🎵 Ohhhhhh Jacob Rees-Mogg ... 🎶

It is a depressing indictment of British politics that the left has emotional but untrue articles of faith on its side, and the right has totally capitulated to the forces of statism and authoritarianism.

Jeremy Corbyn has shaken off most of his dusty geography teacher image and is now becoming a polished media performer. His hideously adoring acolytes greet his every utterance as the profound words of some venerable sage, and go round chanting "Tory scum" and "hang the Tories" wherever they go. And it's not an idle threat, I believe that if they do come to power, there will be "justifiable" violence. If someone doesn't die, it'll be lucky.

For those of us who have a job and better things to do than gather every bloody protest march, the pickings are slim. "Anyone but May" was my message to the world when the Tories were picking a leader, and really, could anyone have done a worse job in front of an open goal than she has? She should have absolutely stomped Jeremy Corbyn into the ground, instead she gave him credibility and made him look prime ministerial by comparison.

And her policies are equally repulsive. Mayism is an awful hodgepodge of big state nannyism and nonsensical market intervention. Honestly, when lefties are pointing out that Help To Buy is a terrible idea and Tories think it's the answer, we have gone through the looking glass.

It all came to a head for me when Jacob Rees-Mogg was accosted by a bunch of Corbynista thugs at a Conservative Party Conference fringe event. He calmly spoke plain words of common sense to the idiot who was screaming at him. He told him some calm facts. He pointed out that someone's policies did not inherently make them a bad person, just someone with a different view. I'd love to say it was a Damascene conversion, but it won't be. Shabbir Lakha will doubtlessly go on to great depths as a third-rate politician, knowing righteously in his heart that only Corbynistas know the true path to enlightenment and anyone who disagrees with them deserves to swing from a tree.

How has it come to this? How have blood-thirsty, thuggish, middle-class Corbynistas come to be so devout? Why does no-one on the right have any useful riposte or any balls? How has a backbench politician become a media star for just calmly pointing totally reasonable and sensible things out to a screaming buffoon? Why does the screaming buffoon now have a media presence?

I don't want "Moggmentum". I don't want a leadership cult politician running the show, of either stripe. I was calm, confident competence. I want opposing views to be heard, discussed and tolerated. I don't want this underlying threat of violence that underlies so much of our politics today.

Jacob Rees-Mogg might well hold some awful views, but the people shouting at him hold even worse views. There isn't a politician out there who doesn't hold some awful views in someone's opinion. In my opinion, they all hold awful views. So maybe someone who can actually calmly speak in the face of thuggery, keep calm and have manners is all we can hope for.

Can we have more of this from politicians, please?

Jez and Diane

A little ditty 'bout Jez & Diane
Two communist kids growing up in that Lahndahn
Jez he's gonna be a politician like,
Diane debutante on the back seat of Jez's bike
Rollin' round like Guevaras in Germany's east
Diane sitting on Jez's lap
Got his hands between her knees
Jez he says:
"Hey, Diane, let's run off behind a shady tree
Dribble off those Marx and Sparx
Let me do what I please"
Saying oh yeah
Life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone
Sayin' oh yeah
Life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone
Now walk on
Jez he sits back, collects his thoughts for a moment
Scratches his head, and does his best Stalin
Well, now then, there, Diane, we ought to run off to the east
Diane says:
"Baby, you ain't missing nothing"
But Jez he says:
"Oh yeah, life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone"
Oh yeah
He says: "life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone"
Oh, let it rock, let it roll
Let the little red book come and save my soul
Holdin' on to sixteen as long as you can
Change is coming 'round real soon
Make us woman and man
Oh yeah, life goes on
A little ditty 'bout Jez and Diane
Two communist kids doin' the best they can

(with sincere apologies to John Mellencamp)

Fuckface Von Clownstick

I must admit, I didn't see that coming. Mind you, I didn't think Brexit would happen either. AND I was hoping for Scottish independence.

I recently read an analysis of inequality that made a sort of sense to me. It doesn't matter how much inequality there is. It matters how much inequality people perceive. This is why most Americans are comfortable with inequality. They see it as an inspiration or aspiration. British people are much more disdainful about wealth and so prefer to redistribute wealth.

I'm not sure I see wealth as an inspiration or aspiration, but inequality doesn't bother me.

But it does strike me that you could make the same argument about democratic inequality. There is a large section of society that feels like it doesn't matter how they vote. The same old bien-pensant shit keeps on coming out of government.

Of course, a large section of society is comfortable with the same old bien-pensant shit. They're the ones that vote. They hold earnest discussions with their peers. They tweet pious messages of virtue, solidarity and instruction.

