Blog 7
29 April 2005
it’s not that complimentary to be known as a “good politician” (cf the phrase “he got off bcz he had a good lawyer”) – but is the victor in an election simply by DEFINITION the better politician? process-heads would i imagine argue – as they do in fact in re the evils of cynical legalistic gamesplaying – that the value of the system we have is that it works pretty well not DESPITE the gamesplaying but in fact through and out of the gamesplaying (ie a pol’s own ambitions, self-love, “technique” etc, combine w.all the other forces present to produce the NEEDED result, even or especially when this is distinct from the DESIRED or WILLED result). also “honest conviction” is NOT in itself enough, as any fule kno: better that a rogue get a good policy enacted than a saint fail*
on the other hand, ppl call eg churchill a GREAT politician bcz – apparently in the service of the Greater Anti-Tyranny Good of Humanity as a Whole blah blah – he oversaw the effective dismantlement of some of his own personal deepest commitments (viz to the continued health of the brit emp: he chose a course which saw the shut-down of the BE, yet stuck w.this the clearer it became) (and interestingly WSC skipped straight from “failed” to “great” w/o ever passing through “good”): eg churchill’s grebtness lies somewhat in the gritty selflessness (aka colossal vanity if you like) of his opportunism
i’m askin this i think cz i feel that
i. blair is the most cannily intuitively gifted politician of our times (by some way) , but
ii. if he wins BECAUSE of this, this may actually be a bad thing (it will demonstrate the effectiveness of all manner of dodgy shifts in process), and
iii. he may actually LOSE bcz of this (which makes no sense i know)
*(this is ps the second but more important weakness in the verit4s platform: rks = a villain who thinks himself a hero, but the constituency for the kind of hero he thinks he is is SMALL)
pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør in Blog 7 • No Comments
yech
i have to confess it is stuff like THIS which turns me most chomskyish abt the uk press: i find it reactionary, intellectually corrupt, cynical, diversionary ect ect PLUS ALSO NEVER EVER CLEVER OR FUNNY!!?!
pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør in Blog 7 • No Comments
28 April 2005
further adventures in the sooncome war of the virtual commons:
a few years ago i wz subbin an arts catalogue and had dealins w.a gallery who insisted that
a. the “The” in their name MUST ALWAYS BE CAPITALISED
b. there must ALWAYS BE TWO SPACES between the “The” in their name, and the other bit (which i’m not goin to write here bcz fuck em)
well, ii. i dealt w.by tellin em sorrowfully (and untruthfully) that our publishin software took out double spaces automatically, and i. i managed so fudge so that the name of the gall wz never anywhere in a sentence where the “the” wz NOT capitalised by virtue of its position in the sentence. had this fudge not been possible i’da told em that, if “The” wz part of their name, then i wd have to refer to them as “the The _______”
(would i actually have told em this? depends on my mood i suspect)
anyway my current grumblement has been activated by a fairly ancient/routine bit of Fatuous Branding-Related Bullying, viz the pompous letters sent out by some manufacturers when you FAIL TO SHOW THEIR PRODUCT THE PROPER RESPECT in ref capitalisation…
viz only acceptable orthography for perspex = Perspex or PERSPEX, ditto ditto for formica = Formica or FORMICA and etc (doubtless i have overlooked a whole raft of overpriced plasticky garbage) (overpriced bcz obv someone has to pay the fees of anal branding lawyers)
the historical precedent for this nonsese = the sumptuary laws of the tudor era, and we ALL KNOW WHERE THAT KIND OF THING ENDED:
anyway i hereby declare that the historical precedent for my attitude to capitalisation = the quakers never doffin they hatz to nobuddy SEE!
pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør in Blog 7 • No Comments
26 April 2005
worst. election. ever. and for once, i can’t think of a reason for disagreeing with them, although refering to Howard as “smoothie” rather than “scary n@zi twonkface” is a little remiss.
also i wonder how much kettle/pot is going on here, the politicians would probably counter with “ah but you journos aren’t interested in long speeches, you just want sound-bites and pictures of us looking stupid, you aren’t interested in our in-depth policies”
alsoalso i’m not really sure how much use a “rock the vote” campaign is when your spokespoeple are “pop guru Simon Cowell, Hell’s Kitchen chef Gary Rhodes, Coldplay’s Chris Martin and singer Natasha Bedingfield”…
CarsmileSteve in Blog 7 • No Comments
21 April 2005
Not a questionable dig at any partially-sighted/blind prospective MP, but a rubbish (perhaps badly-advised) pun-based observation of the church-hall meeting I’ve just been to. The four main candidates in our Ward attended a meeting that was meant to be Question Time in format and mood, but felt a bit closer to Blind Date. “Suitor number three, how would you withdraw… from Iraq?”
It was an odd imbalanced affair – Karen Buck has what they call a comfortable majority – and there was little, really, to separate what was said by the LibDem (bad mic-technique), Green (nervous climate scientist) and Labour (our Karen) speakers. Only the Tory fella, who looked every inch a Tory Boy toff (sorry, but he REALLY did) was not down with the panel on renewable energy – apparently there’s a balance to be had between cheap nuclear energy and saving the planet. Pff.
There was much talk of pensions because of the audience mix, which I’m pretty sure does not actually reflect the local demographic, but does perhaps reflect the fact that other people my age have better things to do with their lives. There was also much talk of Tony Blairs and of trust and, of course, Iraq. at which point the audience finally got agitated and almost blossomed into a slanging match.
