A new religion

A couple of days ago, it dawned on me why religion is becoming less relevant in our lives. It isn't. It's just that the god we worship is no longer the abstract skyfairy YHWH or his myriad descendants and variants, but the equally abstract (yet much more apparent) state.

Authoritarian worshippers of the two main factions (the Left and the Right) argue violently about which of them holds the keys to the True Way Forward To Holiness by insisting their grip on the levers of the state will lead to a path of plenty and righteousness.

As with most religious beliefs, the opportunities for apparently sensible, intelligent people to talk utter bullshit in defence of their religious hierarchy and slant on what the state should be are no more illogical and incomprehensible than Catholics refusing contraception in an era of HIV:

Funnily enough, last year one of those sympathetic to Brown had a very different take on a 17-year old tweeter. Graham Linehan noted in the case of “@Rileyy_69”, who was arrested for tweeting abuse (and a lame death threat) to Tom Daley:

As a symbol of free speech, Riley69 is not Lenny Bruce. He’s not even the EDL. He’s a teenager going through that thing a lot of teenagers go through where they seem unable to feel empathy. This kind of temporary sociopath can be very dangerous and using these new tools they can wreak havoc more efficiently than ever before.

He was all for Riley’s arrest - there was no ‘oh teenagers!’ on display here. Yet Riley69 wasn’t a public figure, just someone who had tweeted idiotic comments to a celebrity. If Tom Daley had quickly blocked him, almost no-one would have ever heard of him. Instead Daley alerted his followers and we ended up with people like Linehan defending Riley69’s arrest. The logic, then, that it’s simply awful to bring to light the casual homophobia/racism etc of a newly-pointed police figure but fine and dandy to arrest someone of the same age for their idiotic tweets seems rather…pained. It’s for this reason that I have zero doubt that, had Brown’s tweets not came to light via the Daily Mail but rather (say) through some left-wing blogger who presented them as highlighting her use of ‘faggots’, the response from many would be very different.

People on the Left will grumpily endorse actions from their bishops that would drive them insane if called for by the bishops of the Right and vice versa.

It's also ironic how many left-wing "atheists" will happily venerate the state to irrational heights. In a sense, I'd regard the Left as the devout Catholics of statism, and the Right as milque-toast CoE. The Left seem to have a peculiar belief in the holiness of the state: philanthropy and charity of individuals is shameful, the Holy State should provide for all from its extortion. The Right still go to church, but they've jettisoned some of the more ludicrous aspects of the theology.

Irrational, prone to violent and unreasoning reaction to heretics, filled with internecine squabbles and ridiculous sects, governed by arcane rules interpreted by people of dubious morality using their shamanic powers to hide disgusting deeds: religion has not gone away at all, the world has just adopted a hungrier, more violent god.

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.

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"?

A problem with any kind of "representation"

I am, by and large, unconvinced by the concept of collective bargaining. It inevitably implies that most of the people who are represented by the union don't get the exact deal that they want. More importantly, I am equally convinced that, as with our parliamentary "representatives", once you hand over your interests to them, they become secondary to the interests and the motivations of the "representative".

Here is a case in point:

For every £10 given to The Labour Party £4 comes from #Unite. Not one Labour spokesperson supports their strike #learnthelesson #TUSC
- Nancy Taaffe on twitter

Now, I don't know who Nancy Taaffe is and I don't know if her statement is factually correct, but it does point out that given her beliefs and views, her "representatives", both within Unite (who continue to give money to Labour despite the lack of support) and Labour (who also refuse to support her) clearly aren't representing her and people who feel like her.

But the bigger problem is actually with Nancy Taaffe herself, and anyone else who believes in concepts like social and collective action and welfare to the exclusion of the value of the individual. Because I'm sure that this time next year, Nancy Taaffe and her ilk will still be contributing their union dues and will still be moaning that Labour doesn't represent her as she makes her cross next to the Labour candidate at the next election.

