Tuesday, November 25
The Guardian's tendency to blame the conservatives and the tabloid press for all the evils in the world scales new heights of fantasy today. In a leader complaining about Tony's plan to break a number of laws in his craving to keep a handle on the number of funny foreigners running around the countryside, and all because he announced a target and wants to achieve it, we have the following assertion:
"Mr Blair is expected to achieve his numbers target on Thursday. The figures for the previous quarter showed he was already well on his way to achieving it. But he should have resisted the intense pressure he has been under from the tabloids and Tories. The price he is paying in terms of diminished moral authority is a high one".
I suppose this really is how they see the world. Blair has a majority of 161 over not just the Tories but everybody else, and the tabloids, in the shape of both the Sun and the Mirror are both Labour-supporting papers, and yet, and yet, somehow they call the shots.
A similar line of thinking appears in Moonbat's column today, in which he argues that:
"All empires work according to the rules of practical advantage, rather than those of kindness and moral decency".
His claim being that the US, being a superpower, is basically a very hungry great white shark. It eats and invades because it has to - that's what sharks and superpowers do. Once in a while, it may make the right decision, but that is purely fortuitous. The problem, though, with this argument is that if it denies an empire any moral sensibility, it also mitigates against complaining about it.
Tony can't really make moral decisions, says the leader, and the US can't either. So why does it upset them so?
|
"Mr Blair is expected to achieve his numbers target on Thursday. The figures for the previous quarter showed he was already well on his way to achieving it. But he should have resisted the intense pressure he has been under from the tabloids and Tories. The price he is paying in terms of diminished moral authority is a high one".
I suppose this really is how they see the world. Blair has a majority of 161 over not just the Tories but everybody else, and the tabloids, in the shape of both the Sun and the Mirror are both Labour-supporting papers, and yet, and yet, somehow they call the shots.
A similar line of thinking appears in Moonbat's column today, in which he argues that:
"All empires work according to the rules of practical advantage, rather than those of kindness and moral decency".
His claim being that the US, being a superpower, is basically a very hungry great white shark. It eats and invades because it has to - that's what sharks and superpowers do. Once in a while, it may make the right decision, but that is purely fortuitous. The problem, though, with this argument is that if it denies an empire any moral sensibility, it also mitigates against complaining about it.
Tony can't really make moral decisions, says the leader, and the US can't either. So why does it upset them so?
|
"So many equal rights, yet still so little equality" moans Deborah Orr. I know, I know. But you can't say they don't give it a try. I mean, as if the Unis didn't have enough on their plate they've got to cope with this. And as for the humble Iraqis, you couldn't make it up.
|
|
Monday, November 24
I remember when Harry was born. He was a chubby little sprog, with a shiny ass that needed a damn good slapping from the midwife before he started wailing. And now he's one year old today! Go say hello to the world's finest left-wing blog site. We may disagree on certain matters ( make that, virtually all ), and this piece yesterday entitled 'Why I Love Polly Toynbee' really pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable and what isn't within respectable society, but still and all, they're a nice and polite group of guys who, I have no doubt, will make suitably contrite repentances come the day of reckoning.
Enjoy the cake.
|
Enjoy the cake.
|
Jackie's moved. And say hi to these guys while you're at it. They're looking for Europhobes - and specifically leftie Europhobes - to join the team. Go on, you know what you gotta do.
|
|
I do wonder why Roy Hattersley decided to accept his peerage. It can't have been just because he needed the money:
"I went there last Wednesday intending to vote against the government's proposals to create foundation hospitals and limit jury trials. When the moment came to decide between "content" and "not content" - expressions that themselves confirm the archaic absurdity of the proceedings - I could not do it. I might have been in the same lobby as the Earl of Onslow - a walking advertisement for parliamentary reform. He is an amiable man. But his involvement in the legislative process is indefensible".
Whereas Roy's involvement - selected, not elected, remember - is perfectly defensible.
"I joined because Donald Dewar, then opposition chief whip, told me that I could become "another vote for the abolition of the place". After four years I am still waiting for that opportunity, unable to resign my commission because I am what is improbably called "A Lord of Creation". So what am I to do in the winter?"
Hibernate, you pompous lump. Hattersley joined the Lords in order to vote for its abolition. So why did he go on Wednesday? Can it really be the case that the terrible prospect of finding himself in agreement with someone he despises is more important to him than stopping the government from doing something he disapproves of? I fear it is.
This guy used to be Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, you know.
|
"I went there last Wednesday intending to vote against the government's proposals to create foundation hospitals and limit jury trials. When the moment came to decide between "content" and "not content" - expressions that themselves confirm the archaic absurdity of the proceedings - I could not do it. I might have been in the same lobby as the Earl of Onslow - a walking advertisement for parliamentary reform. He is an amiable man. But his involvement in the legislative process is indefensible".
Whereas Roy's involvement - selected, not elected, remember - is perfectly defensible.
"I joined because Donald Dewar, then opposition chief whip, told me that I could become "another vote for the abolition of the place". After four years I am still waiting for that opportunity, unable to resign my commission because I am what is improbably called "A Lord of Creation". So what am I to do in the winter?"
Hibernate, you pompous lump. Hattersley joined the Lords in order to vote for its abolition. So why did he go on Wednesday? Can it really be the case that the terrible prospect of finding himself in agreement with someone he despises is more important to him than stopping the government from doing something he disapproves of? I fear it is.
This guy used to be Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, you know.
|
Sunday, November 23
Matthew Parris was not exactly at his most persuasive yesterday:
"Al- Qaeda does not exist. The Free World does not exist. Only people exist. None of these people are wholly good or wholly bad. All are susceptible to the same urges, fears and hopes".
And presumably the Istanbul bombings only happened in Matthew's beautiful mind too. Actually, this is really our old friend complexity rearing its pretty little head, once again. Dubya and Tony are bible-bashing simpletons who see things in black and white, you see. Whereas patronising Parris is a nuance-kind-of-a-guy.
"We can work on them, and with them. Invading and occupying a sovereign Arab state without international agreement was the wrong way of working with them. It is creating the very enemy whose existence Mr Bush cites as reasons for attack. Further attack will swell, motivate and consolidate that enemy. Attack is not the answer.
The answer will only be found when Bush and Blair are gone, in that complex, fragmentary, doubt-provoking knowledge we call truth".
Pretentious or what, eh? Of course, for what it's worth this is also self-evident rubbish as well. When Bush and Blair are gone they may well be replaced by people a lot less nuanced, a lot more gung-ho. And what is all this truth he's talking about, anyway? Parris bends over backwards to call the bombing an 'atrocity' and an 'outrage', which sounds pretty simplistic to me, that. Pretty judgmental. Pretty black and white.
This guy used to be a Tory MP, you know.
|
"Al- Qaeda does not exist. The Free World does not exist. Only people exist. None of these people are wholly good or wholly bad. All are susceptible to the same urges, fears and hopes".
And presumably the Istanbul bombings only happened in Matthew's beautiful mind too. Actually, this is really our old friend complexity rearing its pretty little head, once again. Dubya and Tony are bible-bashing simpletons who see things in black and white, you see. Whereas patronising Parris is a nuance-kind-of-a-guy.
"We can work on them, and with them. Invading and occupying a sovereign Arab state without international agreement was the wrong way of working with them. It is creating the very enemy whose existence Mr Bush cites as reasons for attack. Further attack will swell, motivate and consolidate that enemy. Attack is not the answer.
The answer will only be found when Bush and Blair are gone, in that complex, fragmentary, doubt-provoking knowledge we call truth".
Pretentious or what, eh? Of course, for what it's worth this is also self-evident rubbish as well. When Bush and Blair are gone they may well be replaced by people a lot less nuanced, a lot more gung-ho. And what is all this truth he's talking about, anyway? Parris bends over backwards to call the bombing an 'atrocity' and an 'outrage', which sounds pretty simplistic to me, that. Pretty judgmental. Pretty black and white.
This guy used to be a Tory MP, you know.
|
Occasionally the Indy unleashes one of its commentators from behind its preposterous pound-a-view firewall. The lucky punter today is Dr. John Gray, former Thatcherite turned Fiskoidally-challenged liberalist:
"George Bush's state visit to Britain was a photo opportunity for a faltering president planning a hasty exit from Iraq in the run-up to next November's election".
Photo opportunity? Boring derogatory term alert. Anyway, its the usual cynical peacenik baloney, interesting only for this prediction:
"The war on terror will continue, but against a background of an escalating guerrilla conflict in Iraq. American forces will adopt a harsher stance, using air power to attack suspected terrorist sites, but they will do so as a prelude to a disorderly retreat that will leave radical Islam the single most powerful force in the country. The Iraqi state could break up, leaving the entire region desperately unstable".
Yes. But how does he know this? Is Gray really a different kind of doctor?
|
"George Bush's state visit to Britain was a photo opportunity for a faltering president planning a hasty exit from Iraq in the run-up to next November's election".
Photo opportunity? Boring derogatory term alert. Anyway, its the usual cynical peacenik baloney, interesting only for this prediction:
"The war on terror will continue, but against a background of an escalating guerrilla conflict in Iraq. American forces will adopt a harsher stance, using air power to attack suspected terrorist sites, but they will do so as a prelude to a disorderly retreat that will leave radical Islam the single most powerful force in the country. The Iraqi state could break up, leaving the entire region desperately unstable".
Yes. But how does he know this? Is Gray really a different kind of doctor?
|
I've always wanted to write a letter to Hunter Davies, just so I could tell him:
"Dear Hunter,
I thought you were better than Apocalypse Now, but not as good as Rambo.
Best wishes,
Peter Briffa"
Anyway, he doesn't know much about rugby. The clue? Anyone who ever says penalties are worth too many points compared to tries just doesn't get it.
|
"Dear Hunter,
I thought you were better than Apocalypse Now, but not as good as Rambo.
Best wishes,
Peter Briffa"
Anyway, he doesn't know much about rugby. The clue? Anyone who ever says penalties are worth too many points compared to tries just doesn't get it.
|
Saturday, November 22
"Primates are also the only animals that have frontal lobes similar to human ones".
claims Alok Jha, in the Guardian. Is he sure? Even this one?
|
claims Alok Jha, in the Guardian. Is he sure? Even this one?
|
I wonder who Alexander Chancellor is talking about here:
"On the one hand, a touchy-feely, guitar-playing, leftie intellectual with leanings towards the Roman Catholic church; on the other hand, a thick, neo-conservative, born-again playboy-turned-cowboy in thrall to big business and capital punishment".
Answers on a postcard. Or even to the editor of the Guardian.
|
"On the one hand, a touchy-feely, guitar-playing, leftie intellectual with leanings towards the Roman Catholic church; on the other hand, a thick, neo-conservative, born-again playboy-turned-cowboy in thrall to big business and capital punishment".
Answers on a postcard. Or even to the editor of the Guardian.
|
Friday, November 21
Everyone is having a go at Polly today - The two Tims, Blair and Newman - and Marcus over at Harry's. But that doesn't mean I can't too.
"There is no defence against terror".
The old bat reveals, before rolling out the white flag. Or does she?
