The exams watchdog Ofqual has ordered examination boards to redraft certain GCSE papers because they are not rigorous enough.
Throughout New Labour’s time in office there were concerns that exams were becoming too easy. In particular, it is claimed that papers contained too many multiple choice questions that simply did not challenge the brightest pupils. We decided to see for ourselves what Labour did for pupils in England and Wales during its thirteen years in office.
Talent Show Paper
Who had to solve a problem like Maria? Was it:
A. Andrew Lloyd Webber?
B. Mary Portas?
C. Simon Cowell?
Football Paper
Which Football team do most Labour MPs like the most? Is it:
A. Everton?
B. Liverpool?
C. Dynamo Dresden (Trick question)?
Shopping Paper
Which is your favourite shop? Is it:
A. Top Shop?
B. Primark?
C. Waitrose (Yuk)?
Science Paper
What is the first sign of madness? Is it:
A. Talking to yourself?
B. Not talking to yourself?
C. Treason?
History Paper
Why doth treason never prosper? Is it:
A. Because you don’t know what the word means?
B. Because you cannot spell treason?
C. You what?
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Monday, 14 June 2010
Bloc Aid
Two weeks ago a flotilla of ships attempting to break a blockade ran into difficulties when activists on board fought a pitched battle with Israeli commandos resulting in twelve deaths.
Now, fresh from their efforts to bring humanitarian relief to Gaza the organisers of the Turkish flotilla are thinking about extending their generosity to other war zones and troubled borders.
These organisers have become aware that their mission is in danger of turning into a one trick pony and have been considering other trouble spots on the planet where humanitarian concerns are being overlooked. Among them: Burma, Armenia, China/Tibet, China/Korea, Russia/Chechnya, Sudan, Uzbekistan/Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Syria… to name but a few.
One of the flotilla organisers is reputed to have said: “We have big balls and a lot of ideas. We realise that we should be extending our good work to other humanitarian hotspots where the major powers are doing little to intervene.
He added: “But failing that… it might simply be easier to carry on bashing Israel.”
Now, fresh from their efforts to bring humanitarian relief to Gaza the organisers of the Turkish flotilla are thinking about extending their generosity to other war zones and troubled borders.
These organisers have become aware that their mission is in danger of turning into a one trick pony and have been considering other trouble spots on the planet where humanitarian concerns are being overlooked. Among them: Burma, Armenia, China/Tibet, China/Korea, Russia/Chechnya, Sudan, Uzbekistan/Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Syria… to name but a few.
One of the flotilla organisers is reputed to have said: “We have big balls and a lot of ideas. We realise that we should be extending our good work to other humanitarian hotspots where the major powers are doing little to intervene.
He added: “But failing that… it might simply be easier to carry on bashing Israel.”
Sunday, 13 June 2010
The Power of Imagination
Millions of Footie fans watching the England v. US match last night on ITV1 missed the high point of the game as ITV screened a car advert followed by nothing at all on its HD screens.
Viewers screamed and tore their hair out, as they were left to imagine what was happening at that precise moment. Perchance... some dreamt that Captain Steve Gerrard was triumphantly placing the ball at the back of the net, putting the England team 1-0 ahead. A wild hope by anyone’s reckoning.
And if that is in fact what they dreamt, then, once the gremlins had vanished, once normal service had resumed, the fans were surely forced to acknowledge that truth can sometimes be stranger than, or at least as strange as, um... imagination.
On other pages: 'Objective' Andrew Marr invites two Labour luvvies onto his show for an unbiased review of the Sunday papers
Viewers screamed and tore their hair out, as they were left to imagine what was happening at that precise moment. Perchance... some dreamt that Captain Steve Gerrard was triumphantly placing the ball at the back of the net, putting the England team 1-0 ahead. A wild hope by anyone’s reckoning.
And if that is in fact what they dreamt, then, once the gremlins had vanished, once normal service had resumed, the fans were surely forced to acknowledge that truth can sometimes be stranger than, or at least as strange as, um... imagination.
On other pages: 'Objective' Andrew Marr invites two Labour luvvies onto his show for an unbiased review of the Sunday papers
Friday, 11 June 2010
It ain’t rocket science
The government is to appoint a Black Hole Tsar to find out what happened to all of those missing billions. This comes at the end of a week when it was revealed that the interest payment alone on Britain’s debt mountain will top 70BN within five years.
For a while now people have been asking whether Black Holes defy the laws of physics. Most of us know that market activity is supposed to be a zero sum gain. We also know that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. And if that is the case, where did all that lovely lolly go?
