The 80/20 Rule

Bye Bye Scotland

English voters, says Alex Salmond:

"...will be given no say over proposals that could end the 300-year-old union with Scotland.."

I can't help but think that clever Alex is missing a trick here as there's a good chance that, if included in his 'conversion', English voters would vote very enthusiastically for Scottish/English independence.

A candidate worthy of a vote.

At last, a party and a candidate I'd actually vote for. Only 'problem' is that it looks like I'd have to move to Australia to do so. However, given the reports on the place I get from friends who have made the move, that's not really a barrier, more like an incentive.

I want you to elect me. Why? Because I promise, if elected, I will spend every day of my term making sure the government does absolutely fucking nothing...

...You'll have to mind your own damned business and take responsibility for your own actions. If the guy next door to you is a polygamist transsexual drug addict with a collection of .44 magnums who makes porno movies featuring donkeys, there's nothing you can do about it.

You're gonna learn to live your own life, without the government's tongue permanently shoved up your arsehole...

...Nothing, and I mean nothing that you do will be illegal as long as it doesn't harm any other person.....and by "harm", I don't mean some silly old bitch thinking your house is the wrong colour, or that your lifestyle is "immoral"....

Read the full campaign speech here

Blogged with Flock

Blame Bush!

Andrew Sullivan (the real deal this time, honest!) Blames Bush for Blair's downfall.

Sorry Mr Sullivan, I know you like to "Blame Bush!" for most things that go wrong but Blair's downfall was inevitable no matter who the US President was.

He's going because his party hates him and always has. He's going because he was so stupid as to set a self-imposed deadline during the last general election. He's going because domestically his government has only managed to get one thing right in the last nine years and the wheels are coming off of the New Labour miracle, a miracle that was in any case built upon the economic reforms enacted by the previous Tory administration and which he has allowed his Chancellor to slowly erode.

Can't .... stop ... looking

BBC NEWS | Politics | Blair faces wave of resignations

It's like watching a car crash, so hideously fascinating that I can't tear myself away :-)

Bet 'Dave' and his Eton Chums are pissing themselves laughing. All they need now is for the Scot to take over (either Scot would do, Reid or Brown) to complete their electoral return. Can you imagine the field day they'll have with Brown pushing through unpopular measures that impact only England whilst his constituents back in braveheartland wallow in subsidies from English taxpayers?

Wonderful stuff. More. More!

Blogged with Flock

'Dave' gets "down with the blogging kids, Yo"

David Cameron has his own blog for his India trip. Its a simple Blogger template on a free account by the looks of it. Good. At least he's not spending the obscene amounts of taxpayers money that New Labour wastrel and Environment Secretary David Miliband wasted on his useless effort.

Speaking of Miliband, last week saw another fun experiment for DEFRA, when they published their draft environmental contract as a wiki, inviting comments by allowing anyone to edit it. Hordes of bloggers, inspired in part by the intrepid Guido Fawkes descended to vastly 'improve' the document (which was situated here but has now been removed). A short version of the story can be found here.

Its a pity that DEFRA removed the wiki, it really was very amusing and getting funnier by the moment. Thankfully I saved a copy, which you now access here, read and enjoy.

Blogged with Flock

Guido loses it.

Normally entertaining blogger Guido Fawkes, who's excellent Westminster sources bring him many a juicy piece of news, has obviously been gulping the meths in rather large quantities. The poor dear has joined the tin-foil hat brigade with his assertion that yesterday's terrorist alert was all a conspiracy by the evil government to divert attention from... something.

Guy Fawkes' blog of parliamentary plots, rumours and conspiracy: "It's the Wolf! It's the Wolf!"

Comments accusing him of being a drink-sodden fruit-loop, like the one posted by this commentator, seem not to be making it through his moderated comment system.

Relax Guido, many pharmacies are open on Saturdays, so you should be able to fill that Thorazine repeat prescription.

 

Update: The Devil's Kitchen takes a sideswipe at Guido for being such a prat (at least I assume it's Guido he's alluding to).

Blogged with Flock

The Euston Manifesto.

I'm on the right of the political spectrum (surprise!).

Well, kind of. I've long thought the the ideas battle in modern politics isn't really between Left and Right but more accurately between those who primarily value the guiding hand of the state and those who primarily value the freedom of the individual.

Falling into that later group makes me 'right wing' evidently.

But Right, Left or Middle there are (or at least nearly always have been) values that all those in the mainstream cling to.

Democracy, human rights, equality, freedom of expression being just a few.

Recently however we've seen the rise of a new type of Left. A Left whose over-riding passion seems to me to be Anti-Americanism. In pursuit of that passion they've been willing to jump into bed with just about anyone, no matter how vile, and to support any cause, no matter how sickening, as long as it gives the 'Yankee imperialists' a bloody nose.

It seems now that some of those old Left values, those on which the original Labour Party was founded, are re-asserting themselves.

The Euston Manifesto has been authored by a group of people who I would normally disagree with on just about every issue that used to be central to political debate in this country (education, welfare state, healthcare provision, tax policy, etc.).

It's a bold attempt to reclaim the Left and is well worth a read....

