Lord Mandelson attacks famous bank robber

Lord Mandelson has launched a scathing attack on one of Britain's best loved bank robbers branding him the "unacceptable face of organised crime."

The business secretary said today, "I have always been intensely relaxed about the likes of 'Diamond Bob' and his safe-cracking capers. He reminded me of those eccentric characters in the Italian job played by Noel Coward and Michael Caine.

"And for a long time we tolerated the antics of such men, believing they added a touch of glamour to the otherwise stuffy world of investment banking. But after they almost wiped out the global financial system with their explosive credit derivatives back in 2008, all I can say is: You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!"

Drug capital

Chancellor Darling is trying to grab some shut-eye during a gruelling election campaign. But Home Secretary Johnson suddenly appears at the door. He wants to discuss drugs.

Darling: (Rubbing his eyes) Alan, to what do I owe the pleasure?

Johnson: Something I just need to run by you, Alistair mate.

Darling: If it’s money for some new funding commitment, then I’m afraid…

Johnson: (Cuts in) Nah, not that, Al. Not exactly what I’d call a funding commitment as such.

Darling: (Looks perplexed) No?

Johnson: Nah. Bit of a tricky one this. It's more what you’d call a funding restriction if you like. It’s something our boys at the Home Office have dreamt up.

Darling: (Chuckles) Funding restriction? What exactly can your boys, as such, tell the Treasury about funding restrictions? If you don’t mind my asking.

Johnson: Well, it’s like this, Al: We reckon the Home Office should be responsible for control of the money supply. We think it should be us that’s regulating money and the money supply from now on.

Darling: (Rolling about) Excuse me while I laugh hysterically, Alan old chum. But what on earth are you talking about?

Johnson: (Irritated) No need to adopt that tone, Alistair. There’s a good reason behind this. It's er... Gordon.

Darling: Oh, I see. Gordon.

Johnson: Yes, mate. Gordon. You see, it’s like this: Gordon, as in your boss, as in my boss, is very, very pleased with the war I’ve been waging against these ‘legal’ designer drugs - you know, that mephedrone, and all those clever amphetamine like derivatives that people buy on the internet. You see, it’s making us look very good in the eyes of the Daily Mail readers, this war, this campaign against drugs. Could even help shore up the middle England vote, which can’t be bad. And, like, he and I were having a drink together last night. And we thought, how about if we looked at other legal entities, as it were, that aren’t called drugs but that behave a bit like drugs nevertheless? We were asking: Should we be controlling things that ordinary people don’t even realise are addictive, but that can ruin lives. And one of those things, we decided could be, er... money.

Darling: You what? Money?

Johnson: (Smiles) Yes, great, isn’t it? And we thought that money kind of makes sense because most people don’t even think how much control it has over their lives. Until of course they have to go cold turkey. (Smiles again). Catch my drift?

Darling: You’re totally barking, man.

Johnson: Barking? Maybe, Alistair mate, and maybe not. Remember, it’s a Home Office area of responsibility, mental health is.

Darling: Just as money supply is a Treasury one.

Johnson: Yeah, well that’s where we got a problem, haven’t we? Because, me and the boys at the Home Office, we reckon that you’re not controlling it, this money supply. Never have done. We reckon, in fact, it’s spiralled out of control. It’s becoming almost like an addictive substance, like a drug.

Darling: This is absurd, Alan. It’s not an addiction. It’s... it’s, what makes the world go round, if you’ll excuse the cliché.

Johnson: And that’s precisely why it should be properly controlled, Al. I’m not saying we ban it, nothing like that. I’m just saying we control it. But WE – as in, we at the Home Office – control it.

Darling: You don’t know the first thing about money, man. You’ve never even worked in a senior treasury post. The markets would laugh at you. They’d laugh at this government.

Johnson: The markets, d’you say? As in, the dealers, you mean?

Darling: Yes. If you like, the dealers.

Johnson: The drug dealers, you mean?

Darling: For God’s sake, man. Don’t be so idiotic.

Johnson: You can scoff. But we’ve actually thought this one through carefully, this whole money issue. And not just straight money, but also this funny money, these derivatives that the dealers have been designing. Designer derivatives? (Taps his nose). Know what I mean?

