Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, 25 August 2010

I Love You West Bromwich Albion

The Albion's new signing and my new hero Peter Odemwingie made his debut at the weekend in the lone striker role. He played well, worked hard, showed no little skill and scored the winner. What is more in his post-match interview he was charming, articulate and self-effacing.

And then I learned a couple of days later that the fans of his previous club Lokomotiv Moscow had marked his departure with this banner:


The banana, of course, is meant to indicate that Odemwingie is a monkey. He is half-Nigerian and half-Uzbekistani. Does he really look like a monkey?


As distasteful as this truly is, the response of my fellow Baggies has been wonderful. The blogosphere and message boards have been busy spreading the word and a fast-growing Facebook group expressing out disgust at this racism has been created. A banner has been designed and is in production, hopefully to be on display at our next home game:


Of course we do have form in this regard. In the 70s the Albion were at the forefront of the integration of black players into English football; while most clubs in England were exclusively white we had three black guys in the first team (in contrast Everton didn't manage to find a black player who was good enough to play regularly for their team until the 1990s). And it was a superb team too.

It's made me even prouder to be a Baggie. And I'm always very proud to be a Baggie so that's no mean feat at all!

Saturday, 7 August 2010

The New Politics

So, how do we feel about the "new politics" a couple of months in? Let's have a quick recap of what they have actually done since taking office:

The Coalition's budget made deep and immediate cuts because A) when they came to power and opened the books things were far worse than they had imagined and B) Clegg had changed his mind in favour of them on the private advice of Mervyn King though he continued to argue publicly against them. Well, A wasn't true because "Sir Alan [Budd, Head of Osborne's new OBR] said yesterday that Alistair Darling was being too pessimistic: on almost every measure, the public finances look like being in better shape"[1] and B wasn't true because "King said today: "I said nothing that was not already in the public domain. In the telephone conversation I basically repeated what I had said at the press conference"[2]".

Well that's not very "new politics" is it? But what about the nature of those cuts?

Firstly and most obviously Michael Gove plans to scrap the Building Schools For The Future programme. If a school was getting a new building or even repairs or renovations of an existing one, it isn’t now. Even if he still claims that it is[3]. Education budgets will instead be spent on the rolling out of the Academies programme which was rushed through Parliament without the usual scrutiny because Gove invoked an extraordinary Parliamentary procedure which is normally reserved for emergency responses to catastrophic security threats[4]. Under this Act “Free schools” could be “set up by parents and private groups with state funding”. This legislation also allows schools to remove themselves from national standards of pay, national curriculum requirements and to introduce selective admissions policies. It also pledges to cut funding for failing schools and pump more money into schools with high success rates[5]. Admissions policies which guarantee higher rates of government funding for selective privately-owned schools? You can draw your own conclusions.

There are also Iain Duncan-Smith’s planned Welfare reforms which include having the Disability Living Allowance statuses (which are currently decided on the recommendation of GPs and specialists) overturned without scrutiny by unqualified civil servants and placing arbitrary caps on housing benefits for the poor which will lead to increased homelessness and destitution[6].

We also have the movement of the ludicrously wasteful funding of Trident from the Treasury to the Ministry of Defence which will see thousands of troops return from Afghanistan to redundancy. The MoD were already faced with 20% cuts and now have to fund this £130bn white elephant[7]. There are only so many ships and guns you can go without before you have to start throwing soldiers on the dole after all.

I’m aware that I have a tendency towards verbosity, so I’ll try and rush through a few more things before I stop making sense.

Other highlights are:

    A public sector pay-freeze which includes the lowest-paid (the £21,000 limit is pro-rata and hundreds of thousands of public sector workers are part-time) and contrasts with pay-rises in the private sector[8].

    A VAT rise (which the LibDems expressly campaigned against) which hits the poor hardest since VAT is a regressive tax.

    The scrapping of a free school meals programme for the poorest children.

    Cutting of the rate of Corporation Tax- including for banks.

    Shelving (rather than scrapping) the plans to cut Inheritance Tax rates for the very rich.

    A refusal to remove the charitable status of private schools meaning that, in effect, they are subsidised by the very families who have seen a cut of £670m in the budget for state schools.

    The imposition of the much-derided Labour proposal for a National Insurance increase but, significantly, only for employees and not employers.

And, finally, Health- the one area of public spending that the Tories pledged not to cut. Andrew Lansley (who is personally financed by a private healthcare provider [9]) has taken the 'ringfenced' NHS budget and- in spite of the Tories' pre-election calls for "no more top-down reorganisations"[10] put it towards a top-down reorganisation which will give GPs the task of managing their practices as well as working in them. As this is already a full-time job for thousands of public-sector workers, what this means in practice is that they will be made redundant and replaced by private healthcare providers. It is, in effect, a large-scale privatisation of PCTs paid for by the public for the benefit of private companies.

In conclusion then; the “New Politics” coalition have rushed through a sweeping programme of change which in essence hands money earmarked for schools and hospitals to private companies and have hit the poorest with tax rises while offering businesses and the very rich tax freezes and even a cut in taxation rates. That these seismic ideological changes are based upon lies and misinformation should really surprise no-one, though many LibDem voters will feel betrayed as their intention was (in many cases) to stop the Conservatives and avoid the kind of social carnage this will wreak across the country.