There is one obvious answer: speculative investments made in depreciating assets such as sub-prime housing equals money lost (pretty well) forever. But what of the commissions, dividends etc paid out to MDs, VPs, CEOs, shareholders resulting from those deals before they went sour? That is clearly money that is not lost forever. Or is it? It is all a question of attitude, of principle, it seems.
There is a well-known phenomenon that scientists label “Mind over Matter”. What happens is that large amounts of wonga mysteriously travel from one part of the globe to a region called the off-shore bank account. This loot then becomes “ring-fenced” – that is to say, it cannot be touched.
It appears that in recent years a number of speculators / managers etc have “ring-fenced” the money they’ve made on somewhat questionable deals in such off-shore vehicles. The deals then go bad and in certain cases end up destroying or almost destroying the banks or other investment vehicles that originally serviced them
What happens next is one of the most fascinating phenomena known to man. We have all heard the phrase “nature abhors a vacuum.” Well, in this case “the taxpayer abhors a vacuum.” Quite literally, huge wads of cash belonging to the taxpayer flood in to fill the vacuum, in a manoeuvre known by the government of the day as “too big to fail.”
The clever part is that even after the taxpayer has filled the vacuum, the originator of the deal gets to keep his or her “ring-fenced” money. Here are a couple of examples:
- The head of a large American bank that tanked who got to keep around 100 million USD
- The boss of a multinational firm who shifted a billion to the bank account of a relative. The bank that serviced his company subsequently had to be bailed out. His cash was last seen hanging out in Monte Carlo
There are many other such examples where yields / dividends / bonuses paid out to speculators / deal originators have stayed firmly in their bank accounts long after the deals turned sour. In certain "investment" banks it is known to happen on a yearly basis, in a ritual known as "bonus time".
Finally, there is only one known scientific method that stands a hope in hell of redressing this unholy balance. It is called claw back. But it is as yet untried and untested, so no one knows whether it could actually work in practice. And what does the future hold? Will any of the world's governments give this claw back a try? Perhaps that should be the role – and the goal – of a Black Hole Tsar.
For a while now people have been asking whether Black Holes defy the laws of physics. Most of us know that market activity is supposed to be a zero sum gain. We also know that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. And if that is the case, where did all that lovely lolly go?
There is one obvious answer: speculative investments made in depreciating assets such as sub-prime housing equals money lost (pretty well) forever. But what of the commissions, dividends etc paid out to MDs, VPs, CEOs, shareholders resulting from those deals before they went sour? That is clearly money that is not lost forever. Or is it? It is all a question of attitude, of principle, it seems.
There is a well-known phenomenon that scientists label “Mind over Matter”. What happens is that large amounts of wonga mysteriously travel from one part of the globe to a region called the off-shore bank account. This loot then becomes “ring-fenced” – that is to say, it cannot be touched.
It appears that in recent years a number of speculators / managers etc have “ring-fenced” the money they’ve made on somewhat questionable deals in such off-shore vehicles. The deals then go bad and in certain cases end up destroying or almost destroying the banks or other investment vehicles that originally serviced them
What happens next is one of the most fascinating phenomena known to man. We have all heard the phrase “nature abhors a vacuum.” Well, in this case “the taxpayer abhors a vacuum.” Quite literally, huge wads of cash belonging to the taxpayer flood in to fill the vacuum, in a manoeuvre known by the government of the day as “too big to fail.”
The clever part is that even after the taxpayer has filled the vacuum, the originator of the deal gets to keep his or her “ring-fenced” money. Here are a couple of examples:
- The head of a large American bank that tanked who got to keep around 100 million USD
- The boss of a multinational firm who shifted a billion to the bank account of a relative. The bank that serviced his company subsequently had to be bailed out. His cash was last seen hanging out in Monte Carlo
There are many other such examples where yields / dividends / bonuses paid out to speculators / deal originators have stayed firmly in their bank accounts long after the deals turned sour. In certain "investment" banks it is known to happen on a yearly basis, in a ritual known as "bonus time".
Finally, there is only one known scientific method that stands a hope in hell of redressing this unholy balance. It is called claw back. But it is as yet untried and untested, so no one knows whether it could actually work in practice. And what does the future hold? Will any of the world's governments give this claw back a try? Perhaps that should be the role – and the goal – of a Black Hole Tsar.
