Public Interest.co.uk

There are some people for whom politics is all about the big issues. And big issues mean treaties, constitutions, rights, and contracts. Will Hutton is such a man. A man who would sign anything, just so long as it made him feel good. After all, you might have thought he'd be dancing a jig after the deal last week whereby 10 more countries are about to sign up to the EU. Somehow, he isn't.

"This weekend should be a moment of immense European jubilation. Europe has been put back together again. Ancient cities that once formed the Hanseatic league are back in the European fold. The heart of the Hapsburg Empire is back. So, with its tragic history, is Poland. Europe is very nearly complete".

So what's missing, Will?

"What now has to happen is that we have to devise a way of governing a political jurisdiction with widely varying degrees of economic and social integration".

Here it comes.

"The only solution, and the one to which the European constitutional convention is heading, is a really robust statement of what makes Europe distinct - a declaration of values - and which gives it common purpose despite enormous diversity. And if a member state does not want to sign up, it can and must leave".

In through the out door, guys. You join the Eu on Sunday, and leave on Monday. Complicated, but a mere detail for our Will.

"Any such declaration will necessarily encompass a belief in the social contract; socially-responsible enterprise; the obligations of the propertied and rich to societies of which they are part; an assertion of the importance of public service, public duty, and public goods; and profound commitments to democracy, markets and human rights. This is the civilisation which we want to create, even if some are nearer to it than others. Only thus can Europe have any ideological and cultural glue; without it we are just a commonwealth of states in a customs union".

Er, Will, just for the record, does this 'declaration' have any legal burden? or is it mere window-dressing? And what kind of a 'customs union' is it where you can get fined for not having someone hold a ladder for you? Some people never stop, do they?

Compare and contrast this with a leader in the Times of Malta:

"The European Union summit just concluded in Copenhagen is the beginning of a glorious new chapter in Europe's history and a fitting end to a year which began with the adoption of a common currency, the euro, in 11 of its states. More than that, however, it is the beginning of another glorious chapter in the history of Malta, perhaps the most fateful development in its 38-year history as an independent nation".

Glorious and fateful? I really do hope they read the small print.

|

Prince Philip is a genius. They should give him a knighthood.

|

According to Chris Patten the Maltese electorate are "mature and politically shrewd enough", not only to have a referendum on joining the EU, but to make the 'right' decision. The British electorate on the other hand, were "immature and far too retarded politically to be trusted with such a privilege".

Oh wait. He didn't actually say that last bit.

|

More revelations on Cherie promised for Monday. Meanwhile, for those who can't wait, here's a spirited attack on her and her phony family values. Some of the press, with their goldfish-brained attention spans may have given up on this one, but I haven't. Kepp on digging, folks.

|

Here's more on Cherie, courtesy of the Scotsman who have a whole bunch of stuff about it. It still isn't over.

|

Sometimes I despair of the Tories. Take Tory MP John Bercow in the Guardian:

"Simplicity, transparency, targeting, fairness, effectiveness - these are the criteria against which policy must be judged. Second, recognise the success of the minimum wage. Opposing it on principle was a catastrophic blunder by the Tories who must now embrace it as one weapon to fight poverty".

Yes. Statism lives. Don't these guys get it? The minimum wage is an attack on the poor. It's an infringement of civil liberties. And if you don't think that, then what is your philosophical objection to Blairism? He hasn't got one.

"Discrimination is inimical to social justice. Conservatives should reject it without qualification. The case for equal treatment is not about political correctness, but about human decency. Where pay inequalities between men and women result from differences in skills or qualifications, this must be addressed".

Addressed? What does that mean? Accepted, or challenged? Who the hell knows?

"However, where inequalities are down to cowboy or chauvinist employers, Tories should side unequivocally with the individual whose right to fair treatment has been infringed. Discrimination against older people is both objectionable and wasteful. Britain will now have to give effect by 2006 to the EU directive which bans age discrimination. Conservatives should work enthusiastically to ensure that the new law works to best effect".

I see. So he's against discrimination, but wants to discriminate on behalf of the crinklies. Go figure.

"For too long, Conservatives have seemed hostile to ethnic minorities".

I like that 'seemed'. Well are they or aren't they?

"It is vital that Tories should aspire to govern Britain as it is, and not Britain as it was. That means valuing equally rich and poor, public sector and private, urban and rural, male and female, young and old, black and white, gay and straight. We must share the commitment of our fellow citizens to the ideal of social justice and demonstrate to millions of doubters that Conservatives will deliver it".

Look here, punk. Some of us Tories take that as read. People are of equal moral value, prima facie at any rate. But to make the leap from that to the presumption that the government therefore has some duty to act as Robin Hood is intellectually shallow and dishonest. Discrimination is freedom of association. They're the same damn thing.
I do wonder about the psychology of people like this, let alone the politics. There he was, a former Monday Club alumni, now going all Blairite on us. What makes him tick?
As Perry would say, The State is not your friend.

|

What exactly is the point of Western civilisation? wonders Jonathan Glancey, in the Wanker:

"Is our creed more than a confusion of cheap energy, discriminatory education, junk food, shopping malls, cynical housing, privatised public services, property deals, celebrity culture, the machinations of multinational corporations, leisurewear, chic pornography, the right to bear arms, and a deep-seated fear of the Saracen bogeyman handed down in popular legend, and half-baked government dossiers, from the crusades? Most decent British and American citizens, not loath to protest against unrighteous war nor to fight for a just cause, want and deserve better than this. We need to know what we are fighting for, and to give more than a damn".

What we are fighting for, Jonathan, if you bothered to read the same paper you write for, is a right to bugger the towelheads.

|

Richard Littlejohn takes on Cherie, pointing out her husband's wimpishness in the process. He also has some great stuff on the criminal classes. You couldn't make it up.

|

And all must have prizes! Still, I dare say Fisky needs 'protection' more than most. Especially from angry Afgoons.

|

Adam Hollioake is joining the lads. This time next year he'll be England captain. Whatdoyoureckon?

|

O what a tangled web we weave! Trust the Scots to discover this. Sassenachs are such wimps, eh? So the papers were faxed to Number 10! And if you believe this defence, you'll believe anything. It's a bit "Yes, I did have the papers sent to me, but I didn't inhale'.

The net is closing in, the sharks are salivating, the fox has gone to ground while the mixed metaphor of New Labour is collapsing like a ton of bricks. Burn, baby, burn!

|

Harold Pinter in the Telegraph:

"Thousands of schoolchildren travel on the Underground every day. If there is a poison gas attack from which they die, the responsibility will rest entirely on the shoulders of our Prime Minister. Needless to say, the Prime Minister does not travel on the Underground himself.".

And neither does his wife. She uses a broomstick.

|

You'd have to have a heart of concrete not to fall about laughing at the spectacle of Mrs. Blair peeling an onion last night. I'm afraid she's finished. The helicopter must already have been booked, and she'll be off into a new life as a tv chat show host. "Afternoon tea with Cherie" on Channel 5. The Wanker disagrees:

"It was a formidable performance. It may even have turned a sorry episode into something akin to a personal and even a political triumph".

So why did she lie? I know these are awkward, uncomfortable questions for the sentimental Guardianites, but there are still some serious issues out there for those of us who don't fall for the family values card every time it's played. Sure, this is not the end, nor is this even the beginning of the end, but this may be the end of the beginning. And I wouldn't want it any other way. Who wants an easy quick death when it can be long, painful and protracted? I want it to be like Byersgate. So long as a senior civil servant goes - preferably Campbell - she can stay.
Stay tuned for more.

|

Cherie Blair: "I am not superwoman".