“New politics”? Only if you can’t remember the 1980s.



[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7827761/This-Budget-is-George-Osbornes-moment-to-be-radical.html
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/28/mervyn-king-nick-clegg
[3] http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Michael-Goves-Is-Forced-To-Apologise-For-Mistakes-On-Building-Schools-For-The-Future-Hit-List/Article/201007115660983?f=rss
[4] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/tories-use-terror-laws-to-rush-academies-bill-through-house-2030336.html
[5] http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23857439-michael-gove-hoping-to-push-through-academies-bill.do
[6] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/welfare-reforms-are-onslaught-on-the-vulnerable-2040855.html
[7] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7920328/Armed-forces-stunned-by-Trident-bill.html
[8] http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-28/half-of-u-k-public-sector-pay-deals-ended-in-freeze-ids-says.html
[9] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6989408/Andrew-Lansley-bankrolled-by-private-healthcare-provider.html
[10] http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/07/health-service-nhs-cameron

Monday, 26 July 2010

Lessons From History

The 1945-51 Labour Government which inherited the largest structural deficit- not that this actually matters- and debt in UK history and proceeded to deal with this by creating the National Health Service, nationalising the coal and steel industry and embarking upon the most far-reaching house-building programme of any UK government. What they did essentially was to repair the economy through full employment, by circulating the available money and by achieving growth through investment. This is where the opportunity presented by the infrastructure failings we have at present should have been, I thought, immediately apparent.

The coalition are choosing a different tactic, one of shrinking the economy (VAT cuts hitting expenditure, wholesale redundancies preventing money circulation, cancelling the school-building programme in order to fund their 'free schools' (for selected kids in affluent areas) programme and opening up the NHS to speculators from here and abroad) and hoping that the private sector will grow sufficiently to not only make up the shortfall but also to pay off the second largest debt in UK history. And where does that public sector growth come from? Well, as no-one here will have much money it will have to come from abroad. But with the EU (by far our biggest customer for exports) in much the same boat then it can't come from abroad either.

It's a conundrum isn't it?

Thursday, 25 March 2010

Ross Kemp

Ross Kemp turned up at Selly Oak hospital, Birmingham where all the wounded soldiers are brought to be treated while Laura was in Intensive Care. There was no publicity, no press, no TV cameras or anything just him and a soldier he'd met while making one of his TV shows and kept in touch with.

He went round the soldiers and their visitors talking to each in turn for as long as they wanted, signing autographs and having photos taken. Just to brighten the day up for them. And it really worked.

It's easy to be cynical about celebrity hospital visits and so on, but this was a genuinely altruistic visit and- as with the fantastic work I saw done by Help For Heroes the whole time I was there- it's important to remember that whatever the rights and wrongs of our actions in the Middle East (they're wrong obviously) these kids didn't choose the conflict and don't deserve the consequences of our misbegotten crusades.

I can't tell you how heartbreaking it is seeing huge numbers of kids who don't even need to shave yet being wheeled around because they've lost limbs to roadside bombs. Nor getting to know their families quite well and then suddenly never seeing them again because the young soldier died overnight. I wept daily for what I saw.

Anyway, I'm on a tangent. He may make rubbish TV shows, dress really badly and need to lose a few pounds but Ross Kemp really went up in my estimation then.

Thursday, 14 January 2010

RIP Miep Gies

I've only just became aware of this sad loss. In these times of heightened racial and religious tensions, it is important to remain aware of the potential catastrophe that awaits if we allow bigotry and intolerance a free voice. Mies Giep, the woman who saved Anne Frank's diary and who helped protect the Frank family for so long, was a reminder of the perils of such folly.

People may think that, for example, the Daily Mail's persecution of minority groups is simply the exercise of the right to free speech and I would agree with that. But the manner in which they choose to do so can only cause further discord. The Mail exploits and stretches the right to free speech with half-truths, distortions, innuendo and falsifications (Jane Moir on the death of Stephen Gateley or the article about 'gypsies'- their term- being allowed to jump NHS queues are great examples). They seem to be actively pursuing an agenda of disharmony and disintegration. The constant stream of anti-Islamic hyperbolic bollocks that the paper prints acts to fuel the sense of alienation, isolation and resentment which allows British subjects to be hoodwinked into atrocities such as the 7/7 tube and bus bombings.

Just as importantly a light should be shone upon the Holocaust denial of Nick Griffin and his ilk. I would be delighted if his views were challenged in the mainstream media, not with a repeat of the Question Time pantomime where even the host was keen to be seen as 'the one to get him' but in serious debate. Put the question "why did you refer to the Holocaust as the 'Holo-hoax'?" and press him
until he provides an answer. Make him expose his darker beliefs which he is currently able to keep well hidden. I've quoted this before but this is Nick Griffin in 'The Patriot' (a BNP pamphlet dated Spring 1999):

“Of course we must teach the truth to the hardcore…. when it comes to influencing the public, forget about racial differences, genetics, Zionism, historical revisionism and so on…. we must at all times present them with an image of moderate reasonableness.”