"Bombers must be defied, but who is tackling the global causes of bombing?"
Who indeed? Well, screw the global causes, Poll. Not everyone sees Sure Start as the ultimate caring solution, and it will go down like a lead balloon in Afghanistan too. And dissing Rupert into the bargain, calling him "a terrorist" indeed, is not only beneath you, but libellous. Who the hell did Murdoch kill? In the mean time, listen to Dido. Now she's my kind of mouthy chick. What a warped sense of priorities. People are murdered in Istanbul, and poisonous Polly somehow links it to who the Sun is going to back at the next election.
|
"There is no defence against terror".
The old bat reveals, before rolling out the white flag. Or does she?
"Bombers must be defied, but who is tackling the global causes of bombing?"
Who indeed? Well, screw the global causes, Poll. Not everyone sees Sure Start as the ultimate caring solution, and it will go down like a lead balloon in Afghanistan too. And dissing Rupert into the bargain, calling him "a terrorist" indeed, is not only beneath you, but libellous. Who the hell did Murdoch kill? In the mean time, listen to Dido. Now she's my kind of mouthy chick. What a warped sense of priorities. People are murdered in Istanbul, and poisonous Polly somehow links it to who the Sun is going to back at the next election.
|
John Stevens, former MEP, and a Tory one to boot, in the Guardian:
"Europe never was, and never shall be, just an issue marked "foreign policy". It is about whether we wish to be the sort of society, for example, that achieves high standards in civil liberties, health, transport infrastructure and environmental protection, that rejects an apartheid between private and public schools, that promotes a highly trained, productive and empowered workforce, that balances having identity cards with much lower levels of incarceration".
Oh yeah. That's likely.
|
"Europe never was, and never shall be, just an issue marked "foreign policy". It is about whether we wish to be the sort of society, for example, that achieves high standards in civil liberties, health, transport infrastructure and environmental protection, that rejects an apartheid between private and public schools, that promotes a highly trained, productive and empowered workforce, that balances having identity cards with much lower levels of incarceration".
Oh yeah. That's likely.
|
So much for my new career as an undercover reporter. By the time we got there I saw precisely one certified, and perhaps certifiable, protestor wielding a banner upside down. Apparently there were others. The play wasn't much cop, either. Strange thing about Stoppard. Very few normal people like him much, I find. Yet people in the business think he's fantastic. Even actors, for whom, to my non-actorish eyes, he gives very little to work with. Ah well. I won't make a theatre critic either.
Back to the blogging.
|
Back to the blogging.
|
Thursday, November 20
Being a bit of a poncy artistic type on the quiet - a bit like this bloke, apparently - me and Mrs. PublicInterest are off to the theatre 2nite, ( at the Picadilly don'tcha know ) deep in the heart of the crusties and conscies. She'll be in her tiara, and I'll have a bow tie and penguin suit. I keep reading all these breathless accounts of 150 000 yellowbellies, but I'll believe it when I see it. If I see it. Anyway, assuming I don't get cut down as the reprehensible running dog of capitalism that I undeniably am - I shall report back tomorrow. And yeah, Anthony guessed it. I was feeling thoroughly discombobulated this morning. There are few things more annoying in life than reading the Guardian and finding nothing to annoy me. Other than...
|
|
Whatever the rights and wrongs of child molestation - and the devil, as ever, lies in the detail - I can't help but feel sorry for Michael Jackson. He has, after all, tried to rise above some terrible circumstances. With different degrees of success he has attempted to stop being both poor and black. Yet, we all know what he looks like, and it can only be a matter of time before he's getting his body examined by various do-gooders, just to see if he's got any toys and dolls rammed up his jacksie. If he were British, I dare say that Margaret Hodge would already be on the case.
But he isn't. Nonetheless, if he fancies a ride in that Ford Bronco, perhaps the Gloved One ought to cross the pond. Apparently, you can now get a face transplant, and the race is on for the first. Michael seems to be quite a bit of a precedent-setter when it comes to this sort of thing, and if he's looking for a face to takeover, he could do worse than Hugo's. It's his state funeral today, and the body will surely be visible in an open casket. There won't be many coppers guarding the body, what with Dubya also being in town, and I reckon Wacko Jacko could do a lot worse than fly into Heathrow, kidnap the corpse, and whistle him off to some Bupa-funded hospital. He could then give up the singing career, and reinvent himself as a stentorian Europhile liberal commentator.
One word of advice, though. Don't do it on the NHS. You'll be stuck on a trolley for years.
|
But he isn't. Nonetheless, if he fancies a ride in that Ford Bronco, perhaps the Gloved One ought to cross the pond. Apparently, you can now get a face transplant, and the race is on for the first. Michael seems to be quite a bit of a precedent-setter when it comes to this sort of thing, and if he's looking for a face to takeover, he could do worse than Hugo's. It's his state funeral today, and the body will surely be visible in an open casket. There won't be many coppers guarding the body, what with Dubya also being in town, and I reckon Wacko Jacko could do a lot worse than fly into Heathrow, kidnap the corpse, and whistle him off to some Bupa-funded hospital. He could then give up the singing career, and reinvent himself as a stentorian Europhile liberal commentator.
One word of advice, though. Don't do it on the NHS. You'll be stuck on a trolley for years.
|
Wednesday, November 19
An unrepentant Margaret Hodge - ten thousand quid the poorer, but still in her job as Minister for Kiddiwinks - promises revenge:
"If parenting is so important, and has such an important impact on children, we cannot abandon it to the vagaries of the individual."
Heaven forbid. What we need is more social workers. And we're gonna get'em, says Polly.
"This era in British politics has been not unlike Johnson's construction of the Great Society, with huge new social programmes rolled out in the biggest public-spending programme of our political lifetime. With much of the same optimism and endeavour of early 1960s America, Labour came to power in 1997 determined to tackle poverty, social exclusion and unemployment. Health and education spending are leaping up to meet the EU average for the first time. Poverty abolition is on target to meet its quarter-way mark by 2005 - 1.1 million fewer poor children".
This, of course, is the terrifying face of New Labour, fiery and unbending. One usually hears the word 'vagaries' when spoken by a socialist in the phrase - vagaries of the market'. But 'vagaries of the individual' works just as well. Individual decision-making, per se, is a bad thing apparently, and must be suppressed by our benevolent leaders. Remember this, o floating voter, next time you venture into the polling booth and find your pencil hovering over the name of the Labour representative. Never again! Bring back the ducking stool, I say.
|
"If parenting is so important, and has such an important impact on children, we cannot abandon it to the vagaries of the individual."
Heaven forbid. What we need is more social workers. And we're gonna get'em, says Polly.
"This era in British politics has been not unlike Johnson's construction of the Great Society, with huge new social programmes rolled out in the biggest public-spending programme of our political lifetime. With much of the same optimism and endeavour of early 1960s America, Labour came to power in 1997 determined to tackle poverty, social exclusion and unemployment. Health and education spending are leaping up to meet the EU average for the first time. Poverty abolition is on target to meet its quarter-way mark by 2005 - 1.1 million fewer poor children".
This, of course, is the terrifying face of New Labour, fiery and unbending. One usually hears the word 'vagaries' when spoken by a socialist in the phrase - vagaries of the market'. But 'vagaries of the individual' works just as well. Individual decision-making, per se, is a bad thing apparently, and must be suppressed by our benevolent leaders. Remember this, o floating voter, next time you venture into the polling booth and find your pencil hovering over the name of the Labour representative. Never again! Bring back the ducking stool, I say.
|
Tuesday, November 18
George Moonbat is back. Fresh from a week of eating frogs legs and croissants at the European Social Forum, the wise one has sure got a spring in his step:
"The young in their millions have turned away from the solipsistic pomposities of parliament, the point-scoring and willy-waving of men who have spent their lives in quadrangles and who know as much about the people they govern as George Bush knows of higher mathematics".
Zoot alors!
"The forum was a vast, messy, rambling affair, spread out over four distant suburbs and some 300 meetings. There was no leader whose speech could be dissected, no party whose splits could be anatomised, no single manifesto whose implications could be discussed. It was messy and rambling because it reflected the messy and rambling realities of the lives of its participants".
Mon dieu!
"The delegates were, on the whole, far better informed about the big issues than most of our MPs and journalists. While our newspapers can tell you everything you were too bored to ask about the relationship between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, they have nothing to say on the trifling issue of the future of humanity. But the young people in Paris have worked it out for themselves. They have become fluent in the complexities of the European constitution, of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, of the North Atlantic thermohaline shift".
Quoi?
"It was also clear that few people in this movement of the disenfranchised are content any more simply to document the problems we confront. The question now is no longer what, or why, or when, but how? How do we threaten power? How do we recapture the political processes which have excluded us? We don't yet have all the answers, but 50,000 Europeans have now joined the search party".
Eh bien.
"These numbers are staggering, but they are drawn from a bottomless reservoir of discontent in Europe. Democracy everywhere looks as if it has been hit by a neutron bomb".
Sacre bleu!
"The biggest question of all is the one concerning the c-word. We have little difficulty in dealing, in theory at least, with the medium-sized issues: What should be done about the World Bank? How can the anti-union laws be reversed? But we have scarcely attempted, as a movement, to tackle the big issue: what should be done about capitalism? Whenever anyone in Paris announced that capitalism in all its forms should be overthrown, everyone cheered. But is this really what we want? And, if so, with what do we hope to replace it? And could that other system be established without violent repression?"
Je pense non.
"In Paris, some of us tried to tackle this question in a session called "life after capitalism". By the end of it, I was as unconvinced by my own answers as I was by everyone else's. While I was speaking, the words died in my mouth, as it struck me with horrible clarity that as long as incentives to cheat exist (and they always will) none of our alternatives could be applied universally without totalitarianism".
Quel horreur!
"The only coherent programme presented in the meeting was the one proposed by the man from the "League for the Fifth International", who called for the destruction of the capitalist class and the establishment of a command economy".
Qu'est-ce que sais?
"I searched the pamphlet he gave me for any recognition of the fact that something like this had been tried before and hadn't worked out very well, but without success. (Instead I learned that, come the revolution, the members of the Fourth International will be the first against the wall, as they have "obscured the differences" between Marxism and its opponents.)"
Je suis tres desole.
"It seems to me that the questions we urgently need to ask ourselves are these: is totalitarianism the only means of eliminating capitalism? If so, and if, as almost all of us profess to do, we abhor totalitarianism, can we continue to call ourselves anti-capitalists? If there is no humane and democratic answer to the question of what a world without capitalism would look like, then should we not abandon the pursuit of unicorns, and concentrate on capturing and taming the beast whose den we already inhabit?"
Je comprends pas.
"But however these questions are resolved, something big has begun which cannot now be stopped. Parliament and the media may ignore us, but they will not make us go away. On Thursday, when George Bush is in London, we will begin to show our strength. But this movement is no longer just about protest, about ticking off the long list of things we do not like. It is now engaged in the troublesome and deeply serious task of building a better world".
Yes. Well that's as maybe. But they still can't beat us at rugby.
|
"The young in their millions have turned away from the solipsistic pomposities of parliament, the point-scoring and willy-waving of men who have spent their lives in quadrangles and who know as much about the people they govern as George Bush knows of higher mathematics".