Thursday, 10 June 2010
EXCLUSIVE: BP Chief Executive is NOT British
The Chief Executive of British Petroleum, Tony Hayward, has apparently stated that he is not British. His announcement comes at a time when anti-British sentiment is running high in the United States as a result of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
CEO Hayward is believed to have said: “I am not British – at least not in my heart I’m not. And had I any say in the matter, BP would not be a British company. It would be Chinese or Russian or Iranian or Libyan or Venezuelan... anything but British... or American, for that matter.
Commenting on Mr Hayward’s claim, London Mayor Boris Johnson said today: “Don't bash British Petroleum. I’m not British either. I’m a Turk.”
Other News
Lardy Lord Prescott has put his money where his mouth is – which is, everywhere these days. He will allow a small suburban housing development to be built in his back garden. On Radio 4’s Today programme, he defended ‘garden grabbing’ - which allows gardens to be classified as brown-field sites. True to character, he repeated the class war mantra about wealthy fat-cat bankers - an unusual line of attack, coming as it does from a man who’s about to be ennobled, is wealthy, a fat-cat, and something that rhymes with banker.
Burn your shoes – A survey has revealed feminists have larger shoe collections than at any time in recent history. Feminists possess on average twenty pairs of shoes, at least half of which are of the Manolo or Jimmy Choo variety.
The conclusion? Whilst the bra was an encumbrance that had to be burned, the ankle-crushing stiletto is a sign of female emancipation.
Cut the Defence Budget – A leading journalist has claimed that the defence budget should be slashed immediately. He said: “There is absolutely no need to throw 45BN a year at defence. It is evident we are safer than at any time since the Norman Conquest. We have no obvious enemies at the moment, unless you count Russia and China.
BP Asset Sale – The immensely altruistic Standard Chartered bank has suggested selling BP assets to China Petroleum
On other pages - What does Libya's Gaddafi think of BP right now?
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Hadron Collider to be sold to developers
There'll be no deliverance for those scientists who've 'prayed to the God particle’ - The Hadron Collider is to be sold to developers.
Since the start of the economic downturn, many have asked why European governments continue to waste money on this scientific white elephant. Scientists were allegedly “hoping for a miracle”. They thought the successful production of a 'Higgs Boson' particle might win them credibility with a sceptical public.
After a number of initial setbacks European physicists claimed this year that they had actually produced one of these elusive “God particles”. But then came the news that the particle was of no moral or spiritual worth, in fact of no worth to humanity whatsoever. Scientists were seen getting down on their hands and knees and chanting “Please, Dear God Particle, don’t let European taxpayers realise what a waste of money this project is.”
But the European Parliament has come up with a novel solution: Sell the collider. A consortium of Chinese and Arab developers has said it is willing to convert the folly into a ‘living, leisure and education complex’, with accommodation for a thousand people.
The plans also include a Hadron theme park, which will roll out the new Super-Collider Fun Ride, plus an educational facility that will show people how to make their own Higgs-Bozo particle. Later this year, some of Europe’s leading designers will launch a range of "Collision" Clothing as well as scaled up models of the Higgs-Bozo particle - which it is hoped will provide hours of fun for children.
A scientist called Ron who had worked at the Collider for a number of years commented: “Well, we might as well put this bundle of wires to some use. Anyway, I was sick of all my mates saying to me whenever they saw me: You know what? We’ve been had Ron.”
Since the start of the economic downturn, many have asked why European governments continue to waste money on this scientific white elephant. Scientists were allegedly “hoping for a miracle”. They thought the successful production of a 'Higgs Boson' particle might win them credibility with a sceptical public.
After a number of initial setbacks European physicists claimed this year that they had actually produced one of these elusive “God particles”. But then came the news that the particle was of no moral or spiritual worth, in fact of no worth to humanity whatsoever. Scientists were seen getting down on their hands and knees and chanting “Please, Dear God Particle, don’t let European taxpayers realise what a waste of money this project is.”
But the European Parliament has come up with a novel solution: Sell the collider. A consortium of Chinese and Arab developers has said it is willing to convert the folly into a ‘living, leisure and education complex’, with accommodation for a thousand people.
The plans also include a Hadron theme park, which will roll out the new Super-Collider Fun Ride, plus an educational facility that will show people how to make their own Higgs-Bozo particle. Later this year, some of Europe’s leading designers will launch a range of "Collision" Clothing as well as scaled up models of the Higgs-Bozo particle - which it is hoped will provide hours of fun for children.
A scientist called Ron who had worked at the Collider for a number of years commented: “Well, we might as well put this bundle of wires to some use. Anyway, I was sick of all my mates saying to me whenever they saw me: You know what? We’ve been had Ron.”