The man wants to lie. He wants to keep his true beliefs hidden. Why do we play into his hands like this? If the man denies that the Holocaust happens, let him tell the world that. I've never got holocaust denial at all. I've been in a couple of arguments about it and people will say things like "it's only books and film footage, that could all have been faked" which I suppose is true, though it would have been far bigger a task than could imaginably have been achieved and no real contradictory evidence exists at all.

Then I'll tell them that my Great Uncle told me all about it because he was one of the first soldiers to enter Belsen when we liberated it. There's no real comeback to that.

All of which brings me back to the dangers of extremism, to the need to stand strong in the face of it at any cost and to the heroism of people like Miep Gies. She should never be forgotten.

Sunday, 10 January 2010

Iris Robinson

I'm enjoying seeing the pious homophobe Iris Robinson shown up for the hypocritical vile, corrupt, base, shameless, amoral cow she really is. On the night after an horrific homophobic beating in Northern Ireland she popped up on a BBC radio phone-in show to recommend that homosexuals have therapy to "cure" themelves before she described homosexuality as an abomination on a par with paedophilia that made her nauseous. She cited bible passages from the book of Leviticus to support her stance.

Fast-forward eighteen months or so and we see Iris Robinson's political career in tatters. She has confessed to having had an extra-marital affair with a 19-year-old man Kirk McCambley (she was 59 at the time) despite the bible's position on adultery which she should be very familiar with as it is stated in the book of Leviticus.

So far so good, but this isn't all. It appears that she went further than merely sleeping with the boy behind her husband's back. Mrs Robinson (oh the irony) then solicited £50,000 in unsecured loans for her lover to start his own business, a café. £50,000 for a nineteen year old with no commercial experience or capital of his own? Makes you think doesn't it. The money came in the form of two £25,000 from property developers and at the same time Mrs Robinson was lobbying in favour of a development being planned by one of the men. But what was in it for her (aside from fumbling teenage humping and the illicit thrill of breaking her beloved bible's sacred covenants obviously)? Well, just ten per cent of the loan which she kept to pay off debts of her own.

Of course with a commercial venture like that, there's all kinds of red tape involved. It isn't as simple as just buying up an empty café and opening for business. Especially not when there are more people trying to buy the property and start the same business on the site. Young Kirk didn't need to worry though, when the bids for the lease of the café was discussed by the local council Mrs Robinson was on the committee. Imagine that, what a stroke of good fortune! And not only that but luckily for Mr McCambley the committee found her lover's bid to be the only appropriate one and so he got the café. Mrs Robinson, by the way, didn't officially reveal her conflict of interests in seeing his bid succeed although this was a legal requirement. I'm not sure where Leviticus stands on this but that's okay because pretty soon it became clear that the bible stands wherever Mrs Robinson chooses; as she told her aide after ending the extra-marital affair "God's word was very clear on it. He was reasonably OK on it. I am not". Barmy.

Ooh, you know what? I haven't mentioned the best bit yet. Yes, even better than the bible-bashing homophobe cheating on her husband and abusing her position to solicit dodgy loans for her lover and taking a slice of the pie for herself. Her husband, Peter Robinson, is the First Minister of the country. The head honcho, the top man, the numero uno. And when he found out about all of this, do you know what he did? He covered it up in return for her returning the money. And so we have the unseemly saga of the top man in Government covering for his wife's crooked financial and personal dealings in return for her bullying Mr McCambley's family for the return of the dodgy loan she secured for him. Shameful, isn't it?

You think that's shameful, though, it has nothing to do with his response to his wife's suicide attempt after he found out. He went to work as normal that morning after she told him she was going to do it and, when she was found and rushed to hospital, he stayed there. That's right, as his wife was on her way to hospital to save her life after an overdose Mr Robinson- having just been told about it- can be seen on television footage laughing and joking with Parliamentary colleagues. Of course when the truth came out last week he was overcome with emotions and choking back the tears as he was interviewed about the whole thing. Some people might think those were crocodile tears, but maybe it was just delayed shock. Delayed by ten months until the cameras were rolling, that is.

She deserves a cunt of a husband attempting to gain political advantage from her depression and attempted suicide like that. And he deserves to be cuckolded for a spotty boy with an eye on an easy few quid.

And obviously they both deserve the sack because the country deserves neither of them.

Tuesday, 1 December 2009

Afghanistan 2009

As the Iraq Whitewash (let's not kid ourselves here) continues, I just wanted to capture a forum post I made during a discussion on Remembrance Sunday which, inevitably, touched on current troop mobilisations. This neatly captured my feelings and I'm rarely as pithy, so I didn't want to lose it.

"There was a compelling argument for Afghanistan due to the September 11th attacks"

I rather suspect that history will record a quite different story. The training camps for insurgents that we've been attacked by (we being 'The West') are almost exclusively rooted in Pakistan but it isn't expedient for us to go there. All this WMD/Bin Laden/Axis of Terror propaganda is a front for our ambitions to control or at least limit the autonomy of the region I'm sure.

