Politicians of all parties have been paying tribute to the former Labour leader Michael Foot who died yesterday. The great political orator and academic famously sparked off a class war in 1981 when he forgot to wear a designer suit to the Cenotaph.
One former Tory grandee recalled reaction at the time. "It was appalling. There we were trying to rebrand the Conservative Party - to make it appeal to the "loadsamoneys", the self made men. And then along comes this lofty old socialist, arrogantly wearing a donkey jacket - and not a designer label in sight!"
The grandee dismissed claims that the Queen Mother complimented Foot on his choice of jacket. "Well she would, wouldn't she? You're talking about someone who asked me on one occasion: "Tell me, what do you do, Signor Armani? Are you a novus homo?" I had to point out that the "Giorgio Armani" on my lapel was the man who'd created the suit that I was wearing, and that it was the current fashion for men like myself to display their designer labels. She replied by telling me how dreadfully vulgar I was and strolled off to talk to some other people."
He added: "People like Michael Foot and the Queen Ma'am had a totally different approach to the whole retail experience, I'm afraid... They were the kind of people who'd never be happy buying their own furniture for example - something about which I am totally relaxed."
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Avatart
The Pundorans hear that a precious mineral called capitalium is abundant on Earth and send an expedition to investigate. Capitalium, it is said, circumnavigates the planet at the speed of light. It has immense value, making men powerful and societies abundant. It pays for cities and the vulgar new earth colonies called Dubai - which are naff, built on sand and uninhabited. It also funds 'wars' where humans dispense with 'virtual reality' and kill each other for real! And some even say that it can buy you love.
But expedition leader, Porker, is worried. He has heard of something called globalisation, and doesn't know whether it will help or hinder Pundoran plans to mine capitalium. Reconnaissance has hinted that globalisation might have made the earth stronger, because it means that the different tribes - called countries - now co-operate. Could the global business and capitalium flows benefiting the rich and powerful also mean a united front against the Pundoran expedition?
He calls in his trusted adviser, Kis'Inger who has been looking into this:-
Porker: Kis'Inger, I really need to know. Globalisation - is it a problem?
Kis'Inger: Not a problem, Commander. My research is exhaustive. It will not affect our mining.
Porker: Even though rich and powerful companies like Microsuck and Moregain possess more capitalium and more power as a result of globalisation?
Kis'Inger: Globalisation, it is good only for enterprises and not for wider cooperating between the countries. Example is this: Two years ago the 'banks' that move the capitalium caused it to overheat, nearly occasioning global meltdown. After this, globalisation might well have helped governments work together to harmonise tax and financial regulations. The banks and other businesses couldn't then have played all the countries off against one another. And this would ensure that the overheating never happened again. But certain selfish leaders rejected this, preferring to stay friends with the banks instead. Thus global agreement could not reached
Porker: That is illogical. This would be an obvious benefit of globalisation, surely?
Kis'Inger: Could be. But all it takes is one stubborn leader and the agreement falls apart. It proves that globalisation only really benefits enterprise, and is not much use when it comes to legislation. The leaders of the various countries prefer to be repeatedly sodomised by the bankers and the powerful business men, rather than make global alliance with other countries.
Porker: Prefer being sodomised, eh? I wonder why.
Kis'Inger: (Shrugs) Who know? Probably something in it for them.
But expedition leader, Porker, is worried. He has heard of something called globalisation, and doesn't know whether it will help or hinder Pundoran plans to mine capitalium. Reconnaissance has hinted that globalisation might have made the earth stronger, because it means that the different tribes - called countries - now co-operate. Could the global business and capitalium flows benefiting the rich and powerful also mean a united front against the Pundoran expedition?
He calls in his trusted adviser, Kis'Inger who has been looking into this:-
Porker: Kis'Inger, I really need to know. Globalisation - is it a problem?
Kis'Inger: Not a problem, Commander. My research is exhaustive. It will not affect our mining.