"I am in fact, half woman, half boat".

|

One last - I hope - comment on the Ken Clarke/Portillo dream ticket. Okay, suppose he gets elected leader. Within a few hours he's sounding off about the joys of the Euro. Every economic problem in the UK is explained by virtue of our 'missing the boat', and failing to join two years ago. Hezza and the Europhiles all come crawling from under their stones to back him. And Portillo? What the hell does he say? Fixed grin, plus: 'All this will be settled when the referendum takes place'. Yes. That'll shut the journos up.

It would be an unmitigated disaster. The Europhobes would wait for the first poll saying he was no more popular than IDS, challenge him, and David Davis would take over. Meanwhile Blair and co grin their way to another electoral triumph. Brilliant. Alternatively, a far better strategy would be for them all just to shut the fuck up, and then they'd stand a far better chance. And the point Donald Macintyre and sundry others seems to be missing is that Hezza doesn't want IDS to succeed. Why would he?

|

Say Goodbye to the cats, who leave this afternoon. Well fed, but mouseless. Oh well.

|

Say Hello to Dagh, new Danish blogger. He doesn't like the Guardian.

|

"The story of the Prime Minister's wife and a convicted fraudster becomes more depressing as each day goes by",

announces the Indy, which just goes to show how important Prozac is to those who write their leaders. Depressing? It's a scream. As Libby Purves puts it in the Times:

"Yes, of course it’s funny. A rebirthing ceremony, a topless model peddling magic pendants and nude scrubdowns! A New Age guru with big hair and indecent leggings, licensed to go through the Downing Street larder throwing out additives, yet herself accumulating toxic men — one of whom, fresh from a fraudulent slimming tea business, smarms up to a credulous QC with e-mails saying “Your pleasure is my purpose”, and involves her with an accountant charged with money-laundering! Yet all this tatty nonsense is not encrusting some dopey showbiz couple, but the squeaky-clean, earnest, churchgoing, ineffably self-righteous Blairs! You would need a heart of stone not to giggle".

Zoe Williams, in the Wanker of all papers, thinks she should resign, and take that wretched husband of hers with her.

Airstrip One also has an interesting take on this.

|

Cherie Blair is a liar.

|

George Monbiot on November 26, 2002:

"If the most powerful countries are permitted to wipe their feet on the UN charter with impunity, then the world will swiftly come to be governed by unmediated brute force".

George Monbiot on December 10, 2002:

"The UN security council, which is the body charged with the enforcement of international law, is inherently tyrannical. It is tyrannical because, while it asserts a global monopoly of violence, we cannot peacefully remove and replace it. The veto powers its permanent members possess are a constitutional guarantee against reform: no change can be made without the consent of those whom we would seek to change. No one, at the international level, guards the guards.
It is, or should be, astonishing that, despite growing protests, so many of those who claim to stand for global justice accept this dispensation".

He also calls for a global parliament again. Consistency? Who needs it? This is the Guardian.

|

The cats have landed, causing chaos within minutes. I had to wake at 4 o'clock this morning to feed the damned critters. Still, they are house-trained, and kinda cute. I never thought I'd find myself falling for them, but there you go. Maybe I have got a heart, after all.

They ain't killed any mice, though.

|

Startling news - every year the Guardian publishes its best of the year. A stocking filler for those warped individuals who just can't get enough of their favourite paper. This poor deluded freak who actually had to edit the book claims that there was so much he had to leave out, and wonders if readers have their own suggestions. I have an alternative idea. How about a competition for the most ridiculous column the paper has printed this year? Where to begin? We could start with Matthew Engel and his Olive Garden fantasy, I suppose. Or the complete works of Hugo Young. Or even this fatuous piece of pseudo-humour by AL Kennedy.

Whatever did happen to Madeleine Bunting and Charlotte Raven, anyway? Carted off by the men in white coats, I imagine.

We could also nominate Gary Younge, who won't be writing any more comment pieces. He's off to be the paper's New York correspondent.

That'll learn you, you Yankee Imperialists.

|

Cherie Blair is a liar. And a demented New Age weirdoid to boot.

|

For those interested I have some comments on the ludicrous Heseltine over at Biased BBC.

|

The Guardian:

"In the end, Europe cannot be defined solely by geography, income, religion, or strategic calculation. Europe is an idea. And Europe in the 21st century is what we make it, freed from the chains of history and united by a common future vision".

So much for the five tests, eh? There's only one answer here: Head for the hills, boys, and don't forget your ammo.

Me? I'm staying at home. I've got mice to kill.

Enjoy your weekend.

|

If there's one thing worse than a feminist it's a male fellow traveller. Take the Uncle Tom of the Independent, Adrian Hamilton. He's had a look at the figures, on 'both sides of the Atlantic' and reckons there aren't enough of the ladies doing the economics. He's 'puzzled'. Well that's what he claims, though a paragraph later he comes up with the reason, suggesting he isn't at all 'puzzled'. He knows:

"No, the real reason I think that men still monopolise this area is that they know it to be the last and most important area of patronage and power left to them. Men like all the business of secrecy and dealing that goes with economics departments, they relish the business of teasing markets that goes with being the head of a central bank or an economic ministry".

And how do the boys do this? By using that jargon that the poor little braindead chicks find so baffling.

"Some of this obscurity, of course, may stem from the curious language that economists use, and for which Mervyn King, the first academic economist to head the Bank of England, is famous. Governors and Chancellors have to be careful of saying anything that might move the markets.
But a lot of this obfuscation is deliberate and unnecessarily masculine. Central bankers like the power of knowing things which they can keep from the public. Just watch the present Governor, Eddie George, in action. I don't believe that women enjoy that game".

Yes. But if the girls were so clever they'd see through all this, wouldn't?

"There are real issues of the euro as there are over university top-up fees. But an awful lot is just macho rivalry."

Like a lot of journalism, I suppose. It's the usual crud. First he says there's a mystery, then there isn't. Then he says it's all the boys' fault. Then he points out that plenty of women aren't any better. It's the old feminist merry-go-round: women are equal, women are inferior, women are better, women are more nurturing, women could do it if only the boys would let them, women don't want to do it anyway etc. etc. The creep concludes:

"clarity is not, I suspect, the name of the game these boys are playing at the moment".

And it isn't exactly one or your talents, either, is it Adrian?

|

This is a very cool device. Every blog should have one. ( Stolen from Natalie Solent, who stole it from David Janes. ) Now all I have to do is write an amazingly attention-seeking opening sentence for every post. Ah well.

|

Jackie Ballard, the only Liberal MP to be booted out at the last election, has landed on her feet. She's now coining it as director general of the RSPCA. Well, good luck to her. But just because she's bossing around the sheep-shaggers doesn't mean she's entitled to use every lousy argument under the sun. For example, Alan Michael has come up with some seriously half-baked solution to the hunting issue. He's going to license it. Very New Labour. Being a liberal extremist, however, the Ballard broad wants to go one step further. She wants to ban the whole thing, on the grounds that:

"If you reject badger baiting or dog fighting or bull baiting – harming animals for fun – then you should reject fox hunting".