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
The Big Conversation
(Interview Transcript: David Frost and Melvyn Bragg discuss the role of the television interviewer in society. There’s uncertainty as to who’s supposed to be interviewing whom however.)
Frost: Hello and good evening.
Bragg: (Coughs) David?
Frost: (Mildly irritated) Yes?
Bragg: That’s my line.
Frost: (Frowns then smiles) I think you'll find it's actually my line, Melvyn.
Bragg: No, no... it’s my line.
Frost: No, Melvyn. Interviewer does the intro, does he not?
Bragg: David, it’s my interview.
Frost: Not according to my contract, Melvyn.
Bragg: I’m supposed to be interviewing you.
Frost: Well then somebody is having a laugh at your, at our expense. That or they’ve screwed up the contracts.
(They carry on like this for a couple of hours consulting agents, lawyers etc etc., until they finally agree to take it in turns to ask questions.)
Frost: Well this is a television first, Melvyn, is it not?
Bragg: It certainly is, David. You never know, we might be able to turn this to our advantage.
Frost: We might, might we not? (Glances at his papers). So shall I kick off?
Bragg: Is that an interview question?
Frost: Very drole, Melvyn. Very drole.
Bragg: Ok, you kick off.
Frost: So, Melvyn. I sold my shares in LWT. You held on to yours. As a result, you’re much wealthier than I am. But, and this is a big but, with the money from my LWT shares I could afford to interview Richard Milhouse Nixon. So who do you think has achieved more as an interviewer? In all honesty?
Bragg: I think you’ll find I’ve also hob-nobbed with the rich and powerful, David. Money is no obstacle to that. In fact, it’s the other way round. It gets you a seat at all the best tables, as well you know.
Frost: But how many times have you actually asked your interviewees difficult or searching questions? If I may be so bold?
Bragg: Hold on a moment David. It’s my turn to ask a question.
Frost: (Hesitates. Glances at producer, then reluctantly) Ok, over to you, Melvyn.
Bragg: Is that all you wanted to talk about? LWT shares?
Frost: Is that an interview question... might I ask?
Bragg: (Hesitant) Er, yes. Yes that is an interview question.
Frost: Well then the answer is no. I didn’t just want to discuss LWT. I wanted to examine us, you Melvyn Bragg and myself David Frost and our interview techniques. I wanted to determine: Which of us has achieved most during our careers as interviewers?
Bragg: Is that second bit your question..? The bit about who achieved most?
Frost: No, that’s my answer to your question.
Bragg: This is ridiculous and it’s getting very confusing. Let’s just call this a discussion, a conversation for now shall we? Then we won’t have to keep on asking which question is an official question and which just a question question.
Frost: But if we do that, Melvyn, then we won’t be able to put eachother on the spot. Am I not right?
Bragg: I see. You just want it to be combative, then? That’s what this is all about –combative interview styles, right?
Frost: You were combative just now, were you not? You wanted it to be your interview and your introduction.
Bragg: I was told that I was interviewing you, that’s why. And no wonder I wanted to be the interviewer... after your questions about LWT shares. Blimey...That was years ago.
(They eye eachother quizically, searching for something to say, or to ask).
Frost: Oh well, we might as well just go down to the pub and finish this off down there. You’re right you know, this has just descended into a conversation.
Bragg: You can say that again, Melvyn. Damn conversations. I hate ‘em
Frost: (Laughs) Who needs them?
(They grab their jackets and head off. As they do so, Bragg turns to Frost.)
Bragg: Next week, they’re recording Andrew Neil and Jeremy Paxman, I hear. Don’t see them having much of a conversation, do you?
Frost: (Nods) I very much doubt it Melvyn. Very much doubt it.
Frost: Hello and good evening.
Bragg: (Coughs) David?
Frost: (Mildly irritated) Yes?
Bragg: That’s my line.
Frost: (Frowns then smiles) I think you'll find it's actually my line, Melvyn.
Bragg: No, no... it’s my line.
Frost: No, Melvyn. Interviewer does the intro, does he not?
Bragg: David, it’s my interview.
Frost: Not according to my contract, Melvyn.
Bragg: I’m supposed to be interviewing you.
Frost: Well then somebody is having a laugh at your, at our expense. That or they’ve screwed up the contracts.
(They carry on like this for a couple of hours consulting agents, lawyers etc etc., until they finally agree to take it in turns to ask questions.)
Frost: Well this is a television first, Melvyn, is it not?
Bragg: It certainly is, David. You never know, we might be able to turn this to our advantage.
Frost: We might, might we not? (Glances at his papers). So shall I kick off?