Porker: Even though rich and powerful companies like Microsuck and Moregain possess more capitalium and more power as a result of globalisation?
Kis'Inger: Globalisation, it is good only for enterprises and not for wider cooperating between the countries. Example is this: Two years ago the 'banks' that move the capitalium caused it to overheat, nearly occasioning global meltdown. After this, globalisation might well have helped governments work together to harmonise tax and financial regulations. The banks and other businesses couldn't then have played all the countries off against one another. And this would ensure that the overheating never happened again. But certain selfish leaders rejected this, preferring to stay friends with the banks instead. Thus global agreement could not reached
Porker: That is illogical. This would be an obvious benefit of globalisation, surely?
Kis'Inger: Could be. But all it takes is one stubborn leader and the agreement falls apart. It proves that globalisation only really benefits enterprise, and is not much use when it comes to legislation. The leaders of the various countries prefer to be repeatedly sodomised by the bankers and the powerful business men, rather than make global alliance with other countries.
Porker: Prefer being sodomised, eh? I wonder why.
Kis'Inger: (Shrugs) Who know? Probably something in it for them.
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
"F*** the Rich!" - says senior politician.
A high-ranking politician has proclaimed that, despite "flirting with the filthy rich" for some time, he now believes that they are in fact parasites who exploit society, who assume that all politicians are for hire, and who have totally shafted this nation over the past decade.
The politician, speaking strictly off the record, said today: "When I started out in politics, I viewed the rich as greedy bastards who exploited the masses. But I soon realised that they had to be understood if we were ever to achieve power. I went to great lengths to see the world through their eyes. I moved in their circles, ingratiating myself as I went. I even accumulated my own moderate cash pile, just to get a sense of what made them tick. And I liked what I saw. These guys were cool. They had yachts and houses and all kinds of fabulous possessions. They were the new "rock and roll". And I wanted to be a part of it.
But sadly all was not quite as it seemed. After the financial meltdown, it was obvious what had really occurred: They had cleverly persuaded fawning politicians to turn this country into their playground, promising in return that they would provide jobs, stability and a monetary 'trickle down' to the rest of society. Then they proceeded to bleed the country dry, spirited their cash away and left the rest of us to pick up the bill.
The politician made this announcement against the backdrop of the non-dom row that has embroiled both Labour and Conservatives of late. Lord Ashcroft yesterday resigned his post as Conservative Party Chairman after admitting that he had held the post despite his non-dom status. Labour is similarly coming under criticism for its colourful array of donors that includes Lord Paul and Ronald Cohen.
"Politicians like myself feel used, you know, rogered. I trusted these guys when they said that wealth would trickle down. But instead they buggered up our economy with their financial voodoo, hid their ill-gotten gains in off-shore bank accounts, and when the balloon went up, were nowhere to be seen. And so where do I, a conviction politician, now go from here? Well, lets hope its a well paid job - for services rendered - with one of these complete and utter bastards."
The politician, speaking strictly off the record, said today: "When I started out in politics, I viewed the rich as greedy bastards who exploited the masses. But I soon realised that they had to be understood if we were ever to achieve power. I went to great lengths to see the world through their eyes. I moved in their circles, ingratiating myself as I went. I even accumulated my own moderate cash pile, just to get a sense of what made them tick. And I liked what I saw. These guys were cool. They had yachts and houses and all kinds of fabulous possessions. They were the new "rock and roll". And I wanted to be a part of it.
But sadly all was not quite as it seemed. After the financial meltdown, it was obvious what had really occurred: They had cleverly persuaded fawning politicians to turn this country into their playground, promising in return that they would provide jobs, stability and a monetary 'trickle down' to the rest of society. Then they proceeded to bleed the country dry, spirited their cash away and left the rest of us to pick up the bill.