Yes, Jackie, but what if you don't? If the RSPCA had any sense, far from banning these harmless recreations, it really ought to think about reintroducing them, perhaps even making them a part of the national curriculum. I don't know if Jackie's ever been to Spain but they have a lot of bulls there. Why? So they can fight them. When was the last time you saw a bear in the UK? Never. Since bear-baiting was abolished they've all gone. Next they'll be banning mousetraps. And then I'll be really angry. Tim Blair reports on an outbreak of chicken violence in Australia. This doesn't surprise me. Animals, like liberals, are dangerous creatures, and need to be, if not caged, kept on a long leash. This is particularly the case for those with no natural predator up the scale. And in the UK, other than the humans, no one is willing to take on the evil fox.

Cats, finally arrive this weekend, for three days of unadulterated mayhem. There's gonna be blood on the carpet.

|

A new survey of British Social Attitudes has been published, and the Guardian waxes lyrical:

"It all fairly makes you proud to be British"

it coos. Why? Because the times they are a-changin', and they're changin' in a Guardian kind of a way.

"In the two decades since these invaluable surveys of the national mood began, the British people have become indisputably more liberal on a wide range of social issues. In 1985, for instance, 70% of us told the researchers that homosexuality was always or mostly wrong. Today, that figure has fallen to 47%. In 1985, 34% said they were prejudiced against people of other races. Today, the figure is down to 25%. Opposition to the legalisation of cannabis, a view held by 75% of Britons in 1983, has slumped to 46% today".

Well it strikes me that the story here is that 47& of Brits don't like turd-burgling, and that 25% don't like the ethnics. But what do I know?

"A generation ago, those who stood for gay equality, racial justice and liberalisation of the drugs laws were dismissed as loonies. But it seems that we are all loonies now".

Speak for yourself, O Wanker. Anyway, this is all nonsense. The same wretched survey tells us that the masses think that "32% of the population is black or Asian", which suggests to me either that the public are morons, or that the whole survey should be thrown out of the window. Still, forget the stats. What's really interesting here is the final paragraph:

"Who are we then, we Britons of 2002? We are a nation which does not easily swallow conservative populist solutions. But we are a nation that is susceptible to conservative populist propaganda. The tabloids tell us about a Britain which is more violent, more panicked, more racially divided and individually much richer than is in fact the case. We are, in short, a nation of basically decent people - but we are ill-served by our press and by the quality of our public debates".

So there it is. This is Britain, before the fall. We were an Adam and Eve of enlightened liberalism, and then came the snake, in the form of the tabloids. I think they really believe this.

|

Matthew Engel discusses the rising tide of violence

"in American society, which gets more po-faced and repressed by the week".

He disapproves.

|

Ever wonder what the world would actually look like if the socialists had their way? Yeah, me neither. Still, Jonathan Neal, a "longtime activist and socialist", and author of "You Are G8, We Are Six Billion: The Truth Behind the Genoa Protests" however, has a dream. He tells us:

"First, it would be absolutely nothing like the old dictatorships in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam and Cuba".

which I suppose is a point in favour. He then gets down to his reel beef with the modern world. The toad work.

"work is a dictatorship. From the moment you clock on to the moment you leave, you do what you're told. "If you don't like it, Jonathan," they say, "you can go."
We spend the majority of our lives getting ready for work, going there, working, coming home, and then slumping to recover ourselves. So the dictatorship at work means our fundamental experience of life is not democratic".

Okay. So what kind of work has poor old Jonathan been up to all his life? Nuclear physicist? Page three model?

"I worked for ten years for a feminist abortion clinic".

Well, there you go. I can't say I've ever worked in an abortion clinic. But my educated guess is that they aren't really fun palaces. And a feminist one to boot. For ten years. No wonder the guy is, well, jaundiced.

"We were a co-operative. We shared jobs. We had equal pay. But we were competing with other clinics in a market, and in the end we had a management that sacked all the union members".

How do you share jobs in an abortion clinic, I wonder? Did a bell sound every twenty minutes, so that the anaesthetist can go off to man the switchboard, and the cleaner grabs the forceps while a nurse goes off to change a lightbulb? Might be a little disconcerting for the patients. No wonder they folded. However, there is a solution. Jonny reckons that, in his ideal world:

"the workers in each company or government department would have to take over the whole place. Then we could elect representatives from each workplace. These would be people like ourselves, cleaners and carpenters and teachers, not lawyers and politicians parachuted in from outside. They would work alongside us, be people we could know and weigh up. The representatives from every workplace could meet together in each city every week to make decisions about what to do with the economy. In most towns the only place big enough to hold them would be the football stadium".

Here we go, here we go, here we go.

"In our new world we could make decisions based on what we need, not on profit. There would be endless debates in those meetings".

You bet there would. Has this guy ever been to a meeting?

"Some people will want to put a lot more work into looking after old people. Others will want a lot more musicians and artists. Some will want to work only four days, and abolish Monday straight off. Others will want to keep working hard to bring the poor countries of the world up to the level of the rich. Some will want to put all our energy into the environment".

And some people will want to set up their own burger bars and oil companies.

"There will be endless debates".

I know, I know.

-"and we will settle them by consensus when we can, by votes when we must. There will be compromises, mixes and matches. Some of our decisions will turn out wrong. The key is that they will be really democratic. One of the glories of our movement, and one of the surprising things, is that we all seem to be agreed on the central importance of democracy.
I don't know exactly what those meetings will decide. I think we'll want equality, with everyone earning the same. I think we'll want to share out jobs, so everyone spends part of every week or every year doing the really good jobs, and everyone takes a turn at the boring, hard, difficult jobs".

Looks like Gianfranco Zola's gonna be spending even more time on the bench than he does already. This is taking the squad system too far.

"It wouldn't be a perfect world".

No? Don't be so modest.

"People would still die, or feel unloved. There would still be problems. But it would be a far, far better world. And in time we would create new people".

I was quite happy with the old people myself. But still...

"those people, raised in a new way, could go on to create yet another world.
I don't know if we'll do this in families or not. It may turn out everybody wants a standard family with 2.4 children and a white picket fence. Maybe half the population will turn out to be lesbian or gay. Maybe all the lesbians and gays will want the 2.4 children and the picket fence. I don't know. But I do know we will be able to make these decisions democratically, with the right to choose what we really want".

In those ever-so democratic meetings of his. I think I'd rather work in a feminist abortion clinic myself.

( Found this over at Harry's Place, and our Harry didn't think much of it either. Which is welcome relief to those of you who were wondering if all lefties are certifiable lunatics. )

|

Jack Straw shows the world his dossier, and the Indy isn't impressed:

"There is something vaguely pornographic about the Government's little compendium of sadism, with its graphic, stomach-turning descriptions of eye gouging, acid baths and electric drills".

Well, I prefer my pornography a little more mainstream than that. You know, big breasts, girl-on-girl action, that sort of thing. Still, this is the David Aaronovitch-inspired Indy, where all sexual tastes are catered for. But as to the dossier - perhaps it shouldn't have been published? Who are we to judge, after all? The world is such a horrid place, and let's face it, it is our fault, really.

"From the Israeli army's abuse of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories to General Dostum's ill-treatment of prisoners of war in Afghanistan to the endemic cruelty of Algeria's near civil war, we hear little protest from the United States and governments in the European Union. Still less do Western governments dare to criticise abuses by powerful trading partners or close strategic allies such as China, Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan. Indeed the treatment of prisoners at Camp X-Ray and our own policy towards refugees are not exactly a model of liberal practice.
Saddam Hussein may be as mad, bad, and dangerous to know as the Government says he is; but as with so many regimes around the world today, we seemed very content with him for a disturbingly long time".