"It is vitally important for the future of progressive politics that people of liberal, egalitarian and internationalist outlook should now speak clearly. We must define ourselves against those for whom the entire progressive-democratic agenda has been subordinated to a blanket and simplistic "anti-imperialism" and/or hostility to the current US administration. The values and goals which properly make up that agenda — the values of democracy, human rights, the continuing battle against unjustified privilege and power, solidarity with peoples fighting against tyranny and oppression — are what most enduringly define the shape of any Left worth belonging to."

Reward failure, punish success

You might think that with annual productivity growth in the economy as a whole having fallen from 2.75% to 0.5% during the term of this 'new' labour government, it would be counter-intuitive to punish private sector success with a tax raid whilst doing nothing to address the negative productivity growth in the public sector.

That's because it is.

You might describe Brown's decision, after trumpeting a 'golden rule' which proclaims the importance of maintaining a balanced budget over the period of a self-defined economic cycle, to shift the start date of that cycle back a year (as he had already done) and then shift its end date back a further 2 years (as he did yesterday) as an act of panic.

That's because it is.

You might think that a chancellor who in 2001 expected borrowing for 2005-6 to be £12bn and then admits in 2005 that actual borrowing will be £37bn for that period, is desperate to leave the treasury and move next door before the body of dear Prudence is discovered in a closet.

That's because he is.

You might think that those of us in the UK who pay attention to the economy would be getting increasingly nervous about the squandering of the benefits of the economic reforms put in place by the previous administration and its replacement with a system where money is showered on public sector interest groups solely on the basis of their ability to generate votes rather than economic activity.

That's because we are.

If you're thinking of spending big this Christmas, think again.

T is for Terrorism

There's to be a film of the excellent graphic novel 'V for Vendetta', a comic book/graphic novel I much enjoyed reading when I was young (sob) after being introduced to it by a friend at school (Hello Andy!). For a better explanation than the glossy but inevitably light official film site this fan site should be required reading.  My one gripe with the fan site is that it includes an article in which 'V' is, incorrectly, described as a terrorist. What is it with the definition of terrorism that so confuses people?

I've heard terrorists described as rebels or even (hello XFM's brain dead breakfast show host) 'freedom fighters' whilst genuine rebels are described as terrorists. In our soundbite world terrorists are 'people we (the media) don't agree with' whilst rebels are 'people who we agree with/like to paint as romantic heroes' regardless of the actions of both groups.

The reality is that spotting a terrorist and labelling him/her as such should be quite simple, here are the key measurements:

1. A terrorist is one who uses violence to try to achieve political goals when a democratic method to achieve those goals is open to him/her.
2. A terrorist is one who, when using violence, deliberately targets civilians as opposed to the military/state targets that a normal person might consider to be legitimate game in a war.

Meeting either of these criteria qualifies you as a terrorist. Let's apply the criteria to a few recent conflicts to see how they stand up to real world tests shall we?

Iraq: The so-called Iraqi insurgents/rebels are terrorists as there is a democratic path open to achieve their twisted political objectives AND they deliberately target civilians,
IRA: The IRA are and were terrorists for the same reasons as above,
Hamas: Terrorists (see above) and you don't get of the hook by reclassifying the entire population of Israel as military targets.
Saudi Arabia: Wahabists setting off bombs in Saudi are terrorists as, whilst there is no democratic means of achieving their objectives, they deliberately target civilians instead of what we might describe as legitimate organs of a repressive state.
Nepal: The Maoist guerrilla's are terrorists for the same reasons as above.
The Karen: The Karen 'terrorists' are freedom fighters as they do not deliberately target civilians or have a democratic way of achieving their goal of an independent Karen state.

There's an important point to be made here about clear definitions and prejudices. I think the Wahabists in Saudi Arabia are nuts but if they were to only target only military structures/personnel I'd be forced to drop them from my list of terrorists and reclassify them as 'insurgents' or 'rebels'. As their objectives do not include the desire to live in a democratic state I would never call them 'freedom fighter's as democracy is one of the prerequisites of freedom, though not the only one.

Governments can be terrorist organisations as well, witness the implementation of 'terror' policies (the deliberate killing of civilians to achieve a political end) by the Sudanese government in the case of Darfur or the Government of Burma/Myanmar in the case of the Karen.

Try it yourself, pick a conflict and measure it against the 2 rules. It's simple, if only the lords of the media would apply these rules to news reporting, instead of their own twisted version:

1. If your supposed political aims resonate with my view of the world, you are a rebel or freedom fighter no matter what appalling atrocities you commit or how your real world actions stack up against your supposed high standards. I'll judge you not by your actions but by your press releases.
2. If sustaining rule 1 becomes difficult in the face of documentary evidence that contradicts my previous view, then I'll muddy the waters by interchanging the terms terrorist/rebel/freedom fighter and insurgent until everyone believes that they are all the same and that "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" - one of the most wrongheaded and demented lines ever uttered.

As for the film, I'll watch it because I have impressively low standards when it comes to film choices (not low enough for Star Wars prequels but low enough for Charlies Angel's 2) but I'm sure it'll be a gross simplification of a complex story. Not just because that is how the producers choose to play it but also because of the limits of the film medium.

The graphic novel on which it is based is still available, so go and buy it.

Tax

Today is Tax Freedom day. Three days later than last year.