I think there were probably more tetchy, old Tory grannies in the crowd, but we sat next to a Guardian-wielding old (50-something) beardy man who stared at the ceiling throughout. He kept nodding vigorously, sighing “YES!” and “Precisely!” at the Green candidate, and occassionally scribbling in the bit next to the cryptic crossword. There wasn’t much new to be heard (Tory boy claiming crime was out of control cos he’d seen a fire, LibDem saying they’d be nice) so we only stayed 50 mins, but it feels good to see the people in the flesh before making my mark.
Declaration: I actually voted for Karen B in the previous two General Elections. Last time I deliberated for some time between her and the Socialist Alliance candidate. In the end I did some research and found out that I liked the things Karen had raised and the way she voted in The House. Plus the Socialist Alliance guy turned out to be a fantasy novelist (as reviewed by Martin here). Writing for a living is bad enough, but his writing is just LIES!
Alan in Blog 7 • No Comments
i think we can safely say that Gorgeous George and his friends have no [ahem] Respect for how to do a proper graph, as can be seen from this graph below:
OK, so they may have got 15% in these four wards, but the graph appears to be somewhat incomplete, if you add up the 5 bars, you see they only come to c. 60%, where, Mr Galloway, is the huge great 40% Labour bar? Wouldn’t want the voters to think they were wasting their vote now would we?
CarsmileSteve in Blog 7 • No Comments
20 April 2005
A weird listening moment while walking jetlagged round Seattle, listening to “Same Old Brand New You” by A1 and realising OMG it’s about BLAIR!!!!!
Here’s proof!
I can still remember the time you were there
When I needed to hold you, feel you
Everytime I ask you to find a new way
You lie a new way
Is it gone, gone, gone, gone, gone
A neat summation of the euphoria of 1997 and the bitter disappointment of post-Iraq Blairism.
You’ll change
You’ll never change
You’re never never gonna keep your promises x 2
Contradictory messages have erased public trust.
You said you’d change
But I’m afraid
It’s something I won’t live to see
The slow pace of change in the public services has proved one of the thorniest points of the Labour campaign – how to persuade people that things are getting better in the face of tabloid smear campaigns?
It’s seems so strange
That sometimes fate
Can appear to be so real
And yet turn out to be a fantasy
The disappointment extends to Brownites who believed that their man was destined for the top job by now.
Same old line, one more time
Say you’re gonna be, there for me
Say you’ll change, change your ways
Never gonna keep your promises
The “pretty straight guys” portrayal has worn thin, perhaps even by 2001 when this nakedly political song was written.
Same old game (You know it doesn’t turn me on)
Brand new day (You’re singing that same old song)
No more lies (If you don’t wanna find me gone, gone, gone, gone, gone)
A stark ultimatum for New Labour.
Another night, another day
What can I say
You’re still the same old brand new you
The problem with “New” branding is that it can’t stay New – this as much as policy detail has been a strategic error for Labour.
You break your promises in two
What can I do
But here’s the rub – the alternatives may not be any better.
When you’re the same old brand new you
The result, alas, is apathy.
Tom in Blog 7 • No Comments
19 April 2005
After the shocking revelation below that the Who Should I Vote For website is mere Lib Dem propaganda (despite claims otherwise here). It struck me that we could do a similar kind of questionaire and be much more impartial. So here is the Freaky Trigger Blog 7 Who Should I Vote For
1: YOUTH
Are you
a) Under 18
b) Over 18
2: IMMIGRATION
DO you think there should be an imediate halt of all asylum and immigration in the UK?
a) Yes
b) No
If you answered a) to any question you unfortunately are not allowed to vote. If you got two b)’s you should avoid any party with the name of a country in its title or has the involvement of Robert Kilroy-Silk in it.
By the way, what with Kilroy and George Galloway almost certainly going the way of the ballot-box dinosaur* at this election, would it not be great if they presented a mid-morning rant-a-long a studio discussion show. It would be the ugly, unpleasant version of Morgan & Platell. IMAGINE!!!
*ie Being unelectable, rather than physically extinct
Pete Baran in Blog 7 • No Comments
I wondered.
So I asked:
www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com
and in the space of 23 simple questions it told me I should vote Lib Dem. It did not ask me anything about the economy beyond if we should join the Euro, and nothing on House Of Lords reforms. Perhsp not big issues, but big issues for me.
Of course it is just a bit of fun (especially the immigration questions). I hope to soon find out via the interweb what Star Wars character I am, and what I should eat for breakfast.
Pete Baran in Blog 7 • No Comments
15 April 2005
Ever since the “What’s on George Bush’s iPod” story a week or so ago, various papers have carried out mini surveys of other politicians and their musical predilections. This harks back to earlier stories you may recall from around conference time where some MP or another said they loved (the) Scissor Sisters, and so on. Well that Scissor Sisters lovin man was (gorgeous, pouting) Liam Fox co-chairman of the Tory party.
That link is from today’s Guardian* and a wider survey of MPs musical taste, which has little to surprise you. After all these are OLD people of course, granddad. Bob Dylan is the most cited – Gorgeous George Galloway being the biggest Dylan bore in the world it would seem (to nobody’s great surprise). Bowie crops up a few times – which is nice – including with our Liam:
“My favourite album of all time is Bowie’s Station to Station.” he says before the Guardian journo reports his love for Roxy Music, Soft Cell, Kate Bush, Ultravox and Visage”.
Liam – May 5th. If you’ve nothing better to do, you are welcome at our club. Only 2 quid for hard-working families – good value-for-money for Britain’s tax payers.
*I think you have to login these days, sorry :-(
Alan in Blog 7 • No Comments
« Older