That said, we are there now and good, honest people are dying there (not just good, honest Westerners obviously) so now isn't the time to talk about the whys, we need to work out what happens next and I genuinely don't know whether staying in a war we can't win or withdrawing from the region having turned it even more vehemently militant is the best course of action.

How we can apparently demonise an entire culture and then act shocked when they react violently is beyond me. The only solution is bridge-building: a slow and painful process that (most importantly at the moment) won't win anyone any votes any time soon.

Monday, 30 November 2009

The Politicization of Tasseled Loafers

I couldn't begin to tell you how I found this. You know when you're just floating round the internet clicking links on pages aimlessly, it was like that. But I am delighted that I did. It may be interesting to only one person on the planet, but since that's me I'm happy. This is an article from the New York Times in 1993 which picks up on the use of "tasseled loafer" as an emblem for preppy, smart-ass lawyer and expands it into a potted history of one of the most beautiful styles of shoe ever created taking in NeoCon mudslinging, French Socialists and the European appropriation of the Ivy League look. Who couldn't love that?

It's just a shame there are no photos.

Here's the link

And here's the article in full, enjoy:

The Politicization of Tasseled Loafers
By NEIL A. LEWIS,
Published: Wednesday, November 3, 1993


To say "tasseled loafer" in Washington is not just to describe a simple shoe, but to utter a political phrase, often part of an epithet.

It is frequently connected to the word "lawyers," as in those tasseled-loafered lawyers!, although no law degree is required to wear them. And despite its earlier image as the shoe of the postgraduate preppy, it is today a kind of everyman's shoe, available in all price ranges.

Nonetheless, the shoes have been deployed in recent years as metaphorical weapons in the nation's political wars.

When George Bush wanted to hurl a wounding barb during the last Presidential campaign, he complained that Bill Clinton was supported by "every lawyer that ever wore a tasseled loafer."

Mr. Bush may have had reason to believe the charge potent as he had himself once been the target of a tasseled-loafer insult. When he ran for President in 1980, he complained that Ronald Reagan had bested him in a debate in New Hampshire by using unfair tactics. One of Mr. Reagan's aides retorted in a widely disseminated remark that those with Mr. Bush's private-school pedigree were generic sore losers. "Those tasseled-loafer guys always cry foul when they lose," the aide said.

As the nation debates issues like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Clinton health-care plan, Congressional aides may be heard referring to the "tassel loafers," a newly made up term referring to the lobbyists, often lawyers, who try to influence legislation.

In France, the tasseled loafer makes its own peculiar political statement. John Vinocur, the executive editor of The International Herald Tribune, said that the shoes were worn, actually flaunted, by young rightists in the mid-1980's who wished to demonstrate their distaste for the Socialist Government.

To them, the preppiness of the shoe represented American prosperity and free-market conservatism. Thus, it became part of the battle uniform of the young soldier of la contre-revolution.

That all became blurred, Mr. Vinocur said, when many French leftists soon followed suit and abandoned sandals and other proletarian footwear in favor of the tasseled loafers. "It helped them get tables in the better restaurants," he said.

Apart from the delicious weirdness of having legions of Frenchmen trying to look like the Phillips Academy class of 1964, the French have at least one thing correct. The shoe is certainly a distinctly American creation.

Tasseled loafers so much evoke the elegant era of the 20's that some clothing historians mistakenly believe they date from that time. They became popular, in fact, only in the post-World War II era.

The Alden Shoe Company in Middleborough, Mass., claims to have invented the shoe after World War II at the request of Paul Lukas, who was a well-known and debonair actor. Mr. Lukas, who appeared in films like "The Lady Vanishes" and "Watch on the Rhine," asked custom shoemakers in New York and Los Angeles to devise a version of a shoe he had brought from Europe that had little fringed tassels on the ends of the laces.

The two shoemakers showed the design to the Alden company, which drastically modified it, using the tassels as ornaments on a moccasin-style shoe. The earliest tasseled loafers were two-toned (usually with white top panels), and they were originally popular in Hollywood. The classic style was first produced in 1952. In 1957, Brooks Brothers added a version of Alden's shoe to its stores, fixing the tasseled loafer's image as the shoe of the country-club set.

Clark M. Clifford, the 87-year-old lawyer who has served as a counselor to several Democratic presidents, is one of Washington's most elegant and tastefully dressed men. He recalled that he acquired tasseled loafers in the early 1950's.

"I only think of them as appropriate for weekend wear and relaxation," Mr. Clifford said. "I save them entirely for that. It seems out of keeping to wear them for business, although from time to time I see someone wearing them that way."

In the 60's, when preppy style ran amok, many a tasseled loafer sat at the end of a leg covered with loud madras pants or, worse, trousers with little embroidered whales. Tassels had been used for centuries as ornaments on furniture and even saddles. When they sit on the top of a shoe, they resemble nothing so much as the carved radishes served at some old-fashioned restaurants.