Bragg: Is that an interview question?
Frost: Very drole, Melvyn. Very drole.
Bragg: Ok, you kick off.
Frost: So, Melvyn. I sold my shares in LWT. You held on to yours. As a result, you’re much wealthier than I am. But, and this is a big but, with the money from my LWT shares I could afford to interview Richard Milhouse Nixon. So who do you think has achieved more as an interviewer? In all honesty?
Bragg: I think you’ll find I’ve also hob-nobbed with the rich and powerful, David. Money is no obstacle to that. In fact, it’s the other way round. It gets you a seat at all the best tables, as well you know.
Frost: But how many times have you actually asked your interviewees difficult or searching questions? If I may be so bold?
Bragg: Hold on a moment David. It’s my turn to ask a question.
Frost: (Hesitates. Glances at producer, then reluctantly) Ok, over to you, Melvyn.
Bragg: Is that all you wanted to talk about? LWT shares?
Frost: Is that an interview question... might I ask?
Bragg: (Hesitant) Er, yes. Yes that is an interview question.
Frost: Well then the answer is no. I didn’t just want to discuss LWT. I wanted to examine us, you Melvyn Bragg and myself David Frost and our interview techniques. I wanted to determine: Which of us has achieved most during our careers as interviewers?
Bragg: Is that second bit your question..? The bit about who achieved most?
Frost: No, that’s my answer to your question.
Bragg: This is ridiculous and it’s getting very confusing. Let’s just call this a discussion, a conversation for now shall we? Then we won’t have to keep on asking which question is an official question and which just a question question.
Frost: But if we do that, Melvyn, then we won’t be able to put eachother on the spot. Am I not right?
Bragg: I see. You just want it to be combative, then? That’s what this is all about –combative interview styles, right?
Frost: You were combative just now, were you not? You wanted it to be your interview and your introduction.
Bragg: I was told that I was interviewing you, that’s why. And no wonder I wanted to be the interviewer... after your questions about LWT shares. Blimey...That was years ago.
(They eye eachother quizically, searching for something to say, or to ask).
Frost: Oh well, we might as well just go down to the pub and finish this off down there. You’re right you know, this has just descended into a conversation.
Bragg: You can say that again, Melvyn. Damn conversations. I hate ‘em
Frost: (Laughs) Who needs them?
(They grab their jackets and head off. As they do so, Bragg turns to Frost.)
Bragg: Next week, they’re recording Andrew Neil and Jeremy Paxman, I hear. Don’t see them having much of a conversation, do you?
Frost: (Nods) I very much doubt it Melvyn. Very much doubt it.
Monday, 7 June 2010
The polluter must not only pay but must be seen to have paid
With all eyes on BP and its valiant effort to make the eco-system of the Gulf of Mexico more fragrant, perhaps it is now time to turn the spotlight on one or two other ‘polluters’. These are the ones that by and large go under the radar because they've become part of the fabric of everyday life. They cut across a range of categories – culture, media, law and sport... to name but a few:-
Legislative Pollution – No prizes for guessing the guilty party here: A bunch of politicians and apparatchiks that swamped the political and legislative process with thousands of new laws that were unenforceable – and that were in many cases never really intended to be. Their key purpose? To create a climate of fear and submissiveness
Information Pollution – Global internet companies, online marketers etc... Organisations that can now go where they hadn't previously gone - at least before the days of the World Wide Web: Peoples' homes, their privacy, their inner space.
Events Pollution (cf. Information pollution) – The World Cup, the Olympics are big events and therefore worthy of extended coverage no doubt. But do we really need to be burdened with the particulars of the football captain’s groin strain? Or even his groin, for that matter?
‘Reality’ Television – No single group of men and women has done more to lower the tone than UK broadcasters and producers. Programmes like Ready Steady Crap, Pollution, Pollution Pollution, I’m a Soulless Cretin Get Me out of Here, and ZZZZZZ-Factor have left even the 'chattering classes' vacant, listless and lost for anything interesting to say (beyond their work). Only question is: Should these wretched programmes actually be labelled pollution, or are they more the new opiate of the people?
Product Placement Pollution – The BBC should be taken to task for contaminating those Reithian values with massive plugs for millionaire Impresarios, fashion designers, shop keepers, who are given entire series to show how wonderful they are. If only Reith knew what had become of his organisation he would be turning in his grave... But then Alan Yentob would probably come along and turn the whole event into something crass called I’m a deceased Director-General, get me out of here.