Darling: What on earth...?

Johnson: They’re lethal, these designer derivatives. You must realise that? Those credit derivatives almost did for our economy back in 2008. And all those cheap mortgages what came about as a result of them, all that easy money... everyone high on the smell of Wonga - dealers and punters alike. And unfortunately mate, it was something that the treasury failed time and time again to control. So now it’s cold turkey time as a result.

Johnson: Well, it’s easy to say “failed” now… with hindsight

Darling: Yeah, well there won’t be no hindsight necessary no more. From now on we are going to ban things before they spiral out of control.

Johnson: You totally off your rocker, man? You control them?

Johnson: And first of all, Alistair old chum, we’re going to have to control you, I'm sorry to say.

Darling: I beg your pardon?

Johnson: Yes mate. Sorry about this, but we're going to have to control you. We’re going to send you away somewhere where they don’t have any money, so it can’t intoxicate you no more… A kind of money rehab… What’s more, all your banking friends will go to this rehab too... you can all go there together… and, shall I tell you something else... we’re going to stop people carrying huge wads of cash and spending it all the time...

Darling: You’re crazy, man. Totally off your rocker.

Johnson: (Deranged) Yes, Alistair, old chum. An end, yes an end... to spend, spend, spend... spend, spend, spend.... An end... to spend...

Darling: Please stop repeating yourself, Alan. You’re driving me crazy now.

Johnson: Spend, spend, spend... an end to spend... end end...

(Darling becomes delirious. Johnson’s voice is increasingly ethereal and his face begins to blur. Everything becomes misty and gradually Darling realises that he’s been having a terrible nightmare.)

Darling: How utterly ghastly! Home Office in charge of money supply? It'd be bye-bye to all those lucrative non-exec. roles after I leave office...

Government - "Stimulant drugs okay for kids"

Breaking News: It has emerged that children as young as five will still be allowed to take stimulant drugs. The news comes after the government recently announced it will ban the speed-like drug mephedrone.

The former government drugs advisor Professor Nutt had proposed licensing rather than banning Mephedrone. But Home Secretary Alan Johnson was concerned for the views of Daily Mail readers and decided nothing short of an outright ban would be acceptable.

But it has emerged that another amphetamine type drug popular with kids is to remain licensed. Ritalin is regularly prescribed for children suffering from attention deficit disorder and the government has no plans to end this practice.

A Home Office spokeman said: "No, this is not an April Fool's joke. Ritalin is indeed a speed-like drug and yes it is prescribed for children as young as five. But it is produced by a major pharmaceuticals company that has employed countless MPs and ex Ministers, so it must be all right."

Stand by... Stand by

The election will be called this week. And already politicians are tying themselves in knots . Earlier this month the Justice Secretary Jack Straw stated Labour would reform the upper chamber - a promise first made around 1997. Two weeks later the idea was shelved once again.

Now the parties are blowing hot and cold over the economy: First it's tax rises, then tax cuts. They'll tackle the budget deficit, then it's, not straight away.

None of this bodes well for the high point of the campaign - the publication of the manifestos. Will anyone believe a single word that's in them? Will voters find themselves choosing between one set of fragile promises and another?

Sometimes it's hard to be a party, giving all you've got to one campaign. But, with respect for politicians at an all time low, it's crucial they win back our trust. There can be no ambiguity, no hesitation. People will want an unequivocal "YES!" when they ask the question: Will you stand by your manifesto?"

Shit Creek

A General Election looms. Westminster is already ablaze. But for some out there it's going to be grim: All sound and fury, signifying... disillusion.

Most Brits are too apathetic to vote - or have forgotten how to. A hard core have been loyal to one party all their lives and don't intend to budge. But the aspiring middle classes - men and women of no fixed political abode - are all at sea. These are the floating voters, and this time they don't know where to dock.

Their vote isn't about who they are, but who they want to be. But there's little to aspire to right now. The future's bleak, and neither party's offering a killer narrative. But maybe that's good. People should take a long hard look at politicians and their narratives. Are they just fairy tale manifestos? And the reason democracy's hamstrung?