Precisely. Because we didn't do any good once, it's too late to do anything good now. Of course, if we - and who is "we", anyway? did invade, these bleaters would start moaning about imperialism. Liberal imperialism, perhaps, but what the hell. The Wanker, however, is even more robust, wondering:

"where might it all end?
Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran and Malaysia's Dr Mahathir are fairly unprepossessing chaps. Ariel Sharon is another; while some even take personal exception to Jacques Chirac. If the criterion is human rights, Robert Mugabe definitely needs invading. And so, too, do China, Saudi Arabia and a host of other regimes with which Britain happily deals (as it did with Saddam until 1990). The US is another case in point: its executions, its world record-breaking incarceration rate, its police brutality and hate crimes, though not in Saddam's league, are cause for concern. It also has very dangerous weapons. Is it now British policy to disarm the US? Or should we be honest and go all-out for regime change in Washington? Your call, Jack".

Excellent. Let's invade ourselves. I like to think this is satire. But then you think of the shoe-bomber...

On the other hand, if you want to get a feel of what Iraq is long as a holiday destination, check out Johann Hari. I wouldn't want to spend too much time sharing a canvas with these "amiable maniacs", as he calls them:

Sean, a 36-year-old New York multimillionaire:

"You can't say the US is any better than Iraq. We have no right to lecture anyone, ever,"

and Hannah, a "frightfully well-spoken Englishwoman in her early 50s:

"I think Saddam is a great man and the USA is a great big global bully. My theory is that he should be given Kuwait. It's perfectly logical if you look at the map... "I think he's rather handsome too... Every woman does really. I'd rather like to inspect his weapon of mass destruction myself".

Now that's a bit more like it porn-wise. But it doesn't float my boat. Still, it's an interesting read.

|

Got an email over the weekend from Harry. He's a leftie, and he was desperate for a plug. Well, we're a broad church so what the hell. And somebody who has permalinks to Red Pepper and Tribune deserves some sort of accolade. Good luck, Harry, hope you find what you're looking for. Yes, there are plenty of leftie bloggers out there. Loads of Americans, a few Limeys. British Spin has certain Rawlsian aspirations, likewise the Mighty Bertram. Go read and enjoy.

|

Yup. CBB is over, and Mark won. Overall I thought it was pretty dull and uncontroversial. But then I would, wouldn't I? Being a white, male I watch these things from a position of privilege. Being a chick of a slightly non-pellucid complexion, Helen Kolawole in the Wanker sees things differently:

"the evidence so far suggests that black and Asian contestants - introvert, extrovert, appealing, repulsive, fat, thin, dim-witted or equipped with Machiavellian skills - are all guaranteed one thing. They won't win".

That's right. BB is racist.

"Without exception, over the five series to date, every black or Asian Big Brother contestant pitted one-to-one against a white candidate has been voted out by the great British public".

And why shouldn't they be? Live by the sword, die by the sword.

"Granted, chicken-loving Darren and Nike-tattooed Lee"-

both non-caucasians, in case you hadn't guessed.

-"were not much more than vacuous, narcissistic eye-candy. But then what of the anally retentive Alex, a pretty, monotone white Essex boy highly skilled in the art of checking his appearance; or the self-obsessed Josh?"

Yes, but at least he was a WOOFTER. Which must be a good thing, no?

"As for exotic Amma, loudmouth Narinder, bottom-flashing Mel and boisterous Alison - attention-seeking bores the lot".

Yes, but at least they were WOMEN ( not to mention yet more non-caucasians ). Which must be a good thing, no?

"But any more obnoxious than the majority of their white counterparts? Remember Helen, who listed blinking as her favoured pastime? Or Sada and Sophie, both resolutely personality-free? As for Big Brother winner Kate Lawler - to call her a nonentity would be unkind to nonentities".

Hey, baby, it's only a game show.

"To cite a reality TV show as an indicator of the state of British race relations may be as wrong-footed as Goldie's attempts to explain street slang to Anne Diamond. But there is a serious point".

Yeah, well, being the Wanker, there would be.

"Last week, figures revealed that black schoolchildren are three times more likely to be excluded from school than their white counterparts. Big Brother may just be a frivolous TV show, yet it illustrates how, for many, exclusion can be a life-long, ever-present reality".

So what's the remedy? Lock'em all up, throw away the key? Offer them counselling? Have no evictions? Or, pace Will Hutton and Roy Hattersley, give all the money to the first person to be evicted?

Helen Kolawole: she's got more hidden agendas than a pandora's box.

|

And talking of comeback artists, albeit one not quite as popular as our Diana, here's Stephen Byers, the much-maligned genius who was but a stone's throw away from saving the railways, offering his wisdom to an ungrateful nation:

"A year from now, we shall probably be two years from the next general election".

That's right, Steve. And in two years' time, we shall probably be a year from the next general election. And when the big hand points at the twelve, and the little hand at the three, that means...

|

Her knees may be rickety, and she may not be able to make those three pointers like she used to, but the Michael Jordan of the blogosphere is back. Allelujah!

|

John Rawls, the American political philosopher, went off to that great Veil of Ignorance in the Sky last week, and Will Hutton writes his report. Apparently, Rawls

"proved that the liberal left case is right".

Did he now? But what kind, I hear you ask. The 'social democrat' style, as favoured by Gordon Brown, or the 'social liberals', as touted by ( don't laugh ) Tony Blair?

"This is not a trivial intellectual difference", says our Will.

"Blair's social liberalism is essentially rooted in utilitarianism. This tradition believes that society has to live with unfairness, unredressed inequality and injustice, but as long as they are compensated by sufficient others having wellbeing, that is the best we can hope for, especially if we believe that unconstrained individual liberty is a fundamental value".

Well, Tony Blair has been accused of many things, but even I wouldn't throw stones at him for his belief that 'unconstrained individual liberty is a fundamental value'. When Our Tone gets hauled before the European Court for Crimes Against Humanity, that is one charge that will not stick. He can even call me as a witness. Roy Hattersley adds his own pennyworth today. If anything he is even less convincing than Hutton:

"We do not have to earn the same wage, live in the same sort of house, eat the same brand of breakfast cereal or walk the same breed of dog. Rawls and Tawney just wanted less inequality.
Their view of society is so right and reasonable that it is hard to think of a reason - other than personal greed - for anyone to argue with them".

That's because you've got a stunted imagination, Roy.

|

Seminal? Climacteric? Gordon Brown is in even more trouble than I thought.

|

There are batting collapses and there are batting collapses. And that was a batting collapse. You can't even blame our somewhat green bowling attack, either. What the hell Dominic Cork makes of all this, sitting at home with a mug of ovaltine and Sky Sports on the tv, I can hardly imagine. There he was, bowling at the Oval in September against India, now he can't even get a call-up in spite of the fact that Gough and Jones have gone home, Caddick and Flintoff are injured, and Hoggard is dropped. And don't get me started on Martin Bicknell.

|

I am getting old. I've just listened to a song by Yes - Roundabout - and liked it. OH MY GOD.

|

The Root Cause boys are back in town. Only this time they're, like, not too sure of themselves. First up, the Indy:

"the campaign against al-Qa'ida and other brands of anti-American and anti-Israeli extremism should involve a better understanding of the causes of Muslim grievances, some of which are justified".

Oh yes? Which ones? The wicked imperialism that is Miss World?

"Of course, even if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be resolved – not an imminent possibility – it would be little defence against the demented ideology of Osama bin Laden. But it is something that ought to be attempted anyway".