The evolution of "tassled loafer" as a pejorative term for "lawyer" is unclear, but it may have to do with the notion that a man who wears little useless ornaments has, if you will, effete feet.

The top-of-the-line Alden shoe is made from shell cordovan, an especially rich-looking horsehide leather that undergoes a special vegetable tanning process that takes up to a year. The cordovan shoe, usually burgundy-colored, costs anywhere from $315 to $345 a pair (Paris shops sell the shoes for upward of $500 a pair). The classic Brooks Brothers version has distinctive stitching on the back and sells for $345.

The calfskin versions are far less expensive. In fact, tasseled loafers are ubiquitous in all price ranges and style modifications from dozens of manufacturers. They are available just about everywhere, sometimes along with kilties (those little fringed flaps) and wingtip style perforations and sometimes both, which some may find to be garish excess.

Or of course, one could have a pair of restrained tasseled slip-ons made to order at one of the handful of the remaining English bespoke bootmakers. John Carnera of George Cleverley Ltd. in central London says that he makes dozens of pairs each year, many for American clients and that chocolate-brown suede is increasingly stylish.

"We wear a lot more suede on this side of the Atlantic, you know," he said. He will craft a pair in suede or calfskin for about $1,300. Exotic leathers would cost a bit more.

Gordon Brown on the throne

I’ve been reading Alastair Campbell’s diaries from his years giving it the full Malcolm Tucker in Downing Street and have just reached the bit where Gordon Brown locks himself in a toilet, gets in a furious panic and there is only Tony Blair that he can call to come and get him out of the mess that he’s got himself into.

I suppose, when you look at the paucity of talent in the Cabinet that he has surrounded himself, with this is as neat an analogy as anything Armando Iannucci could've dreamed up.

Friday, 27 November 2009

What's Left? by Nick Cohen

Yesterday I stumbled across an article I published on 1 May 2008. I've just reread it with the benefit of hindsight and in light of the tumultuous events of summer and autumn 2008 which exposed the lie-dream of unfettered capitalism as a panacea for all the world's ills. I'm no expert but I'm putting this one down as a win for the little guy from West Bromwich over the brainiac journo.

Cohen smashes his way through the political rubble of his past

I’ve recently read the thoroughly dispiriting “What’s Left?” by Nick Cohen. I exaggerate, I read some of it. The thrust of the book is that Socialism is a busted flush and, in seeking a new cause to replace it, its old followers have become defenders of fascistic regimes and radical terrorists. Why? Well simply to oppose America, of course. It appears that this is what being a lefty was all about all along. Tsk!

I suppose that I should have known what I was letting myself in for. I had a vague knowledge of Cohen as a lefty who had (as the cliché says we all will) become more right wing as he got older. And I’d read the blurb on the back: In this scorching polemic, Nick Cohen smashes his way through the political rubble left by the crumbling values of the old Left with his fearless exploration of their responses to some of the worst global crises seen this century (all seven years of it, it doesn’t add). But I wasn’t fully prepared for what I was about to read.

As I have said, I chose not to complete the book. My bookmark rests between pages 110 and 111 where Cohen’s scorching polemic is smashing its way through Jean Baudrillard’s critique on America (“It had brainwashed US citizens- although not, once again, French philosophers”) with all the wit and finesse that the reverse cover would have you believe. Mind you, this is not a critique of Cohen’s literary style- which is far superior to my own clunky prose- this is simply a digest of all that I had read before abandoning ship.

The book opens with a brief biography piece establishing Cohen’s Socialist credentials- like Mark Anthony coming to bury Caesar- which will give him the right to pronounce the Left dead.

“Socialism, which provided the definition of what it meant to be on the Left from the 1880s to the 1980s, is gone. Disgraced by the communists’ atrocities and floored by the success of market-based economies it no longer exists as a coherent programme for government. Even the modest and humane social democratic systems of Europe are under strain and look dreadfully vulnerable.”

I found that staggering. Socialist politics have been finished by the excesses of communism and the successes of capitalism. What’s actually happened, as far as I can tell, is that Cohen has lost his faith in Socialism. The ’success’ of market-based economies is a fallacy, a shuffling of the feudal pack. As a means of making the world a just, equable, comfortable or literally a good place to live, it has failed. Socialism is as necessary and relevant as ever. It is just that these days Cohen is all right, Jack. The last sentence in that paragraph, however, is bizarre. I honestly don’t know on what basis a statement like that could be made. Cohen has scraped through the bottom of the barrel in his bid to pithily justify what is to follow.

Throughout the book Cohen gives the strong impression that his conversion to Neo-Con (Neo-Cohen?) politics comes as a result of the Left’s stance over the Iraq invasion. He absolves the right of blame for turning a blind-eye to Saddam Hussein’s politics for the better part of two decades, but accuses the Left of hypocrisy for not supporting the decision to remove him. Perhaps he’s forgotten that the invasion of Iraq was not about regime change- well, not until the original reasons given were utterly discredited anyway. “The American and British Governments sold the invasion to their publics with a false bill of goods and its aftermath was a bloody catastrophe…” that’s the lies that led to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq dealt with. No, really it is. That’s as much attention as he gives it.

