she did commit the crime, but the jury didn't want to send her to prison. I don't see why that's common sense exactly. It's more of an argument for changing the law, surely? Moreover, well you know the rest of what he has got to say, but he does make another point about
"poor weeping Miss Gehring. She may have been found innocent, but she has been professionally finished. As far as teaching goes, she is not biology; she is history. She has been put on some "list 99", a proscribed list of all those the state deems must never work with children again".
Can that be true? If she is innocent surely she ought to get her job back. Or am I wrong?
"It is a cruel fate for a well-mannered and highly intelligent Canadian farm girl, recently spurned in love".
Of course if she'd been ill-mannered and a moron... well.
Imagine how they'd have let rip if she'd been found guilty.
|
Anatol Kaletsky writes a whole heap of garbage in the Times about American 'Arrogance'. Consider:
"By identifying America primarily as a military power, by asserting that it will pursue its perceived national interests regardless of international laws, coalitions or treaties, by emphasising its unchallengeable superiority over every other nation and global institution, by claiming an unconditional moral hegemony over any adversary he cares to identify, and by acting so blatantly in the interests of the US business establishment, Mr Bush is weakening America and playing into the hands of its opponents".
Of course, Bin Laden was really broken up by Kyoto, wasn't he?
"He is fostering the belief that America’s wealth and power are illegitimate and coercive when, in reality, America is powerful because people all over the world volunteer to buy its products and absorb its values. But that is not how the world perceives things".
The last sentence completely undermines the previous one, of course. If 'the world' was absorving its values, then it wouldn't be perceiving it like this, would it?
"And the more America brandishes its military power, the more it will be met with antagonism, revulsion and misunderstanding".
Oh yeah? How the hell do you know?
"Even US businessmen seem to be losing confidence in the legitimacy of the system that made them rich. The millionaire corporate executives at the World Economic Forum applauded enthusiastically whenever speakers mentioned injustice, inequality and the need for more government, regulation and income redistribution on a global scale. Every mention of the global triumph of US capitalist values was greeted with embarrassed silence". .
But I thought you said Bush was wasting too much time sucking up to business. Now they don't like him. Anyway, this has got to be rubbish. Is the WEF really reacting like this? Of course, what Kaletsky is moaning about is the usual penis envy we've seen before from the Euroweenies. These guys can only get a hard-on when they hear words like consensus, compromise, coalitions and treaties. They're like a guy who decides to become a eunuch, and then complains that Peter Stringfellow is the only one who gets all the chicks. The way I see it, is that America is a country, and acts like a country. The Euroweenies just don't like that.
|
"By identifying America primarily as a military power, by asserting that it will pursue its perceived national interests regardless of international laws, coalitions or treaties, by emphasising its unchallengeable superiority over every other nation and global institution, by claiming an unconditional moral hegemony over any adversary he cares to identify, and by acting so blatantly in the interests of the US business establishment, Mr Bush is weakening America and playing into the hands of its opponents".
Of course, Bin Laden was really broken up by Kyoto, wasn't he?
"He is fostering the belief that America’s wealth and power are illegitimate and coercive when, in reality, America is powerful because people all over the world volunteer to buy its products and absorb its values. But that is not how the world perceives things".
The last sentence completely undermines the previous one, of course. If 'the world' was absorving its values, then it wouldn't be perceiving it like this, would it?
"And the more America brandishes its military power, the more it will be met with antagonism, revulsion and misunderstanding".
Oh yeah? How the hell do you know?
"Even US businessmen seem to be losing confidence in the legitimacy of the system that made them rich. The millionaire corporate executives at the World Economic Forum applauded enthusiastically whenever speakers mentioned injustice, inequality and the need for more government, regulation and income redistribution on a global scale. Every mention of the global triumph of US capitalist values was greeted with embarrassed silence". .