The first time the Indy has admitted that, I think. The Wanker, however, is even gloomier:

"A reliable, long-term defence depends fundamentally on a cooperative, not confrontational approach that tackles the roots of the anti-western Muslim resentment upon which terrorism feeds. As long as a single individual feels justified in firing a missile, or planting a bomb, or wielding a penknife, terror will never be totally defeated. The killers can never all be killed".

What? Why not? Killers often are killed. It's called War, buddy boy. But because these guys would rather die - literally - than kill somebody, it does somewhat paint them into a corner, and all they can do is wring their hands in despair. Cheer up, Wankers, there is such a thing as a machine gun and a nuclear bomb, you know. In any case, I really don't think they mean it. Would you ever get the Guardian writing:

"As long as a single individual priest feels justified in buggering a choirboy, paedophilia will never be defeated".

Fisky meanwhile, does his usual mix of horror and relish, coupled with a bizarre contradiction in his first two paragraphs:

"It was inevitable. It was the nightmare of Israeli officials that there would be an al-Qa'ida attack on the Jewish state.
The one thing they did not think about, even after Bali, is that al-Qa'ida would strike Israel abroad".

Look here Bobby, if something is inevitable then it is also predictable. Thicko.

|

Patrick Crozier has joined the twenty-first century and you can find all his latest musings on getting from A to B at transportblog.com. Drop in and say Hi.

|

Sorry. Not much to say today. Let's face it, I know damn all about economics, so if you want an insight into Gordon Brown's beautiful mind you have come to the wrong place. I did traipse over to the Indy, hoping that Natasha Walter's comments on rape would provide some material, but came up short. Okay, it's leftie, feminist and boring, but what's new? Also, I'm still reeling from the great Sue Perkins' debacle. What is wrong with these celebs? It's only a gameshow, as the pulchritudinous songbird Caggy once sang ( before having her own public nervous breakdown ). Anyway she's out of there tonight, leaving Mark Owen alone to breast the tape without anyone else even in the frame. Anyway, I shall probably be watching the Uefa Cup tonight, which is a lot more interesting than the Champion's League in my book. Knockout football, that's what it's all about, Brian. Incidentally, whatever happened to the law that a free kick could be advanced ten yards if the defence kept complaining? I don't think I have ever seen it implemented. And why wasn't a penalty awarded after Bellamy was sent off? It all happened inside the area.

These things keep me awake at night.

And to all my American readers, have a Happy Thanksgiving. Enjoy your turkey and your football of the other persuasion. Go Packers!

I shall probably have more to say tomorrow, when Polly and co have ruminated on the Kenya business, provided I have recovered from our latest batting collapse.

And congratulations and good luck to Sasha and Andrew. Who's next? Perry, David, Dale, and Adriana announcing they've become Mormons and are moving to Utah to make it legal? The Spinsters announcing their Sapphic love for each other? Stay tuned.

|

If you want to find the root cause of the forthcoming Martian invasion look here. What have the little green men done to deserve this?

|

My 25 thousandth visitor is due within the next few hours. Greetings. Don't become a stranger.

|

Education! Education! Education! John Prescott is deputy Prime Minister.

( Stolen from Stephen Pollard who sends me a lot of traffic, so here am I, returning the favour. )

|

David Aaronovitch announces to the world that it's about time prostitution was legalised. The reason?

"Because as I get older and meet and talk to more people, I increasingly see sex and sexuality as a vastly more complex, intricate and individual business than grope, marry and groan".

Well perhaps Aaro did once believe in holding hands at the cinema, an innocent dance to the jitterbug at the Legion on a Saturday night, and a quick peck on the cheek as he walked the lucky girl home across the cobbled streets, to greet an anxious father standing at the gate. On the other hand, as he proudly admitted less than a month ago, he's never married his current squeeze, and he's been porking her for fourteen years, so his disenchantment with romance has a longish history. I reckon it's working at the Indy that did it. Perhaps the first day at work, our virginal, wet behind the ears Aaro turned up at the office all youthful naivety, only to be confronted by the sight of Philip Hensher sodomising Donald Mcintyre, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown masturbating with a cucumber, and Deborah Orr giving the editor hand relief. I suppose it's possible.

|

Labour MP George Galloway is so full of shit I wonder if he's got more than one asshole. After a brisk condemnation of

"the most rightwing and warlike Republican administration Washington has ever seen",

the great man starts salivating at the prospect of war with Iraq:

"every burning building, every scorched corpse, every broken family dragged out of the Iraqi ruins will be viewed in Technicolor from the Atlantic to the Gulf".

which is true enough, though hardly relevant. That's war for you, George, and people die. But our George has a certain relish for flowery language, and drips into his article a number of quotes from Macbeth. Why? It sounds good, reckon. His concluding paragraph is a bit of a humdinger, though, and is worth quoting in full:

"Many have praised Tony Blair for nudging Bush into the thicket of the UN. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the pathway leads to peace, as was no doubt his good intention, he will be a hero. If it turns out that he has merely paved the way to hell, Burnham Wood will have come to Dunsinane - and the Blair project will be at an end".

So what, really, is he saying? If Blair wins, he's a hero - Blair loses, he's a loser.

Is that it?

George Galloway: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

|

Shine on, you crazy Diamond! So farewell then, Ann. I said before the wouldn't last too long, but I also said the same about the sour-faced Uranian, Sue, so what do I know? Generally, though, I reckon I'm still on the money. Mark will see the Perkster off, and although Les is putting in a good late bid, Owen's name is written on the trophy.

|

What kind of society is it where women are forced into the marketplace to fend for their children? They'll be sending kids up chimneys next.

|

Splendid news in the Indy. Papers are starting to charge for content. Like the Times, ( which is one of the reasons I stopped fisking 'em. ) Well we knew that. But the rest are thinking of doing the same. Sounds good to me. At first I wondered how this would effect blogging. And then I thought: "Great!" If I don't feel obliged to read Hugo Young, Matthew Engel and all the rest of the sorry Wankers, well that could only be a good thing. I might even live longer. Never again, for example, would I have to read Philip Hensher, who reveals in the Indy the startling news that, in the light of the Neo-socialist decision to modernise our sex laws, the word 'homosexuality' is no longer PC. The Blairites will in fact, use the phrase:

"orientation towards people of the same sex".

Fantastic! I've said it before and I will say it again, but Political Correctness is a fabulous phenomenon, simply for keeping the liberals at bay. Like wondering how many angels you can get on the end of a pinhead, it keeps the Wankers busy. Take Hensher. He discloses that he never liked "gay", is kind of partial to "queer", enjoys "poof" ( but only among fellow nancy boys - if you're a breeder don't even go there ), and thinks "Uranian" will never catch on. His conclusion?

"Let's return to our roots, and start talking about "sodomites".

And why not? Just so long as he keeps thinking that this is an 'interesting debate', the better.

|

"It is entirely moral, humane and proper to place electrodes in the brains of primates",

announces Mick Hume, in the Times. Quite right. And the sooner they start on this one the better.

|

"The latest Palestinian suicide bombing is an act of execrable cruelty matched only by its unutterable stupidity", announces the Wanker. So, who's to blame?

Well, the suicide bomber, obviously. But he isn't the only one.

"Yasser Arafat, his orders flouted and his poll ratings falling, is again left looking foolish".

Foolish? But who is really to blame?

"But any discussion of all-round stupidity cannot fairly exclude Mr Sharon and his blinkered patron, George Bush. Their ill-will and incompetence has combined to bring what was left of the peace process to a grinding halt. Do not prate on about two or three-year-long "roadmaps"! Talk about dead children now".