The politician made this announcement against the backdrop of the non-dom row that has embroiled both Labour and Conservatives of late. Lord Ashcroft yesterday resigned his post as Conservative Party Chairman after admitting that he had held the post despite his non-dom status. Labour is similarly coming under criticism for its colourful array of donors that includes Lord Paul and Ronald Cohen.
"Politicians like myself feel used, you know, rogered. I trusted these guys when they said that wealth would trickle down. But instead they buggered up our economy with their financial voodoo, hid their ill-gotten gains in off-shore bank accounts, and when the balloon went up, were nowhere to be seen. And so where do I, a conviction politician, now go from here? Well, lets hope its a well paid job - for services rendered - with one of these complete and utter bastards."
Monday, 1 March 2010
A-Z of Sexual Allusion
In this article, also published in the Journal of Sexual Hermeneutics Vol.4, we will demonstrate how economic events can be rendered in terminology more readily accessible to those with little understanding of economic theory. The sexual allusion is a useful one, as most people, irrespective of class, race or gender, will encounter sexual activity, perhaps on more than one occasion, during the course of their lives. We will start with a phrase on many peoples' lips nowadays:
End to Boom and Bust -
Throughout the last decade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that he had "put an end to boom and bust". Of course, we now know that he had not. The bust was simply delayed. And when it did occur, it was far more severe than anyone had imagined
How do we understand this set of circumstances without the usual recourse to financial or economic modelling - i.e. retail prices index, credit bubbles, Monetary Policy Committee etc etc? Well, using our preferred sexual allusion, we will say that these events are akin to the occasion when two lovers choose to delay orgasm in order to heighten the very quality and range of the climax - an approach that anyone familiar with the Kama Sutra will recognise.
Now applying the sexual references to the aforementioned 'Boom and Bust' this will give a fair picture of events:-
During the period of the activity the participants chant a mantra - doesn't have to be yogic - for example, "End to boom and bust, end to boom and bust." The mind will detach itself from what is actually happening, to avoid reaching climax too early. It will concern itself with the mundane, with dreary detail - such as economic activity, interest rate policy and inflation. One of the two lovers, often the male, might even find himself talking freely and openly to his lover about the latest MPC decision to keep interest rates on hold. This can continue for some time.
Eventually the lovers will return to reality. They recognise once again that they are dealing with the forces of nature and that they can hold on no longer. They now yield to the climax and the proverbial 'bubble' bursts. The participants will lose themselves in the ensuing maelstrom of raw animal passion, before crashing into a state of inactivity, recess, and even mild depression sometimes referred to as post-coital tristesse.
End to Boom and Bust -
Throughout the last decade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that he had "put an end to boom and bust". Of course, we now know that he had not. The bust was simply delayed. And when it did occur, it was far more severe than anyone had imagined
How do we understand this set of circumstances without the usual recourse to financial or economic modelling - i.e. retail prices index, credit bubbles, Monetary Policy Committee etc etc? Well, using our preferred sexual allusion, we will say that these events are akin to the occasion when two lovers choose to delay orgasm in order to heighten the very quality and range of the climax - an approach that anyone familiar with the Kama Sutra will recognise.
Now applying the sexual references to the aforementioned 'Boom and Bust' this will give a fair picture of events:-
During the period of the activity the participants chant a mantra - doesn't have to be yogic - for example, "End to boom and bust, end to boom and bust." The mind will detach itself from what is actually happening, to avoid reaching climax too early. It will concern itself with the mundane, with dreary detail - such as economic activity, interest rate policy and inflation. One of the two lovers, often the male, might even find himself talking freely and openly to his lover about the latest MPC decision to keep interest rates on hold. This can continue for some time.
Eventually the lovers will return to reality. They recognise once again that they are dealing with the forces of nature and that they can hold on no longer. They now yield to the climax and the proverbial 'bubble' bursts. The participants will lose themselves in the ensuing maelstrom of raw animal passion, before crashing into a state of inactivity, recess, and even mild depression sometimes referred to as post-coital tristesse.
