We The Undersigned...

Is there anything more smug and off putting than group letters of the self appointed great and good to a newspaper? Take the letter criticising the Prime Minister's declaration that Britain is a Christian country, regardless of the merits of his claim is there any way that a letter signed by Polly Toynbee, Antony Grayling, Nick Ross and CJ from Eggheads* can have any effect other than boosting the PM's cause?

What is the mindset of people who sign these letters? Presumably someone like Tim Minchin has thought to himself that because he can make amusing comic routines about religion and blow up dolls, that adding his signature to a letter will somehow add weight and merit to the cause he believes in. It doesn't, it just makes him look pompous and egotistical and would do regardless of the merit of the argument being put forward. The same applies to the rest of the figures who signed the letter.


* On the subject of CJ De Mooi from Eggheads, judging by the wikipedia entry on him, he is every bit as smug as he appears on television:

He adopted the name de Mooi when modelling; he translates it as Dutch for "handsome man", though a more literal translation would be "the beautiful".

Bell end.

Money Is No Object.

The flooding in South West England must be awful for those living there, and the government are under pressure over the handling of it. This seems a bit unfair, considering it is the wettest winter since Noah it would be remarkable if there was not flooding.

It doesn't justify David Cameron making saying things like this though:

"Money is no object in this relief effort. Whatever money is needed we will spend it."

Money is always a limiting factor and making promises that inevitably have to be broken is foolish.

Go Away, 'Batin.

A few years ago I parodied the last government's determination to ban things with a proposal to ban masturbation. David Cameron is trying to make this a reality- with moves to make people apply with their full name and contact details as they ask their ISP if the can watch pornography. Not child porn, but consensual adult porn.

Forcing people to make details of their private sexual behaviour known to their broadband providers is intrusive to an extent that is hard to overstate.

Cameron says it's about protecting the children, but his obsession with stopping teenage boys having a wank looks positively Victorian and is downright creepy. At least the Victorians turned their anti-masturbation zealotry to invent good stuff like Cornflakes.

The Politics Of The Street

Six Asian Muslim men have pleaded guilty to charges of planning a terrorist attack on an English Defence League* march in Dewsbury.

However violently attacking the EDL when they exercise the right to protest is tacitly supported or at least tolerated by many in the mainstream society. The organisation "Unite Against Fascism" has repeatedly launched violent attacks on the EDL yet that didn't stop the likes of David Cameron lending his support to this Socialist Workers Party front group.

Once people start romanticising street brawling as a means of opposing movements that you oppose it seems harsh to jail people for taking the idea half a step further.


* I'm not under any illusions about the EDL, which does include many out and out fascists. Fun EDL anecdote- I was in Penzance a few months ago for work reasons and briefly spoke to someone managing a pub.

He asked where I was from and when I replied "Northampton" his follow up question was "what do you think of all the blacks?", I mumbled a polite reply.

He then told me that his mate Chris, who was a shopfitter from Weston Super Mare, had founded the EDL before being marginalised by someone called Tommy from Luton who spent all the EDL's money on cocaine. Chris had now launched a secret breakaway group called the "English Volunteer Force".

Hooray Scandal Averted

The proposals for a statutory press regulator that have been accepted by all three main parties ensures that the biggest public scandal of recent years will never be allowed to happen again.

I talk of course of the parliamentary expenses scandal which was exposed when the Daily Telegraph purchased the information in circumstances which were 100% justified yet probably illegal (at least by the person selling it).

Some of the press abuses were scandalous- the harassment of Chris Jeffries and the hacking of Millie Dowler's phone were inexcusable- but this response is all about empowering every public nuisance to suppress stories which they find damaging.

The complainant to the new press regulator will have to pay none of the costs- but given the big fines the regulator will be able to impose the newspapers will have to pay for lawyers even if they are blameless. Great news if you're Trafigura, the Church of Scientology or Spanker Mosely but terrible news if you have any notion of the powerful being held to account.

I don't really blame David Cameron- because once the Lib Dems decided they would rather screw over the press than uphold free speech he simply didn't have enough MPs to resist the Labour proposals (which were pretty much drafted by Hacked Off).

 Public outrage has successfully been harnessed to censor pretty much all forms of written  speech.