Along came the Scottish independence referendum. An unusual opportunity to effect real change. And the Scots leapt at it. Of course, the case for independence was too optimistic. The Scots declined the opportunity.

The Brexit referendum was an appalling display of the worst of British politics. Neither side made a compelling case. The unique history of Britain means Britons are sceptical about the European project. I think Britons don't trust the EU. The ongoing accusations of racism and xenophobia are wide of the mark. Of course there are some bigots who are anti-EU. But most Britons just don't trust the opaque, rapacious EU. I don't think claims of money for the NHS swayed a single person.

But this wasn't just about the rumbling mistrust of the EU. This was a chance for British people who feel like their votes don't matter to change things. To upset the bien-pensant apple cart.

And so to the US election. I'm pretty sure there were some racists and xenophobes who voted for Trump. I'm pretty sure he's a prick. But although he's moneyed and a gobshite, he's not a politician. I think a lot of people looked at the Clinton machine and thought: that's going to be more of the same. The chattering classes who like the way things are going just assumed she'd walk it. But it turns out that enough people are sick of the same-old, same-old to change it.

Of course, Trumpism won't change anything. It won't herald a new white supremacist era. It won't lead to walls. I don't think it will lead to any significant drained swamps. I don't think he'll sit on the the Big Red Button by mistake.

I hope Trump's election will make politicians and the commentariat think. Especially about how they treat people they just dismiss now.

#Brexit - yea or nay?

Some things we need to bear in mind, before we start:

• I don't think Brexit is going to happen, because the people who count the votes don't want Brexit to happen
• I was calling for Scottish independence, so could the zoomers please fuck off
• I'm not inherently more against a federal government than any other model - in fact, I think federal Britain (as opposed to Britain part of a federal EU) would be a better thing than what we have now.

The obvious thing is: I want Brexit, because it's a layer of government and taxation removed from us. Despite all the pro's of remain and the cons of Brexit, ultimately we would be a bit freer than we are now.

This is not to say that aspects of the EU are not convenient. Visa-free travel, only one currency to worry about, getting jobs abroad easily, etc. - these range from "making your life a bit more convenient" to "genuinely life-changing opportunities".

There is an economic component, too: although we are a nett contributor to the EU and even the money we get back must be used for things the EU wants us to do, so it's probably not allocated well, it cannot be denied that there would be SOME uncertainty upon Brexit. This could lead to at least a short-term economic downturn - I don't know, it does seem more likely than a sudden boom. Both are possibilities though.

And for bleeding hearts, there is the ECHR and Human Rights Act, so hated by the Daily Mail it can't be all bad, especially when you look at Theresa May and her apparent insatiable urge to spy on us and the curiously regular occurrence of miscarriage of justice.

But ... and there are several buts here:

• Underlying the law in most (all?) EU states apart from us is the presumption that anything that is not explicitly permitted, is not permitted at all. Even the presumption of innocence is not standard practice. As convergence comes about, I can see Britain becoming even less free than it currently is.
• Being in the EU makes it exceptionally easy for the unelected and entirely unaccountable REAL government of the UK, the civil service, to push through all sorts of crap that they believe we need and coincidentally builds their little empires and gives them more authority to fuck us around.
• Many of the more invasive and unpleasant EU rules that exist have actually come about at Britain's behest. Somehow, Remainers think this is a reason to stay. But the truth is that Civil Servants really love the EU, because it gives them an "arms-length" reason to implement their shit. If it came out that a civil servant wanted us all spied on or whatever, there'd be an uproar. But because "the EU" wants to implement it, we might grumble but we know we can't convince the rest of Europe to see things our way. So it just happens.
• The opacity of the European Project is something that any fan of good government should worry about. (I'm not a fan of any government, but I realise I'm in a minority!) People are forever confusing the ECHR, EU, European Commission and all the other various arms, legs and other appendages and quangos - it's not just lazy thinking that leads to this. The interaction of election process, finances, accountability and responsibilities of these bodies is largely incomprehensible and way beyond the control of British people - or any other people.

I'm almost certain that even if by some miracle we vote for Brexit, it'll never happen because the civil service will drag its heels and find a million reasons not to do it. And don't think that a Brexit would lead to them rescinding acres of intrusive, hectoring law - that's never going to happen.

If you're still not convinced about the Civil Service, think about the Home Office: how come apparently sane politicians become illiberal Nazis as soon as they enter the Home Office and then become sane, reasonable people when they leave? It's because illiberal Nazis run the Home Office and they control what actually gets put forward and what gets done.

Ever wondered why David Cameron floated policies that got shot down when Gordon Brown was in power? It's because the same guy is actually still in charge and want to see if he can get by with some bullshit he believes we need to live by and he's hoping there won't be a fuss.