The Guardian: a newspaper of execrable cruelty matched only by its unutterable stupidity.

|

I suppose if I were incredibly cynical I might point out to Mr. British Spin this article by Larry Elliott which reveals that:

"The gap between rich and poor has widened under Labour, entirely because the already rich have become stupendously richer".

However, I dare say he'd say, yes, but it would have got worse under the Tories. For a good capitalist like me, though this kind of news does indeed get a shrug of the shoulders and an amused sigh: Labour can't even get the things they believe in right. For Elliott, however, this is a bad thing. First, he points out the obvious, that:

"bifurcation of the labour market should come as no surprise, because market economies have an in-built tendency towards inequality. People are paid differently because some are more talented, some work harder, some start from more advantageous positions and some are luckier. Even starting with a wholly egalitarian system of income and wealth, it would not be long before the market turned equality into inequalities".

So far so obvious. However, here comes the conclusion:

"Massive income inequality does, however, sit uneasily with democracy. There is a conflict between the egalitarian notion of one person one vote and executives earning a thousand times more than their workers".

Sorry, I just don't get it.

|

British Spin bites back! He doesn't disagree with me, exactly, he just thinks there's more to it than simple moral choice. There is such a thing as society. Moreover, you can throw money at problems. By investment crime can come down. He cites an estate where crime is down by a third, and attributes this to, aside from better policing, government investment. My response is this: Sure, you can throw money at problems. But why's that always a good thing?
Thus, you can give a mugger a hundred grand when he gets out of prison. It's possible he won't do it again. Or you could invest all that money in something else that employs said criminal ( or at least, future criminals waiting to happen ), but I still don't see that that is a good thing - provided bad things are done in the process. What bad things? Taking money off the innocent, for a start. Why should Bill Gates, say, be forced to contribute one penny towards somebody else's lifestyle? In effect you're still rewarding vice, and punishing virtue. Why is that a good thing?
He also cites "A Clockwork Orange", and says my world view reflects that of the book. Well, I'm quite happy with that. I like the book, and Anthony Burgess is one of my few, literary heroes.
But one of the weaknesses of that book is that he cooks the books. The Ludovico Technique - a process of intellectual behavioral intimidation that tortures people into being good is so cruel that few people, other than the Gestapo and some seriously doctrinaire Marxists might approve of it.
But supposing the Ludovico Technique was a lot more user-friendly? Suppose, sometimes soon a scientist discovers the 'liberal gene'? Suppose some people are shown to have a natural tendency towards worrying about inequality, a deep concern for community, a huge craving to embrace the EU, and a fabulous respect for homosexuals, women, and ethnic minorities? Suppose you could develop a hormone from an individual with such a gene, turn it into a pill, and give it to criminals. So instead of wasting all that money on sending someone to prison, you could just give someone that pill. He takes it, and hey-ho, he's been turned into a good, compassionate, caring, socially aware hard-working selfless person. And it would be entirely pain-free. Pleasurable to take, non-addictive, and with no unpleasant side-effects.
Would you want him to take it it?
Would you force him to take it?
Would you take it?

|

And now for my first report on Celebrity Big Brother. It's too early and too close to call at the moment. However, here are those first impressions: Ann Diamond will probably do all right in the house, but not with the public. Melinda Messenger, vice versa. Goldie could well wind us all up pretty damn quick and might well be headed for an early bath. Sue, the dark-haired one, might last a couple of days, but as soon as she's up for the vote, it's hasta la vista, baby. Les Dennis will get through to the final three. The Winner, though, unless, he reveals himself to be a right pillock, must surely be Robbie Williams old mucker, the former Take That star, Matt Owen. Mind you, I always get this wrong.

|

A correction! Yes, we make mistakes just like everyone else. Andrew, who has settled in like a veteran at Sasha's incredibly sassy site, is in fact the only ex-dodgeblogger to have made his home there. The other two ( male, white ) alumni are currently homeless. The Big Momma herself, though, MommaBear, has joined up with the bellicose women down at site-essential.com. Go check her out!

|

News just in: We're losing the War on Terror. The Terrorists are winning! Or so says Seumas Milne ( Is that really how he spells Seamus? ):

"After six months of multiplying Islamist attacks on US, Australian and European targets, civilian and military - in Tunisia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Russia, Jordan, Yemen, the US and Indonesia - western politicians are having to face the fact that they are losing their war on terror".

So why's it failed, Seumas? Guess.

"All this has been the inevitable product of the central choice made last autumn, which was to opt for a mainly military solution to the challenge of Islamist terrorism. That was a recipe for failure".

Not necessarily. If we'd killed all their leaders and catholicised the people, well that might have helped, eh, Hugo? Or we could have tried to address the root causes, couldn't we?

"But there is little sign of any weakening of the wilful western refusal to address seriously the causes of Islamist terrorism. Thus, during the past year, the US has armed and bolstered Pakistan and the central Asian dictatorships, supported Putin's ongoing devastation of Chechnya, ccontinued to bomb and blockade Iraq at huge human cost, established new US bases across the Muslim world and, most recklessly of all, provided every necessary cover for Ariel Sharon's bloody rampages through the occupied Palestinian territories".

Yup. It's always Israel's fault. Maybe we should catholicise them, too. But only in a liberal, Hugo Young kind of a way.

|

In a Hattersleyite article, David Walker slams the current fad for local decision-making.

"We are all localists now",

he begins. I think that's what passes in the Guardian for heavy-handed sarcasm. We, aren't, you see. He isn't, especially.

"Giving more power to local government is therefore a recipe for diversity. Communities may be energetic and progressive; they may also be sluggish and mean. Localism has to mean some people get more and some get less, just like in markets. It is not a level playing field out there. Some cities have been poor (and poorly run) for ever. Some regions will always be richer and thus capable of sustaining higher taxation. If you value inequality, localism is a fine doctrine to hold. And of course, the party pushing for more inequality always used to be the Tories".

And now New Labour is just like the Tories. Yeah, we've heard all this before. These die-hards socialists, well they die hard, don't they? An individual, a locality, somebody out there might make a decision which is is wrong for it, and thereby run the risk of increasing inequality. Imagine! Somebody making the wrong decision. Far better to suppress autonomy, and let central government sort it out. Look pal, if you don't like autonomy, and want others to make decisions for you, go and join the Catholic Church. Leave the rest of us out of it.

UPDATE: This is even a bridge too far for Chris Bertram. We'll have a Paul Johnson of him yet.

|

Wheeling himself out of the closet, Hugo Young claims to be some sort of Catholic: but guess which type? The liberal kind.

"This has always been an uneasy stance. Who are we liberal sinners to be sure what is right and what is wrong?"

Indeed. Good Old Hugo still has a go, though, doesn't he? Away with such scepticism! Hugo knows, and he wants the world to know too.

"The church removes itself from the axiomatic standards of the world with an arrogance that forfeits all respect".

Then why join? If 'the world' has a superior moral view, then join 'the world'.

"It has to be unequivocally contested when it claims to stand above the elementary norms of society".

Then why join? If 'society' has a superior moral view, then join 'society'.

"Here the liberal is right, and the church emphatically wrong".

So much for all that doubt, eh? And I repeat: Why join? If you know the difference between right and wrong, Hugo, what o you need a church for, let alone the Catholic church, whose whole point is that you get your morality from elsewhere. What is it about Catholicism that Hugo likes? Eating fish on Fridays? Beating up Rangers' fans? Buggering choirboys? Seriously, Hugo, what is it that makes you want to call yourself a Catholic?