Zoot alors!
"The forum was a vast, messy, rambling affair, spread out over four distant suburbs and some 300 meetings. There was no leader whose speech could be dissected, no party whose splits could be anatomised, no single manifesto whose implications could be discussed. It was messy and rambling because it reflected the messy and rambling realities of the lives of its participants".
Mon dieu!
"The delegates were, on the whole, far better informed about the big issues than most of our MPs and journalists. While our newspapers can tell you everything you were too bored to ask about the relationship between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, they have nothing to say on the trifling issue of the future of humanity. But the young people in Paris have worked it out for themselves. They have become fluent in the complexities of the European constitution, of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, of the North Atlantic thermohaline shift".
Quoi?
"It was also clear that few people in this movement of the disenfranchised are content any more simply to document the problems we confront. The question now is no longer what, or why, or when, but how? How do we threaten power? How do we recapture the political processes which have excluded us? We don't yet have all the answers, but 50,000 Europeans have now joined the search party".
Eh bien.
"These numbers are staggering, but they are drawn from a bottomless reservoir of discontent in Europe. Democracy everywhere looks as if it has been hit by a neutron bomb".
Sacre bleu!
"The biggest question of all is the one concerning the c-word. We have little difficulty in dealing, in theory at least, with the medium-sized issues: What should be done about the World Bank? How can the anti-union laws be reversed? But we have scarcely attempted, as a movement, to tackle the big issue: what should be done about capitalism? Whenever anyone in Paris announced that capitalism in all its forms should be overthrown, everyone cheered. But is this really what we want? And, if so, with what do we hope to replace it? And could that other system be established without violent repression?"
Je pense non.
"In Paris, some of us tried to tackle this question in a session called "life after capitalism". By the end of it, I was as unconvinced by my own answers as I was by everyone else's. While I was speaking, the words died in my mouth, as it struck me with horrible clarity that as long as incentives to cheat exist (and they always will) none of our alternatives could be applied universally without totalitarianism".
Quel horreur!
"The only coherent programme presented in the meeting was the one proposed by the man from the "League for the Fifth International", who called for the destruction of the capitalist class and the establishment of a command economy".
Qu'est-ce que sais?
"I searched the pamphlet he gave me for any recognition of the fact that something like this had been tried before and hadn't worked out very well, but without success. (Instead I learned that, come the revolution, the members of the Fourth International will be the first against the wall, as they have "obscured the differences" between Marxism and its opponents.)"
Je suis tres desole.
"It seems to me that the questions we urgently need to ask ourselves are these: is totalitarianism the only means of eliminating capitalism? If so, and if, as almost all of us profess to do, we abhor totalitarianism, can we continue to call ourselves anti-capitalists? If there is no humane and democratic answer to the question of what a world without capitalism would look like, then should we not abandon the pursuit of unicorns, and concentrate on capturing and taming the beast whose den we already inhabit?"
Je comprends pas.
"But however these questions are resolved, something big has begun which cannot now be stopped. Parliament and the media may ignore us, but they will not make us go away. On Thursday, when George Bush is in London, we will begin to show our strength. But this movement is no longer just about protest, about ticking off the long list of things we do not like. It is now engaged in the troublesome and deeply serious task of building a better world".
Yes. Well that's as maybe. But they still can't beat us at rugby.
|
60 noted Brits tell the Guardian what they think of Dubya. Hint for our American readers - Bel Littlejohn isn't a real person. Harold Pinter is.
|
|
Monday, November 17
Is Margaret Hodge a friend of kiddies, women, and the rest of the lumpenproletariat? Feelings among our leading feminist commentators is sharply divided. Take the Yazzmonster, who opines:
"Cold-blooded, narcissistic and blatantly insincere, she is not fit for this vital portfolio".
The Pollster, however, respectfully disagrees:
"When the media are on the rampage after a minister, can anything stop the witch-hunt? It has been revolting to watch newspapers and commentators - women especially - join in the public burning of Margaret Hodge with such malevolent gusto".
Oh I don't know. I haven't been revolted. Charmed, perhaps. Amused, certainly.
"Today she is making an apology and handing over £10,000 to charity, as requested by Demetrious Panton, the man she called "extremely disturbed" in a letter to the BBC chairman and two news editors - a letter they made public.
Panton was sexually abused in an Islington council home. The care worker who assaulted him is dead and, although she was not leader at the time the crime happened, he has pursued Margaret Hodge. Taking up his story, the Today programme scoured and scraped but found not a single piece of evidence that Hodge was ever told about his complaint and so could legitimately be held responsible for failure to investigate his case".
So Hodge knew nothing about the case. Why'd she call him 'extremely disturbed' then? Why, indeed, is she paying up?
"It may have been a mistake to label her accuser "extremely disturbed", but it was the BBC's decision to broadcast this phrase".
Ah, it was the BBC's fault, then. Shoot the messenger! Ye gods. So why has Polly come up with what is, even by her notoriously moronic standards, an outstandingly hopeless argument? As ever there, is a not-so hidden agenda at work:
"This non-story threatens her in the run-up to the comprehensive spending review as she is fighting for money for children, money to pay social workers properly and above all, for universal Sure Start children's centres. Her vision of social justice argues for saving the youngest children from failure as the one essential ingredient for creating a more equal society. But what the hell, children's politics are boring and burning a minister is more fun. Never mind the quality of the politician, enjoy the heat of the flames".
It's the fabled Sure Start scheme - the latest madcap government invention to egalitarianise British society. And nothing must get in the way of that.
|
"Cold-blooded, narcissistic and blatantly insincere, she is not fit for this vital portfolio".
The Pollster, however, respectfully disagrees:
"When the media are on the rampage after a minister, can anything stop the witch-hunt? It has been revolting to watch newspapers and commentators - women especially - join in the public burning of Margaret Hodge with such malevolent gusto".
Oh I don't know. I haven't been revolted. Charmed, perhaps. Amused, certainly.
"Today she is making an apology and handing over £10,000 to charity, as requested by Demetrious Panton, the man she called "extremely disturbed" in a letter to the BBC chairman and two news editors - a letter they made public.
Panton was sexually abused in an Islington council home. The care worker who assaulted him is dead and, although she was not leader at the time the crime happened, he has pursued Margaret Hodge. Taking up his story, the Today programme scoured and scraped but found not a single piece of evidence that Hodge was ever told about his complaint and so could legitimately be held responsible for failure to investigate his case".
So Hodge knew nothing about the case. Why'd she call him 'extremely disturbed' then? Why, indeed, is she paying up?
"It may have been a mistake to label her accuser "extremely disturbed", but it was the BBC's decision to broadcast this phrase".
Ah, it was the BBC's fault, then. Shoot the messenger! Ye gods. So why has Polly come up with what is, even by her notoriously moronic standards, an outstandingly hopeless argument? As ever there, is a not-so hidden agenda at work:
"This non-story threatens her in the run-up to the comprehensive spending review as she is fighting for money for children, money to pay social workers properly and above all, for universal Sure Start children's centres. Her vision of social justice argues for saving the youngest children from failure as the one essential ingredient for creating a more equal society. But what the hell, children's politics are boring and burning a minister is more fun. Never mind the quality of the politician, enjoy the heat of the flames".
It's the fabled Sure Start scheme - the latest madcap government invention to egalitarianise British society. And nothing must get in the way of that.
|
Only one man can prevent George W. Bush from winning the next presidential election - Stephen Byers. The Democrats must be in more trouble than even I had anticipated, if the fabled sock-wearing lothario is their only hope.
|
|
Sunday, November 16
Will Hutton thinks it's all capitalism's fault:
"In a market society, who is the fool who champions integrity of purpose, vocation and the importance of values other than self-interest? Should we wonder at how overpaid footballers behave, where relationships with club and even country are seen as transactions on the way to the most important thing of all - personal wealth?
We have lost our collective compass and are paying a heavy price; the worst of it is that we know it. The tragedy of New Labour is that it has been too frightened to offer the lead we crave. But we get the leadership we deserve. Reform starts in our souls".
If only we could pay more tax. I'm sure that would make us happier.
|
"In a market society, who is the fool who champions integrity of purpose, vocation and the importance of values other than self-interest? Should we wonder at how overpaid footballers behave, where relationships with club and even country are seen as transactions on the way to the most important thing of all - personal wealth?
We have lost our collective compass and are paying a heavy price; the worst of it is that we know it. The tragedy of New Labour is that it has been too frightened to offer the lead we crave. But we get the leadership we deserve. Reform starts in our souls".
If only we could pay more tax. I'm sure that would make us happier.
|
Right, back to normality. Do you want the good news or the bad news? The bad news? Well, we're soon not going to be allowed to smack our children. The good news? We're soon going to be allowed to hang them.
|
|
Actually, I think I'd make a terrible leftie. I mean, my heart just isn't in it. And I really don't want to wrestle with dilemmas as to whether Red Ken should be reintroduced into the community. The guy is indeed a loon, and always will be. I also quite like Christopher Lee. Still, some of them are nice chaps, and there are a couple of posts over at Harry's suggesting that, even though we must agree to differ over the merits of Polly Toynbee's contribution to western civilisation, they haven't altogether lost their moral compass. Harry writes a rather moving encomium about Dubya, and Marcus tears into the inequality=poverty lobby who seem to have infected Dr. Barnardo's. So maybe we can yet save them from themselves.
|
|
Friday, November 14
Guardian exclusive - Moonbat doesn't mind being called Moonbat. Well why would he? That's his name, isn't it?
( Link stolen from right-wing ultravixen Jackie. )
|
( Link stolen from right-wing ultravixen Jackie. )
|
At last! Blunkett does something right for once. Though I dare say in another year's time they'll all be in prison. I wish he could make up his mind. Is he compassionate, or is he a closet Tory? It would make life for the rest of us so much simpler if we knew.
|
|
Well, as predicted, Iraq is turning into another Vietnam. Except worse. And coming over next week to meet the parents of the victims of this completely unneccessary so-called War on Terror is not going to change matters. Stay away, Dubya. Haven't you got another election to fix? In the meantime Martin Woollacott is quite right. Even though we shouldn't be there in the first place we can't pull out now. What we should do, perhaps, is to elect a transitional International People's Council, to takeover while the machinery for free elections and real democracy are put in place. Why not have a triumvirate of Richard Branson, Anita Roddick, and Bill Clinton to keep an eye on things? With their combination of business acumen, feminist sensibility, and practical political nouse, Iraq could soon prove to be an economic powerhouse to rival the dollar. They could even adopt the Euro too, to help matters.
|
|
Roy Hattersley is on the ball once again.