Ever wondered why Jeremy Corbyn suddenly backs remain? He's had a chat with a silky mandarin who's told him him in no uncertain terms that if he backs Brexit, he'll never get anything through into law, even if he wins an election.

And that is pretty much why I want Brexit - it's to keep the British Civil Service in check, not because of some xenophobic hatred of foreigners or even a particular belief that the EU is less democratic and accountable than our parliament. Being part of the EU makes OUR bureaucrats less accountable, that's the real danger here.

Ireland takes it up the shitter

It's not final yet, but it looks like the bogtrotters have decided to let pooves, dykes and other assorted perverts and deviants get married.

This is great news, it's entirely unclear to me why only breeders should be allowed the misery and stress of married life. And it's also good that it looks like it will be a clear, unambiguous and wide-spread decision.

However, I do have a couple of reservations:

• what happens if there is a different definition of marriage for straights and queers, like there is in the UK? As far as I'm concerned, if there's not actual equality, then this isn't really any different from civil partnerships.
• why are there different definitions of marriage for different groups of people? Well, you might argue that the definition of sex between straights, gays and dykes is potentially all different, so what constitutes adultery is different. But then I might, as a straight, commit an act that is not adultery in a gay marriage but is adultery in a straight marriage. How is that equality?
• why is the state even involved in defining and restricting what is essentially a private contract between two people? The state doesn't get involved in my business transactions (other than to extort protection money off me!), why the hell should it have anything to do with my love life? People used to let the church run the whole farce, that was no better, but the state's involvement is terrible, as it gives political parties the ability to indulge in social engineering to suit their own agenda

Anyway, here's to the impending misery of bulldykes and shirt lifters in the Emerald Isle.

Cheers!

Thoughts on #Mandela (for @kevin_maguire and others)

So, he's gone. Predictably, the sanctimonious bullshit has been dialled up to 11.

One of the most depressing things about it has been the preponderance of left-wing political animals (if not MPs) like Alastair Campbell and Charlie Whelan banging on about meeting him.

Look at mmmeeeeeeEEEEEEE!! Look at me! I met him! I touched him! Behold, he cured my leprosy!

From utter cunts who would mock the shit out of someone saying the Pope had done that.

Equally annoying has been the whitewashing of his history. He was given a fair trial and a fair sentence, even Amnesty fucking International said so. He WAS a terrorist.

He was also a politician upon release, who had some good ideas and equally, some fucking insane ones. Ironically, he replaced a notionally democratic but really one party state with another notionally democratic but really one party state, although to be fair, this was hardly his fault.

He did keep a lid on the widely-expected violent backlash, but today there are more murders of white farmers in SA than there ever were in Zimbabwe.

He did, for a very brief time, largely unite the nation (apart from lunatic neo-nazis and equally lunatic black consciousness marxists, but nothing's going to make those fuckers talk to anyone else!) Ultimately that was down to the cult around his person - he did not make this a lasting legacy.

He did drag South Africa out of the Stone Age in terms of some social liberties, but ultimately the economic policies he introduced replaced the handful of white oligarchs with a handful of black ones while leaving the overwhelming majority of South Africans even worse off than they'd been under the Apartheid regime.

He fucked up royally on crime and let's face it, the corruption of other politicians did not start after he left power.

So his legacy can basically summed as a mixed bag - hardly the amazing result he seems to be associated with.

But really, the worst whole thing about the grief whoring is that people who hold him up as some sort of role-model-y godlike figure display none of the values that they claim to admire in Mandela: that people can change and that you should forgive.

As an example of this: a load of bollocks has been spouted about Dishface wanting to hang Mandela in the 80's. Even if he did (and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case), the whole fucking point about lionising Mandela is that he is the model of change for the good, of humility and of reconciliation and forgiveness. We venerate Mandela, an ex-terrorist, because when he got to power he didn't use that power to victimise the people who branded him a terrorist. He changed. He forgave.

Unlike the tolerant, always-correct left. Using the death of a man they claim to admire to score some cheap, political points. Nice one, Kev!

I wish that people who are venerating Mandela would display some of the fucking qualities they claim to admire in him.

Rust In Peace

Well, Margaret Hilda Thatcher has finally succumbed, and from the clamour on both sides, you'd think it was a current serving prime minister who had popped her clogs in office.

I look at the right and I see beatification of someone who ultimately believed that the state had a purpose, even if it was a different purpose than what Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband would expect. From the left, it's like Adolf Hitler had been toppled by people beating him to death with rolled-up copies of the Socialist Worker.

Her policies broke the mould of a nation that was still, 35 years after the event, shaped by the attitudes and experiences of a war that everyone else in the world had left behind.