And the blind, tribal loyalties of Nancy and people like Nancy are exactly why there is a disconnect between people and their representatives. The representatives know they can count on a certain number of blind adherents and therefore they only have to tailor their policies enough to appeal to a relatively small number of "swing" voters (in parliament) or can carry on regardless (unions).

So, Nancy, perhaps you'll think about withdrawing your support from the union and from the Labour Party now?

No, I didn't think so.

Enough with the gossip! (for @BBCLauraK )

Chris Bryant tells me senior figures at Buckingham Palace warned David Cameron's team about taking Andy Coulson into no 10
-- BBCLauraK

This really got on my tits today. It's not that I particularly object to anonymity for sources, God knows no real scandal would ever break without it. But this is not a breaking scandal, it's well and truly broken, and an MP who let it happen on his fucking watch is now trumpeting anonymous sources which may exist only in his own head purely for his own party's political gain.

This isn't what people pay their license fee for, Laura. This is you being led by the nose by a partisan mong who knew about this shit for ages but did fuck all about it.

Shame on you.

Update:

RT @MatofKilburnia If the pissing Windsors were commenting on government appointments they would be in breach of convention #guillotine
-- House of Twits

Apart from the rather liberal and tolerant idea that "breaching convention" merits a death sentence from a liberal and tolerant lefty who blocked me because he didn't like my sense of humour, this actually is quite the bit of news. If the Windsors, who have steadfastly remained out of government affairs (much to the detriment of Britain's politics, I think!) actually took the rather unprecedented step of themselves telling Cameron not to get involved with Coulson, that would be political dynamite.

But I stand by my original statement. Talk "senior whatever sources" is just bullshit.

Yah! Boo! Sucks!

Jesus, watching any kind of political debate on Twitter really makes me want to commit violence. I'm not even sure what program is on, oh, apparently it was Newsnight. But just compare these tweets:

Nick Boles terrific on #Newsnight reminding Harriet high horse Harman of Brown's links with News Intl -- Tim Montgomerie, Tory

vs.

The #Tories really ought not let Nick Boles speak for them in public. @HarrietHarman easily knocking down his angry rants. -- PeterL_77, Labourite

Really? Is that the standard of political discourse among educated, grown up people who are really interested in politics? "My guy is saying it best! Your woman is an idiot!*" "No, my woman is saying it best! Your guy is an idiot!**"

Can none of you understand that your partisan, uncritical, blind loyalty to your party is what gifts lobby fodder scum decades at the trough? It is why politicians get away with things that their party is ostensibly totally opposed to.

"My party, right or wrong" is the validation of every bad idea, every cruel policy, every innocent killed abroad, that politicians want. It is the thing that destroys the very limited value of democracy.

The next time any politician does something wrong, ask yourself: "What is more important: my principles or my party?" And if you can't honestly say that it's your principles, then you need to know that one of the gravest, most insidious heaps of rotten decay in the body politic looks at you in the mirror each day.

*Technically, this is actually true.

**Technically, this is also true.

Who needs principles when you have tribal politics?

I really didn't know what to make of the Andrew Bridgen sexual assault allegations. I had even less idea of what to make of it when I discovered who he was actually alleged to have assaulted.

I can't claim to know the UK's "most shaggable blogger 2008" personally, but we have chatted online several times and she seems much like any other attractive young woman attracted to the political establishment: intelligent, reasonably sane (apart from the attraction to power, of course!) and quite normal.

So I did not know what to make of the claims and counter claims made by both parties.

I've been mulling it over for a while, and it seems to me that the whole fiasco is the epitome of what is wrong with British politics at the moment.

I am not surprised to see Tory bloggers and papers closing ranks behind Bridgen. And indeed they have.

I read one blog that tried to suggest that this was some sort of plot by UKIP to smear Andrew Bridgen. To which my rebuttal would be: "Who the fuck is Andrew Bridgen?" I'd never heard of him before this, so smearing him has only raised his profile. Plus, if they were trying to smear him, they wouldn't have walked away from the charges.