"The private sector is being insinuated into the NHS through the back door".
he observes. Why this man was never elected leader of the Labour Party I will never know. If he'd been chosen instead of that Welsh slaphead Kinnock, he'd probably still be Prime Minister, we'd already have the Euro, and there wouldn't be any racism. As it is the health service is being decimated, our schools are getting worse, and as for unemployment? There wouldn't be any.
|
"The private sector is being insinuated into the NHS through the back door".
he observes. Why this man was never elected leader of the Labour Party I will never know. If he'd been chosen instead of that Welsh slaphead Kinnock, he'd probably still be Prime Minister, we'd already have the Euro, and there wouldn't be any racism. As it is the health service is being decimated, our schools are getting worse, and as for unemployment? There wouldn't be any.
|
It looks like Red Ken is about to re-admitted to the Labour Party. And about time too. He should never have been kicked out in the first place. In fact, if I were Blair, I'd fast-track him straight into the cabinet. The guy talks a lot of sense, and ought to be a permanent reminder to Tony that you can be popular without betraying your socialist heritage. In fact, if I were Blair, I'd go even further than that. What about George Galloway for Chancellor?
|
|
"I believe in a thing called New Labour".
So Tony likes the Darkness, does he? But does he believe in hospitals, schools, and the disenfranchised? It's all very well trying to ingratiate himself with the kids and their so-called pop music, but hasn't he got better things to do than dress up in spandex? There are people starving on picket lines, as we speak.
|
So Tony likes the Darkness, does he? But does he believe in hospitals, schools, and the disenfranchised? It's all very well trying to ingratiate himself with the kids and their so-called pop music, but hasn't he got better things to do than dress up in spandex? There are people starving on picket lines, as we speak.
|
"I vote Conservative, and I think Michael Howard is the ideal person to lead the party".
Christopher 'Dracula' Lee, in the Indy today. Typical actor. If ever I was tempted to go and watch Lord of the Wings, that did it for me. Don't the people have a social conscience?
|
Christopher 'Dracula' Lee, in the Indy today. Typical actor. If ever I was tempted to go and watch Lord of the Wings, that did it for me. Don't the people have a social conscience?
|
Last night I went boozing with those noted cybersocialists Harry and Marcus. A good time was had by all. In fact, it proved to be a life-changing experience...
|
|
Thursday, November 13
I'm not sure I'd define 'fisking’, as "the selection of evidence solely in order to bolster preconceptions and prejudices", as David Pryce-Jones does here. Still, he don't like the old boy.
|
|
We have an alarm radio, and sometimes on a Monday morning we forget to retune it to Radio 4. So sometimes we get this in the mornings. She is quite the most annoying personality in British broadcasting, and someone actually has a blog dedicated to her. Crazy. Whereas this... It's a wonderful world, the blogosphere.
|
|
Sometimes I think the Sun goes too far. I mean I don't like the new kiddiwinks minister that much either, but murdering the old girl would surely be wrong. Can't we just talk about it like adults?
|
|
Julie Burchill is leaving the Guardian for pastures new. There doesn't seem to be much mourning her passing. This is one of the more polite comments, and one of the few I actually agree with:
"It's a shame she's going, but not surprising as the Guardian gets more self-rightous and po-faced with every passing day. There's not a single Guardian columnist left now who isn't totally, utterly, brain-numbingly predictable".
Apart from the mighty sex god himself, David Aaronovitch, I'd say.
|
"It's a shame she's going, but not surprising as the Guardian gets more self-rightous and po-faced with every passing day. There's not a single Guardian columnist left now who isn't totally, utterly, brain-numbingly predictable".
Apart from the mighty sex god himself, David Aaronovitch, I'd say.
|
It seems that in the forthcoming battle over ID cards we aren't going to get much help from our fairweather friends on the Labour backbenches.
"In the past, I was an opponent of the ID card. It seemed impracticable and was redolent of the authoritarian style of a certain former Tory home secretary. But society and technology have moved on and I now believe the arguments are stronger".
announces Graham Allen. Presumably he's gambling on the fact that there will never be another Tory administration. And we can all trust Blunkett, can't we? Society has moved on as well, hasn't it? We're more caring now. And Fiona Mactaggart, who used to be Chairhuman of Liberty but is now just another New Labour drone explains:
"the world has changed with the development of biometric technology. Now, those of us on the left who have always led the charge against previous plans, need to stop and ask ourselves whether the steamroller of hi-tech identification which is heading our way will make matters worse for the poorest and most excluded people in our society if we do not go ahead with a compulsory scheme".
Well the left have always used the excuse of the poor and the excluded as fodder for their totalitarian aspirations so there's nothing new here, really. What puzzles me is the feebleness of the argument. The poor will always be with us, and the poor have always been with us. So what's changed?
|
"In the past, I was an opponent of the ID card. It seemed impracticable and was redolent of the authoritarian style of a certain former Tory home secretary. But society and technology have moved on and I now believe the arguments are stronger".
announces Graham Allen. Presumably he's gambling on the fact that there will never be another Tory administration. And we can all trust Blunkett, can't we? Society has moved on as well, hasn't it? We're more caring now. And Fiona Mactaggart, who used to be Chairhuman of Liberty but is now just another New Labour drone explains:
"the world has changed with the development of biometric technology. Now, those of us on the left who have always led the charge against previous plans, need to stop and ask ourselves whether the steamroller of hi-tech identification which is heading our way will make matters worse for the poorest and most excluded people in our society if we do not go ahead with a compulsory scheme".
Well the left have always used the excuse of the poor and the excluded as fodder for their totalitarian aspirations so there's nothing new here, really. What puzzles me is the feebleness of the argument. The poor will always be with us, and the poor have always been with us. So what's changed?
|
Wednesday, November 12
I can think of better places to be than sitting on the Eurostar, listening to a lecture from "political theorist and global justice guru George "Moonbat" Monbiot" as he's now being called by his very own newspaper. Like being in a sewer. Or even on the end of a skewer. Ye gods - it ain't just right-wing critics who find Georgie's opinions slightly... eccentric. This is something that crosses traditional party allegiances.
|
|
The editor of the Guardian is worried about the lack of women in boardrooms. Moreover, of the few who slip through the net, horror of horrors, quite a lot of them are shoulder-padded broads from across the pond:
"American female executives take up a quarter of the 101 board positions held by women in Britain. Perhaps US managers are thought to compete harder, and are used to short holidays and long days".
Perhaps. Or maybe they're better at their job. Or maybe they're only there to make tea and to give the executives hand relief. Who can tell?
"This sexism in the City needs to be erased".
What? What sexism? Oh, the statistical imbalance. I get it. No evidence, just statistical imbalance. I see. I wonder if the Guardian would be getting all steamed if this percentage were all Pakistani women, say. Or maybe it would then be going all gooey about diversity.
"Companies need to be sensitive to the demands of family life on both sexes and facilitate individual choice in working out how best to cope with children. It can be done - a third of women managers are married with children".
Now that is a wondrous slice of evidence. x happens, therefore more x can happen. In which case you could argue that one woman in a boardroom proves that all women could be in the boardroom. But of course the Guardian wouldn't like that kind of argument, would it?
"The government could use legislation to achieve gender equality".
Indeed it could. Given a little prodding, I'm sure the Master could rise to the challenge.
"Norway and Sweden have threatened to impose legal quotas to raise the number of female executives".
Yes, well they would, wouldn't they?
"Raising the question of whether this would see ability eclipsed by gender assumes that the process by which directors are selected is fair, when the evidence suggests the opposite".
And what evidence was that again, other than statistics?
"Introducing new laws maybe a step too far but they should be held in reserve. Equality of opportunity depends greatly on the degree of access - unless companies offer it, women will remain far from the corporate summit".
Count the days. No doubt the government will indeed start wanting to address this pseudo-problem. I mean, given half the chance. And, judging by this equivocal leader on ID cards, you can bet your sweet life the Guardian won't be jumping up and down defending civil liberties. When the choice is between government intervention and freedom of association, we know which way these guys turn.
|
"American female executives take up a quarter of the 101 board positions held by women in Britain. Perhaps US managers are thought to compete harder, and are used to short holidays and long days".
Perhaps. Or maybe they're better at their job. Or maybe they're only there to make tea and to give the executives hand relief. Who can tell?
"This sexism in the City needs to be erased".
What? What sexism? Oh, the statistical imbalance. I get it. No evidence, just statistical imbalance. I see. I wonder if the Guardian would be getting all steamed if this percentage were all Pakistani women, say. Or maybe it would then be going all gooey about diversity.
"Companies need to be sensitive to the demands of family life on both sexes and facilitate individual choice in working out how best to cope with children. It can be done - a third of women managers are married with children".
Now that is a wondrous slice of evidence. x happens, therefore more x can happen. In which case you could argue that one woman in a boardroom proves that all women could be in the boardroom. But of course the Guardian wouldn't like that kind of argument, would it?
"The government could use legislation to achieve gender equality".
Indeed it could. Given a little prodding, I'm sure the Master could rise to the challenge.
"Norway and Sweden have threatened to impose legal quotas to raise the number of female executives".
Yes, well they would, wouldn't they?
"Raising the question of whether this would see ability eclipsed by gender assumes that the process by which directors are selected is fair, when the evidence suggests the opposite".
And what evidence was that again, other than statistics?
"Introducing new laws maybe a step too far but they should be held in reserve. Equality of opportunity depends greatly on the degree of access - unless companies offer it, women will remain far from the corporate summit".
Count the days. No doubt the government will indeed start wanting to address this pseudo-problem. I mean, given half the chance. And, judging by this equivocal leader on ID cards, you can bet your sweet life the Guardian won't be jumping up and down defending civil liberties. When the choice is between government intervention and freedom of association, we know which way these guys turn.
|
A third of British children are living in poverty, says the charity Barnardo's, which tells us nothing about poverty, and everything about moronic statistical-abuse. I'm surprised that these stats aren't revised down a bit, purely in the interest of those who keep them. How many people will look at this statistic, conclude it's complete rubbish, and therefore write off the Barnado's advertising campaign as a pile of lies? Pretending that being in poverty is the same as being below a high watermark inequality line is damaging to the credibility of the statisticians. Don't they worry about such things?
UPDATE: Catch these ads while you can. They're already causing offence, and I don't suppose they'll last out the week. I particularly enjoy the spokesgoon's justification:
"This latest campaign in particular deals with child poverty, which the public is almost in denial about. We needed to overcome public apathy about poverty in Britain".
Yes, and we'll carry on being in denial until you sort your statistics out, matey.
|
UPDATE: Catch these ads while you can. They're already causing offence, and I don't suppose they'll last out the week. I particularly enjoy the spokesgoon's justification:
"This latest campaign in particular deals with child poverty, which the public is almost in denial about. We needed to overcome public apathy about poverty in Britain".
Yes, and we'll carry on being in denial until you sort your statistics out, matey.
|
Back in June I advised the government to appoint a Sex Czar, in order to teach young people how to get their collective ends away. And so it came to pass, at least in Scotland, anyway. I did mean it satirically, but hey ho... Well, like I said last time, there can only be one winner, and a Scot to boot. Robin Cook - cometh the hour, cometh the man, so to speak.
|
|
Tuesday, November 11
Effeminate dreamer George Moonbat thinks that war is stupid. He reckons we were lied to by Tony and Dubya:
"Most of the lies are now familiar: there appear to have been no weapons of mass destruction and no evidence to suggest that, as President Bush claimed in March, Saddam had "trained and financed... al-Qaida". Bush and Blair, as their courtship of the president of Uzbekistan reveals, appear to possess no genuine concern for the human rights of foreigners".