He proceeds to state that the left picked the wrong side over Iraq and have become increasingly entrenched since to the point where they oppose natural Socialist values. “…The liberal-left bitterly opposed the war, and their indifference afterwards was a natural consequence of the fury directed at Bush”. And explains that the problem (he believes) that the Left has isn’t solely a result of the Iraq invasion. What follows is a list of tangential issues which exemplify the malaise afflicting the Left: “Why is it that apologies for a militant Islam… come from the liberal-left? Why will… a leftish post-modern theorist defend the exploitation of women in traditional cultures? Why were men and women of the Left denying the existence of Serb concentration camps? Why is Palestine a cause … but not China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Congo or North Korea? Why after the 7/7 attacks on London did leftish… newspapers run pieces excusing suicide bombers?”.

The problem Cohen has, though if you believe that he’s wrong then it would be his saving grace, is that none of these charges are specific enough to be proved or disproved. They’re his opinions, or his assumptions. Opposing the war doesn’t equate to being ignorant of the human costs of the war (quite the opposite, I would argue). To try to understand the rationale for militant Islam is not to make apologies for it, it is a means of combating it at its source. There is a difference between opposing the imposition of Western values across the world and upholding incidents of exploitation. The Palestinian question is another example of Cohen’s liberal attitude to the truth- how can it be seriously argued that the Left fails to keep those other regimes on the agenda? For me the contrary is true, only the Left have consistently opposed those regimes. Finally, Cohen’s allegations about the response of the Left to the atrocities in Serbia and on the 7th of July are unsubstantiated and, for me, fanciful.

Cohen’s personal politics have changed, this much is undoubtedly true. Does it automatically follow that the Left that he leaves behind is finished? It is unspeakably arrogant to assume so, or else he hung on to the corpse of a once great movement for far too long. The book acts as a long justification for his personal conversion- hence the assumptions behind it are passed off as fact- and his personal conversion appears, to me at least, to be driven by one aspect of the political spectrum. That is Iraq. Everything else is written as a retrospective justification for the change. The death of Socialism- which Cohen refers to throughout as a given- is dated contemporaneously with the Poll Tax riots which led directly to the end of the Thatcherite era. To exemplify it, he spends pages discussing the rise (in as much as so minor a political party can be said to have risen) and fall of the Workers’ Revolutionary Party in 1970s and 1980s Britain, its discredited leader Gerry Healy and the parenting skills of Vanessa Redgrave. It is like using Rolf Harris’s ‘Two Little Boys’ as evidence that the pop music of the 1960s was worthless.

I believe that there is a worthwhile book in the proposition that the Left has lost its direction and sense of unity. It is in need of impetus, of a concerted focus and something to rally behind. A new red flag is desperately required. But while I do not pretend that ‘the Left’ are without fault, I equally do not buy the proposition that it is somehow less grievous when the Right get things wrong. It is like the facile bar-room argument “the Tories will screw you, but at least they’re honest about it”. The Left is not dead because there has been a decade or so of middle-ground political worthlessness and a decade or so of Neo-Conservative tyranny. To argue that leftish ideals like social justice are no longer desirable because the illegal occupation of Iraq has displaced a tyrant that Western Conservatives supported and colluded with for decades is ridiculous. But that is what this book- as far as I read it- tries to do.

It would take a Keyser Soze-esque twist in the unread portion of the book to rescue it. Otherwise it must surely be seen as a man’s vindication of his decision to turn his back on the social movement to which he once belonged.

This book is a tragically missed opportunity by a writer of no little style, but increasingly little substance.

Thursday, 26 November 2009

Questions raised by Cherie Blair’s autobiography

Flicking through an old magazine in the dentist's waiting room I read a quick review of the above-mentioned book which mentioned that "Cherie Blair conceived Leo because she was afraid to take her “contraceptive equipment” to Balmoral".

This raises several questions for me:

  • Isn’t she a Catholic?
  • What did she worry that the household staff would think of her, that she was a married woman going to bed with her husband and that they may have sex but that she wasn’t planning to have any more children?
  • What is the equipment she uses? Is there a Hieronymus Bosch method? Isn’t ‘equipment’ a strange word to use? Especially as no word at all was required, surely ‘contraceptives’ would have done the job.
  • Why didn’t they name Leo Balmoral Blair à la Brooklyn Beckham?

This Bank Charges Ruling

Just a quick note so that I can record for myself that this actually happened.

The Office of Fair Trading have been told that they are not allowed to investigate whether banks are trading fairly or not. The OFT hoped to investigate whether charges are designed to generate profit rather than cover costs and one of the reasons that they are not allowed to investigate is that the revenue is a significant proportion of the Banks' profits.

This really happened.

Shit.

Tuesday, 17 November 2009

“We’re just damn glad to live in a free country where you can have a gun if you want to”

I saw the movie Harry Brown earlier, and more of that later, and the conversation I had on the journey home with my good friend The Leader reminded me of the following news story from last year:


US car dealer in free gun offer pistol

The offer is proving popular - sales have quadrupled so far

A car dealership in the United States is offering a free handgun with every vehicle sold. Max Motors in Butler, Missouri, says sales have quadrupled since the start of the offer. Customers can choose between a gun or a $250 (£125) petrol card, but most so far have chosen the gun.