Sunday, 28 February 2010
'Uncle Bernie' endorses quantitative-easing joke.
The much loved 'investment artist' has been discussing his 'savings plan that didn't deliver'.
"There wouldn't have been a problem if they'd only changed the law to make what I did legal. Lets face it, depositors with banks like RBS would have lost all their money too, if the government hadn't stepped in and bailed them out. And remember: the government did it with your money, folks!
"What a klutz I was. These politicians sure know a thing or two. Listen boys and girls, don't make the same mistakes as Uncle Bernie. If you want to part a fool and his cash, do it the traditional way. Seek public office.
"Government - it's a licence to print money."
Elsewhere in the news - One of the architects of Enron endorses the IMF! More later
"There wouldn't have been a problem if they'd only changed the law to make what I did legal. Lets face it, depositors with banks like RBS would have lost all their money too, if the government hadn't stepped in and bailed them out. And remember: the government did it with your money, folks!
"What a klutz I was. These politicians sure know a thing or two. Listen boys and girls, don't make the same mistakes as Uncle Bernie. If you want to part a fool and his cash, do it the traditional way. Seek public office.
"Government - it's a licence to print money."
Elsewhere in the news - One of the architects of Enron endorses the IMF! More later
Saturday, 27 February 2010
The funny side of quantitative easing
The anniversary of Weimar Germany seems as good a time as any to rehash an old joke about an old joke. This one is set in ‘recessionary times’ during the middle ages. People are desperate for new ways to drum up business. In one village the goatherd, Bob, isn’t very happy. He sold a goat to Bill, who is licensed to print money. He walks into his office.
Bob: I want my goat back. You gave me ‘One Goat Pound’, and I believed that this pound really was worth one goat.
Bill: Well it was at the time of the exchange. So, what’s the problem?
Bob: Well, you then printed more ‘Goat Pounds’ without any goats actually passing hands, and then you used them to pay off your debts to Jim, who you ‘ad two chickens off of, and Ivor who had given you his entire turnip crop.
Bill: And very pleased they were too. Business is moving again as a result. Ivor and Jim have been out buying bread and the like, and Ed the baker bought more flour. And so on… People have money in their pockets again.
Bob: And you are doing very nicely out of it too, I bet. But our pound notes won’t buy goats anymore…What if I’d done the same to you and started printing goats? You wouldn’t have been happy.
Bill: Well, you can’t print goats, so piss off.
Bob: Bill, I took your ‘Goat Pound’ on trust. And you have broken that trust. And now I have lost my goat.
Bill: Well, you know what they say, don't you? Easy come, easy goat.
(Please note, this is not the anniversary of Weimar Germany. If you are approached by anyone claiming otherwise, please call our hotline and leave a message after the tone.)
Bob: I want my goat back. You gave me ‘One Goat Pound’, and I believed that this pound really was worth one goat.
Bill: Well it was at the time of the exchange. So, what’s the problem?
Bob: Well, you then printed more ‘Goat Pounds’ without any goats actually passing hands, and then you used them to pay off your debts to Jim, who you ‘ad two chickens off of, and Ivor who had given you his entire turnip crop.
Bill: And very pleased they were too. Business is moving again as a result. Ivor and Jim have been out buying bread and the like, and Ed the baker bought more flour. And so on… People have money in their pockets again.
Bob: And you are doing very nicely out of it too, I bet. But our pound notes won’t buy goats anymore…What if I’d done the same to you and started printing goats? You wouldn’t have been happy.
Bill: Well, you can’t print goats, so piss off.
Bob: Bill, I took your ‘Goat Pound’ on trust. And you have broken that trust. And now I have lost my goat.
Bill: Well, you know what they say, don't you? Easy come, easy goat.
(Please note, this is not the anniversary of Weimar Germany. If you are approached by anyone claiming otherwise, please call our hotline and leave a message after the tone.)
Friday, 26 February 2010
Exclusive extracts from "The Devil and Downing Street."