Preachy Pop Stars

David Cameron has declined to stop listening to the Smiths, despite being ordered to by Johnny Marr (whose banning tweet was endorsed by Morrissey).

I have a confession to make- I am also a fan of the Smiths*. Like all Smiths fans there does come a time when one has to accept that despite making some of the best music of the last 50 years, the band themselves were complete bell ends. At least the two principle men- Morrissey and Marr.

Apart from their personal behaviour- they famously got together to defraud their fellow band members of royalties (before penning a ditty about materialism and greed no doubt), the pronouncements of either of them on politics are infantile and dogmatic.

Most Smiths fans do accept this, I follow a 'Smiths' page on Facebook and even most of the comments there- a page frequented by people whose main thing they have in common is they like the Smiths- agree that Marr is being a twat.

But if Jews can listen to Wagner, conservatives can listen to the Smiths.

* It is a marmite like taste. Most people reading this will think that they're whiny and depressing.

Facts About Jeremy Hunt

1. He appears to have not made any effort to be impartial in a his quasi-judicial role overseeing the takeover bid for Sky by Rupert Murdoch.
2. He should be asked to resign.
3. He is a mate of David Cameron.
4. He won't be asked to resign.

David Cameron Evicted For Urinating In Street

The top story at the Northampton Chronicle & Echo is this:

BREAKING NEWS: David Cameron evicted after neighbours complain of drunken anti-social behaviour, foul language and urinating in the street

An important story to cover I am sure you will agree.

A Cunning Plan

The BBC has learned* that David Cameron set up a secret unit within Whitehall to mount covert economic operations against Colonel Gaddafi.

The UK has been conducting sabotage against the Gadaffi regime? That certainly explains this photograph:

Brilliant, yet diabolical.

* I believe "has learnt" means "has been leaked by spin doctors".

Replacing Cameron

Sooooo if David Cameron is engulfed by the Murdocalypse and forced to quit (which is unlikely but I think a regular cabinet minister would have already quit by now) who is likely to replace him? The way I see it, the race would be very different to the last few contests because of the coalition. 

In a purely Conservative government William Hague and Liam Fox would be best placed, but it would be difficult for the Liberal Democrats to remain in a coalition headed by either man, because they are seen as too right wing. On the other hand Cameron loyalists like Osbourne will be tainted if Cameron had been forced out in controversy.


So the likely successor has to be seen as being- not too conservative, not tainted by Cameron and not responsible for any major screw ups in government.

Whilst that leaves some decent candidates- David Davis, Phil Hammond- I have a horrible feeling that this means the most likely next PM is either Ken Clarke or Theresa May.

David Cameron Would Sack David Cameron If He Weren't David Cameron.

His decision to appoint and then stand by Andy Coulson despite what was already public knowledge was a huge mistake.

If one of his ministers had been that closely involved with one of the key figures at the heart of one of the biggest scandals to hit the media in years, does anyone doubt that Cameron would sack them?



As this is the last I want to say about the NOTW for the time being, I'll just add one minor mea culpa- what I have written about the hacking investigation to date has been broadly right but I probably did unconciously pay less attention to it because the likes of Coulson were Conservative PR guys rather than Labour one's.

???? World peace

Tell me if I am missing a step here:

1.  Colonel Gadaffi has WMD programme. Is a bastard to Libyan people.
2. Colonel Gadaffi agrees to disband WMD programme. Remains a bastard to Libyan people.
3. NATO commits itself to regime change because Colonel Gadaffi is a bastard to Libyan people.
4. We ask Iran, Pakistan, North Korea & Syria who are all bastards to their own people to give up their WMDs.
5. ????
6. World Peace

Whilst I do see why protecting Benghazi from a massacre is a worthwhile objective extending the mission to depose Gadaffi- an admittedly disgusting creature- sends out a message to all of the other states in the international rogues' gallery- "Don't give up your WMDs under any circumstances or you will be annihilated".

David Cameron, Oxford & Race

Oxford University has hit back at the prime minister after he said only one black UK student began a course there in 2009 and called it "disgraceful".

The university said David Cameron had been "incorrect and highly misleading", and that at least 26 black British undergraduates started that year.