Today, Britain is still largely defined by what she did. For all the talk that I hear from "the left", the only way Labour came to power was to embrace Thatcherism and evolve it very slightly.

I think Thatcher's real legacy is not her considerable achievements for both good and bad as a politician, her immense climb to power at a time when sexism was still rampant and she was not of the Eton / Bullingdon elite or the strength of the mutual bond that she forged with the US that no subsequent PM matched, or indeed anything else that she did.

Her real legacy was to show the poverty of British politics, where leaders who are not merely mediocre dross, leaders with actual ideas and the will to take them forward come along only once in a lifetime.

Before Thatcher, everyone was still living based on the war, weak, tired and stultified while the rest of the world surged past. Thatcher may have broken the old, comfortable, "clubby" Britain, where your club was either the Bullingdon or the local working man's club, but she also opened Britain up to the rest of the world again.

How depressing that people on the left and the right have got nothing better to offer than evolutions of, or rebuttals to, Thatcherism. It was nearly a quarter of a century ago that she was in power, more than a quarter of the average person's life, and still politicians have nothing more to offer us than what she had.

Ultimately, by dishing up increasingly hair-splitting variations on what Thatcher left behind, British politics is starting a massive race to the bottom.

The empire is over. Britain's first world status is severely at risk and old ways and reversion to some golden era are just not going to happen. Stop dwelling on what's been and start looking to the future, or another 35 years will have gone by and Britain will become an irrelevant museum again, this time the museum of Thatcherism.

And so it begins... (for @TomHarrisMP) #equalmarriage

I think this is the first time I've noticed the start of a Fabian twisting of our language.

While I'm all for teh gayz having the right to fuck up their lives with marriage, I now see that we're not allowed to talk about gay marriage. It's "equal marriage".

No, it's not equal. There are different constraints that apply to gay marriage, one of which is that gays can have affairs and it's not grounds for divorce. That's a pretty weird form of exclusive monogamous commitment right there. There are other differences, a lack of consummation is not grounds for divorce either. So, you can have a gay marriage, never touch your partner, fuck around as much as you want and your partner just has to put up with it.

What kind of marriage is that, then?

But somehow, this has become "equal marriage". I'm pretty sure there's loads of people in straight marriages who would like the same perks, frankly. There are probably more straight people fuck around in their marriages and would like to do so without any prospect of sanction than there are gays who want to get married. What about some "equal rights" for them?

And what happens if a transgender gets married as a straight and then converts? Does their "conventional" marriage now become an "equal" marriage or are they a same-sex couple who have to be faithful?

This is just another badly-drafted, ill-considered bit of law that is going to fuck things around more. But mostly I'm annoyed about the abuse of the language.

It makes me wonder how much other "equality" law is a load of shit.

The failed promise of UKIP

There was a time when I had some hope for UKIP. There were a number of young activists who had strongly libertarian ideas and the unformed nature of the party meant that it could, for a time, have the potential to appeal to those who aren't served by the malign, Fabian social democracy of the other parties.

But alas, it was not meant to be. Occasional, stupid, illiberal, vote-grabbing policies and the rawness of their politicians shown up by smooth careerists have been firmed up into more frequent stupid, illiberal, vote-grabbing policies and their politicians are gradually having their raw edges knocked off. Soon, we won't be able to tell them apart from the Liberal Democrats.

How sad.

A Ramble through Beastleigh

So, there we have hit: modern social democracy in one easy-to-digest bite!

Despite losing 14% of their previous vote, despite an actual majority (53%) of people wanting a centre-right party, they got whatever it is the LibDems are this week. That's democracy based on party politics in action, right there.

But it's OK, because there's at least a 30% chance that the Lib Dems will be a centre-right party on any given day of the week. And still the yellow drones flock to them.

One thing, however, has been entirely misinterpreted by the Twitterati: "A lurch to the right is not a good idea for the Tories as their candidate was virtually a UKIPper" - nope, people weren't voting for the candidates, they were voting according to tribal loyalty or, in the best case, for what they saw as the parties' direction. The only thing a candidate can really do is fuck up their chances, like, say, wishing that a former Prime Minister had actually died in a bomb blast.

Effectively, Cameron's vacuous social democratic politics do not appeal to enough people, they only "won over" people who would vote for a Blue-ribboned dog turd.

People don't understand this "core vote" thing at all. The core vote will always vote for the party, it doesn't matter whether you lurch to the left or the right.

(I recently spent a weekend with some Labour activists and some of the stories they told me made even my hair stand on end. And yet, despite their very clear understanding that the people that they're supporting are bullies, sexual predators, backstabbers and people that they intensely dislike, THEY STILL VOTE FOR THEM AND WORK THEIR ARSES OFF TO SUPPORT THEM.)