But I thought you said Bush was wasting too much time sucking up to business. Now they don't like him. Anyway, this has got to be rubbish. Is the WEF really reacting like this? Of course, what Kaletsky is moaning about is the usual penis envy we've seen before from the Euroweenies. These guys can only get a hard-on when they hear words like consensus, compromise, coalitions and treaties. They're like a guy who decides to become a eunuch, and then complains that Peter Stringfellow is the only one who gets all the chicks. The way I see it, is that America is a country, and acts like a country. The Euroweenies just don't like that.
|
Iain Murray has some interest stuff at his site, on Gibraltar, self-defence, and the House of Lords. He comes up with a complicated formula for reform of the latter which might work the way he wants it, but probably wouldn't because complicated formulae never do. The main question on this issue though is not how you go about electing, or even selecting, its members, but what is their purpose. We can all dream up various PR deals regarding their election. But what are they for? A competing chamber, a debating house, a home for forgotten politicians, a necessary buffer to stop a government with a huge majority getting its way? I don't see why the Conservatives have completely ruled out abolition. There are enough tiers of democracy now, and the House of Commons is full of MPs who claim they don't have enough to do. Now there'd be no excuse. It's time those goons read the laws they pass. That is their job, after all.
Not very conservative, I know.
|
Not very conservative, I know.
|
Wednesday, February 6
Woman has sex with teenagers, or does she? Actually, maybe I was a bit unfair to Deborah Orr. The Telegraph is a bit more lucid, but completely off track. Boys and Girls are different apparently. They too seem to take it as read that she was guilty.
|
|
Woman has sex with teenagers, or does she? Deborah Orr is on fine confused form again this week. If this blog had been up and running I would have done a hatchet job on last week's offering, which did include this classic use of the word 'counterproductive', which for her means, 'true, but let's not tell everyone'. Is it libellous to accuse someone of saying something that might be libellous? She seems to take the guilt of Amy Gehring, the woman freed of sex charges with teenagers, for granted.
|
|
"In his appeasement of Iran, his fear of confronting Robert Mugabe, his dismissal of George Bush's State of the Union address as an electoral stunt, and his haste to betray Gibraltar, Mr Straw is proving a disastrous Foreign Secretary". Today's Telegraph. Too right. What the guy has to gain from capitulating, let alone negotiating with the Spaniards is a mystery. There have been two splendidly snooty leading articles in the Independent On Sunday and the Independent his week. I quote these gems. FIrst the I o S:
"The Government's desire to forge an alliance with Spain within the European Union outweighs concerns about the large protests that will be mounted by Gibraltarians...
Who gives a damn what they think, eh?
"British control of Gibraltar is an increasingly preposterous echo of the imperial past..."
God forbid.
"Britain and Spain are members of the EU, that for all its faults embodies higher ideals than the lofty imperialism of the 18th and 19th centuries...."
Discuss.
"There is little sense in two EU countries rowing over sovereignty when much of it is already pooled..."
Let's face it, we're no longer a country, so what's a little piece of land between friends?
"In the 21st century the Government has no legitimate claim to Gibraltar".
Two years ago of course, because it was the twentieth century, things were different.
"Because Spain and Britain are partners in the EU those who live on the Rock should not feel threatened by a further pooling of sovereignty...
Say that again. They do only live there.
By Monday, the leader writer had really got the bit between his teeth:
Gibraltar's people ought to accept this sensible deal
Beware of anyone claiming to be sensible. That is a matter of opinion, buddy boy.
"The ferocity with which many Gibraltarians will denounce the deal expected to be announced today between Britain and Spain to share sovereignty over the Rock may be a moment of catharsis. It reflects the understandable feeling of betrayal shared by many other communities left behind by the receding of the red ink from the map of the world. The force of the Gibraltarians' insistence on their Britishness carries echoes of the excessive loyalty to symbols of Britishness demonstrated by the unionists in Northern Ireland. The truth is that Gibraltar is no longer a necessary or an organic part of the United Kingdom..
Like Scotland, you mean?
"While it is right for the British Government to recognise its obligations to the last few remnants of empire, what most Gibraltarians want is not the right to settle in Britain but the right to preserve their distinctive statelet as it is. For that, they do not need British sovereignty – what they really need is good relations with their neighbours and a settled position within the European Union..."
At last the point. Let's sell out the Gibraltarians to strengthen the EU.
"It may be paternalistic for British ministers or London newspapers to suggest that they understand the true interests of Gibraltarians better than the people do themselves, but the principle of self-determination has to be tempered by some consideration of whether a nation to which a small community pledges its allegiance wants to be on the receiving end of such loyalty".
So, we're bigger than you, and don't you forget it. Interesting how the Independent, so keen to 'pool' sovereignty whenever the opportunity arrives, is also so keen to use throw its weight around whenever it can.
|
"The Government's desire to forge an alliance with Spain within the European Union outweighs concerns about the large protests that will be mounted by Gibraltarians...
