My official excuse for not posting for almost the whole month is that nothing really happened this month - at least in UK politics. (US politics was of course quite different - but hopefully I'll get a bit more time to blog on that after the Republican convention next week).
At the start of the month, Dave-2 (Miliband) appeared to be testing the waters for a move against the PM; those waters are probably still being tested as I write this. A putsch in the autumn seems a distinct possibility. Brown seems to be doing his best Leonid Brezhnev impression; I figure Gordon is a particular fan of the later Brezhnev, where the Soviet leader had been certified brain dead but was being wheeled out at public holidays and international summits anyway. A bit like the mid-seventies Elvis Presley, or Bono today. The problem is, Brezhnev didn't have the difficulties of the electorate to contend with; whereas Gordon, in about 18 months, does. Someone will surely slip him the (metaphorical) sleeping pills well before that date.
At the end of the month, Alistair Darling has been spotted drinking deep in the waters of economic gloom; some great comments by him in a Guardian interview reported in the news yesterday. Voters are "pissed off" - OK, so it's hardly post-watershed stuff (even though yesterday's Daily Mail bleeped out the word 'pissed' - how anal do they think their readers are?) but it's not the kind of language we've associated with Darling in the past. And the economic crisis is 'the worst for 60 years'.
This kind of statement gets batted about a hell of a lot at the moment and I wonder if the people making it - politicians, economists in the media, anybody fronting a property market programme like Location, Location Location or Property Ladder or any of the other crap - have really thought about what they're saying. In the early 80s unemployment went up to 3 million and we had negative growth for at least 2 years - probably 3. Is it really going to be that bad? Worse than the early Thatcher years? Do any of the people making the statement really remember those years? Or have they just watched Ashes To Ashes on the TV recently?
I would have to say the jury is still very much out on how bad this economic slowdown is going to be. A house price crash would actually help a hell of a lot of people in the UK - all the poor f***ers who have been renting or living with their parents for seven or eight years because they couldn't afford a house. Most of the recent opinion poll research on this shows that a large proportion of people actually want prices to fall. I think it's called 'bursting the bubble' or a 'market correction', depending on who you talk to. There was no way the economy could have continued with house prices rising at the rate they were in the early 2000s. The question, of course, is how big the knock-on from this correction will be to the rest of the economy. And no-one really has any good estimates of that.
I need to start running some more in-depth economic analysis, either on this blog or a parallel site, to debunk a lot of crap that is flying around at the moment. But the one thing I would say most of all is, DO NOT believe anyone who says that interest rates have to rise to head off a huge inflationary threat. Believe Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee economist David Blanchflower. Like Ben Bernanke in the States, he says interest rates have to fall to stave off recessionary pressure, and the inflationary 'spike' will be short-lived. He's right, and the rest of the MPC are misguided. The other guys aren't necessarily 'wrong' in formal terms, as they are acting on a crazy remit of controlling inflation no matter what (that's the target they were given by New Labour in 1997) but, like the early 80s, there is a danger that an obsession with inflation will inflict huge and unnecessary damage to the economy through high interest rates. Bernanke understands this and has cut rates really aggressively; the latest US output figures show a rebound to positive growth, although it's unlikely this strong growth will last once the temporary bosst from the latest round of unsustainable Bush tax cuts works its way through the system. Still, the US is in better shape than if it had whacked up interest rates, for sure.
In short, we're headed for a recession but it's not clear to me - yet - that it's gonna be a really bad recession. I think the current hysteria runs the risk of turning a slowdown into a slump. Whilst I wouldn't accuse Alastair Darling of hysteria per se (on the face of it a less hysterical-looking person would be hard to find), I think he should highlight on what basis he's saying things are the worst they've been for 60 years. A volte-face of such magnitude, coming out with a statement like that after a year of denying the problems, seems irresponsible in the current climate of fear and apprehension.
No-one really knows what the hell's going on, so what's your best move? Hal's advice: avoid the bullshitters (I'll tell you more about who they are over the course of the next few weeks) and read people like Blanchflower and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. (I've just spent 30 minutes or so reading Krugman's columns and blog and they really are excellent - some of the best analysis of the US economy you'll read from a centre-left perspective. Very accessible to non-specialists, too.) These guys are still a little mainstream for my liking but they are still streets ahead of most 'orthodox' economists plying their trade these days - including, it seems, most of the UK Monetary Policy Committee.
31 August 2008
01 August 2008
Dave-2 gears up to making a move - "Hit It"
Unless you are in the political braindeath category (and who can blame you, given the shit we've all had to put up with over the last year, indeed the last thirty years or more?) you won't have missed David Miliband's bid for the leadership of the Labour party. As my previous nickname for Miliband, 'microBlair', is somewhat old hat now, I've switched to 'Dave-2' to distinguish him from everyone's favourite politician 'Dave-1' on the other side of the House.
OK, I'm exaggerating a bit. But only a bit. Can anybody imagine a senior cabinet minister publishing an article calling for a complete overhaul of political strategy - making no reference at all to the current PM - at any point under ANY previous post-war Prime Minister? Excepting the 1975 referendum on EU membership (when collective cabinet reponsibility was suspended) and maybe Geoffrey Howe's resignation speech in the late eighties, I can't think of anything along these lines. This is as near as a direct and open challenge to Prime Ministerial authority as you will ever see in the UK.
Miliband's article was actually bland as hell, really. He's hit on a good strategy of attacking Dave Cameron as 'New Labour Mark 1', ten years too late - which is a line that the government should be pushing a lot more - but he had no positive vision to offer beyond the extremely vague rhetoric of 'giving more power to communities' etc. - which seems to ignore the huge centralising forces of the UK state machine on one hand, and multinational corporations on the other. The aim of 'power to the people' is laudable but you're gonna have to do better than what you've outlined so far to get there, Dave. Maybe worth ringing up Tony Benn or Zac Goldsmith for some sage advice.
But Miliband is out there and on the line - possibly indeed "over the line" and "entering a world of pain", as the hapless bowler did in The Big Lebowski. This is a tough one for Brown. How to respond? Demotion seems most likely, but would make him seem vindictive (which he is) and paranoid (which he is, even more.) Various commentators have come up with reasons for Miliband not to stand in a leadership contest, all of which are pretty spurious to my mind: let's go through them one by one.
This is all still highly speculative, but the post-Brown era is about to come upon us, if we're lucky. And thank f*** for that.
OK, I'm exaggerating a bit. But only a bit. Can anybody imagine a senior cabinet minister publishing an article calling for a complete overhaul of political strategy - making no reference at all to the current PM - at any point under ANY previous post-war Prime Minister? Excepting the 1975 referendum on EU membership (when collective cabinet reponsibility was suspended) and maybe Geoffrey Howe's resignation speech in the late eighties, I can't think of anything along these lines. This is as near as a direct and open challenge to Prime Ministerial authority as you will ever see in the UK.
Miliband's article was actually bland as hell, really. He's hit on a good strategy of attacking Dave Cameron as 'New Labour Mark 1', ten years too late - which is a line that the government should be pushing a lot more - but he had no positive vision to offer beyond the extremely vague rhetoric of 'giving more power to communities' etc. - which seems to ignore the huge centralising forces of the UK state machine on one hand, and multinational corporations on the other. The aim of 'power to the people' is laudable but you're gonna have to do better than what you've outlined so far to get there, Dave. Maybe worth ringing up Tony Benn or Zac Goldsmith for some sage advice.
But Miliband is out there and on the line - possibly indeed "over the line" and "entering a world of pain", as the hapless bowler did in The Big Lebowski. This is a tough one for Brown. How to respond? Demotion seems most likely, but would make him seem vindictive (which he is) and paranoid (which he is, even more.) Various commentators have come up with reasons for Miliband not to stand in a leadership contest, all of which are pretty spurious to my mind: let's go through them one by one.
- The public doesn't like back-stabbers. Says who? If Gordon Brown is as unpopular as polls suggest, then getting rid of him should help quite a lot - a necessary (though hardly a sufficient) condition for a recovery.
- There would need to be an immediate general election if Brown were deposed. Says who? A change of prime minister hasn't precipitated a general election for decades in British politics.
- Miliband would lose the next election. Possibly true (even Miliband seems to think so - he says "the odds are stacked against us" in the Guardian article. Where's your fighting spirit, Dave-2?) But as an argument against standing it misses the point. Even if Miliband only gains (say) 5% in the polls, he could make the difference between a crushing, landslide defeat for Labour, and a narrow defeat - or even a hung parliament. That puts Labour in a far better position to beat the Tories next time out, and makes it far less likely that Miliband will be the next William Hague. Even if Labour loses fairly heavily, Miliband will be safe as leader of the opposition as he can very reasonably argue that the defeat isn't his fault.
This is all still highly speculative, but the post-Brown era is about to come upon us, if we're lucky. And thank f*** for that.