Did Dubya really say that? Go read the Guardian, Georgie:
"I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighbourhood in which he lives. And I've got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction, and he has used weapons of mass destruction, in his neighbourhood and on his own people. He's invaded countries in his neighbourhood. He tortures his own people. He's a murderer. He has trained and financed al-Qaida-type organisations before, al-Qaida and other terrorist organisations. I take the threat seriously, and I'll deal with the threat. I hope it can be done peacefully".
It's not quite the same, is it?
|
"Most of the lies are now familiar: there appear to have been no weapons of mass destruction and no evidence to suggest that, as President Bush claimed in March, Saddam had "trained and financed... al-Qaida". Bush and Blair, as their courtship of the president of Uzbekistan reveals, appear to possess no genuine concern for the human rights of foreigners".
Did Dubya really say that? Go read the Guardian, Georgie:
"I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighbourhood in which he lives. And I've got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction, and he has used weapons of mass destruction, in his neighbourhood and on his own people. He's invaded countries in his neighbourhood. He tortures his own people. He's a murderer. He has trained and financed al-Qaida-type organisations before, al-Qaida and other terrorist organisations. I take the threat seriously, and I'll deal with the threat. I hope it can be done peacefully".
It's not quite the same, is it?
|
Monday, November 10
Thanks to that wonderful new invention called the internet, I discovered the whole of that Robert Fisk article I mentioned on Friday, here. Sample quote:
"Sure, Iran is a theocratic state (a necrocracy, I suspect), but the morally impressive President Mohamed Khatami, repeatedly thwarted by the dictatorial old divines, was democratically elected - and by a far more convincing majority than President George Bush Jr in the last US presidential elections".
I'm sure there's an EU directive banning any gratuitous Florida recount references. And if there isn't, there should be. But it seems that Fisky is above that sort of thing. And what does he mean by necrocracy, given that he's praising it?
|
"Sure, Iran is a theocratic state (a necrocracy, I suspect), but the morally impressive President Mohamed Khatami, repeatedly thwarted by the dictatorial old divines, was democratically elected - and by a far more convincing majority than President George Bush Jr in the last US presidential elections".
I'm sure there's an EU directive banning any gratuitous Florida recount references. And if there isn't, there should be. But it seems that Fisky is above that sort of thing. And what does he mean by necrocracy, given that he's praising it?
|
Haven't they got any real criminals they could investigate? I reckon that Assistant Chief Contable needs a friendly clip round the ear. Strange to think that, when I was growing up it was the right who looked up to the police and the left who regarded them as a bunch of politically-motivated thugs who needed to be kept in check. Shame, really. I suppose they'd say they're just imposing the law, so blame the government. Which of course I do. In this article the law the reverend might have broken isn't even mentioned. However, according to the Telegraph, it's the 1986 Public Order Act, although the article suggests it's a police interpretation that's being put into play here, rather than the act itself. I thought it was only judges who did that. Still, which ever way you look at it, it only helps to bring the whole bleeding lot of them into disrepute. Is that a good thing or not? Hard to say, really. Of course, if the preacher actually gets prosecuted, and actually gets sentenced, then he could presumably cite the Human Rights Act. Maybe he could get his bishop pals in the House of Lords to help him out. Though I dare say plenty of them would take the opposite view, if this somewhat hostile attitude taken by this vicar towards his own religion is remotely representative.
Free speech, eh? Whatever happened to that?
|
Free speech, eh? Whatever happened to that?
|
"Hate is a driving human emotion. Hate - at an individual, personal level - lingers. Hate is not about compromise, but victory or defeat. Hate can break a peace, wreck a government, tear apart a party. Hate is the true hidden something of politics, howling in the night".
Or so says Peter Preston, former editor of the Guardian. I think he overstates the case. I love everyone, even Polly Toynbee. Still, I bow to his greater judgment.
|
Or so says Peter Preston, former editor of the Guardian. I think he overstates the case. I love everyone, even Polly Toynbee. Still, I bow to his greater judgment.
|
In June the Yazzmonster wrote an article entitled "America has descended into madness". Now she tells us that:
"Most Americans understand that excelling and learning gives life rewards and dynamism. I love that".
I wonder if by any chance the two are related.
|
"Most Americans understand that excelling and learning gives life rewards and dynamism. I love that".
I wonder if by any chance the two are related.
|
Friday, November 7
Every now and again I still drop by the Indy's website. For old times sake, really. It seldom disappoints, but tonight's is a doozy. The leader first:
"If the Royal Family cannot arrange a Tory-party-style transition to Prince William, the only obstacle to Britain becoming a republic would be securing a consensus on the precise arrangements for an elected president".
That one's 768 words. ( Approx. ) Approx?
Also, coming in at a bloated 834 words. ( Approx. ), is Andrew Grice:
"Howard will unite his party, but Hague is the man for No 10".
What? Who? Where? When?
And finally, last but by no means least, Fisky, at 760 words ( approx ):
"It gets weirder and weirder. As his helicopters are falling out of the sky over Iraq, President Bush tells us things are getting even better. The more we succeed, he says, the deadlier the attacks will become. Thank God the Americans now have a few - a very few - brave journalists, like Maureen Dowd, to explain what is happening".
Three quid for the lot, and worth every penny.
|
"If the Royal Family cannot arrange a Tory-party-style transition to Prince William, the only obstacle to Britain becoming a republic would be securing a consensus on the precise arrangements for an elected president".
That one's 768 words. ( Approx. ) Approx?
Also, coming in at a bloated 834 words. ( Approx. ), is Andrew Grice:
"Howard will unite his party, but Hague is the man for No 10".
What? Who? Where? When?
And finally, last but by no means least, Fisky, at 760 words ( approx ):
"It gets weirder and weirder. As his helicopters are falling out of the sky over Iraq, President Bush tells us things are getting even better. The more we succeed, he says, the deadlier the attacks will become. Thank God the Americans now have a few - a very few - brave journalists, like Maureen Dowd, to explain what is happening".
Three quid for the lot, and worth every penny.
|
With the return of Michael Howard the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle is in place. Victory, which was assured under IDS in any case, is now merely confirmed. The question is how big a majority we get at the next election. 100, 200, even? Ian McCartney, the 'chair' of the Labour party, grudgingly seems to concur:
"I believe the elevation of Michael Howard to the Tory top job may well have a positive effect on our politics".
He admits, before affecting to think that this is somehow a disaster for the Tories:
"Even modernisers backing his candidacy do not pretend he is anything other than a man of the right. They know that he believes in surgical cuts to public spending and direct user charges for services. A man who still calls the NHS "Stalinist" is not one who has lost any of his old ideological fervour".
And is my kind of guy. Do you think we can expect the NHS to have been closed down by 2008? I wouldn't actually make it illegal to seek hospital treatment, but I think subsidising it out of general taxation is all a bit twentieth century, don't you? At any rate, the temporary aberration that is New Labour is disintegrating. What happens when these arrogant bozos lose the next election the fallout will be momentous. Left will blame right, right will blame left, Polly will blame the Daily Mail, and it will put the conservative disagreements of last week in balmy perspective. There will be blood on the carpet.
Roll on the next election!
|
"I believe the elevation of Michael Howard to the Tory top job may well have a positive effect on our politics".
He admits, before affecting to think that this is somehow a disaster for the Tories:
"Even modernisers backing his candidacy do not pretend he is anything other than a man of the right. They know that he believes in surgical cuts to public spending and direct user charges for services. A man who still calls the NHS "Stalinist" is not one who has lost any of his old ideological fervour".
And is my kind of guy. Do you think we can expect the NHS to have been closed down by 2008? I wouldn't actually make it illegal to seek hospital treatment, but I think subsidising it out of general taxation is all a bit twentieth century, don't you? At any rate, the temporary aberration that is New Labour is disintegrating. What happens when these arrogant bozos lose the next election the fallout will be momentous. Left will blame right, right will blame left, Polly will blame the Daily Mail, and it will put the conservative disagreements of last week in balmy perspective. There will be blood on the carpet.
Roll on the next election!
|
Thursday, November 6
The British public is going through one of its periodic bouts of child-murder, and it got me reminiscing about the joy that was England under John Major. I recall the James Bulger killing and Blair's description of it as:
'a hammer-blow against the sleeping conscience of the country'.
Would he say the same about these two incidents, I wonder? At any rate, it gives me an excuse to dig up this, definitive, slagging off of the President In Waiting ( as was ), written before the Master even took office. And then there is this, written by Nick Cohen over two years ago. It even says some nice things about the Next Prime Minister and Saviour of the Universe, that nice Mr. Howard. I said some nice things. I mean, this is Nick Cohen.
|
'a hammer-blow against the sleeping conscience of the country'.
Would he say the same about these two incidents, I wonder? At any rate, it gives me an excuse to dig up this, definitive, slagging off of the President In Waiting ( as was ), written before the Master even took office. And then there is this, written by Nick Cohen over two years ago. It even says some nice things about the Next Prime Minister and Saviour of the Universe, that nice Mr. Howard. I said some nice things. I mean, this is Nick Cohen.
|
It's moronic assertion day in the Guardian. First, Ted Wragg, professor of education at Exeter University:
"The free market separates rich and poor better than the finest sheepdog".
You know I bet he felt really chuffed when he came up with that one.
"Sending a child to the local state school is seen by many middle-class parents as a betrayal of your caste. When my eldest daughter entered the local comprehensive school my wife was berated by a neighbour. Sacrificing your children for the sake of your principles was the crime".
It depends what principles they are I imagine.
"Ordinary citizens are seen as scumbags. The schools they attend are said to lack a learning culture, so middle-class parents boycott them, even if the accusation is untrue (our three state-educated, grown-up children now all have university and higher degrees). "Poverty is no excuse" is a common political watchword nowadays. So the buck is passed to the poor, as if they have brought it all on themselves. Surely it must be their own fault for renting a leaking attic next to a city flyover, inhaling diesel fumes every day, when they could have lived in rural Surrey. Don't mix with such people. They probably have some kind of pox".
I suppose it's possible that some people see it like this. Trouble is, I don't recognise this portrait. So Wragg can get as het up as he likes about the perceived injustice of it all, while the likes of me just shrug our shoulders and write him off as just another chip-on-your-shoulder hard left bore.
And, second, Martin Kettle writes about the Tories and thier nice new hero Mr. Howard. Why people who are hostile to a political party bother to advise them is a mystery:
"Thatcherism, with its constant emphasis on competitive individualism, did not just have nothing to say about the poor. It was positively hostile to them".
Yes, well if he believes that, then his wisdom really isn't worth sharing.
|
"The free market separates rich and poor better than the finest sheepdog".
You know I bet he felt really chuffed when he came up with that one.
"Sending a child to the local state school is seen by many middle-class parents as a betrayal of your caste. When my eldest daughter entered the local comprehensive school my wife was berated by a neighbour. Sacrificing your children for the sake of your principles was the crime".
It depends what principles they are I imagine.