Politicians know they must win over the 'aspirational classes' if they are to form the next government. In a week or so's time, they'll go into overdrive with spin and hype, offering initiatives, promises - the stuff that tends to constitute narrative. Best bet is to ignore it all. Maybe it's the politicians who should be hamstrung.

And right now there's only one thing for it: A hung parliament. Of course you cannot vote for it. But you can hope for it, as you ignore that spin, those empty promises. Plus you might consider this: How might such an outcome refresh, renew, re-orientate politicians... and make them do what they're supposed to do - that is, work for you?

When it comes to uncertainty, is there an upside?

Votes for turkeys!

Lord President of the Council, Lord Mandelson will block Jack Straw's plans for a wholly elected upper chamber. Parliamentary reformers cannot fathom why the Lord, who has a seat in the chamber, opposes a policy that most consider to be a vote-winner.

The Prime Minister's stance is also unclear. One fifth of his cabinet sit in the Lords - more peers than there are women. And it is accepted that his government would not have survived the last year without them. Like Brown though they have little to say on the matter, although most have been making unambiguous statements about turkeys and their acknowledged reluctance to vote for Christmas.

Jack Straw has had to qualify what he said earlier this month:-

A couple of weeks ago I said: "We promised reform fifteen years ago, and this time we mean it, as we do all our promises."

I would like to modify this: "We promised reform fifteen years ago, and this time we mean it, as we did fifteen years ago."

Self-Hating Search Engine

BREAKING: The world's most popular search engine Faustus is a disgrace, its founder claims. And in a statement that will shake Silicon Valley he says, selling your soul is no longer okay - even in the world of tech.

"We used our search engine to look up Faustus," said the founder Dr. Faustus at today's press conference. "And frankly, we were horrified. We'd assumed it would give us entries for knowledge and truth and the free flow of information. But all it came up with was filtering and censorship and selling-out. It was distressing."

"This company has principles, so there was only one thing for it. We called in the image consultants. They said we were no longer hip, cool, trendy. And, as everyone knows, those are our core principles! Consider the jukeboxes."

"We also learned that these days people associate us rather more with advertising than learning and knowledge. They reckon we sold out. Can you believe it?"

Faustus said the company will also end its controversial dealings with Lucifer. "A nightmare from start to finish. Selling your soul? It should be a piece of cake in this day and age. What globalisation's all about, right? But no. In the end we decided, if the devil won't take us seriously and deliver easy money, then on principle, if nothing else, we won't hang about. It is for others now to decide whether they wish to burn in hell for all eternity... Which they will, unless they do what we've done."

Whoring for the people

No.57: Democracy - The meaning of this word should be unambiguous. Derived from the Greek Demos (people) and Kratos (government), democracy should mean one thing: government by popular mandate.

Although MPs enter politics to serve the people, conflicts of interest are bound to occur at some point. They might wonder, are they in Parliament solely to serve the people? Or do they also have a duty to help out the lobbyists who hang out in Westminster. These lobbyists will often encourage MPs to see the world through their eyes. They might wave cash in front of them, thinking this'll help them focus. But instead the cash can cloud the judgment of these tired, overworked souls, leaving them listless and confused. Many become so disorientated they find themselves unwittingly working for the lobbyists, occasionally even influencing legislation in their favour.

This trend has inevitably altered the original meaning of the word democracy. And it is high time modern dictionaries reflected the fact. Here is our own breakdown of past and present definitions:-


Earliest definition:

-  Athenian democracy - voting rights for all who are deemed 'citizens' - a relatively small proportion of the population by today's standards.

Later definitions (between C17th and C20th) :

- Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Ideally a contract (or compact) between the people and those governing on their behalf

Current definition:

- "The People's Government!! Whatever we do, we do it for you!" (Please refer to the Government handbook, Terms and Definitions for more about how it defines "The People".)

Why MPs are NOT whores

Channel Four's Dispatches has revealed Senior Labour politicians are willing to offer their services for cash. Despite the outcry this has caused, it is nevertheless wrong to liken MPs to whores simply because they are 'for hire'. Here are some points worth considering:-

- Whores are by and large willing to adopt any position - relative to pay. MPs are by contrast principled men and women who enter Parliament having adopted a specific position, and from this they rarely shift. It therefore follows that no amount of money would encourage an MP to, say, role over and "take it from behind" - unless, of course, that were already their adopted position.