26 July 2008
The realest of turkeys
I hadn't even bothered blogging about the Glasgow East by-election because it looked like such a shoo-in for Labour that it wasn't that interesting. Or so I thought... and then the SNP went and won the damn thing.
Make no mistake, this is a turkey as real as they come for Nu Labor. The only way Gordon Brown can survive is if no-one wants to take him on in a leadership contest because he's got the Labour party and the government into such bad shape that taking over the election would be a poisoned chalice. The putative challengers will think: don't risk it now, take our chances after the election, in opposition. The problem with that strategy, of course, is that if Labour gets wiped out at the election then the next Labour leader will be in a William Hague 1997-style situation, Hardly appealing.
At the end of the day it needs someone with enough grit to step up to the plate before Christmas. In my view, the only contender who would stand even a reasonable chance of performing well in the next election would be Alan Johnson. But I don't think he actually wants to do it. Still, if John Major did the job once then it's not exactly off-limits to anybody.
The best thing for Labour would be if Gordon could somehow resign on ill health grounds, or to spend more time with his family. Or something. That would provide a fresh start without someone having to knife him in the back. But the clean handover is unlikely, and so it looks increasingly likely that he will indeed be deposed. But... by whom?
Make no mistake, this is a turkey as real as they come for Nu Labor. The only way Gordon Brown can survive is if no-one wants to take him on in a leadership contest because he's got the Labour party and the government into such bad shape that taking over the election would be a poisoned chalice. The putative challengers will think: don't risk it now, take our chances after the election, in opposition. The problem with that strategy, of course, is that if Labour gets wiped out at the election then the next Labour leader will be in a William Hague 1997-style situation, Hardly appealing.
At the end of the day it needs someone with enough grit to step up to the plate before Christmas. In my view, the only contender who would stand even a reasonable chance of performing well in the next election would be Alan Johnson. But I don't think he actually wants to do it. Still, if John Major did the job once then it's not exactly off-limits to anybody.
The best thing for Labour would be if Gordon could somehow resign on ill health grounds, or to spend more time with his family. Or something. That would provide a fresh start without someone having to knife him in the back. But the clean handover is unlikely, and so it looks increasingly likely that he will indeed be deposed. But... by whom?
14 July 2008
The most interesting thing to come out of the Haltemprice & Howden by-election
I haven't bothered to post anything in particular about the David Davis by-election as the results were stultifyingly boring. About the best you can say about it is that the Greens finished in second place. The only really interesting thing that happened was when a friend of mine decided to run a sweepstake on the candidate that would end up with the least number of votes (which he went on to win. Very suspicious!)
However I did find one useful side product from the campaign - a 2 hour 53 minute lecture by David Icke, available on the website of something called Edge Media TV.
I've just watched 45 minutes of this and it's certainly an impressive public speaking performance. If you are sympathetic to Icke's conspiracy theory schtick, it's a very good (if somewhat long) outline of where his thinking's at nowadays. If you think he's talking total balls, then it's one of the greatest sustained comedy efforts you are likely to see (complete with bizarre micro-second jump cuts to an alternative camera angle - what's going on?) Either way, you can't lose.
Edge Media TV broadcasts on Sky Channel 211 and I'd love to tell you more about what the rest of their schedule is, but I can't pay money for something owned by Rupert Murdoch, so I can't.
However I did find one useful side product from the campaign - a 2 hour 53 minute lecture by David Icke, available on the website of something called Edge Media TV.
I've just watched 45 minutes of this and it's certainly an impressive public speaking performance. If you are sympathetic to Icke's conspiracy theory schtick, it's a very good (if somewhat long) outline of where his thinking's at nowadays. If you think he's talking total balls, then it's one of the greatest sustained comedy efforts you are likely to see (complete with bizarre micro-second jump cuts to an alternative camera angle - what's going on?) Either way, you can't lose.
Edge Media TV broadcasts on Sky Channel 211 and I'd love to tell you more about what the rest of their schedule is, but I can't pay money for something owned by Rupert Murdoch, so I can't.
07 July 2008
Wanna be a bigoted reactionary? Better go hide in the church then.
Firstly people, sorry for the infrequency of posting at the moment. Having gone self employed I find that many waking moments are spent trying to do various stuff I am being paid for, and this blog gets filed under the 'remainder', if you like. Nonetheless Friday evening often presents an opportunity. For the next few weeks I'm gonna use a reasonably serious end-of-week post as an opportunity to catch up on big issues that have been bugging me lately, and intersperse that with short mid-week bursts of comedy wherever possible.
I'm gonna post on religion this week - not my usual topic of conversation, for sure, as a reasonably committed atheist (although not in the rabid 'anyone with religious sensibilities is a dribbling imbecile' Richard Dawkins camp). Nonetheless I did venture onto this fertile new territory a couple of months back to suggest that Tony Blair was a twat, and I'd now like to take the opportunity to give the good ol' C of E some advice.
For the benefit of anyone not from the UK reading this (well you never know), in Britain (well 'England' actually) the official religion (i.e. established church) is the Church of England. Started in bizarre circumstances (King Henry VIII wanted a divorce and the Pope refused so Henry said "OK, see ya"), it is a "broad church" in a very real sense - encompassing all sorts of punters including die-hard 'Anglo-Catholics' , radical quasi-Marxists and tub-thumping evangelicals plus just about every other combination.
The C of E is now facing a possible 'schism' because one group - call them the 'modernisers' - want women to be allowed to become bishops (they're already allowed to be priests) and another group - let's call them the 'reactionaries' (biased language, but then I am biased, so let's have cards on the table here) think they shouldn't be allowed. What's more, the reactionaries want to be allowed to have a special 'male-only' bishop category so that any of them who wants to opt out of worshipping under a female bishop should be allowed to do so.
What's amazing about stuff like this is that the reactionaries' stance is so obviously sexist that it's amazing it's even legal under human rights legislation. If any secular group wanted to mount a campaign in favour of women being debarred from taking a certain type of job, they'd be laughed out of court. But because this is a religious grouping, they're allowed to get away with it.
It's the same with the reactionaries' stance on homosexuality. Their anti-gay stance would be indefensible, indeed would have overtones of fascism, if it came from a non-religious source. But because they are religious, their arguments are seen as somehow defensible - even though their only justification is from The Bible, a book which no-one outside the Christian faith would accept as an authoritative source, and even within the Christian faith there is no agreement whatsoever on its correct interpretation.
The logical conclusion to draw from this is that if you want to be a right-wing fascistic misanthrope, go hide out in the C of E - because the modernisers haven't got the guts (or, more charitably, they pity you too much) to kick you out and expose you for what you are - miserable scum. Of course even if they do kick you out, you have several other options:
Johnson deserves to be extended: religion, as well as patriotism, is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
I'm gonna post on religion this week - not my usual topic of conversation, for sure, as a reasonably committed atheist (although not in the rabid 'anyone with religious sensibilities is a dribbling imbecile' Richard Dawkins camp). Nonetheless I did venture onto this fertile new territory a couple of months back to suggest that Tony Blair was a twat, and I'd now like to take the opportunity to give the good ol' C of E some advice.
For the benefit of anyone not from the UK reading this (well you never know), in Britain (well 'England' actually) the official religion (i.e. established church) is the Church of England. Started in bizarre circumstances (King Henry VIII wanted a divorce and the Pope refused so Henry said "OK, see ya"), it is a "broad church" in a very real sense - encompassing all sorts of punters including die-hard 'Anglo-Catholics' , radical quasi-Marxists and tub-thumping evangelicals plus just about every other combination.
The C of E is now facing a possible 'schism' because one group - call them the 'modernisers' - want women to be allowed to become bishops (they're already allowed to be priests) and another group - let's call them the 'reactionaries' (biased language, but then I am biased, so let's have cards on the table here) think they shouldn't be allowed. What's more, the reactionaries want to be allowed to have a special 'male-only' bishop category so that any of them who wants to opt out of worshipping under a female bishop should be allowed to do so.
What's amazing about stuff like this is that the reactionaries' stance is so obviously sexist that it's amazing it's even legal under human rights legislation. If any secular group wanted to mount a campaign in favour of women being debarred from taking a certain type of job, they'd be laughed out of court. But because this is a religious grouping, they're allowed to get away with it.
It's the same with the reactionaries' stance on homosexuality. Their anti-gay stance would be indefensible, indeed would have overtones of fascism, if it came from a non-religious source. But because they are religious, their arguments are seen as somehow defensible - even though their only justification is from The Bible, a book which no-one outside the Christian faith would accept as an authoritative source, and even within the Christian faith there is no agreement whatsoever on its correct interpretation.
The logical conclusion to draw from this is that if you want to be a right-wing fascistic misanthrope, go hide out in the C of E - because the modernisers haven't got the guts (or, more charitably, they pity you too much) to kick you out and expose you for what you are - miserable scum. Of course even if they do kick you out, you have several other options:
- start your own non-aligned church.