Mr Cameron was answering questions about the effect of raised tuition fees on poorer students.

Downing Street said the figure of one black Caribbean student was accurate.

You have to feel for Oxford University, this is like trying to argue with a 5 year old. Why not simply admit he was mistaken instead of transparently shifting the goalposts to defend a different assertion to the one which was actually made?

It shows that David Cameron is on most things except public spending, not particularly conservative and his basic assumptions are similar to those of David Lammy- whose figures he was using:

- Cherry pick a number that shows a racial disparity.
- Make no effort to investigate why it exists.
- Blame an institution with, no real evidence.

The sad thing is he is accusing real people of doing something vile, in order to win votes even though even a cursory look at the figures shows that Oxbridge has no real case to answer. Of the 30000+ candidates who receive 3 As at A-Level (which is generally the minimum for the two universities in question), around 300 are black. In other words around 1% of eligible British candidates are black which is pretty much reflected in the actual ethnic make up of Oxford and Cambridge.

PM Refuses To Meet Fantasists.

One thing that Cameron has done which I do approve of, is publicly refuse to meet a quartet of retarded US Senators who want an "investigation" into whether BP was involved in the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber last year.

Given that there is a complete lack of evidence to suggest such a conspiracy it is clear that the Senators are indulging in irresponsible demagoguery to capitalise on BP's (deserved) unpopularity over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico the Senators should be considered to be on a par with truthers, birthers and people who insist the moon landings were faked.

Update: As Matthew points out in the comments, David Cameron has now caved and is going to meet the tinfoil hat wearing senators. So reverse everything I just wrote about Dave.

Cleggeron Gets Desperate

Does anyone else think that Cameron & Clegg's latest effort at selling the public on the coalition is both undignified and patronising?:



See also.

But Apart From That....

.... can we count on your vote on Thursday.

The Debate

As I said yesterday I didn't think the debate between Brown, Cameron and Clegg would be worth watching. Unless the three way stand off probably went something like this, then I will stick to preconceived notion that it is a waste of time:

So... We Should Shoot Him?

Cameron invokes JFK as he puts Broken Britain at heart of manifesto

The "Ask what you can do for your country" is a wonderful rhetorical flourish but the implication behind it does verge on the sinister- the idea that we are here to serve the state rather than vice versa.

Legitimate & Illegitimate Criticism

The (usually sensible) Tim Montgomerie's enemies list at Conservative Home lambasting the "ill discipline" and "destructive criticism" of various right wing pundits towards David Cameron is ill advised.

There is constructive criticism and there is destructive criticism. There is a time for debate on the Right and a time to either be silent or gun for Labour. At the moment there's too much ill-discipline on our side of the fence.

This close to a General Election is a time for people on the right to weigh their words carefully. Do they really want to help re-elect a government that has taken state spending to more than 50% of GDP? The Cameron-led Conservative Party isn't perfect but this election isn't a choice between a perfect and an imperfect Toryism but between Brown's big state interventionism and David Cameron's alternative.

No one has a duty to represent a political party that just happens to be broadly on the same side of the political spectrum, in fact newspaper columnists have an obligation to give their honest opinion and not simply to wave pom poms in support the blues. What does he think would happen to the credibility of someone like Peter Hitchens if after 5 years of criticising Cameron he then applauds him for 5 weeks? One of the reasons for the success of Conservative Home website is surely its independence from the party it supports, it is no different for pundits.

One of the worst aspects of US punditry is the extent to which they align with political movements, this is not something to be emulated.

As it happens I think that a David Cameron led government will be a vast improvement on one led by Gordon Brown and my vote will reflect that, but if someone doesn't believe this then it is perfectly "legitimate" to say so.

Best Campaign Prop Ever.

Whilst I would prefer a Conservative victory in the next election I really hope that no voters are going to be swayed to vote Tory on the grounds that Samantha Cameron is pregnant. Are the public really that shallow? Yes, probably.

Can the Browns respond? If Sarah Brown isn't already pregnant it will be difficult for her to be sufficiently visibly pregnant by May 6th to counteract Samantha Cameron, so perhaps Gordon should divorce her and marry someone who can get pregnant on demand and has the gestation period of a hamster- yes he should wed Kerry Katona.