As we say in Topeka, Kansas: "Da FUQUE??"

Having said that, everybody (even the tribal faithful) can see the yawning chasm of amoral, unprincipled emptiness at the heart of modern politics. People don't vote for Cameron in droves despite Gordon Brown's disastrous incompetence because he stands for absolutely nothing. He is the heir to Blair in that regard, but he lacks Blair's media control.

People yearn for politics where there are principles, where they vote for some thing. Politicians since Blair have set expectations that the "thing" they're voting for is all about throwing money from the magic money tree, and recipients of their "largesse" are quite understandably upset that this can't happen indefinitely.

Ultimately, nobody is happy with the way things are being run. It's much easier to accept austerity if there's a clear goal at the end of it. But since there isn't a clear goal other than "clearing up Labour's mess" and there is no apparent sign of the chosen path to austerity working, as raising taxes leaves people with less money in their pockets to restart the economy, everybody is unhappy with the Tory government.

The rise of UKIP is not entirely down to the innate bigotry of British people, it's mostly down to the fact that they appear to stand for something and they're not one of the current lot, all of whom are regarded as massive failures.

But for politics to have principle does not require a "lurch to the right", a "lurch to the left" or a "lurch to the middle". British politicians are fighting over a tiny patch of centre-right, authoritarian ground. Even the ostensibly less authoritarian, more left-wing Greens are just eco-fascists, who want to inflict their own particular brand of bullshit on the rest of us.

Why can't politicians take a stand based on less authoritarianism? It's clear since Blair what the economic sweet spot is, but when it comes to letting people live their lives, every government seems to be more and more authoritarian. How much further can they actually go before we start getting curfews and shit like that?

Why can't we get a party that says: "You know what? As a thank you for voting for us, we're going to get out of your face. We're going to stop micromanaging your life. We're going to trust you to do the right thing like you're trusting us to do the right thing"?

What's wrong with referenda?

The strongest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter.

-Sir Winston Churchill

The quote above is one of the most common reasons given for why we cannot do a more direct democracy in this country. Apparently, the masses are too stupid to understand the subtleties of issues, which is why our specialist, managerialist political classes are given free reign to promise us X gratis and then deliver Y at a phenomenally generous cost Z.

But to me, it's pretty telling that people use this quote at all. Basically, it's saying, "I think other people are too stupid and can't be trusted with difficult decisions. I'm happy to let the political classes do the right thing, because they're so much smarter and more informed than the rest of us."

Well, that's bollocks, isn't it?

I'm sure there are some very bright people in politics, but most of them seem to be no smarter than the average table and most of those that appear adroit are actually simply possessed of a low, animal cunning.

And in all of them, the sociopathy and amorality necessary to play the games of party politics to get into power in the first place render any potential intelligence benefit moot.

So, given that there isn't any particular proof that politicians and civil servants are any smarter or better informed than us, why should we not be given the same level of influence over major decisions that politicians have? Or indeed ANY decision?

(Note that I still believe that democracy is a load of shit, but what we have now isn't even a democracy, it's an oligarchy that has the fig leaf of voting in front of it.)

Democracy by the Pound?

I was wondering, as I so often do, why people fetishise democracy so much.

After all, representative democracy is basically useless, anyone who looks at our political system objectively will certainly realise that it is almost completely broken. Politicians are pretty much unaccountable, especially in safe seats, only the most egregious and blatant criminal activity cause loss of privilege, and there is practically no comeback on any politician for fucking up in his job, no matter how disastrous a fuckup he or she makes. At best we can hope for "lessons to be learned".

Ha bloody ha.

But the reason we have representative democracy is because there are too many things to be debated and be agreed for something like a referendum to be applied to every decision that needs to be taken.

And so it seems that there is no way to square this circle. Representative democracy is a sham and a tribal game; and direct democracy is impractical.

So, what do we do?

Well, how about this: instead of us paying taxes to a central government pot, why don't we keep all our money and let government put forward its program of activities that require funding along with suggested contributions? We can then throw our money into specific activities that we think are important.

Pensions for the elderly? Yeah, I'll give some money to that. Disability care? Sure. Iraq war? No thanks. Foreign aid? Nah. Social services? Don't think so. Care for the homeless? Sure. Roads? I might overpay. Etc, etc, etc.

Effectively, we could all vote for our preferred government activities and policies by chucking money at it - whatever you think is important, you can vote for by the Pound. This way, every person can feel that the government genuinely is representing their beliefs and priorities.

The five-knuckle reshuffle

So, with dreary inevitability, we have a mid-term Cabinet reshuffle.

I can (vaguely) remember a time when such a thing might genuinely have meant something. A handful of departments, a handful of ministers and a change could possibly have a fairly dramatic change in policy.