Legislative Pollution – No prizes for guessing the guilty party here: A bunch of politicians and apparatchiks that swamped the political and legislative process with thousands of new laws that were unenforceable – and that were in many cases never really intended to be. Their key purpose? To create a climate of fear and submissiveness
Information Pollution – Global internet companies, online marketers etc... Organisations that can now go where they hadn't previously gone - at least before the days of the World Wide Web: Peoples' homes, their privacy, their inner space.
Events Pollution (cf. Information pollution) – The World Cup, the Olympics are big events and therefore worthy of extended coverage no doubt. But do we really need to be burdened with the particulars of the football captain’s groin strain? Or even his groin, for that matter?
‘Reality’ Television – No single group of men and women has done more to lower the tone than UK broadcasters and producers. Programmes like Ready Steady Crap, Pollution, Pollution Pollution, I’m a Soulless Cretin Get Me out of Here, and ZZZZZZ-Factor have left even the 'chattering classes' vacant, listless and lost for anything interesting to say (beyond their work). Only question is: Should these wretched programmes actually be labelled pollution, or are they more the new opiate of the people?
Product Placement Pollution – The BBC should be taken to task for contaminating those Reithian values with massive plugs for millionaire Impresarios, fashion designers, shop keepers, who are given entire series to show how wonderful they are. If only Reith knew what had become of his organisation he would be turning in his grave... But then Alan Yentob would probably come along and turn the whole event into something crass called I’m a deceased Director-General, get me out of here.
Sunday, 6 June 2010
Prawn cocktail offensive
Labour leadership contender Andy Burnham has attacked John Smith’s prawn cocktail offensive – the party’s successful initiative to win over the financial sector while the party was in opposition.
He claimed prawn cocktails were already passe by 1980 and Smith should have plumped for Nouvelle Cuisine instead. When asked how he would woo the fat cats, he laughed and responded “I should say cat food, but that would be offensive. No, I would probably offer these bankers something simple like pilchards on a stick, washed down with a pint of best - naturally.
Other leadship contenders were asked what they would serve...
David Miliband – I would go for something dreadfully ironic. Say like Turkey Twizzlers?
Ed Miliband – Easy peasy lemon squeezy! As someone who's gonna move the Labour party into the twenty first century, it would have to be those mini burger canapes that you get at all the best parties... That or the mini fish and chips option. Cool!
Diane Abbott – I agree with Ed. But I would go for the full size fish and chip and full size burger canapes. That or a full English breakfast. There are a lot of bankers out there who like their food, let’s remember.
Ed Balls – My friend Heston has told me in total confidence that he will do his 50 course mini taster menu. And if that doesn’t win over the doubting Thomases then my name’s Balls.
John McDonnell – Sod the lot of them!
He claimed prawn cocktails were already passe by 1980 and Smith should have plumped for Nouvelle Cuisine instead. When asked how he would woo the fat cats, he laughed and responded “I should say cat food, but that would be offensive. No, I would probably offer these bankers something simple like pilchards on a stick, washed down with a pint of best - naturally.
Other leadship contenders were asked what they would serve...
David Miliband – I would go for something dreadfully ironic. Say like Turkey Twizzlers?
Ed Miliband – Easy peasy lemon squeezy! As someone who's gonna move the Labour party into the twenty first century, it would have to be those mini burger canapes that you get at all the best parties... That or the mini fish and chips option. Cool!
Diane Abbott – I agree with Ed. But I would go for the full size fish and chip and full size burger canapes. That or a full English breakfast. There are a lot of bankers out there who like their food, let’s remember.
Ed Balls – My friend Heston has told me in total confidence that he will do his 50 course mini taster menu. And if that doesn’t win over the doubting Thomases then my name’s Balls.
John McDonnell – Sod the lot of them!
Saturday, 5 June 2010
Papal Haze.
(The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is asked for his opinion on the forthcoming Papal visit to Britain.)
Interviewer: Your Grace, are you looking forward to the pontiff’s visit?
Williams: Very much so.
Interviewer: And why is that, may I ask?
Williams: I believe it could provide an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen ties between the UK and the Holy See.
Interviewer: How so, Your Grace?
Williams: How so? Well, through concerted action to tackle poverty and climate change, as well as the important role of faith groups in creating strong communities.
Interviewer: Are those your words, if you don’t mind my asking, Your Grace?
Williams: Well, no. Those are the words of the Foreign Office in actual fact.
Interviewer: The Foreign Office?
Williams: Yes...
Interviewer: So, let me get this straight. You are the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England. But you are quoting the Foreign Office?