I was surprised that Labour and the Lib Dems, who are normally so keen to promote women's rights and make such a fuss about sexual harassment did not take the chance to stick the boot into a Tory. I can only assume that neither party is keen to give UKIP any supportive press, for entirely selfish reasons. Presumably, Europhilia trumps alleged sexual harassment of a UKIPper?

Or perhaps the LibDems are not keen to be seen to encourage a party that looks like it's about to overtake them in the polls.

I have no idea what really happened on the night in question, but I think a young and sexually aware woman might have met a bloke who she fancied, toddled back to his place and decided that it wasn't right or maybe he said something that scared her or maybe he wouldn't take no for an answer, whatever the reason, she panicked and ran.

According to the report in the Mirror, she accepted that she might have led him on, and didn't want to press charges at any point. The police went to arrest Bridgen on their own.

The retaliation that has come out of the Tory machine has very clearly been pour encourager les autres. And indeed, I hope that all Labour, Lib Dem and Tory activists and supporters will fondly remember this moment when some other young lady (or young man) gets assaulted or raped by an MP and is too scared to report it after seeing what happened here.

What happened in that flat is for the consciences of Andrew Bridgen and Annabelle Fuller. What happened after that shames just about everybody else.

Just fuck the fuck off, please!

Christ. So Cameron said something vaguely in touch with the common parlance and now lefties are predictably going off the deep end.

The faux moral outrage is depressing. Anybody with half a sense of humour would have smiled and moved on. But no, already we're seeing articles about how the Prime Minister's (mis)use of an advertising catchphrase is a gateway to reverting to Victorian attitudes to women and how we can expect a rise in wifebeating and clitorectomies as a result.

Angela Eagle has predictably responded with a chippy article about how she's "been condescended to by better people than Cameron." Well, then, she should be fucking used to it by now and not fucking writing articles in the Guardian about how not upset she fucking is.

On the other side of the coin, I actually read someone criticising Ed Balls for not standing up for Yvette, when it was originally thought that Cameron might have been talking to her.

Christ Almighty. The economy is in the toilet, we're engaged in illegal wars, Libya is shaping up to be another Vietnam, we're taxed for more than half our income, social democrats are chipping away at the handful of freedoms we have left and all we can get exercised about is a fucking throwaway line from an advert.

I need to get out of this shithole. Enough is enough.

So, once again *I* am somehow the cunt

So, apparently blood transfusion is to be privatised. Cue lefty twitter cockwafts claiming that they will no longer donate blood to save their fellow human beings after decades of doing so, because someone will profit from it.

When I pointed out that this means you think a human life is less important than objecting to the profit motive, I got blocked. Apparently, you should only be altruistic if your funding model is adhered to. Never mind how many people may die because of your petty, arrogant attitude.

There's cunts, fucking cunts, and then there's this. Your political persuasion is more important than someone else's life.

Jesus.

Oh, how I laughed ... again ... again

Having watched what David Cameron actually said, I can only laugh. The only "crime" he committed was to say that multiculturalism wasn't working.

This is a matter of opinion, personally, I don't have a problem with people retaining their culture here, all that irks is when minorities get preferential treatment just because they're minorities.

But apart from that, Cameron said nothing racist or nasty, yet the headlines and tweets seem to indicate that Cameron practically said "Darkies go home" or something. I'm fairly certain that none of the frothing twats have actually listened to his actual words.

He said nothing that Blair or Brown would not have said, nothing that any Labour or Liberal Democrat MP would not have said, save that he attacked the sacred word "multiculturalism".

He actually made a bad mistake there, in my opinion. If he'd not attacked the holy word, he would have said something that no fan of tribal politics could actually attack.

But seriously, you fucking wittering clits: listen to the speech, bleep out the word "multiculturalism" and tell me if he's wrong.

PS The thing that really made my stomach churn was his statement that the reason this happened was because "we have not provided a strong vision for them to follow". Dave, we know you're a totalitarian fuck, but take your strong vision and shove it up your bleached anus.

Thanks.