- Join the Roman Catholic church (which is even more hardline reactionary on this than most of the C of E traditionalists, and where the modernisers are in a far weaker position since the Pope runs the thing like the Soviet Union circa 1950).
- join another religion that has a proportion of homophobics and misogynists who get themselves taken seriously (radical Islam and orthodox Judaism spring to mind, although it can be difficult to get into the latter unless you have the correct ethnic background).
- Start your own religion. Worked very well for L Ron Hubbard for example...
Johnson deserves to be extended: religion, as well as patriotism, is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
26 June 2008
Icke on the ballot
The crushing dullness of much contemporary political debate (I was listening to Harriet Harman talking about the new Equalities Bill on the radio today and I'd love to debate the finer points of that with you, but I fell asleep) is enlivened somewhat by the list of candidates for the Haltemprice and Howden by-election. They are:
Unless several thousand of the people who buy Icke's books live in that particular constituency (which is possible, though unlikely) he's unlikely to get elected, but it's exciting to see him back in the news at least.
Icke's Big Brother Research Centre page (not about the TV series, sadly) is deserving of further perusal at a later date. Maybe it's time to resurrect Hal's Friday Evening Blog Review... that was a laugh.
- Grace Christine Astley - Independent
- David Laurence Bishop - Church of the Militant Elvis Party
- Ronnie Carroll - Make Politicians History
- Mad Cow-Girl - The Official Monster Raving Loony Party
- David Craig - Independent
- Herbert Winford Crossman - Independent
- Tess Culnane - National Front Britain for the British
- Thomas Faithful Darwood - Independent
- David Michael Davis - Conservative
- Tony Farnon - Independent
- Eamonn "Fitzy" Fitzpatrick - Independent
- Christopher Mark Foren - Independent
- Gemma Dawn Garrett - Miss Great Britain Party
- George Hargreaves - Christian Party
- Hamish Howitt - Freedom 4 Choice
- David Icke - No party listed
- John Nicholson - Independent
- Shan Oakes - Green Party
- David Pinder - The New Party
- Joanne Robinson - English Democrats: Putting England First
- Jill Saward - Independent
- Norman Scarth - Independent
- Walter Edward Sweeney - Independent
- Christopher John Talbot - Socialist Equality Party
- John Randle Upex - Independent
- Greg Wood - Independent
Unless several thousand of the people who buy Icke's books live in that particular constituency (which is possible, though unlikely) he's unlikely to get elected, but it's exciting to see him back in the news at least.
Icke's Big Brother Research Centre page (not about the TV series, sadly) is deserving of further perusal at a later date. Maybe it's time to resurrect Hal's Friday Evening Blog Review... that was a laugh.
15 June 2008
My unlikely political hero
Up to now, I'm pleased to say that my political heroes have mainly come from the left of the spectrum. Tony Benn (who I was very pleased to see on good form at the Compass conference yesterday), John McDonnell, Vince Cable, maybe even Ed Miliband.
But now there is a new kid on the block: David Davis. The real 'Dave'. The Dave with guts and principle.
Dave D's decision to resign and fight a by-election over the '42 days' anti-civil-liberties legislation (I ain't gonna call it the 'anti-terror' legislation as that's playing into the govt's hands; there's not the slightest evidence this will actually help prevent terrorist attacks) is one of the most courageous political decisions I have seen in a long time. Because:
But now there is a new kid on the block: David Davis. The real 'Dave'. The Dave with guts and principle.
Dave D's decision to resign and fight a by-election over the '42 days' anti-civil-liberties legislation (I ain't gonna call it the 'anti-terror' legislation as that's playing into the govt's hands; there's not the slightest evidence this will actually help prevent terrorist attacks) is one of the most courageous political decisions I have seen in a long time. Because:
- the measure is popular with the public (who are largely brainwashed bovines, sadly);
- his opponent might be ex-Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie who will pull in a lot of the dickhead vote (and that could be decisive, seeing as not many people tend to vote in by-elections anyway.)
10 June 2008
Commiserations to all those in the Essex area still commuting...
For the last month I've been enjoying my new freelance lifestyle, which generally involves working at home and not going into London for work purposes unless absolutely necessary. The reduction in stress just from not having to get on that f***ing tin box of a train every day has been enormous.
And, looking at the chaos that's occurred on the main line out of Liverpool Street these last 2 days, I'm extremely glad I'm not going into London every day... and very sympathetic to you poor bastards out there who are still having to grin and bear it.
It's symptomatic of the regularity with which shit like this occurs that the BBC website is featuring it only very low down the list of newsworthy stories, buried here in the Essex section of the site. It's even below the story about a worm found in a chicken kiev from Morrison's, for f***'s sake.
So what's goin' down? Well, the overhead power line at Ingatestone. 1 mile of it to be precise. What happened - and what keeps happening every few months - is that one of the creaking 40-year-old intercity trains which crawl up and down the line to Norwich brought down the power line. The train is still stuck there and there is no estimate from Network Rail on when they'll be able to reopen that side of the line. So the commuters have to put up with a reduced service - on one of the busiest lines into London - for the rest of the week.
The Network Rail guy interviewed on the BBC's Look East local news show (well, local is pushing it a bit - why do I care what the hell is happening in Wisbech, for instance?) was a smug moron who ignored the issues completely and said 'underlying performance has been very good'. That's like saying that the guy in the office with a poor attendance record actually has an impeccable attendance record - if you calculate his average attendance based only on the days he was in the office. Seriously, this is the lameness of the crap they try to fob people off with. The funniest thing that happened was when someone turned the sound off on the Network Rail guy's headphones feed - so the BBC guy in the studio was asking him how Network Rail was going to improve performance on the trains and he just stood there on the video link, looking like the self-satisfied twat he truly was.
I hope Barack Obama will be able to sort this mess out when he wins the US election in November. In the meantime, commuters should commandeer the trains and run them themselves in association with the drivers' union - on time and without the corporate bullshit National Express and Network Rail try to diss us with.
As ELO once said to the power line... "Don't Bring Me Down".
And, looking at the chaos that's occurred on the main line out of Liverpool Street these last 2 days, I'm extremely glad I'm not going into London every day... and very sympathetic to you poor bastards out there who are still having to grin and bear it.
It's symptomatic of the regularity with which shit like this occurs that the BBC website is featuring it only very low down the list of newsworthy stories, buried here in the Essex section of the site. It's even below the story about a worm found in a chicken kiev from Morrison's, for f***'s sake.
So what's goin' down? Well, the overhead power line at Ingatestone. 1 mile of it to be precise. What happened - and what keeps happening every few months - is that one of the creaking 40-year-old intercity trains which crawl up and down the line to Norwich brought down the power line. The train is still stuck there and there is no estimate from Network Rail on when they'll be able to reopen that side of the line. So the commuters have to put up with a reduced service - on one of the busiest lines into London - for the rest of the week.
The Network Rail guy interviewed on the BBC's Look East local news show (well, local is pushing it a bit - why do I care what the hell is happening in Wisbech, for instance?) was a smug moron who ignored the issues completely and said 'underlying performance has been very good'. That's like saying that the guy in the office with a poor attendance record actually has an impeccable attendance record - if you calculate his average attendance based only on the days he was in the office. Seriously, this is the lameness of the crap they try to fob people off with. The funniest thing that happened was when someone turned the sound off on the Network Rail guy's headphones feed - so the BBC guy in the studio was asking him how Network Rail was going to improve performance on the trains and he just stood there on the video link, looking like the self-satisfied twat he truly was.
I hope Barack Obama will be able to sort this mess out when he wins the US election in November. In the meantime, commuters should commandeer the trains and run them themselves in association with the drivers' union - on time and without the corporate bullshit National Express and Network Rail try to diss us with.
As ELO once said to the power line... "Don't Bring Me Down".
31 May 2008
Labour - Down, Down... Out?
Trying to make up for a shocking lack of posts during May with a sudden rally at the end of the month. So this'll be quite a long post, to make up some ground... I do have the excuse of having been on holiday last week, during which I missed the Crewe and Nantwich by-election results. No real surprise that the Conservatives won, but following the local election drubbing, it does make the punters start to think how long Gordon actually has left to run in his job.
Being Gordon Brown right now must be like having Status Quo's "Down Down" on repeat play on the iPod (he's probably more likely to have a 70s rock classic like that on there than the Arctic Monkeys, whatever the spin doctors say.) Deeper and down... 23% for Labour in the latest YouGov poll.
Whilst Brown is a duffer in many respects - an appalling bully at work (just ask anyone you know who has worked with him), obsessed with fiddly schemes that deliver good objectives badly (PPPs for additional public sector investment, tax credits for redistribution), mates with the editor of the Daily Mail, etc, infatuated with an unworkable and irrelevant obsession with 'Britishness' - it gives me no great pleasure to see him in this position. Tony Blair, a far more evil and dangerous figure, seems to have escaped relatively scot-free from the government's present morass and difficulties. He's off travelling the world, talking crap about faith, getting big money on the lecture circuit, while the remnants of the Labour party reap what he (partially) sowed. Some will say that's fair enough... Labour members voted in droves for Blair to become leader in 1994, what the hell did they expect?