"Ordinary citizens are seen as scumbags. The schools they attend are said to lack a learning culture, so middle-class parents boycott them, even if the accusation is untrue (our three state-educated, grown-up children now all have university and higher degrees). "Poverty is no excuse" is a common political watchword nowadays. So the buck is passed to the poor, as if they have brought it all on themselves. Surely it must be their own fault for renting a leaking attic next to a city flyover, inhaling diesel fumes every day, when they could have lived in rural Surrey. Don't mix with such people. They probably have some kind of pox".
I suppose it's possible that some people see it like this. Trouble is, I don't recognise this portrait. So Wragg can get as het up as he likes about the perceived injustice of it all, while the likes of me just shrug our shoulders and write him off as just another chip-on-your-shoulder hard left bore.
And, second, Martin Kettle writes about the Tories and thier nice new hero Mr. Howard. Why people who are hostile to a political party bother to advise them is a mystery:
"Thatcherism, with its constant emphasis on competitive individualism, did not just have nothing to say about the poor. It was positively hostile to them".
Yes, well if he believes that, then his wisdom really isn't worth sharing.
|
Wednesday, November 5
Blogger and journalist Johann Hari has some tips for those unfortunate few who fancy themselves as cutting edge opinion-formers and moralisers:
"If you find your prose seems awkward, stop and read one of the columnists whose style you admire. I tend to write like the last person I read; if I've been reading an academic text, the result can be terrible. Cleanse your literary pallate before you start to write; my favourite for getting a flowing prose style to come is the great Polly Toynbee".
I'm sorry. It's going to take me a bit to recover from that one.
|
"If you find your prose seems awkward, stop and read one of the columnists whose style you admire. I tend to write like the last person I read; if I've been reading an academic text, the result can be terrible. Cleanse your literary pallate before you start to write; my favourite for getting a flowing prose style to come is the great Polly Toynbee".
I'm sorry. It's going to take me a bit to recover from that one.
|
Blogger and journalist Stephen Pollard is writing a biography of David Blunkett it says at the bottom of this piece, which you can also read here. I wonder what it's going to be called.
"Swampy: The David Blunkett Story".
"Blind Man in the Buff: the truth about David Blunkett".
"Leave my Dog Alone: Inside David David Blunkett".
"Tough on Crime... the life and times of David Blunkett".
"I Hate David Blunkett".
"Blunkett: Not as Clever as he Thinks he is".
The search continues. For that matter, he better get on with it. Once Oliver Letwin has got his hands on the tiller no one's gonna be interested.
|
"Swampy: The David Blunkett Story".
"Blind Man in the Buff: the truth about David Blunkett".
"Leave my Dog Alone: Inside David David Blunkett".
"Tough on Crime... the life and times of David Blunkett".
"I Hate David Blunkett".
"Blunkett: Not as Clever as he Thinks he is".
The search continues. For that matter, he better get on with it. Once Oliver Letwin has got his hands on the tiller no one's gonna be interested.
|
Tuesday, November 4
Always on the look for a new special interests group he can feel sorry for, the Moonbat has discovered a new bunch:
"Racism towards Gypsies is acceptable in public life in Britain".
he thunders, and illustrates his argument with an ancient quote from Jack Straw, who once slagged off their apologists who
"think that it's perfectly OK for them to cause mayhem in an area, to go burgling, thieving, breaking into vehicles, causing all kinds of other trouble including defecating in the doorways of firms and so on".
Now, I bow down to no one in my disdain for Jack Straw, but even I can see that burgling, thieving and public defecation do have certain drawbacks, especially when one is trying to create a sense of inclusiveness, social cohesion, and equality that is surely the watchword of any civilisation. But Moonbat is unimpressed, and brazenly compares our current foreign secretary to Heinrich Himmler, who said:
"most Gypsies are not Gypsies at all" but "the products of matings with the German criminal asocial proletariat".
New Labour=Nazis? Harsh, but fair? Or a comparison too far? Still, George has moved swiftly on, and is back asking the deep questions:
"So why, despite so much evidence of persecution, are expressions of hatred towards Gypsies still acceptable in public discourse?"
Before drawing breath, George explains:
"Part of the reason is surely that they are trapped in a vicious circle: excluded from public life by racism, they are poorly placed to defend themselves against it. But it seems to me that there might be something else at work as well, the residue of a deeper and much older detestation.
The conflict between settled and travelling peoples goes back at least to the time of Cain and Abel. Cain was a farmer, a settled person; Abel was a herder: a nomad. Cain killed Abel because Abel was the beloved of God. The people who wrote the Old Testament were nomads who had recently settled, and who looked back with longing to the lives of their ancestors".
I've often said that Moonbat had a touch of the Old Testament prophet about him, and here's some sterling evidence. It's the Bible, George. Cain and Abel is a myth, a story. It isn't literally true!
"We are a migratory people (our ancestors, in the savannahs of East Africa, were forced to move from place to place as the rain moved on) with the brains, the legs, the senses of creatures who were designed never to stay still".
Yes, but you can still stay on the move, cycling, walking and even driving your Merc, without feeling the urge to burgle, thieve, and crap in someone else's doorway, cantcha?
"Envy lies at the root of racism. Racists associate Jews with money and black people with sexual power, but our hatred of Gypsies may arise from a still deeper grievance, the envy of a people whose instinct for continual movement is frustrated by the constraints of the humdrum settled life. We wish, like Cain, to rise up and slay our brother, as the horde, not the civilised, are the beloved of the God of our creation. Could it be that it remains acceptable to hate Gypsies because it remains acceptable to romanticise them?"
So who's doing the romanticising here, I wonder. Poor old Moonbat. Half the time he is demanding the most sclerotically egalitarian, command economy, where all goods are evenly distributed, and the other half he wants a bohemian, uncontrolled, anarchy where everyone is freed from the tyranny of possessions. What a weirdo.
|
"Racism towards Gypsies is acceptable in public life in Britain".
he thunders, and illustrates his argument with an ancient quote from Jack Straw, who once slagged off their apologists who
"think that it's perfectly OK for them to cause mayhem in an area, to go burgling, thieving, breaking into vehicles, causing all kinds of other trouble including defecating in the doorways of firms and so on".
Now, I bow down to no one in my disdain for Jack Straw, but even I can see that burgling, thieving and public defecation do have certain drawbacks, especially when one is trying to create a sense of inclusiveness, social cohesion, and equality that is surely the watchword of any civilisation. But Moonbat is unimpressed, and brazenly compares our current foreign secretary to Heinrich Himmler, who said:
"most Gypsies are not Gypsies at all" but "the products of matings with the German criminal asocial proletariat".
New Labour=Nazis? Harsh, but fair? Or a comparison too far? Still, George has moved swiftly on, and is back asking the deep questions:
"So why, despite so much evidence of persecution, are expressions of hatred towards Gypsies still acceptable in public discourse?"
Before drawing breath, George explains:
"Part of the reason is surely that they are trapped in a vicious circle: excluded from public life by racism, they are poorly placed to defend themselves against it. But it seems to me that there might be something else at work as well, the residue of a deeper and much older detestation.
The conflict between settled and travelling peoples goes back at least to the time of Cain and Abel. Cain was a farmer, a settled person; Abel was a herder: a nomad. Cain killed Abel because Abel was the beloved of God. The people who wrote the Old Testament were nomads who had recently settled, and who looked back with longing to the lives of their ancestors".
I've often said that Moonbat had a touch of the Old Testament prophet about him, and here's some sterling evidence. It's the Bible, George. Cain and Abel is a myth, a story. It isn't literally true!
"We are a migratory people (our ancestors, in the savannahs of East Africa, were forced to move from place to place as the rain moved on) with the brains, the legs, the senses of creatures who were designed never to stay still".
Yes, but you can still stay on the move, cycling, walking and even driving your Merc, without feeling the urge to burgle, thieve, and crap in someone else's doorway, cantcha?
"Envy lies at the root of racism. Racists associate Jews with money and black people with sexual power, but our hatred of Gypsies may arise from a still deeper grievance, the envy of a people whose instinct for continual movement is frustrated by the constraints of the humdrum settled life. We wish, like Cain, to rise up and slay our brother, as the horde, not the civilised, are the beloved of the God of our creation. Could it be that it remains acceptable to hate Gypsies because it remains acceptable to romanticise them?"
So who's doing the romanticising here, I wonder. Poor old Moonbat. Half the time he is demanding the most sclerotically egalitarian, command economy, where all goods are evenly distributed, and the other half he wants a bohemian, uncontrolled, anarchy where everyone is freed from the tyranny of possessions. What a weirdo.
|
Monday, November 3
An astonishing revelation in the Guardian:
"Iain even did a more than passable impersonation of David Brent from his favourite TV show, The Office".
IDS might have saved his bacon if he'd treated the great British public to such a sight. Especially if it had been this one.
|
"Iain even did a more than passable impersonation of David Brent from his favourite TV show, The Office".
IDS might have saved his bacon if he'd treated the great British public to such a sight. Especially if it had been this one.
|
Michael Howard hasn't even been crowned yet and the liberals are on the run. First up, the Yazzmonster:
"Horror of horrors. Can Tory MPs really be this chuffed with the choice they have just made? Are they suffering from collective Alzheimer's disease? Michael Howard was a revolting, reactionary Home Secretary, from 1993 to 1997, and he will be the same as Conservative leader, mark my words".
Here's hoping, Yazza. And Roy Hattersley, the noted lardbutt, is equally outraged:
"Tory party workers, inspired by the memory of the Michael Howard that was, will go on whispering that Labour is a party of Pakistani-loving, scrounger-supporting perverts who want to sell Britain's birthright to the foreigners we beat in the last war".
Do they do that? I wonder. I don't suppose they'd actually whisper it to Roy cos they'd be wasting their time. I suppose this is what is known as 'anecdotal evidence'. i.e. bullshit. He then launches into another of his rants about how right-wing New Labour is, then contrasts this with the even more dangerous Tories:
"Nobody has ever accused Blunkett of appearing shifty. Not even Howard's most devoted supporters have argued plausibly that he is anything else. How many times did Jeremy Paxman ask him if he had threatened to sack the director general of the Prison Service? And we still do not know the answer".
Well actually it was fourteen. And for what it's worth, Howard at least didn't lie. If it had been Blair, say, or Hattersley, he'd have just denied it and the whole thing would have been forgotten. Howard's remembered for not dissembling. Not such a terrible thing, really. The Tories are about to choose a teller of uncomfortable truths as their leader. No wonder chancers like Hattersley are spluttering away. We ain't finished yet, buddy boy.
|
"Horror of horrors. Can Tory MPs really be this chuffed with the choice they have just made? Are they suffering from collective Alzheimer's disease? Michael Howard was a revolting, reactionary Home Secretary, from 1993 to 1997, and he will be the same as Conservative leader, mark my words".
Here's hoping, Yazza. And Roy Hattersley, the noted lardbutt, is equally outraged:
"Tory party workers, inspired by the memory of the Michael Howard that was, will go on whispering that Labour is a party of Pakistani-loving, scrounger-supporting perverts who want to sell Britain's birthright to the foreigners we beat in the last war".