"What's truly shameful is the church's failure to connect with a world that has a thirst for spirituality, if not religion as exemplified by Rome".

Ah, so maybe 'the world' isn't so superior, after all. Look, punk. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the pulpit. And if you really want some spirituality, go and join the Moonies.

|

It's Bash the Blokes day, down at the Wanker. First up, Cherry Potter:

"This weekend the nation will settle down to watch Daniel Deronda and Dr Zhivago, both by Andrew Davies".

She wonders:

"does it matter if virtually the entire canon of 19th-century women's literature is adapted by one person who also happens to be a man? Am I being a boorish feminist for even bringing up the subject?"

Is there any other kind? Imagine. All those plays written by one man, all about the kings of England and Scotland, and princes of Denmark, and doges of Venice.

And that's just the beginning. Here's Catlin Gunn, the paper's resident lap-dancer, who reveals in the latest installment of her memoirs:

"It's clear that a lot of the guys who come to strip bars are here to get their revenge on women. I can usually spot them. It's an expression of distaste they wear permanently - whether it's a handsome young blade, a suited business man or, like last night's guy, a bloated, sagging, professional onanist, whose sallow pallor, slack features and faint fishy reek indicate a bitter life misspent".

Just like the cretinous hacks who ply their trade in the Guardian. All that equality-speak. All that Europhilia, all that hatred for America. All those professional onanists. They don't call it the Wanker for nothing, ducky.

"Sometimes I panic that all men are serious women-haters, but then I catch myself, think about my men friends - my funny, clever, warm, intelligent friends - and remind myself that the men I meet aren't necessarily a healthy cross-section of male society".

Yeah. Me too. Sometimes I panic that all women are serious man-haters, but then I catch myself and think about all the women I know. None of them buy the Wanker. It's a lousy paper full of weirdoes, misanthropes, and Matthew Engel.

"The problem is that every week I am exposed to about 100 men who are leery, needy, hostile, angry, creepy and ultimately dysfunctional".

Right, so anyone who wants to cop a view of your tits is dysfunctional? Perhaps. But I reckon there's an attitude problem here. If you can't provide a decent service and respect your clientele, then stop impuning their motives go and become a bag lady.

Third, just to show that the anti-male virus isn't just a female preserve, here's Kevin Maguire, who, in a fatuously class-riddled defence of Britain's firemen, condemns Sir George Bain, the human appointed by the government to sort it all out, thusly:

"Bain (male, white) and the government's newspaper cheerleaders (overwhelmingly male, white) have also condemned firefighters for being mainly male and white".

Well I suppose it's possible, when some arsonist sets fire to Wanker House in Farringdon Road, and Kevin, Hugo and the rest of the hatchet-faced masturbators are all crawling all over the rooftops, that they will turn down help from the ( male, white ) firemen, and demand only to be rescued by the ( female, black ) Lesbian Separatist Women's Co-operative of firefighting Ultradykes. But somehow I don't think so. Even if they arrived on time, ( which is doubtful, as in my experience, girls hate breaking speed limits ) what about the risk of them climbing up the ladders, offering cups of tea, asking Kevin about his feelings, and whether he had caught the latest episode of Oprah, while the whole damn lot of them melt into the noosphere?

And then of course there's the dreaded Pollster, who muses about the prospect of sarin gas, cyanide and anthrax being unleashed on the London Underground:

"If/when a Bali or a twin towers happens here, what will it do to the country? Usually countries under attack rally to their leaders, though this time there may be a strong undertow of opinion that wonders if Britain's closeness to the US brought this down upon us needlessly".

Yeah, sure. When Wanker House burns to the ground, unsaved by our fire-fighting lesboes, Polly's last thoughts will be a Robert Fisk-like:

"I'm sorry. This is all a result of the Florida recount".

But then I would say that wouldn't I? Being ( male, white ).

|

The British Spin man is unimpressed with my rejoinder to his rejoinder and asks someone to 'put forward a case for poverty not being the cause of crime'. Iain has a go. Now here's mine. I don't blame leftist intellectuals, I don't blame rightist intellectuals, I blame the individuals who do the crime. Okay, that's the glib 'micro' answer. Now here's my glib 'macro' answer: I suppose I blame politicians, mostly, of all stripes, not exactly for the laws they enact, but for not having a realistic appraisal of what would happen as a result of these laws. Ah, but those politicians are influenced by leftist intellectuals, and rightist intellectuals. And who voted for them anyway? You ( or we ) the public. And so it goes on.
What was the cause of WW2? Hitler? The evil German public who voted for him? The evil German financiers who paid for him? The Treaty of Versailles? Archduke Ferdinand? The bloke who shot him? High unemployment? The Allies for not understanding the 'root causes?' The Americans for not getting involved? Human nature? We can all have fun with that one.
Poverty does not cause crime. My view is that crime happens because people like it. The Yorkshire Ripper harboured fantasies of murdering women for years, finally did it, decided he liked it, got away with it, and carried on until he was caught. A similar process, I imagine, occurred in the brain of the little creep who smashed in the window of a car of a friend of ours who came to visit a few weeks' back. He did it to another car that night, and another car a couple of days later. He will presumably carry on until he gets caught. He didn't do it because he was Robin Hood, he did it because he could and because it was fun. Why here? Presumably because he lives near here. If he could do it in St. Johns Wood he would do so.
But why do they do it? What is the root cause? Well, I'm happy with the 'fun' answer. It's the same reason people go to the movies, watch football, read books, and set up blogs. It takes them out of themselves, and gives them a thrill. These things happen in waves. You show a suicide in East Enders and suicide rates go up. When I was at school heroin-taking was a complete taboo. I knew of others where it was all the rage. Why? Isn't the more pertinent question: Why not? People imitate each other. And if they find a taste for something, and there is little disincentive not to carry on, they will then carry on.
Was Myra Hindley innately evil? No. She was innately Myra Hindley. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that if she had never meet Ian Brady she would probably have gone on to marry some normal bloke, had a couple of bouncing babies, and ended up smoking sixty fags a day and watching Coronation Street every night. The two kids who killed James Bulger just got the idea of kidnapping a kid and stoning him to death, and decided to do it. If they'd decided to get into trainspotting or sneaking into the Kop to watch Liverpool on a Saturday afternoon instead we would probably have never heard of them.
But this is what people are like. People do horrible things to each other. There is no reason that they have to. Nobody has to mug anyone, nobody has to go and get drunk on a Friday night. Nobody has to have sex with strangers. But people do. And people get a taste for things. They get addicted, and obsessed by things.
One of the wisest pieces of advice I ever heard was given by John Waters, the otherwise mostly dismal film director. He thought that instead of going out and murdering people, anyone who has that tendency ought to just sit down and write about it. Helps if you could write, but I take his point.
Forget poverty then. And I mean Western style poverty. Crime committed by people who are genuinely starving and desperate is not always wrong after all. There are higher human values than property values, in my book. But what about inequality, then? Does inequality cause crime? Only in the same way that unequal good looks cause lust. The grass is always greener. In a society where people have similar incomes, similar amounts of property, then there is less of an incentive to envy. Sure. Likewise in a society where people tended to look similar, and have similar degrees of attractiveness ( or where one of the sexes wears the burqa, say ), there is less of an incentive to lust after anyone. But are these prices worth paying? Wouldn't the joy of living, and the infringement against freedom, autonomy and privacy not be worth the candle? Isn't it better just to punish people when they infringe, rather than to try and anticipate the evil-doing in the first place, which is something that can only be done successfully by a totalitarian state. How can you know if someone is going to do good? You can't. Any more than you can know someone is going to do bad.
So that's why I'm a conservative. It's also why I am, in the classical sense, a liberal. It's also why I'm an optimist. I think most people are nice, caring and decent. Left to their own devices people do indeed get along. Yes, we have our obsessions, and our sick imaginations, but we manage to channel them, if not productively, harmlessly. Most people, after all, are not serial killers, or even muggers. Even that little creep who's got his own crime wave going in the street outside. He'll probably grow up to be a just another unemployable lout with three children by three different women.
And that's where my blame for the politicians. So long as they subsidise laziness, indulge envy, and give little toerags the benefit of the doubt then it doesn't surprise me that the little toerags will carry on. All they do, and this goes for Major as well as Blair, and Thatcher for that matter, is announce crackdowns, promise initiatives, but never really carry out their simple duty of punishing the seriously guilty: those guilty of basic crimes like robbery and theft. Instead they like to tell the police to set up 'hate crime' hotlines, and try and abolish fox-hunting and the like.
Although more things are illegal in the UK than ever before, the police try and turn a blind eye to so much because it just isn't worth the bother, the judiciary do all that they can not to send people to prison both because prison is so degrading and because the prisons are so full. Consequently we have the most liberal punitive policies, and the biggest prison population ever. Now there's a causal link in there somewhere.
I shall no doubt return to this tomorrow with Mr. Blunkett's new eye-catching initiatives on sexual offences.