But a crushing defeat for Labour in the 2010 election is unlikely to serve the interests of anyone on the left. My hope - and I think the hope of many anti-New Labourites on the left - was that the increased popularity of Cameron relative to previous Tory leaders would deliver a hung parliament, securing a Labour-Lib Dem coalition which would drag the country kicking and screaming into the political modern age with such innovations as proportional representation. But instead the Tories have climbed into a massive lead, and it now looks quite possible that the next election will deliver a 1983-style Conservative landslide which will destroy any chance of political innovation in the country for a generation. At least, unless the Tories prove to be so bloody incompetent that they get voted out after one term... but that's clutching at straws.
None of this is yet inevitable, of course, but I can't see how Labour can get out of this one without changing leader. Brown is out for the count. It's obvious to any observer (even The Observer!) that he hadn't ever expected to be in this weak a position - he thought he would have plenty of time to build on what looked like a good start in his first few months, finesse the position, and then kill off the weak Tory challenge, maybe in Spring 2009. Instead, his position collapsed completely over the winter as bad news on the economy was compounded by avoidable policy mistakes on stuff like the 10p tax debacle and 'discgate'.
The overall mood now is similar to the mid-90s. To use an old Malcolm MacLaren phrase, people are "sick and fed up" of the current govt and hence seem ready to endorse an alternative which offers almost exactly the same policies as the Blair/Brown years but just with a different set of faces. But to a large extent that's what they voted for in 1997, but the other way round.
The way forward must be a different set of policies which actually look appealing to anyone with a progressive bone in their body rather than the tired old crap being served up now. The campaign for the Crewe and Nantwich by-election was an embarrassment - an attack on alleged 'toff' Tories (including the Tory candidate) who were actually no more 'toffy' than their Labour counterparts. Blair and Ed Balls went to top public schools, ferchrissakes. Balls is the worst class war faker in the cabinet. Norman Tebbit - one of the most odious right-wingers ever to hold office in this country - is the product of a state school, as is the current Tory front bench's leading exponent of "hang 'em/flog 'em", David Davis. Tony Benn - perhaps the greatest left wing figure of the past 50 years in the UK - is an aristocrat who abandoned his heriditary peerage. Where someone is from, socially speaking, means f*** all. What matters is what they say and do now, and the struggle to create a society where these class distinctions don't exist. Both the Tories and New Labour have failed miserably at this latter objective, and there is nothing in either parties' programme to suggest that they will do any better next time round on current policies.
Well, I'd like to sign off for the moment by saying something about who I think should succeed Gordon Brown as leader if the Labour Party has the balls (no pun intended) to get rid of him before 2010, but I've already gone on long enough for now. So, more on that tomorrow. Hopefully June will be a more densely-posted month than May, which has been pretty skeletal. Sorry folks.
Being Gordon Brown right now must be like having Status Quo's "Down Down" on repeat play on the iPod (he's probably more likely to have a 70s rock classic like that on there than the Arctic Monkeys, whatever the spin doctors say.) Deeper and down... 23% for Labour in the latest YouGov poll.
Whilst Brown is a duffer in many respects - an appalling bully at work (just ask anyone you know who has worked with him), obsessed with fiddly schemes that deliver good objectives badly (PPPs for additional public sector investment, tax credits for redistribution), mates with the editor of the Daily Mail, etc, infatuated with an unworkable and irrelevant obsession with 'Britishness' - it gives me no great pleasure to see him in this position. Tony Blair, a far more evil and dangerous figure, seems to have escaped relatively scot-free from the government's present morass and difficulties. He's off travelling the world, talking crap about faith, getting big money on the lecture circuit, while the remnants of the Labour party reap what he (partially) sowed. Some will say that's fair enough... Labour members voted in droves for Blair to become leader in 1994, what the hell did they expect?
But a crushing defeat for Labour in the 2010 election is unlikely to serve the interests of anyone on the left. My hope - and I think the hope of many anti-New Labourites on the left - was that the increased popularity of Cameron relative to previous Tory leaders would deliver a hung parliament, securing a Labour-Lib Dem coalition which would drag the country kicking and screaming into the political modern age with such innovations as proportional representation. But instead the Tories have climbed into a massive lead, and it now looks quite possible that the next election will deliver a 1983-style Conservative landslide which will destroy any chance of political innovation in the country for a generation. At least, unless the Tories prove to be so bloody incompetent that they get voted out after one term... but that's clutching at straws.
None of this is yet inevitable, of course, but I can't see how Labour can get out of this one without changing leader. Brown is out for the count. It's obvious to any observer (even The Observer!) that he hadn't ever expected to be in this weak a position - he thought he would have plenty of time to build on what looked like a good start in his first few months, finesse the position, and then kill off the weak Tory challenge, maybe in Spring 2009. Instead, his position collapsed completely over the winter as bad news on the economy was compounded by avoidable policy mistakes on stuff like the 10p tax debacle and 'discgate'.
The overall mood now is similar to the mid-90s. To use an old Malcolm MacLaren phrase, people are "sick and fed up" of the current govt and hence seem ready to endorse an alternative which offers almost exactly the same policies as the Blair/Brown years but just with a different set of faces. But to a large extent that's what they voted for in 1997, but the other way round.
The way forward must be a different set of policies which actually look appealing to anyone with a progressive bone in their body rather than the tired old crap being served up now. The campaign for the Crewe and Nantwich by-election was an embarrassment - an attack on alleged 'toff' Tories (including the Tory candidate) who were actually no more 'toffy' than their Labour counterparts. Blair and Ed Balls went to top public schools, ferchrissakes. Balls is the worst class war faker in the cabinet. Norman Tebbit - one of the most odious right-wingers ever to hold office in this country - is the product of a state school, as is the current Tory front bench's leading exponent of "hang 'em/flog 'em", David Davis. Tony Benn - perhaps the greatest left wing figure of the past 50 years in the UK - is an aristocrat who abandoned his heriditary peerage. Where someone is from, socially speaking, means f*** all. What matters is what they say and do now, and the struggle to create a society where these class distinctions don't exist. Both the Tories and New Labour have failed miserably at this latter objective, and there is nothing in either parties' programme to suggest that they will do any better next time round on current policies.
Well, I'd like to sign off for the moment by saying something about who I think should succeed Gordon Brown as leader if the Labour Party has the balls (no pun intended) to get rid of him before 2010, but I've already gone on long enough for now. So, more on that tomorrow. Hopefully June will be a more densely-posted month than May, which has been pretty skeletal. Sorry folks.
29 May 2008
twat
I've said it before and I'll say it again, but just so you know for sure...
Tony Blair is a twat.
A quote:
"Faith is part of our future, and faith and the values it brings with it are an essential part of making globalisation work."
If making globalisation work means bombing the World Trade Center in the name of Islam, or invading Lebabon in the name of Judaism, or turning the USA into a fascist state in the name of 'Christian family values', he's dead right. Except he's actually just Right (of centre). And it increasingly looks like we're dead.
Richard Dawkins is right (small 'r'), Tony Blair is hopelessly wrong. Religion is one of the greatest dangers we face in the 21st century, along with climate change and multinational corporate power. The (un)holy triumvirate, if you will. Dawkins goes OTT sometimes in saying that anyone with a religious belief is a dangerous imbecile - that's clearly B.S. - but it's a damn sight closer to the truth than Blair's vision of reality. And in particular, given that the Catholic church is one of the worst exemplars of Stalinist, Orwellian thought-tyranny in the religious pantheon, Blair's recent conversion to Rome is a clear sign he is mentally unhinged.
All the same, I'm kind of relieved about Blair's reemergence as a religious zealot as it at least provides some kind of respite from reading how badly Gordon Brown is doing in the polls. And reminds us that whatever Brown's faults, compared with Tuberculosis Blair Gordon is God. If that's not too religious an expression.
Tony Blair is a twat.
A quote:
"Faith is part of our future, and faith and the values it brings with it are an essential part of making globalisation work."
If making globalisation work means bombing the World Trade Center in the name of Islam, or invading Lebabon in the name of Judaism, or turning the USA into a fascist state in the name of 'Christian family values', he's dead right. Except he's actually just Right (of centre). And it increasingly looks like we're dead.
Richard Dawkins is right (small 'r'), Tony Blair is hopelessly wrong. Religion is one of the greatest dangers we face in the 21st century, along with climate change and multinational corporate power. The (un)holy triumvirate, if you will. Dawkins goes OTT sometimes in saying that anyone with a religious belief is a dangerous imbecile - that's clearly B.S. - but it's a damn sight closer to the truth than Blair's vision of reality. And in particular, given that the Catholic church is one of the worst exemplars of Stalinist, Orwellian thought-tyranny in the religious pantheon, Blair's recent conversion to Rome is a clear sign he is mentally unhinged.