Owner Mark Muller said: "We're just damn glad to live in a free country where you can have a gun if you want to."

The dealership sells new and old vehicles, including General Motors and Ford cars and trucks, and its logo shows a cowboy holding a pistol. It has sold more than 30 cars and trucks in the past three days, an increase which the owners put down to their promotional offer. Mr Muller said that every buyer so far "except one guy from Canada and one old guy" chose the gun, rather than the gas card.

He recommends a Kel-Tec .380 pistol, which he describes as "a nice little handgun that fits in your pocket".

He added that the promotion was inspired by recent comments from one of the Democratic nominees for the presidential election, saying: "We did it because of Barack Obama. "He said all those people in the Midwest, you've got to have compassion for them because they're clinging to their guns and their Bibles. I found that quite offensive. We all go to church on Sunday and we all carry guns."

The website advertisement for the offer, which continues until the end of the month, mentions that an approved background check on gun ownership is required.

Here's the original article.

Friday, 13 November 2009

An Islamophobic e-mail

I don’t often receive those e-mails that you hear about, I guess people know that I’ll check what it says before repeating it down the pub or passing it on, something that probably doesn’t suit the originators at all. In fact it has only happened once before, but today I received one. The subject-line read “How can you remove this from school history lessons cos it offends a religion” and the subject matter boiled down to the following sentiment “This week, the UK removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it ‘offended’ the Muslim population which claims it never occurred”. A little Googling shows that it is an old propaganda piece, which has been recently resurrected- presumably in the hope that people have forgotten the truth from the first time around.

I obviously responded to everyone in the e-mail trail that I could find to present the facts, but have so far received no response. I also alerted Islamophobia Watch and, should you receive one, I would urge you to do the same.

For the record, the most recent curriculum changes were to move the focus away from UK-centred history towards more international events. “Changes to the secondary history curriculum, announced last week, which will see less focus on figures such as Churchill, Hitler, and Gandhi from next year. Study of both world wars and the Holocaust, the development of political power, the British empire and slavery remain“.

The other mail I received, by the way, was some time ago which warned that millions of pounds in taxpayers’ money that was allocated to the preparations for the 2012 Olympics was secretly being utilised to build a mosque which would be bigger than St Paul’s Cathedral and hold more people than Wembley Stadium. The truth was that a privately-funded and much smaller mosque was being built vaguely near the site of the Olympic village.

Friday, 30 October 2009

The National Lottery- An Eye For An Eye

The Capital Punishment debate refuses to go away, but it’s okay- I have a plan.


Introduce a referendum on Capital Punishment and the names of everyone who votes for it are recorded on little balls inside a huge lottery machine. Every time a miscarriage of justice occurs and an innocent person dies, then the lottery machine produces a winner at random. The winner will then be executed to redress the balance. The execution could be televised and called “National Lottery- An Eye For An Eye”. I’d like to see someone with a hint of mischief host it, someone who’d probably make an inappropriate joke with the victim. Michael Barrymore, maybe.

Miscarriages of justice with multiple executions would be like a rollover with multiple winners, imagine the excitement to see if you were going to be lucky that night. The odds would probably better than 14 million to 1. And not only would you get fifteen minutes of fame but your thirst for murderous retribution would be satisfied in full.

I’m going to phone Channel Five in the morning.






These notes were originally published on 19 April, 2008 at theraffishdandy.wordpress.com

Thursday, 29 October 2009

Daniel Hannan


I note with wearying inevitability that self-publicising Tory scrote Daniel Hannan has got his ruddy slapheaded gurning visage in the papers again by bigging up ex-Conservative MP and all-round fascistic thickshit Enoch Powell. Oh how fucking surprising. This prick has been shouldering his way remorselessly into the public eye for as long as I can remember now with his stage-managed controversy and tedious flesh-pressing. He is the political equivalent of those sad fuckers in your local pub who set fire to their farts just for the fleeting frisson of infamy. I tell you, if I looked like a shaved stoat dressed up as a parody of Bertie Wooster the last place I would want to be is in where people can point at me and laugh till they micturate, but this completely amoral flaccid cock positively laps it up like a coprophiliac in a sewage farm.

Now that Boris Johnson is safely under house arrest as the titular Mayor of London, Hannan clearly sees a niche for a bumbling, privileged twat who isn’t afraid to drop a bollock or two in public if it will get him a thirty second slot on The World At One and build towards the much-coveted role of out-of-touch posho being humiliated by the commoners on Have I Got News For You. Well more power to your elbow Hannan; you might be an odious, cretinous, slimy, lickspittle cunt but at least you’re causing Call Me Dave to quickly gather together a couple of focus groups and see how well the idea of fascism would play with the public at large. The fucker might even learn something.