Who gives a damn what they think, eh?
"British control of Gibraltar is an increasingly preposterous echo of the imperial past..."
God forbid.
"Britain and Spain are members of the EU, that for all its faults embodies higher ideals than the lofty imperialism of the 18th and 19th centuries...."
Discuss.
"There is little sense in two EU countries rowing over sovereignty when much of it is already pooled..."
Let's face it, we're no longer a country, so what's a little piece of land between friends?
"In the 21st century the Government has no legitimate claim to Gibraltar".
Two years ago of course, because it was the twentieth century, things were different.
"Because Spain and Britain are partners in the EU those who live on the Rock should not feel threatened by a further pooling of sovereignty...
Say that again. They do only live there.
By Monday, the leader writer had really got the bit between his teeth:
Gibraltar's people ought to accept this sensible deal
Beware of anyone claiming to be sensible. That is a matter of opinion, buddy boy.
"The ferocity with which many Gibraltarians will denounce the deal expected to be announced today between Britain and Spain to share sovereignty over the Rock may be a moment of catharsis. It reflects the understandable feeling of betrayal shared by many other communities left behind by the receding of the red ink from the map of the world. The force of the Gibraltarians' insistence on their Britishness carries echoes of the excessive loyalty to symbols of Britishness demonstrated by the unionists in Northern Ireland. The truth is that Gibraltar is no longer a necessary or an organic part of the United Kingdom..
Like Scotland, you mean?
"While it is right for the British Government to recognise its obligations to the last few remnants of empire, what most Gibraltarians want is not the right to settle in Britain but the right to preserve their distinctive statelet as it is. For that, they do not need British sovereignty – what they really need is good relations with their neighbours and a settled position within the European Union..."
At last the point. Let's sell out the Gibraltarians to strengthen the EU.
"It may be paternalistic for British ministers or London newspapers to suggest that they understand the true interests of Gibraltarians better than the people do themselves, but the principle of self-determination has to be tempered by some consideration of whether a nation to which a small community pledges its allegiance wants to be on the receiving end of such loyalty".
So, we're bigger than you, and don't you forget it. Interesting how the Independent, so keen to 'pool' sovereignty whenever the opportunity arrives, is also so keen to use throw its weight around whenever it can.
|
Greetings, everyone.
Fifty years to the day that our delightful monarch hit the throne is as good a reason as any to start a blog dedicated to reactionariness, conservatism, and the occasional loose cannon of libertarianism. However, I can't pretend that it is anything less than a coincidence. I would have started yesterday but I was at the Hear'Say auditions. Unfortunately, I failed in the final round, and that's why I'm a blogger, rather than a pop star. But their loss is your gain.
Welcome aboard.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, you still don't fix it". Edmund Burke.
|
Fifty years to the day that our delightful monarch hit the throne is as good a reason as any to start a blog dedicated to reactionariness, conservatism, and the occasional loose cannon of libertarianism. However, I can't pretend that it is anything less than a coincidence. I would have started yesterday but I was at the Hear'Say auditions. Unfortunately, I failed in the final round, and that's why I'm a blogger, rather than a pop star. But their loss is your gain.
Welcome aboard.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, you still don't fix it". Edmund Burke.
|
- Comment Central
- Stephen Pollard
- Natalie Solent
- Two Blowhards
- Tim Blair
- Daimnation!
- Machinery of Night
- The Bewilderness
- Freedom and Whisky
- Jackie Danicki
- Biased BBC
- Civitas
- Samizdata
- Normblog
- Jim Miller
- White Sun of the Desert
- Progressive Reaction
- Dodgeblog
- Laban Tall
- Atlantic Blog
- House of Dumb
- Blognor Regis
- Burning Our Money
- The England Project
- Mick Hartley
- Iain Dale
- Tim Worstall
- An Englishman's Castle
- Unenlightened Commentary
- Squander Two
- Patrick Crozier
- Stumbling and Mumbling
- Guido Fawkes
- Brian Micklethwait
- Nothing British
- Battenburg.co.uk
- The Devil's Kitchen
-
- February 2002
- March 2002
- April 2002
- May 2002
- June 2002
- July 2002
- August 2002
- September 2002
- October 2002
- November 2002
- December 2002
- January 2003
- February 2003
- March 2003
- April 2003
- May 2003
- June 2003
- July 2003
- August 2003
- September 2003
- October 2003
- November 2003
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009