All the same, I'm kind of relieved about Blair's reemergence as a religious zealot as it at least provides some kind of respite from reading how badly Gordon Brown is doing in the polls. And reminds us that whatever Brown's faults, compared with Tuberculosis Blair Gordon is God. If that's not too religious an expression.
15 May 2008
A tepid fightback - but a fightback nonetheless.
Well, my prediction that Ken would hold on in London turned out to be doggy-do, and now we have Mayor Boris. Lucky us.
In the end I think a combination of the number of people Ken had managed to piss off during 8 years (4x4 drivers, people who don't like bendy buses, etc.) and the fall-out from the general unpopularity of the Government finished him off.
And what unpopularity it is. The government is now plumbing depths unheard of since the 1982-3 period when Michael Foot was "in charge". Down to 23% in the latest polls, with the Tories on 49%... it's grim reading, for sure.
Hence the attempted fightback this week. A two-pronged strategy:
But so what? It was a daft rule in the first place. While it's generally agreed among economists that if the ratio of debt to GDP were to rise steadily over time, eventually this would be become unsustainable, there's no reason why breaching a specific level of debt to GDP should have any adverse effects. 40%, 50%, 60% - it doesn't really matter provided there's some expectation that the ratio will stabilise at some point in the future rather than spiralling out of control. Really, the substainable investment rule always was dodgy economics, and the Government would do well to drop it if at all possible, and replace it with some looser criterion specifying that debt should be kept within 'manageable' levels or some such phrase.
Still, a fightback was certainly called for after the mauling the Government suffered in the local elections. No guarantees whatsoever that the apology over the 10p tax rate will have any positive impact, but it was the right thing to do. Now they need to put some sort of strategy in place so they don't keep making these basic errors...
Personnel-wise it's hard to see Alistair Darling making it past the summer recess. He is damaged goods, even though the 10p debacle wasn't his fault (it was announced when Brown was still chancellor). He will be thrown to the wolves as a sacrifice. Alan Johnson would be a good replacement - especially as, if there is a leadership challenge to Brown (not impossible if his poll ratings are static or get worse over the summer), it is Johnson who would be one of the strongest candidates. But more on that another day.
In the end I think a combination of the number of people Ken had managed to piss off during 8 years (4x4 drivers, people who don't like bendy buses, etc.) and the fall-out from the general unpopularity of the Government finished him off.
And what unpopularity it is. The government is now plumbing depths unheard of since the 1982-3 period when Michael Foot was "in charge". Down to 23% in the latest polls, with the Tories on 49%... it's grim reading, for sure.
Hence the attempted fightback this week. A two-pronged strategy:
- a £600 increase in the income tax personal allowance, meaning that any basic rate taxpayer will gain £120, hence being compensated for the abolition of the 10p tax rate.
- a raft of new policy measures announced in Parliament yesterday.
But so what? It was a daft rule in the first place. While it's generally agreed among economists that if the ratio of debt to GDP were to rise steadily over time, eventually this would be become unsustainable, there's no reason why breaching a specific level of debt to GDP should have any adverse effects. 40%, 50%, 60% - it doesn't really matter provided there's some expectation that the ratio will stabilise at some point in the future rather than spiralling out of control. Really, the substainable investment rule always was dodgy economics, and the Government would do well to drop it if at all possible, and replace it with some looser criterion specifying that debt should be kept within 'manageable' levels or some such phrase.
Still, a fightback was certainly called for after the mauling the Government suffered in the local elections. No guarantees whatsoever that the apology over the 10p tax rate will have any positive impact, but it was the right thing to do. Now they need to put some sort of strategy in place so they don't keep making these basic errors...
Personnel-wise it's hard to see Alistair Darling making it past the summer recess. He is damaged goods, even though the 10p debacle wasn't his fault (it was announced when Brown was still chancellor). He will be thrown to the wolves as a sacrifice. Alan Johnson would be a good replacement - especially as, if there is a leadership challenge to Brown (not impossible if his poll ratings are static or get worse over the summer), it is Johnson who would be one of the strongest candidates. But more on that another day.
02 May 2008
Local election disaster - Brown is lame, and it shows
Well, on current trends it looks very much like Gordon Brown is going to "do a John Major", but sadly, without emulating Major's teeth-pulling election victory of '92 first. Brown is going straight down, and taking the Labour party, all the way from the hard left to the Blairite crypto-Tories, with him.
For the first time since 1992 the Conservative party is getting a projected national vote share (44%) which would win an overall Tory majority if repeated at a general election, even given the biases in the electoral system. It's a savage prospect for sure, and Gordon is not in danger of overturning the nightmare any time soon. Indeed, his speciality is finding new holes to dig with one hand while his other hand digs the increasing number of existing holes deeper. And deeper.
Here's the condensed Gordon Brown guide to becoming Prime Minister:
The problem is that the worst predictions of the dreadful anti-Brown crypto-Tories who surrounded Blair - Matthew Taylor, Phil Collins (not the singer, sadly) etc. are coming true. John Hutton famously said that Brown would make "a f***ing awful Prime Minister", and whilst he's almost never right about anything, that statement seems to be an exception.
Some of this is due to the dire position which ten years of Blair/Brown dual control of UK plc has left us. With the UK economy pumped up by an unsustainable asset and debt boom, when the credit crunch hit, we were stuck up slack alley with no reverse gear... just waiting for the economic collapse. When you've spent ten years talking about stability, to see it suddenly whipped away like the most flimsy house of cards in history must be a tough gig to handle.
Equally, the lunacy of many of the Blair/Brown public sector reforms - which involve paying as much money to private sector consultants and infrastructure companies as possible, to deliver badly built, overpriced schools and hospitals, and management consultancy whose productivity impacts are, if anything, negative - has now swallowed up so many of our tax pounds that, when it's combined with rampant inflation in essential goods like food and fuel, people are feeling the pinch.
Notice I've said "Blair/Brown" rather than "Blair" above and that's very important. The current crisis is partly due to the idiocy of Blair, but Brown was a willing participant in all of this (and in some cases the initiator of these crazy policies - tube PPP, for instance). That's why it's very difficult for him to make a clean break with the failures of the Blair years.
It would mean having to undergo a Blues Brothers - like instant conversion to radical politics - this could perhaps be stage-managed at the next Labour conference. A shaft of light appearing say, a third of the way through another lumpen Gordon speech, and then suddenly, he's a changed man. Out goes that f***ing awful blue tie and back comes the red tie of the 2003 Conference speech ("we're best when we're labour" etc.) He needs to start by emulating Nikita Kruschev at the 1956 Soviet Party Congress. Kruschev's denunciation of Stalin set the tone for the Cold War's "detente" years and Brown could spark a similar new era by jettisoning the whole Blair legacy in one fell swoop. The speech needs to go something like this:
Only a total relaunch - in policy and people terms - can save the Nu-Lab project now. What is least likely to save it is yet more sanctimonious, dunderhead b.s. about "listen and lead" (Speak and Spell?) and "tough decisions in difficult times". I know we live in environmentally conscious times but please, someone change the f***ing record on Gordon. The public are sick to death of hearing a Budget speech that was stale as far back as 2000, with the nouns slightly changed each time according to the policy area being discussed. And can we ban any talk of "Britishness" please? The BNP performed spectacularly poorly. So that's enough of that, then.
I could turn the situation around so that in 18 months' time Labour would have a narrow poll lead or at least level pegging - starting with that conference speech. But I won't. Partly 'cos they'd never give me the job anyway, and partly 'cos I wouldn't take an adviser job even if it were on offer. So go on Gordon... lose big time. See if we care. RIP.
(By the way... my earlier prediction of a Ken victory looks to have been pretty damn wrong, so I'm sorry if I spread false hope. All hail Boris the blond bombshell. So glad I got the hell out of London in 2000 now. Around the time that Gordon speech started to grate... more on London soon when we have the actual results, god help us.)
For the first time since 1992 the Conservative party is getting a projected national vote share (44%) which would win an overall Tory majority if repeated at a general election, even given the biases in the electoral system. It's a savage prospect for sure, and Gordon is not in danger of overturning the nightmare any time soon. Indeed, his speciality is finding new holes to dig with one hand while his other hand digs the increasing number of existing holes deeper. And deeper.
Here's the condensed Gordon Brown guide to becoming Prime Minister:
- spend a few months tweaking round the edges of your predecessor's policies whilst wandering about on camera trying to look hard.
- when your poll rating inexplicably rises, toy with the idea of a general election (preferably for so long that even your best friends and advisers get bored).
- At the first signs of a political response from the Conservative party, run back to the red corner with your tail between your legs.
- Do an impression of the most tongue-tied, complacent moron possible.