However, this is no longer the case for two reasons: firstly, there are so many ministers and secretaries and departments and sub-departments that shuffling the whole lot around is going to change nothing because no role carries any actual power; secondly, every single member of parliament, Tory, Labour or Lib Dem is nothing more than a troughing makeweight, none of them have a useful idea in their head or the stones to make them happen.

Quietly, possibly not even with malice aforethought, the power in the country has slipped from the elected politicians' grasp into the quiet, sleek hands of unelected civil servant mandarins. This is not a new thing, the more venerable among you will remember "Yes, Minister" which, even then, was more factual than fictional.

The personal prejudices of entirely unaccountable, anonymous apparatchiks define how we live our lives, while tribal warriors on all sides froth vacuously over people who are carefully placed as lightning rods to take the heat over decisions that are made by people far from the limelight.

Not one of the minister's ideas or plans will ever see the light of day unless the civil service think it's a good idea and even if they do, they will not happen while that person is "in charge" of that area.

But crucially, it doesn't matter who you vote for or how angry you are - you're shouting at the shop-window display. The clerks inside are the ones who decide what you're getting.

Outsourcing your citizenship

I listened (with some trepidation!) to a Gresham podcast by the Squeaker, John Bercunt.

In the podcast, he raises the very salient point that a child can leave school entirely unaware of the mechanics of parliament, and even worse, that it is technically possible to achieve a degree in politics without understanding this!

However, I wonder if that is really our fault. Politics has become so complex and so remote, elections have become so irrelevant, lawmaking has become so profligate and politicians so dissociated with the rest of us, is it really a surprise that no-one considers the mechanics of parliament relevant?

Perhaps if politicians stopped making a gazillion hectoring laws, perhaps if their election manifestos meant something, perhaps if the Westminster bubble didn't exist, people might actually give a shit enough to learn these things for themselves.

Perhaps if the language of politics was more honest and if politics wasn't such a pathetic, obscure farce, people would be more inspired to pay attention.

In other words, Mr Squeaker, the problem is not with schools and universities and the people you claim to serve or anyone- or anything else.

The problem is cunts like you.

Too much government

I found this article via twitter. An absolutely fascinating read on why government consultations tend to generate so little useful response and why the whole concept of getting people affected by legislation to comment on it is largely pointless and self-defeating.

If I was a cynic, I'd almost say it was designed to be a self-defeating object.

Isn't it ironic that the same people who demand clarity from business in their dealings with the public commit the most egregious crimes against plain speaking themselves?

We don't need more regulation. I don't believe we need ANY regulation, but if we must have regulation it should be reasonable to expect that you do not need to spend 20 years in government to be to decipher the rules that apply to you.

Gunning for HMRC

I see that the clitterati are out in full force, damning "the Tories" for cosying up to big business with sweetheart tax deals.

Well, anybody who has been reading Private Eye will know that this shit has been going on for much longer than the Tories have been in power. It all started under our last Dear Leader, Kim Jong Brown. And I'm fucking sure the Labour Party knew bloody well it was going on. Margaret Hodge, (former Minister for Children because of her great experience being in charge during the Islington child abuse scandal) is making great political capital banging on about something that started when she was in government.

If she was that fucking worried about it, why didn't she say anything when her team was in charge? It almost looks like this is some cynical fucking attempt at making the Tories look bad.

Heaven forbid!

And another thing, we don't know the full facts of the case. I'm really not sure anyone did anything wrong.

But even if there was a "sweetheart deal", I don't fucking give a shit. I'd much rather Vodafone (and others) kept the money they'd earned honestly by voluntary transactions than give it to a government that pisses it out on shit like aid to India, which has a space program that we can't afford, or wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or employing millions of people in jobs that are a nett drain on the economy,

Fuck them. If government hadn't been so incredibly profligate, the cuntry wouldn't be so fucked. The less money HMRC collects, the better for us all.

The invisible man on Twitter

"*"
- Oliver Letwin on Twitter

Clearly, Mr Letwin is a man of few words on twitter, although he recently said a mouthful elsewhere:

Oliver Letwin, the coalition's policy minister, has revealed the government's determination to instil "fear" among those working in the public sector, who he claimed had failed for the past 20 years to improve their productivity.

I really have no idea what he means.

Although at a recent social gathering, a Treasury civil servant tried to convince me that civil servants are not overpaid, by outlining the salary the Treasury's head of Child Poverty was likely to attract.

When I pointed out that in real terms, the UK not only has no actual poverty, but actually has no idea what poverty even looks like, I could see the rolling eyes. When I pointed out that the average person in Africa would regard the life of the meanest, poorest dole-bludger in a Glasgow tenement as a life of complete luxury and ease, the penny dropped.