|

The unnamed creature who runs British Spin has dared to mock my comments on Roy Hattersley, as featured below. Or rather one particular comment. Go on. Go read him.
Well, sorry, but I'm not impressed. Hattersley is the one who is drawing the postcode distinction, not me. He's the one who seems to know where the good people live, and the bad people ( St. Johns Wood, and Lambeth, for those who can't be bothered to follow the links ) .Roy also knows why the good people do good things, and why the bad people do the bad things. As does British Spinman. It's poverty. Well, inequality, which as far as they are both concerned, are one and the same thing. I'm not so sure. I don't have all the answers. Roy does. That's why he wants to the give the thieving brats more money, more rights, more opportunities. I have two backers. One, Mark, in a comment over at his site, who says:

"Most of the wack little sociopaths on the loose in my area with their graffiti cans, short knives and yen for mobiles 'n' money are wearing trainers that cost more than all the clothes I'm wearing put together. Poverty doesn't create crime anymore; dysfunctional aspiration does. Crime is cool, unfortunately".

And the great Swordsman himself, Iain Murray, who digs out his sociology textbook. No, if you want to take a hatchet to my wisdom, go check out Steven Chapman, where, in contrast, I'm accused of wimpishness. Now that's what I call a fisking.

|

Former heroin user and current husband of the delightful Deborah Orr Will Self slams Dubya and his recent electoral victory:

"In so far as it has a popular will at all, the American electorate resembles a crack head at the end of a particularly savage and protracted binge".

Well he should know.

"Rather than face up to the fact that it's the biggest debtor nation in the world, and that it's fast squandering not only its own natural resources, but also all those of the rest of the Earth's inhabitants, crack-head America has decided to embark on another run.
Make no mistake about it, the "war" against Iraq has everything to do with mugging the muddle-headed Middle East for its oil reserves, and very little to do with human rights".

It's all about oil. Hey, now where have I heard that before?

"As for all of this flim-flam about weapons inspections, take my word for it, in years to come the casus belli for this little slice of Armageddon will come to be seen as a piece of fraudulent, cynical manipulation to rival the Nazi's "reason" for invading Poland.
Still, I can't really feel that angry with Dubya, or with any of his corrupt, self-seeking henchmen, or even with the paranoid, deluded American electorate, who are in search of another fleeting rush of imperialism. Like the scorpion in the parable - to sting is just in their nature".

Now that's what I call a 'root causes' explanation. Dubya's just a Nazi. He can't help it.

|

It's poverty day over at the Wanker, and three writers have three very different views. Another famine is looming in Africa, and a leader ends:

"Given $200bn to spend, what is a better option: a Marshall plan for Africa or a martial plan for Iraq? The answer is that the only just war to launch is the fight against poverty".

But what is poverty, anyway? You might have thought that even the most dyed-in-the-wool egalitarian would agree that poverty in the UK and poverty in Africa are at least, different. Unless you're Roy Hattersley, that is, who muses about Blair's latest crackdown on crime:

"It is not because St John"s Wood is free of original sin that its telephone kiosks are less vandalised than those in Lambeth. It is because the social conditions of the two are different".

True enough. One is where good people live. The other bad. Or maybe he wouldn't quite put it like that.

"Most of the young men on whom the anti-social behaviour bill is focused do not believe that they have the slightest hope of enjoying the material good life that they see exalted on television. It is no good telling them that they had a chance of winning a place in a city technology college".

Wny not?

"The young hooligans who live in those conditions will play fair by society only when they feel that society is playing fair by them".

This of course is deterministic rubbish. Nobody forces a toerag to smash the window of a car, any more than anyone forced Roy Hattersley into becoming a bloated socialist. He chose to do it, and so do they. And the proles of Lambeth aren't exactly starving to death. I wonder where he'd rather spend the $200bn. I also wonder where Randeep Ramesh would like to spend it. He too is in a state. He's worrying about imperialism. Or rather

"The new liberal imperialism".

He seems to disapprove of helping starving black folks.

"Dressed up as benign assistance or humanitarian interventionism, the years ahead will once again see great powers intervene in the affairs of independent peoples".

There's no pleasing some people. Let the poor starve, and you're accused of cruelty. Help them, and you're accused of imperialism.

|

When I opened my email today I had no less than three offers of a bigger penis. Ive decided to send them all over to Emily. Maybe she could use them - or just give them to that Greer woman.

|

So there it is. You go away for a few days and the whole world changes. One of the finest prose writers in the blogosphere has thrown in the towel, one of the feistiest has gone away for a while and may be some time, and three Britbloggers have merged with one sassy New Yorker. This is the most extraordinary union since the Buggles joined Yes. What will those opera lovers make nof Andrew's predilection for Napalm Death? We shall see.

Then Myra Hindley dies. On Children in Need day and all.

And finally, if that ain't bad enough, another dismal sixties female role model Germaine Greer comes flying out of her cave with another pronouncement about Men, brought to you as ever, by the Guardian. She's really lost it now. The one thing she once had was a vague talent for the arresting phrase. Now she's just turgid. Take the opening paragraph:

"The truth is out. Men are much more trouble than they're worth. Sisters are doing it for themselves. Discarded males of all ages loiter in the streets, looking for trouble to get into and finding no lack of it. Male security guards shoot male football fans in Bratislava, male fans howl racist abuse and hurl chairs at each other, males train as suicide bombers, male heads of state stroll about discussing whether they could get away with another shooting war on the women and children of Iraq, and their male flunkies zoom around the world trying to talk other males into joining in. The Beltway Sniper turned out to be a man. And those "children" ejected from school for threatening to kill their teachers are actually boys. It doesn't do to say so. A kind of mad squeamishness prevents us from quantifying the nuisance value of maleness, possibly because if you actually tell men that they are damned nuisances, they are likely to behave even worse".

There are another few thousand words of this. Do you really want to read any more?

UPDATE: Princess Emily, or somebody pretending to be her, adds her own caustic comments.

|