- Repeat until dead.
The problem is that the worst predictions of the dreadful anti-Brown crypto-Tories who surrounded Blair - Matthew Taylor, Phil Collins (not the singer, sadly) etc. are coming true. John Hutton famously said that Brown would make "a f***ing awful Prime Minister", and whilst he's almost never right about anything, that statement seems to be an exception.
Some of this is due to the dire position which ten years of Blair/Brown dual control of UK plc has left us. With the UK economy pumped up by an unsustainable asset and debt boom, when the credit crunch hit, we were stuck up slack alley with no reverse gear... just waiting for the economic collapse. When you've spent ten years talking about stability, to see it suddenly whipped away like the most flimsy house of cards in history must be a tough gig to handle.
Equally, the lunacy of many of the Blair/Brown public sector reforms - which involve paying as much money to private sector consultants and infrastructure companies as possible, to deliver badly built, overpriced schools and hospitals, and management consultancy whose productivity impacts are, if anything, negative - has now swallowed up so many of our tax pounds that, when it's combined with rampant inflation in essential goods like food and fuel, people are feeling the pinch.
Notice I've said "Blair/Brown" rather than "Blair" above and that's very important. The current crisis is partly due to the idiocy of Blair, but Brown was a willing participant in all of this (and in some cases the initiator of these crazy policies - tube PPP, for instance). That's why it's very difficult for him to make a clean break with the failures of the Blair years.
It would mean having to undergo a Blues Brothers - like instant conversion to radical politics - this could perhaps be stage-managed at the next Labour conference. A shaft of light appearing say, a third of the way through another lumpen Gordon speech, and then suddenly, he's a changed man. Out goes that f***ing awful blue tie and back comes the red tie of the 2003 Conference speech ("we're best when we're labour" etc.) He needs to start by emulating Nikita Kruschev at the 1956 Soviet Party Congress. Kruschev's denunciation of Stalin set the tone for the Cold War's "detente" years and Brown could spark a similar new era by jettisoning the whole Blair legacy in one fell swoop. The speech needs to go something like this:
(pointing to picture of Blair forming the conference backdrop) "see this guy here? You remember him from a couple of years back? Well, he was WRONG! And so was I. WE WAS WRONG!!! (huge red cross is superimposed over backdrop, which fades into collage of many of the dictators of the past - Stalin, Mao, Maggie Thatcher, Rupert Murdoch, Richard Bowker, etc.) From now on it's NEW New Labour! Let a thousand flowers bloom. PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS FOR ALL! AN END TO PFI! etc. etc. etc.Personnel changes would also be essential. The Blairite detritus currently clogging up the cabinet table would be summarily dismissed. Hutton, Blears, Purnell... all for the chop. And demotions for rubbishy Brownites like Ed Balls and Alastair Darling. Promotions for solid and trustworthy performers: Denham, Benn, Ed Miliband. Most importantly of all, a senior cabinet job for John Cruddas - I recommend Home Secretary. A replacement for Darling at No 11? It's got to be Alan Johnson. Trusted, respectable, comprehensible to people from the South.
Only a total relaunch - in policy and people terms - can save the Nu-Lab project now. What is least likely to save it is yet more sanctimonious, dunderhead b.s. about "listen and lead" (Speak and Spell?) and "tough decisions in difficult times". I know we live in environmentally conscious times but please, someone change the f***ing record on Gordon. The public are sick to death of hearing a Budget speech that was stale as far back as 2000, with the nouns slightly changed each time according to the policy area being discussed. And can we ban any talk of "Britishness" please? The BNP performed spectacularly poorly. So that's enough of that, then.
I could turn the situation around so that in 18 months' time Labour would have a narrow poll lead or at least level pegging - starting with that conference speech. But I won't. Partly 'cos they'd never give me the job anyway, and partly 'cos I wouldn't take an adviser job even if it were on offer. So go on Gordon... lose big time. See if we care. RIP.
(By the way... my earlier prediction of a Ken victory looks to have been pretty damn wrong, so I'm sorry if I spread false hope. All hail Boris the blond bombshell. So glad I got the hell out of London in 2000 now. Around the time that Gordon speech started to grate... more on London soon when we have the actual results, god help us.)
28 April 2008
Don't believe the ES BS - Ken can (and probably will) still win in London
I don't read the gutter tabloid press much, but the Evening Standard's assault on Ken Livingstone is real back-to-the-80s Tory vitriol of a kind that no-one since Neil Kinnock has had to face with such ferocity.
Almost every single Standard headline for the last two months at least has been rabid anti-Ken propaganda. Ken is being bankrolled by some nasty bunch or other - tube drivers, Islamofascists, Mothers for Peace, etc. Ken is pissed on the job. Ken's advisers are communists. Ken eats live newts for tea. Ken is ten to fifteen points behind Boris Johnson on whatever bogus poll YouGov have made up next. And the BS goes on. And on. And on.
Now, I'm no slavish Ken supporter. Yep, I gave £50 to the 'purple' Mayor campaign of 2000 when he ran as an independent and kicked Frank Dobson's cuddly ass back to Camden. But I thought his decision to revert to Labour was a shame as it immediately meant he didn't have full latitude to denounce the many bullshit policies which the Treasury have saddled London with - Tube PPPs, anyone? - and that he would be vulnerable to being tarred with the same brush as an unpopular Blair (or now, Brown) Labour Government.
I was doubly worried by certain features of the Dispatches documentary screened on Channel 4 back in February. It was appallingly biased rubbish for sure, but there were certain legitimate criticisms. It's by no means a good idea for Livingstone to be drinking on the job, for example. (I know loads of MPs do the same, but no-one outside the Guido Fawkes blog and the Oliver Reed appreciation society would seriously endorse this kind of behaviour.) And Livingstone's decision to grant a platform to homophobic Islamic preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi was, as Peter Tatchell has pointed out, a disgrace.
But, on balance, who would you really rather have? Ken, who has made several mistakes but who may be the last serious left-wing politician left in any kind of major office in this country? Or Boris Johnson, who is either a flaky buffoon, a right-wing extremist, or (likely) both? It's a no-brainer.
If I were based in London my vote would be (1) Sian Berry (2) Ken and I think that, despite the increased discontent over the national government, he will prevail on Thursday. Forget the YouGov polls showing a 10 point lead (or more) for Boris - they're codswallop. I'm a YouGov panelist and I just enter complete garbage to get my 50p a survey. Literally, I enter complete random nonsense in the surveys. Also it's a self-selected sample - you actively apply to join YouGov, you're not approached by pollsters. Additionally, by definition, no-one without internet access is on the YouGov panel. So how the hell can it be representative?
YouGov are being used by the Evening Standard as part of an out-and-out war against Ken Livingstone. This kind of one-sided coverage presents the greatest danger to our free society (such as it is) since the Thatcherite media fascism of the 1980s. Really, during the elections the papers should have to follow a special rule: whenever a negative story is run on one of the mayoral candidates, the paper should have to allow an equal amount of space for reply by the mayoral candidate who is attacked in the story. Conversely, whenever a positive story is run on one of the mayoral candidates, the other mayoral candidates should get a right of reply equal in size to the original story. This rule could also be extended for General Elections. One way or another, rampant political propaganda and bias in our national newspapers has to be stamped out - whether it's pro-Tory, New Labour, or anything else. As Billy Bragg put it,
Almost every single Standard headline for the last two months at least has been rabid anti-Ken propaganda. Ken is being bankrolled by some nasty bunch or other - tube drivers, Islamofascists, Mothers for Peace, etc. Ken is pissed on the job. Ken's advisers are communists. Ken eats live newts for tea. Ken is ten to fifteen points behind Boris Johnson on whatever bogus poll YouGov have made up next. And the BS goes on. And on. And on.
Now, I'm no slavish Ken supporter. Yep, I gave £50 to the 'purple' Mayor campaign of 2000 when he ran as an independent and kicked Frank Dobson's cuddly ass back to Camden. But I thought his decision to revert to Labour was a shame as it immediately meant he didn't have full latitude to denounce the many bullshit policies which the Treasury have saddled London with - Tube PPPs, anyone? - and that he would be vulnerable to being tarred with the same brush as an unpopular Blair (or now, Brown) Labour Government.
I was doubly worried by certain features of the Dispatches documentary screened on Channel 4 back in February. It was appallingly biased rubbish for sure, but there were certain legitimate criticisms. It's by no means a good idea for Livingstone to be drinking on the job, for example. (I know loads of MPs do the same, but no-one outside the Guido Fawkes blog and the Oliver Reed appreciation society would seriously endorse this kind of behaviour.) And Livingstone's decision to grant a platform to homophobic Islamic preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi was, as Peter Tatchell has pointed out, a disgrace.
But, on balance, who would you really rather have? Ken, who has made several mistakes but who may be the last serious left-wing politician left in any kind of major office in this country? Or Boris Johnson, who is either a flaky buffoon, a right-wing extremist, or (likely) both? It's a no-brainer.