The problem is not that there are not hard-working civil servants. I'm sure that if you looked around hard enough, you could find a handful. But even if you ignore the bureaucratic empire-building that goes on, with five people doing the work of two, there is still the fundamental problem of productivity. That the Treasury has a department, however small or large it may be, to deal with a problem that does not exist in reality, but only exists in the minds and tick-box targets of empire-building civil servants, simply indicates where a large part of the problem is.

My employer is a massive, bureaucratic monster. But even they don't employ a Department of Child Poverty. It's got nothing to do with the continued success of the business. (This despite my employer having a positively annoying number of diversity and inclusion fora and voluntary social outreach programs.)

But the Treasury gets money no matter what it does. And perversely, the more it fucks up and the more stupid ideas it has, the more of our money it can take.

In essence, for every hard-working civil servant (apparently 14-hours a day is a lot!) there are rooms full of dross, people who may mean well, who may have families to feed and all the rest, but in truth are just sucking up everyone else's money and resources and there are also entire departments that exist for no other reason than somebody with sufficient clout in the organisation wanted them to exist.

Letwin, architect of the coalition's plans to reform public services, told a meeting at the offices of a leading consultancy firm that the public sector had atrophied over the past two decades.

I think Letwin is wearing rosy specs here. The public sector has been atrophying since it was born.

In controversial comments angering teachers, nurses and doctors, he warned that it was only through "some real discipline and some fear" of job losses that excellence would be achieved in the public sector.

Ah, "teachers, nurses and doctors", the Holy Trinity of the left-leaning twat. Because of course, admin clerks and the rest don't really matter do they? But anger a teacher and WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHEEEEEELDREN? Not to mention the saintly, untouchable NHS!

So, every other civil servant, be told: you don't matter. Only teachers, nurses and doctors matter. Even the Guardian thinks the rest of you are scum**.

Letwin added that some of those running schools and hospitals would not survive the process and that it was an "inevitable and intended" consequence of government policy.

"You can't have room for innovation and the pressure for excellence without having some real discipline and some fear on the part of the providers that things may go wrong if they don't live up to the aims that society as a whole is demanding of them," he said.

And this is the nub of the argument, and probably the only time I'm going to agree with an MP.

I compete in my job. I have to impress my manager just to keep my job. I have to compete with the people in my team, I have to show willing, I have to excel to show I deserve my bonus. There is always some or other headcount reduction (or other cost reduction) program going on. But because I'm doing my job well and making the difference, I'm not worried about losing my job.

I would do it anyway, because it's not just the technology that excites me, I like making a difference and making problems go away. But if I was going to collect the same salary whether I bust a gut or not and I knew I'd never lose my job, I'm pretty sure there would be days where I would pull a sickie or get hammered the night before and sit in the office playing Freecell. And who knows, it might get to be addictive and maybe I'd stop working altogether, become a Wally in Dilbert-speak.

But along with the carrot of job satisfaction is the fact that I'm a parent with a kid to feed and my job is not guaranteed for life.

"If you have diversity of provision and personal choice and power, some providers will be better and some worse. Inevitably, some will not, whether it's because they can't attract the patient or the pupil, for example, or because they can't get results and hence can't get paid. Some will not survive. It is an inevitable and intended consequence of what we are talking about."

I really can't see why lefties are up in a froth over this. Do they really believe that if someone is a shit doctor and patients don't want to see them, they should get paid (and presumably still be doctors as well)? If someone is a useless teacher, would you want them teaching your kids?

Of course you fucking don't. So why the hell are you pretending that any of this is controversial?

*@oliverletwin hasn't tweeted yet.

**This is a joke. I think.

I knew there was a reason I gave up caring about politics

I did, for a while, genuinely lose interest in politics, because I found something that mattered more than politics. But since I no longer have that happiness, I've started to look back at politics, and once again the sheer hateful stupidity of it all stands before me:

Lord Glasman, the leading policy adviser to the Labour leader, said the country should “draw the line” on immigration and even renegotiate EU rules that allow free movement for migrant workers.

He told The Daily Telegraph that Britain is “not an outpost of the UN” and the needs of the British people must be put first.

The comments are the most drastic yet for any of the major political parties and would effectively end immigration in to the UK.

However, the Labour party was last night quick to distance itself from the suggestions, insisting Lord Glasman’s views were “his own”.

Immigration has been thrust back on to the political agenda by both Labour and the Conservatives.

Now, it's absolutely true that I have, in the past, railed on about immigration, but it's more that it's a symptom of the welfare state that I despise, than that I have an issue with immigration.