Do they do that? I wonder. I don't suppose they'd actually whisper it to Roy cos they'd be wasting their time. I suppose this is what is known as 'anecdotal evidence'. i.e. bullshit. He then launches into another of his rants about how right-wing New Labour is, then contrasts this with the even more dangerous Tories:
"Nobody has ever accused Blunkett of appearing shifty. Not even Howard's most devoted supporters have argued plausibly that he is anything else. How many times did Jeremy Paxman ask him if he had threatened to sack the director general of the Prison Service? And we still do not know the answer".
Well actually it was fourteen. And for what it's worth, Howard at least didn't lie. If it had been Blair, say, or Hattersley, he'd have just denied it and the whole thing would have been forgotten. Howard's remembered for not dissembling. Not such a terrible thing, really. The Tories are about to choose a teller of uncomfortable truths as their leader. No wonder chancers like Hattersley are spluttering away. We ain't finished yet, buddy boy.
|
Tariq Ali:
"Few can deny that Iraq under US occupation is in a much worse state than it was under Saddam Hussein".
|
"Few can deny that Iraq under US occupation is in a much worse state than it was under Saddam Hussein".
|
Friday, October 31
Jonathan Freedland writes his third column in three days for the Guardian, and the strain is starting to tell. This one isn't even finished. Michael Howard looks set to take over the leadership of the Tory party, and Freedland is excited:
"a landmark has been reached, for Howard, Britain's Jews, the Tories and Britain itself. Only one institution is left out: the Labour party. Why is it that, when it comes to breaking the mould of national life, the Conservatives have once again beaten Labour to the punch? The Tories were the first to pick a woman and now the first to look to an ethnic minority for its leader. Where is Labour?
One theory is that, while the left focuses on group rights, seeking to better the lives of, say, black or gay people or women, the right sees only individuals and will not hesitate to promote a black or gay or female individual with talent. That's why it was the Republicans, rather than the Democrats, who were first to boast a black secretary of state and national security adviser in Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.
There may be some wisdom in that. Witness the words of Jonathan Steel, chair of Beaconsfield conservative association. Asked about Howard and Letwin, he said: "It has never occurred to me at all or anyone that I know that any of these men are Jewish, so that has to mean we're more inclusive. I think we just want the best person - whether Jewish, gay or black."
Yes, and what's the other theory, Jonathan? Come on, out with it! The Dreaded Pollster, on the other hand, is not happy at all:
"Howard may have hair, no speech impediment (beyond an inability to say the word peepul), and is not a brainless buffoon. He may have a certain air of authority and a barrister's skill at the dispatch box, but Michael Howard is one of the most unpopular men in British politics today".
In which case, why is the old bat worried? He'd never get elected, surely. The compassionate and caring British public would never let it happen, eh?
"No. This is exceedingly dangerous. He will poison the political water".
Well, he's got my vote. The trouble with Polly is that she's been bellyaching as long as I can remember about how right-wing the Tories are, how we're all just a step away from Adolf that it's a bit of a scratched record. I don't think she'd really be happy if Ken Clarke took over ( which he won't ). After all, who could be better than the Master?
|
"a landmark has been reached, for Howard, Britain's Jews, the Tories and Britain itself. Only one institution is left out: the Labour party. Why is it that, when it comes to breaking the mould of national life, the Conservatives have once again beaten Labour to the punch? The Tories were the first to pick a woman and now the first to look to an ethnic minority for its leader. Where is Labour?
One theory is that, while the left focuses on group rights, seeking to better the lives of, say, black or gay people or women, the right sees only individuals and will not hesitate to promote a black or gay or female individual with talent. That's why it was the Republicans, rather than the Democrats, who were first to boast a black secretary of state and national security adviser in Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.
There may be some wisdom in that. Witness the words of Jonathan Steel, chair of Beaconsfield conservative association. Asked about Howard and Letwin, he said: "It has never occurred to me at all or anyone that I know that any of these men are Jewish, so that has to mean we're more inclusive. I think we just want the best person - whether Jewish, gay or black."
Yes, and what's the other theory, Jonathan? Come on, out with it! The Dreaded Pollster, on the other hand, is not happy at all:
"Howard may have hair, no speech impediment (beyond an inability to say the word peepul), and is not a brainless buffoon. He may have a certain air of authority and a barrister's skill at the dispatch box, but Michael Howard is one of the most unpopular men in British politics today".
In which case, why is the old bat worried? He'd never get elected, surely. The compassionate and caring British public would never let it happen, eh?
"No. This is exceedingly dangerous. He will poison the political water".
Well, he's got my vote. The trouble with Polly is that she's been bellyaching as long as I can remember about how right-wing the Tories are, how we're all just a step away from Adolf that it's a bit of a scratched record. I don't think she'd really be happy if Ken Clarke took over ( which he won't ). After all, who could be better than the Master?
|
Thursday, October 30
"The Quiet Man has been silenced".
Says Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian.
"The Quiet Man has been silenced".
Says the leader column of the self-same organ. Well, no one ever accused the Guardian of being original. I'd say the latter is the slightly more fatuous article. Freedland bleats the usual liberalist bleat about Portillo, Ken Clarke, and how we need more lesbians and crack dealers on the front bench in order to reflect the look of the great British public. The leader column does the same, but in even snootier terms. It seems like it's going to be a bit of a shoo-in for that nice baseball-loving Michael Howard, and they no like:
"By the time the sleaze-mired Major government stuttered to a halt in 1997, Mr Howard, as much as anyone, had come to epitomise the unloveliest aspects of the old politics - the originator of an unappetising mix of uncompromising populist policies on criminal justice, asylum, immigration, Europe and employment issues. When he last presented himself as a possible party leader, his electoral popularity was barely measurable by conventional polling methods. It takes a considerable suspension of disbelief, barely six years later, to imagine Howard as a plausible party saviour attractive to the country at large".
Yes, well we shall see. I reckon he's got a chance myself. Being right but repulsive worked for Maggie, it might work for the Vampire. But still the Guardian wants some alternative candidates, just to soothe the rest of us:
"It would would be better for MPs to offer the voluntary party a genuine choice. Mr Howard and David Davis represent one strand of modern conservatism. We hope that one or more candidates representing other, equally valid, strands might announce themselves in the coming days".
Equally valid, eh? What exactly is equally valid with sleaze, populism, and unloveliness, I wonder?
|
Says Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian.
"The Quiet Man has been silenced".
Says the leader column of the self-same organ. Well, no one ever accused the Guardian of being original. I'd say the latter is the slightly more fatuous article. Freedland bleats the usual liberalist bleat about Portillo, Ken Clarke, and how we need more lesbians and crack dealers on the front bench in order to reflect the look of the great British public. The leader column does the same, but in even snootier terms. It seems like it's going to be a bit of a shoo-in for that nice baseball-loving Michael Howard, and they no like:
"By the time the sleaze-mired Major government stuttered to a halt in 1997, Mr Howard, as much as anyone, had come to epitomise the unloveliest aspects of the old politics - the originator of an unappetising mix of uncompromising populist policies on criminal justice, asylum, immigration, Europe and employment issues. When he last presented himself as a possible party leader, his electoral popularity was barely measurable by conventional polling methods. It takes a considerable suspension of disbelief, barely six years later, to imagine Howard as a plausible party saviour attractive to the country at large".
Yes, well we shall see. I reckon he's got a chance myself. Being right but repulsive worked for Maggie, it might work for the Vampire. But still the Guardian wants some alternative candidates, just to soothe the rest of us:
"It would would be better for MPs to offer the voluntary party a genuine choice. Mr Howard and David Davis represent one strand of modern conservatism. We hope that one or more candidates representing other, equally valid, strands might announce themselves in the coming days".
Equally valid, eh? What exactly is equally valid with sleaze, populism, and unloveliness, I wonder?
|
Wednesday, October 29
Apparently there's some sort of kerfuffle going on in the Tory Party. Polly Toynbee rushes to the rescue, and pens a love-letter to the Podgy Puffball himself, Ken Clarke:
"Dear Ken,"
Oh my God.
"Think again".
Oh my golly God.
"If IDS falls today, stand for the leadership. Your country needs you. I quite understand that at 63, rudely snubbed twice by a party daft enough to choose two duffers in a row, you may not relish another gratuitous slap in the face. Jazz clubs and motor racing may seem more fun than struggling to shape coherent sense out of the Tory shower at Westminster. But please think again".
But why? He would lose, wouldn't he? So what's the point?
"True, you will have to charm the decrepit blimps and blue rinses from the shires into voting for you. Thinking Tory MPs despair at being in hock to them: they compare it to Labour and Militant. But surely even they must see that a party teetering on the brink of farce needs experience, vision, wisdom and wit?"
Yes, well there's no real need for this. It's like me, come the day that Tony Blair finally decides to throw in the towel/get hauled out by the balls, writing a paeon of love to Kate Hoey or Frank Field. Yes, they're my favourite Leftists, but the Labour Party won't vote for them, and writing little aphorisms such as that:
"This fissiparous and treacherous party is still infected with the euro-sceptic virus" won't endear them to anyone remotely interested. Polly, you're wasting your time.
"Once you set aside any futile hope of winning the next election, once you decide that things could hardly get any worse, you have the freedom to do and say the right thing for its own sake".
I can see that one going down well in the manifesto.
"The paradox is that the more you do not seek to win votes, the more they will flow in, recognising integrity and authenticity".
Convincing stuff, isn't it?
"You are also one of those rare politicians - like Denis Healey, Neil Kinnock, Shirley Williams, Mo Mowlam or Chris Patten - who make people smile".
And who don't make people vote.
Still, as to the matter in hand: This is just the beginning. The membership won't like it. It will either be Michael Howard or David Davis, both of whom will actually have to bend over backwards to be even more right-wing than IDS merely to placate said membership, and Francis Maude and co will go weeping back to their constituencies wondering exactly what incubus they have unleashed.
|
"Dear Ken,"
Oh my God.
"Think again".
Oh my golly God.
"If IDS falls today, stand for the leadership. Your country needs you. I quite understand that at 63, rudely snubbed twice by a party daft enough to choose two duffers in a row, you may not relish another gratuitous slap in the face. Jazz clubs and motor racing may seem more fun than struggling to shape coherent sense out of the Tory shower at Westminster. But please think again".
But why? He would lose, wouldn't he? So what's the point?
"True, you will have to charm the decrepit blimps and blue rinses from the shires into voting for you. Thinking Tory MPs despair at being in hock to them: they compare it to Labour and Militant. But surely even they must see that a party teetering on the brink of farce needs experience, vision, wisdom and wit?"
Yes, well there's no real need for this. It's like me, come the day that Tony Blair finally decides to throw in the towel/get hauled out by the balls, writing a paeon of love to Kate Hoey or Frank Field. Yes, they're my favourite Leftists, but the Labour Party won't vote for them, and writing little aphorisms such as that:
"This fissiparous and treacherous party is still infected with the euro-sceptic virus" won't endear them to anyone remotely interested. Polly, you're wasting your time.
"Once you set aside any futile hope of winning the next election, once you decide that things could hardly get any worse, you have the freedom to do and say the right thing for its own sake".
I can see that one going down well in the manifesto.
"The paradox is that the more you do not seek to win votes, the more they will flow in, recognising integrity and authenticity".