If I were based in London my vote would be (1) Sian Berry (2) Ken and I think that, despite the increased discontent over the national government, he will prevail on Thursday. Forget the YouGov polls showing a 10 point lead (or more) for Boris - they're codswallop. I'm a YouGov panelist and I just enter complete garbage to get my 50p a survey. Literally, I enter complete random nonsense in the surveys. Also it's a self-selected sample - you actively apply to join YouGov, you're not approached by pollsters. Additionally, by definition, no-one without internet access is on the YouGov panel. So how the hell can it be representative?
YouGov are being used by the Evening Standard as part of an out-and-out war against Ken Livingstone. This kind of one-sided coverage presents the greatest danger to our free society (such as it is) since the Thatcherite media fascism of the 1980s. Really, during the elections the papers should have to follow a special rule: whenever a negative story is run on one of the mayoral candidates, the paper should have to allow an equal amount of space for reply by the mayoral candidate who is attacked in the story. Conversely, whenever a positive story is run on one of the mayoral candidates, the other mayoral candidates should get a right of reply equal in size to the original story. This rule could also be extended for General Elections. One way or another, rampant political propaganda and bias in our national newspapers has to be stamped out - whether it's pro-Tory, New Labour, or anything else. As Billy Bragg put it,
When you wake up to the fact that your paper is Tory
Just remember there are two sides to every story.
25 April 2008
Been off the case for a bit but the news is still making me laugh...
Hi there - been so busy over the last month I've had very little opportunity to post but fortunately the news remains hilarious, so you've got plenty to entertain yourselves with. Two good examples from today's BBC website:
- Jails 'too comfy' to merit escape - Prison Officers Association spokesman Glyn Travis (named after the Blakes 7 character? Does he have an eyepatch?) reckons that inmates are happy to stay inside as they can get hold of drugs, mobile phones and sex. It's very similar to being at school or college, in other words - so why not run a story saying "universities too comfy to merit graduation"?. Reporting of this story strikes me as bizarre - for one thing, shouldn't we be pleased if inmates aren't trying to escape from prison? Also, if prisons are "too nice" for people to want to get out, isn't it some indication that the quality of the life experience outside prison needs to be raised, rather than making the inside even more f***ing awful than it already is? And isn't the prison service doing the country a favour by acclimatising prisoners to the conditions they will face when the UK turns into one big police state any day soon - "look guys, here's how it is. You have to get up early to work to an externally imposed timetable and you don't have any say in how your life is run, but look on the bright side: there's drugs. And sex. And mobile phones (perhaps all 3 in the same package?)"?
- Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond is advising Scottish drivers not to panic buy fuel in advance of the Grangemouth refinery strike. Dunno about you, but I can't think of anything more likely to make me want to go straight out and buy a full tank (at least) than a leading politician coming on the telly and saying "don't worry. The fuel's not going to run out". Probably if Salmond went on and said "oh yes! You should panic buy! And you'll be helping the economy too as petrol stations have put prices up by 15p a litre to take advantage of your generosity!"... that would put paid to any shortages. Pychology, dear boy.
09 April 2008
Proud to be British (or French) for once
In what often seems to be a tumult of news downers, I was very pleased that the Olympic torch relay was disrupted by pro-Tibet protests in Paris and London.
It could only have been better if the UK Government had impounded the Olmpic torch and said we ain't giving it back to China until they end the illegal occupation of Tibet.
But of course they won't do that because this isn't a 'progressive' UK regime, it's a bunch of apologists for a reactionary dictatorship whose action in Tibet makes Saddam Hussein look like Jimmy Carter. It's hilarious to see people like Tessa Jowell apologising for the Chinese regime and saying the protesters are degrading the Olympics... and where the hell are the neo-Cons when you need them? Why isn't John McCain out there saying 'invade China now'? Why isn't the f***er in the front line? Jesus, you can't rely on anybody.
It could only have been better if the UK Government had impounded the Olmpic torch and said we ain't giving it back to China until they end the illegal occupation of Tibet.
But of course they won't do that because this isn't a 'progressive' UK regime, it's a bunch of apologists for a reactionary dictatorship whose action in Tibet makes Saddam Hussein look like Jimmy Carter. It's hilarious to see people like Tessa Jowell apologising for the Chinese regime and saying the protesters are degrading the Olympics... and where the hell are the neo-Cons when you need them? Why isn't John McCain out there saying 'invade China now'? Why isn't the f***er in the front line? Jesus, you can't rely on anybody.
...and some more worrying news (or is it?)
Finally some data comes through to back up the 'house price crash' theory... Halifax released data showing a 2.5% month-on-month fall in average prices. Don't all jump out the window at once, folks... the Halifax and Nationwide indices of house prices are notoriously volatile. Nonetheless it would have been pretty extraordinary if there hadn't been some kind of fall in the wake of the credit crunch.
But so what? Prices have been ludicrously inflated for years now. Restoring some kind of sanity to the market would be a blessed relief. We should be more worried about the increase in global food prices than the fall in UK house prices...
But so what? Prices have been ludicrously inflated for years now. Restoring some kind of sanity to the market would be a blessed relief. We should be more worried about the increase in global food prices than the fall in UK house prices...
03 April 2008
The credit crunch: worrying trends...
Flipping through the news to find the latest stories on the credit crunch is revealing a worrying picture. It's like watching a huge explosion in very slow motion - the bomb ticking under the global financial system has already gone off, but most of the fallout hasn't reached the general public yet.
But it is on the way... for example, in the last couple of days, First Direct and the Co-operative Bank have withdrawn mortgage deals from new customers. They say it's because they have been swamped with applications after other lenders have raised interest rates on mortgages for new applicants. Possibly... or it could be that they can't secure adequate financing at reasonable rates to make it economical to take on new business (in which case, expect FD and the Co-op to raise their rates soon too). Whatever, the outcome is that if you want a mortgage you're gonna currently be chasing an ever-shrinking pool of reasonable offers and you may end up having to pay much more than you would have done six or twelve months ago. That is going to hit the housing market very hard... after the crazy inflation of the last decade, we may now be looking at an early-90s style property crash.
At the same time, Wednesday's Evening Standard carried the headline 'Home owners in debt binge.' I eventually managed to find the story even though their website is complete crap, and although it claims to be based on new data released from the Bank of England I'm pretty sure that in actual fact, like most ES stories, it is recycled from something run on the BBC website a few weeks before, suitably distorted and exaggerated. (Quick aside: apart from the Will Self column, which is damn fine coffeeee, the Standard is hopeless rubbish populated by vacuous imbeciles without a writing brain between them. But anyway).
The gist of the story was that credit card debt and bank loans and overdrafts both went up in February according to the Bank of England figures, whereas given the shortage of credit, one would have expected a fall, other things being equal. But of course other things ain't equal... the Standard reckons that consumers are being forced into other lines of credit now that mortgage deals are getting harder and more expensive to come by. To quote, "the fear is that once borrowers have exhausted all sources of credit, many will be forced into insolvency or have to give up their homes." Quite possibly: still, seeing as insolvency only seems to last for about 2 weeks now before people are allowed back on the treadmill (an attempt to promote 'Enterprise Britain' apparently), will anyone care?
All the same, it is worrying. To use a (no doubt inappropriate) analogy, the data coming out at the moment make the UK financial sector look like a dying star running out of its basic fuel - hydrogen (aka mortgages) for fusion reactions, which is then forced to turn to the heavier elements - helium etc (credit cards and overdrafts) to prolong the show for a little while before the whole system finally collapses. We seem to be living on borrowed time. All this begins to make Gordon Brown's chances of re-election in 2010 (as it will almost certainly be, not 2009) slim as hell, although he could yet do a John Major and win in the teeth of everything if Cameron and Osborne contrive to look lame-ass enough.
For me, though, it is now time to do the Smart Thing... start betting heavily on the Tories to win in 2010. If nothing else, it provides a fighting/survival fund to endure what will no doubt be one of the most vicious and retarded periods of govt seen in Blighty since the last Tory accession of 1979. Hunter S Thompson would have died laughing at all this (if he weren't dead already... girl, you know the reason why.)
But it is on the way... for example, in the last couple of days, First Direct and the Co-operative Bank have withdrawn mortgage deals from new customers. They say it's because they have been swamped with applications after other lenders have raised interest rates on mortgages for new applicants. Possibly... or it could be that they can't secure adequate financing at reasonable rates to make it economical to take on new business (in which case, expect FD and the Co-op to raise their rates soon too). Whatever, the outcome is that if you want a mortgage you're gonna currently be chasing an ever-shrinking pool of reasonable offers and you may end up having to pay much more than you would have done six or twelve months ago. That is going to hit the housing market very hard... after the crazy inflation of the last decade, we may now be looking at an early-90s style property crash.