Keep it up cunt-face.
These notes were originally published on August 27, 2009 at modelanswers.wordpress.com

Saturday, 26 July 2008

Another Islamophobic viral e-mail received

I don't often receive those e-mails that you hear about, I guess people know that I'll react in a way that doesn't suit them. In fact it has only happened once before, but today I received one. The subject-line read "How can you remove this from school history lessons cos it offends a religion" and the subject matter boiled down to the following sentiment "This week, the UK removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offended' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred". A little Googling shows that it is an old propaganda piece, which has been recently resurrected- presumably in the hope that people have forgotten the truth from the first time around.

I obviously responded to everyone in the e-mail trail that I could find to present the facts, but have so far received no response. I also alerted Islamophobia Watch and, should you receive one, I would urge you to do the same.

For the record, the most recent curriculum changes were to move the focus away from UK- centred history towards more international events. "Changes to the secondary history curriculum, announced last week, which will see less focus on figures such as Churchill, Hitler, and Gandhi from next year. Study of both world wars and the Holocaust, the development of political power, the British empire and slavery remain".

The other mail I received, by the way, was some time ago which warned that millions of pounds in taxpayers' money that was allocated to the preparations for the 2012 Olympics was secretly being utilised to build a mosque which would be bigger than St Paul's Cathedral and hold more people than Wembley Stadium. The truth was that a privately-funded and much smaller mosque was being built vaguely near the site of the Olympic village.

Wednesday, 16 July 2008

Write a letter to the Daily Mail

Hey kids, are you stuck for things to do when it rains during the summer holidays? Why not make like a grown up and write to the Daily Mail? It's fun, it gets you attention and it only costs the price of a stamp. Here's how:

Take an article from the Daily Mail, it doesn't really matter which one but articles about Asylum Seekers, Drug Dealers, Terrorists, the Labour Party and Paedophiles usually work best. Most days you can find a front page story that manages to tie all of them together- that's a sure-fire winner.

Now, you must start your letter by making it clear that you refer to that article. After that, there are no rules. It's a free-for-all. What fun! All that you need to do is to copy some or all of the following phrases in any order that you like and then end the letter with a woman's name (the frumpier the better) and add the title 'Mrs' in brackets afterwards. That will convince them that you aren't one of those awful dungaree-wearing feminists that used to appear on news bulletins in the 1980s. Here are your phrases:

  • "The country is full up. I'm sorry, but we can't take your riff-raff any longer"
  • "One of two of these people should be made an example of"
  • "These people should be made to sit up and take notice"
  • "What reasonable-minded person actually objects to bringing back the birch?"
  • "It never did me any harm, I can tell you"
  • "These bleeding-heart liberals really get my dander up"
  • "We all know that these Socialists are only out to line their own pockets"
  • "I come from an ordinary middle-class family."
  • "The good old British taxpayer is the mug who has to foot the bill for this"
  • "Decent hard-working British people who have paid tax all their lives"
  • "This anarchist's paradise where there are no restrictions on the drinking of alcohol?"
  • "I am English and proud. Why is that so offensive to our visitors here?"
  • "All sorts of organisations will jump on the bandwagon and cry inequality"
  • "This 'Nanny state' where people aren't allowed the freedom to smoke a cigarette"
  • "If those of different faiths who have chosen to live in this country can still observe their customs, why can't we?"
  • "Winston Churchill would be spinning in his grave"
  • "It seems the politically correct brigade have been at it again"
  • "What a child needs is discipline"
  • "Can someone explain to me why soft drugs are tolerated by this Labour Government"
  • "I'm simply disgusted at the way in which our government expects us to pay taxes through the nose"
  • "It's no wonder this country is going to the dogs"
  • "It's PC gone mad" (if you want to be really creative try something that means the same in fancier words like "this is secularism in a demented form")
  • "Who can blame the millions who emigrate every year?"
  • "Gordon Brown and his left-wing cronies in the cabinet"
  • "What a child needs is to be kept out of danger from these lecherous beasts who are seemingly waiting at every turn"
  • "People who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear from this legislation"
  • "I'm simply outraged at the way in which our government fails to provide anything more than the basic services that people need in hospital"
  • "I've voted Tory all of my life and this country has never needed a Tory Government as badly as it does now"
  • "Is this what generations of English men fought and died for?"
  • "These people want nothing more than to be governed by Germany"
  • "Isn't this simply another Labour Government attempt to extract more money from our pockets for fewer services?"
  • "I have worked hard all of my life and for what?"
  • "An Englishman's home used to be his castle. Well not any more"
  • "Oh how I wish we could let Margaret Thatcher get hold of these people"
  • "Is nothing sacred any longer?"
  • "What a child needs is the freedom to learn and make their own mistakes without these namby-pamby rules interfering with the process"
  • "These left-wing do-gooders will destroy every custom tradition and belief that English people hold dear"

Thursday, 26 June 2008

People working with children shouldn't need police checks say right-wing 'think tank' Civitas

"It is putting people off working with children, knowing that they have to be checked for previous offences against children. Why can't we be left to use our intuition?"

Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of reasons.

This isn't a civil liberties issue, it isn't "political correctness gone mad", it is a necessary precaution. I've yet to hear a decent argument to the contrary.