Williams: Well, yes. However, it is fair to say that, by and large, I endorse those words. The aspirations of the visit, as expressed by the Foreign Office are generally ones that I would go along with.
Interviewer: With all respect, Your Grace... As head of the Church of England, do you not think that your role is not simply to endorse the words of bureaucrats and politicians, but to provide leadership and guidance... especially when it comes to your Anglican flock?
Williams: (Hesitant) Oh... I see. Yes. Well, I never thought about it quite like that. I do believe that I was originally appointed by a politician. By a Prime Minister in fact. But, now come to think of it... I suppose that there’s some merit in what you have just said.
Interviewer: Some merit?
Williams: (Uneasy) Yes.
Interviewer: And so, Your Grace, can I ask you... what you are going to do next? What are you going to do now?
Williams: (Flustered) Well... I suppose I really ought to consult someone. Some body.
Interviewer: And who would that be, if I may be so bold? Another politician or bureaucrat?
Williams: No. No, I suppose not. Not this time round.
Interviewer: And have you anything to add to that, Your Grace?
Williams: No... No. Probably not at this time.
Interviewer: Well then all that's left to say is... thank you for your time.
Williams: Thank you too.
Interviewer: Your Grace, are you looking forward to the pontiff’s visit?
Williams: Very much so.
Interviewer: And why is that, may I ask?
Williams: I believe it could provide an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen ties between the UK and the Holy See.
Interviewer: How so, Your Grace?
Williams: How so? Well, through concerted action to tackle poverty and climate change, as well as the important role of faith groups in creating strong communities.
Interviewer: Are those your words, if you don’t mind my asking, Your Grace?
Williams: Well, no. Those are the words of the Foreign Office in actual fact.
Interviewer: The Foreign Office?
Williams: Yes...
Interviewer: So, let me get this straight. You are the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England. But you are quoting the Foreign Office?
Williams: Well, yes. However, it is fair to say that, by and large, I endorse those words. The aspirations of the visit, as expressed by the Foreign Office are generally ones that I would go along with.
Interviewer: With all respect, Your Grace... As head of the Church of England, do you not think that your role is not simply to endorse the words of bureaucrats and politicians, but to provide leadership and guidance... especially when it comes to your Anglican flock?
Williams: (Hesitant) Oh... I see. Yes. Well, I never thought about it quite like that. I do believe that I was originally appointed by a politician. By a Prime Minister in fact. But, now come to think of it... I suppose that there’s some merit in what you have just said.
Interviewer: Some merit?
Williams: (Uneasy) Yes.
Interviewer: And so, Your Grace, can I ask you... what you are going to do next? What are you going to do now?
Williams: (Flustered) Well... I suppose I really ought to consult someone. Some body.
Interviewer: And who would that be, if I may be so bold? Another politician or bureaucrat?
Williams: No. No, I suppose not. Not this time round.
Interviewer: And have you anything to add to that, Your Grace?
Williams: No... No. Probably not at this time.
Interviewer: Well then all that's left to say is... thank you for your time.
Williams: Thank you too.
British Pollution: An announcement
Oil giant British Pariah is confident it can stem the flow of unctuous, self-serving drivel that has recently been spewing from the mouth of its dismal Chief Executive.
It issued the following statement: “This Company now accepts that it has lost the goodwill of the American people as well as the respect of investors worldwide. We now realise that this is a two bit outfit born out of a series of poor political compromises and has been run by a bunch of hopeless incompetents for many, many years.”
That being said we hope no one will mind if we still pay out an obscene 10BN dividend to our poor and needy investors.”
Questions still remain over the whereabouts of the company’s elusive Chairman. There are reports that he was last seen heading into the deep blue yonder upon his private yacht, Caveat Emptor. Word is that he is avoiding the Gulf of Mexico.
If there is one lesson that we can learn from this whole sorry affair: Oil should be on tap not on top
It issued the following statement: “This Company now accepts that it has lost the goodwill of the American people as well as the respect of investors worldwide. We now realise that this is a two bit outfit born out of a series of poor political compromises and has been run by a bunch of hopeless incompetents for many, many years.”
That being said we hope no one will mind if we still pay out an obscene 10BN dividend to our poor and needy investors.”
Questions still remain over the whereabouts of the company’s elusive Chairman. There are reports that he was last seen heading into the deep blue yonder upon his private yacht, Caveat Emptor. Word is that he is avoiding the Gulf of Mexico.