- Whores NEVER give money to clients, whilst MPs do freely. We saw for example how the Chancellor Alistair Darling handed billions of pounds to investment bankers from 2008 onwards despite the "dangerous games" they wanted to play. The average whore would almost certainly expect a premium in return for such games, and some might even refuse to offer their services altogether.

- Whores can be unreliable. They can also leave clients with "nasty surprises". The shame of going to the doctor or explaining a rash to a partner can often make a client wonder whether the visit was really worth it. An assignation with an MP is an altogether pleasanter experience, with the client being entertained in the Houses of Parliament, treated to to the best food and receiving stellar treatment courtesy of the UK taxpayer. Very rarely are such clients disappointed - and very few will feel the need to see a doctor.

- Prostitution is illegal for both the client and the whore. Whereas being an MP - albeit an MP for hire - is not.

- For whores, prostitution is the sole source of income. MPs, as we all know, have many sources, all of which are considered highly respectable.

- MPs often pay visits to whores, and as legislators they will gain a rare insight into the nature of the client / whore exchange.Therefore they are bound to know the difference between prostitution and being an "MP for hire". Are they not?

What good did drugs ever do anybody?

-
(Conversation heard in pub - two guys discussing the dangers of "mephedrone".)


Dave: I don't understand why these young people need drugs, Paul. What do they get out of them?

Paul: (Raising glass) Well, this beer is a drug, isn't it Dave? You take it for granted because you grew up with it. You like it because it gives you a glow and makes you more sociable. But drunk in excess its as harmful as any other drug. That doesn't stop you having a pint or five at the end of the day now does it?

Dave: Okay, I grant you that. Wine, beer, you can call them drugs. But they're also part of a meaningful culinary experience, Paul.

Paul: Yes they are Dave. But you like getting pissed at least once a week. And that's when it becomes a drug, I'd say.

Dave: OK, Paul. Say I accept the point you're making. Alcohol's a drug. But why can't people stick with alcohol then? What more do they need?

Paul: Well, Dave. You also like to pop out for the odd fag now and then, don't you? That's a drug as well. You don't smoke for any other reason. And smoking kills tens of thousands of people each year.

Dave: But it was okay to smoke when we were growing up, wasn't it? We didn't know it was bad back then.

Paul: But we do now. And anyway, we always knew smoking was addictive and made us smell horrible.

Dave: Okay, okay, Paul. Cigarettes are also drugs. But apart from those two, what more do people need. Can't young people be happy on those?

Paul: Happy? Good question. Those pills your daughter Deidre's taking, they're basically happy pills, aren't they? She needs those drugs, as do millions of other people.

Dave: But the doctor gave them to her. She doesn't get high on them.

Paul: Wouldn't be happy without them, would she?

Dave: They're therapeutic, Paul. She got depressed with her last job and what with all the stresses of becoming a mum and all that.

Paul: So anti-depressants are ok if a doctor gives them to you, but not if you just want to get happy yourself, that's really what you're saying, Dave.

Dave: I suppose...

Paul: But even then you've got to admit, mate, that's still a reason why people take drugs.

Dave: Well, I'm not sure I'd agree with that - but even say I do - then apart from alcohol, cigarettes and antidepressants, what do people get out of drugs? What more do they need?

Paul: What about the tranquillizers my doctor prescribed for insomnia? Valium. Couldn't live without them, Dave. And very, very tranquillizing they are too.

Dave: Yeah, but that's another one people've been taking for years. I accept its a drug...

Paul: A mind-altering drug in fact.

Dave: Okay, a mind-altering and also a necessary one. But even if I concede that people get something out of those drugs, then apart from alcohol, cigarettes, antidepressants and tranquillizers, what other reasons can you possibly have for taking drugs?

Paul: What about those pain-killers you said Marge's sister takes all the time? They've got all that codeine in them. That's a very addictive drug.

Dave: They were for her headaches, Paul.

Paul: But then she started taking them all the time. She started abusing them, didn't she?