And the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of immigrants who come to the UK get jobs (that feckless British cunts don't want to do), pay their taxes and get on with their lives. There are also some genuine refugees and then there are also some weapons-grade motherfuckers who come here to sponge off the state.

The cost of the weapons-grade motherfuckers is easily outweighed by the sheer benefit of people picking up the shitty jobs that are beneath the dignity of the noble Briton, a race clearly designated for only fulfilling, high-paid jobs and nothing menial, OK?

Never mind that they chip in disgracefully high proportions of their income into the saintly NHS or gold-plated pensions for fucking useless civil servants.

Immigrants are a nett benefit to British society, end of. It doesn't matter whether they're Somali cockwashers, Polish builders or Australian IT twats. They come here, they either pick up shit jobs or bring skills we don't have. They endure taxation without representation. They are A Good Thing(TM)

Yet here we have an experienced and educated man, elevated to a peerage, advisor to a man who would rule us, representing the "party of the common man", who wishes to encourage this fucking bollocks because it resonates with people who have been encouraged to believe this fucking bollocks.

God forbid anyone should have an intelligent debate on the real fucking reason immigration is bad: it's bad because it puts more strain on housing and public services.

Why does it put a strain on housing? Because it's in the government's interest to keep house prices disproportionally high which they do my invoking the sacred "green belt" mythology. House prices are kept artificially inflated by regulation and the encouragement of NIMBYism.

Immigration is really not the factor it's made out to be here.

And immigrants do not place any more stress on "public services" than the rest of us, if they are allowed to work. Once they can work, they can pay taxes. Fucking bullshit laws that make it difficult for immigrants to work mean that the fucking government is forcing them to be a drain on public services.

And apart from that, the generosity of the welfare state is hardly the fucking fault of migrants who come here specifically not to suck at the state's teat but come here to work and earn an honest wage, nor is it even the fault of migrants who come here specifically to suck at the state's teat. The state designs, maintains and operates the welfare system. Is it really the fault of some uneducated, filthy foreigner from Outer Krapulastan or The Republic of Bongobongoland if they can look at it and think "I can have these guys for a decent lifestyle"?

Nah, fuck it,immigration is just another fucking bogeyman that the political classes use to frighten us all into voting for whoever is going to "take the strongest line" without being "racist".

So fuck you, Lord Cockmong, and a hearty fuck you to all the imbeciles who have leapt on to his bandwagon. I hope you all fucking die of face cancer.

Update: Snap!

Thoughts on hacking Milly Dowler's phone

Predictably, the Twitter has exploded. Left, right and centre are apoplectic with rage. Calls for Rebekah Brooks's head, Andy Coulson's head, Rupert Murdoch's head, Jeremy Hunt's head and the death of the monarchy have all crossed my timeline.

And The News of the Screws was bang out of line. Whoever was in charge at the time (I really don't give a flying fuck who it was) should grow a set and take responsibility.

But I do wonder about the rage. Milly Dowler clearly doesn't give a fuck. And really, I don't think the largely left-wing clitterati aren't normally unduly vexed about the government doing things like this, or about the papers doing this sort of thing to other people.

Nobody's complaining about the Police being implicated in helping and / or covering up journalists doing this.

And I'm amused to see that other papers are generally not being too savage in their reporting of this, I can only assume they don't want to crow too loud lest it wake skeletons in their own closets.

I also don't recall this fulminating lefty hatred for Murdoch when he was in Tony Blair's camp.

Let's face it, this was disgusting and shameful. But I bet it's no more disgusting or shameful than stuff all the papers get up to every single day. They're all at it. The government keeps equally invasive tabs on us. The police do it to suspected criminals and if those suspects are exonerated, fuck all gets said about that.

And the idea that Rupert Murdoch personally knew about it and approved it is laughable.

Nah, fuck it. This is just a convenient excuse for some moral outrage, the lefties are using it as a hook to beat up a media mogul because he's not on their side any more.

Everyone else who is outraged seems to think it was because a dead girl it's somehow worse than hacking a live sleb or listening in to John Prescott's pie orders.

It's a load of shit. It doesn't matter any more or any less than any of the other hacking or any of the other manufactured bullshit of manufactured personalities devoured avidly by vacuous tits who can't think beyond the latest issue of Heat magazine.

All of the people frothing at the mouth are exactly the same low-life twats who are so obsessed with Peter Andre and Katie Price and Ryan Gigg's sex lives that they drive this kind of demand for salacious titbits.

We get the government we deserve. We also get the media we deserve.

"All anarchists should be made to go live in Somalia"

Hur! Hur! Hur!

The only difference between paying for private protection of property rights is that the costs are transparent. The biggest fear of government is that people see how much they pay and how little they get back in return.

All you statist cunts can suck my hairy balls.