If there is one lesson that we can learn from this whole sorry affair: Oil should be on tap not on top
Friday, 4 June 2010
Buzz from first line of cocaine “all in the mind”
How often have you felt like singing “I can see a rainbow” after your first ‘line of the day? No doubt very often. Well, researchers from the University of Bristol have discovered that the buzz you get from that first toot of the day might not actually be down to the ‘feel-good’ chemical dopamine. It might actually be a reversal of the fatiguing effects of overnight cocaine withdrawal.
In an extensive and exhaustive study conducted over one helluva weekend, 300 cocaine users alternatively abstained then tucked into delicious mountains of lovely white powder. The staggering findings were then published in that gospel of Neuropharmacology, The Daily Mail. They make fascinating reading not least because they could undermine what is thought to be a multi-billion dollar global industry.
Professor Escobar from Bristol’s department of experimental psychology who ran the study said: “It is clearly all in the mind. And a lot of it is currently in my mind, yum yum. One thing I can say for sure is that I love the world and a want to teach everyone, every man woman and child, about this magical, magnificent substance that some call Bolivian marching powder... Though I fear none will ever understand the truly shamanistic odyssey that I have undertaken.
The Daily Mail researcher asked Professor Escobar to get back to the point. Whereupon he said: “The point? Well, what is the point? That is my point, if you catch my drift. Maybe there is no point. What is wrong with this wonder drug being all in the mind anyway, I ask you? There’s a lot of other crap up there in my friggin’ grey matter if you’ll pardon my French. And no, don’t ask whether I am actually French. My mother told me I’m not.”
“All I know is that the sun is shining, the birds are buzzing, or whatever it is they do... and my pharmacology students think I’m the bees fucking knees. You know, like I’m the coolest friggin’ Prof in Bristol, Lord knows, maybe even in the world. Ha! Call that withdrawal? Yeah, right... withdrawal. Cracks me up. Like, hello? Do you see this Professor withdrawing like any time soon. Don’t think so. Call me Ischmael. Coz you’re worth it. Screw withdrawal, I say.”
The Professor was subsequently dragged away from the department of pharmacology by a number of security guards whom he kept referring to as “my disciples”. He was diagnosed as having experienced an acute case of cocaine psychosis. There are now fears that the study will be shelved or worse still, abandoned altogether... At least, that is until the Daily Mail next decides to take it out of mothballs, dust it down and republish it.
Next Week: Professor Hoffman tells readers: “Why I'll be ditching the San Pedro cactus, the opium pipe, the laudanum... and buying myself a dirty great hypodermic needle instead.”
In an extensive and exhaustive study conducted over one helluva weekend, 300 cocaine users alternatively abstained then tucked into delicious mountains of lovely white powder. The staggering findings were then published in that gospel of Neuropharmacology, The Daily Mail. They make fascinating reading not least because they could undermine what is thought to be a multi-billion dollar global industry.
Professor Escobar from Bristol’s department of experimental psychology who ran the study said: “It is clearly all in the mind. And a lot of it is currently in my mind, yum yum. One thing I can say for sure is that I love the world and a want to teach everyone, every man woman and child, about this magical, magnificent substance that some call Bolivian marching powder... Though I fear none will ever understand the truly shamanistic odyssey that I have undertaken.
The Daily Mail researcher asked Professor Escobar to get back to the point. Whereupon he said: “The point? Well, what is the point? That is my point, if you catch my drift. Maybe there is no point. What is wrong with this wonder drug being all in the mind anyway, I ask you? There’s a lot of other crap up there in my friggin’ grey matter if you’ll pardon my French. And no, don’t ask whether I am actually French. My mother told me I’m not.”
“All I know is that the sun is shining, the birds are buzzing, or whatever it is they do... and my pharmacology students think I’m the bees fucking knees. You know, like I’m the coolest friggin’ Prof in Bristol, Lord knows, maybe even in the world. Ha! Call that withdrawal? Yeah, right... withdrawal. Cracks me up. Like, hello? Do you see this Professor withdrawing like any time soon. Don’t think so. Call me Ischmael. Coz you’re worth it. Screw withdrawal, I say.”
The Professor was subsequently dragged away from the department of pharmacology by a number of security guards whom he kept referring to as “my disciples”. He was diagnosed as having experienced an acute case of cocaine psychosis. There are now fears that the study will be shelved or worse still, abandoned altogether... At least, that is until the Daily Mail next decides to take it out of mothballs, dust it down and republish it.
Next Week: Professor Hoffman tells readers: “Why I'll be ditching the San Pedro cactus, the opium pipe, the laudanum... and buying myself a dirty great hypodermic needle instead.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