Convincing stuff, isn't it?
"You are also one of those rare politicians - like Denis Healey, Neil Kinnock, Shirley Williams, Mo Mowlam or Chris Patten - who make people smile".
And who don't make people vote.
Still, as to the matter in hand: This is just the beginning. The membership won't like it. It will either be Michael Howard or David Davis, both of whom will actually have to bend over backwards to be even more right-wing than IDS merely to placate said membership, and Francis Maude and co will go weeping back to their constituencies wondering exactly what incubus they have unleashed.
|
"If all the people who have written to the Guardian in the last six years to protest at the pusillanimous posturing of New Labour turned up tonight at London's Friends Meeting House they would give the Blair administration the fright it so roundly deserves".
Announces Paul Foot. And guess who's gonna be there? George Galloway, "whose eloquent hostility to the Iraq war is so in tune with mass opinion that he has just been expelled from the Labour party".
Well that's one way of putting it.
"Ken Loach, whose marvellously committed films go on winning awards".
What for? the Annual Narcolepsy Lifetime Achievement Prize?
And "Guardian columnist George Monbiot".
Enough said. I shall be elsewhere, I'm afraid, celebrating the triumph of IDS. Or not. These are dark days indeed for Tony Blair.
|
Announces Paul Foot. And guess who's gonna be there? George Galloway, "whose eloquent hostility to the Iraq war is so in tune with mass opinion that he has just been expelled from the Labour party".
Well that's one way of putting it.
"Ken Loach, whose marvellously committed films go on winning awards".
What for? the Annual Narcolepsy Lifetime Achievement Prize?
And "Guardian columnist George Monbiot".
Enough said. I shall be elsewhere, I'm afraid, celebrating the triumph of IDS. Or not. These are dark days indeed for Tony Blair.
|
"The anti-war camp has been proved right on every point".
Jonathan Freedland. Quagmire, Vietnam, it's all there.
|
Jonathan Freedland. Quagmire, Vietnam, it's all there.
|
Is egalitarianism, like syphilis, a heritable condition? Perhaps not, judging by the wisdom displayed by Diane Abbott's little cherub, James, yesterday, in response to allegations that the Labour MP and hard-left moralist who has made a name for herself damning people who get their kids privately educated, rather than submitting them to the totalitarian conveyor-belts controlled by the government, has now bitten the bullet, and done the same.
"She's not a hypocrite; she just put what I wanted first".
The munchkin claimed, showing a commendable sense of loyalty, and maybe even affection, which we must indulge in a precocious little brat.
"My mum didn't force me to go to private school. I took the test for the schools I wanted to go to and I chose the school I wanted to go to. If I wanted to go to a state school then my mum would have let me go to a state school".
Consent, freedom of choice, tolerance, and a respect for private commercial decision-making? I think we may be witnessing the growing pains of the next Tory Prime Minister. Far preferable, at any rate, than this posturing buffoon, who, after savaging religious education, turns around and whines:
"Emmanuel College in Gateshead has regularly hit the headlines due to its teaching of creationism, the doctrine that claims that human origins are recent and divine. The school's directors and staff have been criticised for their writings and Christian fundamentalist links, yet Emmanuel is considered a "beacon" school by the government. This year 27 pupils celebrated 300 A and A* results at GCSE, while 186 pupils across the school achieved a 99.8% pass rate. Extremely impressive. Worth sending your child there for the academic potential alone? Well, not for me it wouldn't be. But I honestly don't know how my principles would hold up if the only alternative was a down-at-heel, overcrowded, underachieving school".
Principles, eh? Who needs'em?
|
"She's not a hypocrite; she just put what I wanted first".
The munchkin claimed, showing a commendable sense of loyalty, and maybe even affection, which we must indulge in a precocious little brat.
"My mum didn't force me to go to private school. I took the test for the schools I wanted to go to and I chose the school I wanted to go to. If I wanted to go to a state school then my mum would have let me go to a state school".
Consent, freedom of choice, tolerance, and a respect for private commercial decision-making? I think we may be witnessing the growing pains of the next Tory Prime Minister. Far preferable, at any rate, than this posturing buffoon, who, after savaging religious education, turns around and whines:
"Emmanuel College in Gateshead has regularly hit the headlines due to its teaching of creationism, the doctrine that claims that human origins are recent and divine. The school's directors and staff have been criticised for their writings and Christian fundamentalist links, yet Emmanuel is considered a "beacon" school by the government. This year 27 pupils celebrated 300 A and A* results at GCSE, while 186 pupils across the school achieved a 99.8% pass rate. Extremely impressive. Worth sending your child there for the academic potential alone? Well, not for me it wouldn't be. But I honestly don't know how my principles would hold up if the only alternative was a down-at-heel, overcrowded, underachieving school".
Principles, eh? Who needs'em?
|
Tuesday, October 28
Who would have thought that the phrase "David Aaronovitch is away" would unleash such despair upon our nation? What has he done to justify his non-appearance? Has the great man gone on holiday? Has he been sacked? Or been eaten by wolves? Who knows, but in his place steps one Julian Baggini. It is not a pretty sight:
"What defines the British national identity?"
asks Julian.
"The many attempts to answer this question in recent years - from cool Britannia, through a sense of fairplay, to beef - have all ignored the obvious. Throughout the whole of theBritish isles and across all social classes, the great cultural unifier is the act of getting publicly and horribly pissed".
Come back, Aaro, all is forgiven. In any case, elsewhere in the Guardian, the real truth is disclosed. We are in fact a nation of gymnasts, encouraged, as ever, by our benevolent government:
"So why is the government drawing up plans to get more people, including children, into fitness centres?"
asks Tessa Thomas. Surely the answer is obvious: because it cares.
|
"What defines the British national identity?"
asks Julian.
"The many attempts to answer this question in recent years - from cool Britannia, through a sense of fairplay, to beef - have all ignored the obvious. Throughout the whole of theBritish isles and across all social classes, the great cultural unifier is the act of getting publicly and horribly pissed".
Come back, Aaro, all is forgiven. In any case, elsewhere in the Guardian, the real truth is disclosed. We are in fact a nation of gymnasts, encouraged, as ever, by our benevolent government:
"So why is the government drawing up plans to get more people, including children, into fitness centres?"
asks Tessa Thomas. Surely the answer is obvious: because it cares.
|
"I disagree with almost everything Howard stands for, but if I was a Tory MP I would vote for him in a leadership contest".
Max Hastings writes in the Guardian. He later tells us that:
"No one outside Tunbridge Wells lamented the departure of Thatcher".
Max Hastings doesn't usually write for the Guardian. In his time he has edited both the Evening Standard and the Telegraph. Can he ever have written such vacuous stuff before? Must be the house style.
|
Max Hastings writes in the Guardian. He later tells us that:
"No one outside Tunbridge Wells lamented the departure of Thatcher".
Max Hastings doesn't usually write for the Guardian. In his time he has edited both the Evening Standard and the Telegraph. Can he ever have written such vacuous stuff before? Must be the house style.
|
Monday, October 27
Here's someone who had too much coffee this morning. And this bloke has got to do a lot better if he wants any readers.
|
|
Richard Desmond, the esteemed socialist, pornographer, and Tony Blair financier, doesn't like... socialist, I hear you say? Well, from the horses' mouth:
"I have always been a socialist. We're all socialists. Like the Express readers, we have all gone out there, made something for ourselves, got our mortgages, bought our houses bought the car and got married and wondered how we were going to pay for it. Socialism is about the redistribution of wealth and no privilege for the upper classes. That posh accent thing really gets to me."
Unfortunately he's right. There is something terribly egalitarian and multicultural about pumping out nude photos of 'Asian Babes' for the edification of the masses. Blair must be proud to take money off the man. All in a good cause, of course.
|
"I have always been a socialist. We're all socialists. Like the Express readers, we have all gone out there, made something for ourselves, got our mortgages, bought our houses bought the car and got married and wondered how we were going to pay for it. Socialism is about the redistribution of wealth and no privilege for the upper classes. That posh accent thing really gets to me."
Unfortunately he's right. There is something terribly egalitarian and multicultural about pumping out nude photos of 'Asian Babes' for the edification of the masses. Blair must be proud to take money off the man. All in a good cause, of course.
|
Roy Hattersley, the esteemed socialist, doesn't want Dubya to come to England, and has some advice for the Master:
"He may not have noticed it, but President Bush is regarded in Britain with something approaching contempt. He has achieved the unusual feat of being simultaneously sinister and ridiculous, and he is regarded as the rich kid who grew up arrogant and inarticulate. But it is his role in making the war in Iraq inevitable that makes him unwelcome here. There are no votes to be won by being buddy-buddy with a man who is despised by most of the British public".
Is he? Has somebody done any polling on this? Or is Hattersley, once again, speaking through his quite prodigious buttocks?
|
"He may not have noticed it, but President Bush is regarded in Britain with something approaching contempt. He has achieved the unusual feat of being simultaneously sinister and ridiculous, and he is regarded as the rich kid who grew up arrogant and inarticulate. But it is his role in making the war in Iraq inevitable that makes him unwelcome here. There are no votes to be won by being buddy-buddy with a man who is despised by most of the British public".
Is he? Has somebody done any polling on this? Or is Hattersley, once again, speaking through his quite prodigious buttocks?
|
The Gnome has some interesting things to say about IDS and the Tories. That is to say I agree with him. The smart money says he'll be gone by Wednesday. Well I wonder.
|
|
Sunday, October 26
"The fact is that we all know the public-school system is grotesquely unfair and, more than that, destructive to society".
We do, do we? Well, it is the Observer again, this time Ruaridh Nicoll.
"If you believe, as I do, that education is the most important role of government, and that equality of opportunity is the best any of us can hope for, then the private-school system has to be anathema".
And if you don't?
"It doesn't take a genius to work out that if the wealthy had to educate their children in the state system, the state system would be suddenly, and dramatically, better".
And if the rich had to eat shit, just like everyone else, I dare say you'd get a more nutritious, compassionate, socially-inclusive kind of shit. But shit it would still be.
|
We do, do we? Well, it is the Observer again, this time Ruaridh Nicoll.
"If you believe, as I do, that education is the most important role of government, and that equality of opportunity is the best any of us can hope for, then the private-school system has to be anathema".
And if you don't?
"It doesn't take a genius to work out that if the wealthy had to educate their children in the state system, the state system would be suddenly, and dramatically, better".
And if the rich had to eat shit, just like everyone else, I dare say you'd get a more nutritious, compassionate, socially-inclusive kind of shit. But shit it would still be.
|
"Why do we smile when we learn that Liza Minnelli's husband claims she beat him up?"
asks Carol Sarler in the Observer, speaking no doubt on behalf of all Observer-types, rather than humans in general.
"Size does matter. Women laugh at your dicks. Behind your backs. All the time".
says Lisa Hilton, also in the Observer.
|
asks Carol Sarler in the Observer, speaking no doubt on behalf of all Observer-types, rather than humans in general.
"Size does matter. Women laugh at your dicks. Behind your backs. All the time".
says Lisa Hilton, also in the Observer.
|
- 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