At the same time, Wednesday's Evening Standard carried the headline 'Home owners in debt binge.' I eventually managed to find the story even though their website is complete crap, and although it claims to be based on new data released from the Bank of England I'm pretty sure that in actual fact, like most ES stories, it is recycled from something run on the BBC website a few weeks before, suitably distorted and exaggerated. (Quick aside: apart from the Will Self column, which is damn fine coffeeee, the Standard is hopeless rubbish populated by vacuous imbeciles without a writing brain between them. But anyway).
The gist of the story was that credit card debt and bank loans and overdrafts both went up in February according to the Bank of England figures, whereas given the shortage of credit, one would have expected a fall, other things being equal. But of course other things ain't equal... the Standard reckons that consumers are being forced into other lines of credit now that mortgage deals are getting harder and more expensive to come by. To quote, "the fear is that once borrowers have exhausted all sources of credit, many will be forced into insolvency or have to give up their homes." Quite possibly: still, seeing as insolvency only seems to last for about 2 weeks now before people are allowed back on the treadmill (an attempt to promote 'Enterprise Britain' apparently), will anyone care?
All the same, it is worrying. To use a (no doubt inappropriate) analogy, the data coming out at the moment make the UK financial sector look like a dying star running out of its basic fuel - hydrogen (aka mortgages) for fusion reactions, which is then forced to turn to the heavier elements - helium etc (credit cards and overdrafts) to prolong the show for a little while before the whole system finally collapses. We seem to be living on borrowed time. All this begins to make Gordon Brown's chances of re-election in 2010 (as it will almost certainly be, not 2009) slim as hell, although he could yet do a John Major and win in the teeth of everything if Cameron and Osborne contrive to look lame-ass enough.
For me, though, it is now time to do the Smart Thing... start betting heavily on the Tories to win in 2010. If nothing else, it provides a fighting/survival fund to endure what will no doubt be one of the most vicious and retarded periods of govt seen in Blighty since the last Tory accession of 1979. Hunter S Thompson would have died laughing at all this (if he weren't dead already... girl, you know the reason why.)
27 March 2008
Heathrow Terminal 5 gets off to a great start
Could almost have guessed that this would happen, but it's still amusing. Thank god I don't fly any more than I have to (which is almost never. Those poor bastards. Our poor planet.
Olympics: boycott, or better...
Been out of action on the blog again for a week - apologies. I took a week off work this week and have been trying to keep away from dirty old politics and look round a few galleries and stuff.
But it's been hard to keep away from two stories - firstly the 'debate' over the embryo bill (if one can call it that, as it seems to boil down to a few reactionary Catholic clergy against the rest of us, who use our brains to think through an issue rather than relying on a Stalinist diktat from the Vatican) on the other); and secondly the debate over whether to boycott the Olympics - which is a little more nuanced.
Many, many people are now calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics in protest at human rights violations by the Chinese government, most obviously in Tibet. I'm sympathetic - certainly if the US felt justified in boycotting Moscow in 1980 then there's just as much reason, if not more, to boycott in this case.
Having said that, there may be a way to express protest which is even more effective than a boycott. I don't know if the Great Britain kit design for the athletes competing in the games has yet been finalised, but if it were possible to include on the vests, in as large letters as possible, "FREE TIBET NOW" (in Chinese and English), this would be an effective way of getting the message across while continuing to compete. If every country attending the games included the "FREE TIBET NOW" slogan on their kits, in Chinese and their own language, this would send a big signal to the Chinese government regarding just what we think of the Tibet occupation. They would then have a choice of (a) cancelling the games to avoid the Tibet publicity - which would totally backfire; (b) arresting all competitors from other countries and continuing the games with Chinese competitors only; or (c) continuing the games and giving free publicity to the Tibetan cause. Either way, it would be a big statement. So how about it? Oh, sorry, I forgot, London is hosting the Olympics in 2012 and so we need to avoid pissing off other regimes, no matter what a bunch of bastards they are, so that they won't impose a reciprocal boycott and damage 'our' games. Silly me...
But it's been hard to keep away from two stories - firstly the 'debate' over the embryo bill (if one can call it that, as it seems to boil down to a few reactionary Catholic clergy against the rest of us, who use our brains to think through an issue rather than relying on a Stalinist diktat from the Vatican) on the other); and secondly the debate over whether to boycott the Olympics - which is a little more nuanced.
Many, many people are now calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics in protest at human rights violations by the Chinese government, most obviously in Tibet. I'm sympathetic - certainly if the US felt justified in boycotting Moscow in 1980 then there's just as much reason, if not more, to boycott in this case.
Having said that, there may be a way to express protest which is even more effective than a boycott. I don't know if the Great Britain kit design for the athletes competing in the games has yet been finalised, but if it were possible to include on the vests, in as large letters as possible, "FREE TIBET NOW" (in Chinese and English), this would be an effective way of getting the message across while continuing to compete. If every country attending the games included the "FREE TIBET NOW" slogan on their kits, in Chinese and their own language, this would send a big signal to the Chinese government regarding just what we think of the Tibet occupation. They would then have a choice of (a) cancelling the games to avoid the Tibet publicity - which would totally backfire; (b) arresting all competitors from other countries and continuing the games with Chinese competitors only; or (c) continuing the games and giving free publicity to the Tibetan cause. Either way, it would be a big statement. So how about it? Oh, sorry, I forgot, London is hosting the Olympics in 2012 and so we need to avoid pissing off other regimes, no matter what a bunch of bastards they are, so that they won't impose a reciprocal boycott and damage 'our' games. Silly me...
20 March 2008
FSA: a pointless (and maybe counterproductive) search
The FSA is investigating whether false rumours are being deliberately spread to undermine the value of shares. They are pointing the finger at "short sellers" - people who sell stocks they don't have (using derivatives based on the stock's current share price) and then buy when the price goes down. Apparently these people are behaving irresponsibly, or unpatriotically, or something like that. (By following the maxim "buy low, sell high", which I thought the whole financial system was based on... but never mind).
This was sparked by the big fall in the price of HBOS (Halifax/Bank of Scotland) shares last week after rumours that the bank was in trouble. But, given that Bear Stearns was insisting it was in fine financial fettle until about 24 hours before it collapsed and had to be bailed out by the US Federal Reserve, can anybody blame financial traders for believing negative rumours? Might it not be more rational to believe bad news about banks than good news in the current climate?
How on earth are the FSA going to identify the people starting the rumours, anyway? Everyone will just say they were going on information they heard elsewhere and the whole thing will go round in a circle. So, short of fining all market participants, there doesn't look like much the FSA can do. Their statement looks like complete hot air to me, and if anything, is likely to spook the markets even more. In the current climate, if someone in authority tells you everything is all right, it almost definitely isn't. As soon as another UK bank gets into Northern Rock - style difficulties - which will probably happen soon - the FSA's stance will be blown right out of the water. Better to say "we are in uncharted waters, and caveat emptor" (or indeed caveat vendor) as far as financial transactions go". But they would prefer to bullshit people... so be it.
Anyone who is buying and selling in the current climate (rather than holding on for a reversion to normal market conditions, which will surely come at some point, even if a few years down the line - and if it doesn't it probably means the whole system has collapsed, in which case why the hell are you still bothering with stocks and shares when we've got a new society to construct - GET OUT ON THE STREETS!!!) is a moron in any case, and deserves what they get. (Or someone who has been very badly financially advised, in which case... SUE.)
This was sparked by the big fall in the price of HBOS (Halifax/Bank of Scotland) shares last week after rumours that the bank was in trouble. But, given that Bear Stearns was insisting it was in fine financial fettle until about 24 hours before it collapsed and had to be bailed out by the US Federal Reserve, can anybody blame financial traders for believing negative rumours? Might it not be more rational to believe bad news about banks than good news in the current climate?
How on earth are the FSA going to identify the people starting the rumours, anyway? Everyone will just say they were going on information they heard elsewhere and the whole thing will go round in a circle. So, short of fining all market participants, there doesn't look like much the FSA can do. Their statement looks like complete hot air to me, and if anything, is likely to spook the markets even more. In the current climate, if someone in authority tells you everything is all right, it almost definitely isn't. As soon as another UK bank gets into Northern Rock - style difficulties - which will probably happen soon - the FSA's stance will be blown right out of the water. Better to say "we are in uncharted waters, and caveat emptor" (or indeed caveat vendor) as far as financial transactions go". But they would prefer to bullshit people... so be it.
Anyone who is buying and selling in the current climate (rather than holding on for a reversion to normal market conditions, which will surely come at some point, even if a few years down the line - and if it doesn't it probably means the whole system has collapsed, in which case why the hell are you still bothering with stocks and shares when we've got a new society to construct - GET OUT ON THE STREETS!!!) is a moron in any case, and deserves what they get. (Or someone who has been very badly financially advised, in which case... SUE.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)