Dave: Alright mate, I catch your drift. The thing is though... what I was really thinking about all along was street drugs.

Paul: Street drugs? That mephedrone was bought on the Internet; its not a street drug. You said: why do people need drugs? Not why do people need street drugs? And anyway, drugs are drugs, when you're asking what people get out of them.

Dave: Okay. Fair enough. All those things you mentioned are drugs and people need them. But just let me finish where I was going to...

Paul: Where were you going to?

Dave: I was going to say... that apart from alcohol, cigarettes, antidepressants, tranquillizers and pain killers...

Paul: (Quickly breaks in) ... And weight loss drugs, beta-blockers, statins, steroids, triptans - to name a few others that aren't exactly without their consequences.

Dave: Struth... Okay Paul, so apart from things like alcohol, cigarettes, antidepressants, tranquillizers, pain killers, weight loss drugs, beta-blockers, statins, steroids and triptans, what do people actually get out of drugs? Why do they need them? That's basically what I'm asking.

Paul: (Puts glass down) Dunno, Dave. You'll have to ask your doctor that sort of question.

Coming tomorrow - The BIG DRUGS debate.

We ask:  DRUGS! Why do young people take them? Are they nice? Are there any 'side-effects'. And, most important, has anyone told young people that the Daily Mail and its readers DON'T approve?

Yes, money DOES grow on trees!

(Transcript of speech from last year's Wealth Narrative Conference. Speaker: Dr. Willie Lehman)

You heard it a thousand times, right? Money doesn't grow on trees. Well I can tell you now, folks, it does. Because we're talking family trees and, as I'm about to demonstrate, if your name appears on one you've got a major head-start in life.

Now, have you ever suspected that meritocracy isn't all its cracked up to be? Have you asked yourself whether its really that revolutionary? Because, if you have, here might be why: Once the "meritocratic" pop star / entrepreneur / crime boss has made his fortune, what follows next is less about meritocracy, more about something we tend to dislike nowadays. Know what I'm talking about? Yep, it's aristocracy. Yuk, we thought that'd gone for ever.

But no, 'fraid not. You see, that meritocrat pop star, he went forth and multiplied. And what class of person did his kids become?

I'll tell you: Those witless, talentless boys and girls who are always appearing on TV and in popular magazines, well, they're essentially 'aristocrats'. And how do I know? Let's just say they didn't earn that money and the connections and those slots on TV. It was down to their rich and famous mothers and fathers. That's what some might call 'proto-aristocracy'.

Of this you can be sure: From the seeds and acorns, from the stumps we call "meritocracy", will grow trees that are, in effect, "aristocracy", that engender dynastic wealth - The lucky, loaded money-laden trees.

And remember: Family trees are the same as any other - hardy, solid, enduring. That's how they'll always be. No doubt about it. Unless maybe... I don't know, you take a chainsaw to them, wherever you find them and you saw and chop, and chop, chop, chop down every last one of them and replace them with some kind of modified, engineered foliage... Ha, just kidding, folks... We certainly don't want that, do we? That is what people used to call Bolshevism... Correct?

Anyway, boys and girls, I hope the thrust of my argument doesn't upset those among you who are still sold on meritocracy. But you couldn't really have thought it something new, a break from the past... something the benign political classes conjured up to help out the little guy, give him a chance in life? Or, could you? Well, I'm sorry. But, its just plain untrue. The family you are, or were, born into is as relevant to your life now as it ever was. Nothing's changed.

I'll say one thing though: some of these singers and celebs and entrepreneurs, they're not so bad.... It seems many worship really cool ideas like peace, and love, and the future of the planet - the kind of ideas that make everyone feel good about themselves... and feel good about the celebs of course! Although, I'll tell you one thing they really don't worship, these guys. And that's taxes. Oh, no! They don't like taxes. They make it clear that taxes are not cool. They tell everyone: Who'd wanna be seen paying taxes? Because that'd be like really uncool - not to mention it'd be like chopping away at your family tree. Okay, maybe not quite as bad as actually chopping it down with a chainsaw. But a bit like cutting off the branches and the pretty leaves and precious flowers and the, er money and... well, it would definitely, most definitely, be UNCOOL.