The Prime Minister and Lord Mandelson have been interviewed by broadcaster Nicky Campbell for an edition of The Heaven and Earth Show, now being dubbed "The Twilight of the Gord". The extract below says a lot about the mood at No.10
Campbell: So, Prime Minister do you pray before going to bed?
Prime Minister: Yes I do, Nicky. In fact, as someone who has always championed diversity, I pray to a number of deities - although normally just God and the Devil.
Nicky Campbell: (Shocked) The Devil, Prime Minister? You're kidding?
Prime Minister: No, I'm not. I am the Prime Minister and my task is important enough to justify it. Every night I pray to God and the Devil. I ask: Help me destroy my enemies and rule this nation with a rod of iron.
Nicky Campbell: I see...
Lord Mandelson: (Looks worried) If I can just step in... Gordon was not saying that he prays to the Devil as such. More that he has some tough calls to make in this job. Sometimes he must be merciless. Put it another way: The end justifies the means. Isn't that right, Gordon?
Prime Minister: Yes, indeed. Matters not to me whether it is God or the Devil. Just that they crush my enemies. And of course, they both have form in this area.
Nicky Campbell: Perhaps. But people will be a little shocked that you pray to the Devil, won't they?
Lord Mandelson: Listen, we shouldn't be getting hung up on this Devil business.
Nicky Campbell: Frankly, Lord Mandelson, I think that most Christians might get hung up.
Lord Mandelson: Gordon was simply using a turn of phrase.
Nicky Campbell: Were you, Prime Minister? Sounded like more than that.
Lord Mandelson: (Interrupting) Look, Gordon has a tough job running this country. Sometimes you have to crack eggs to make that omelette, yeah? Fine, so we know that God can be pretty mean, when he wants to be. But Gordon just wants to make sure that he has every weapon he can in his armoury. In other words, every possible er,... contender. Understood?
Prime Minister: Right, Peter. Absolutely. I will, if needs be, slash and pulverise those who stand in my way, I will torch the opposition front benches, I will grind down those politicians and journalists who brief against me and scorch the earth on which they tread. I'll show no mercy as I flatten and...
Lord Mandelson: OK Gordon, that's fine for now. (Whispers) Some of those tasks are mine, remember.
Prime Minister: Yes, of course, Peter.
Lord Mandelson: (Still whispering) Why don't you try accentuating the positive? You know, dish out a bit of positive spin, positive gloss. Tell how you saved the banks, why don't you?
Prime Minister: Saved the world, Peter. Saved the world.
Lord Mandelson: (Wearily) Yes, Gordon. Saved the world.
Prime Minister: Yes, Nicky, on the positive side, I scraped together what little wealth this country still had and with all my courage and determination, I chucked it all on red.
Lord Mandelson: You bailed out the banks, Gordon, don't you mean?
Prime Minister: Yes, of course. I bailed out the banks. And in doing so I saved the world. Now, on that particular occasion, I prayed to the Devil and to Mammon. I'm not saying, by the way, that bankers do the Devil's work. Or Mammon's for that matter.
Nicky Campbell: Even though in fact they probably do.
Prime Minister: Yes, even though they probably do. And yes, as a Labour Prime Minister I had reservations about the bail-out, I can tell you. But then I had a revelation: Bankers were also doing my, I mean, God's work.
Nicky Cambell: How so?
Prime Minister: The banks were in a position to prop up an ailing Labour government, create the illusion of wealth, the semblance of activity, and, most important of all, they could redefine, rebrand, hide our debt. They reinvented the balance sheet for New Labour. They let Labour achieve goals that once seemed impossible. We could spend, spend, spend like there was no tomorrow, whilst appearing to be prudent. And that is why I prayed to the Devil and Mammon... and, as always, God. All three of us working together in harmony.
Lord Mandelson: And if that isn't synergy, if that isn't win-win, what is?
Nicky Campbell: But, isn't that really a case of the ends and the means becoming indistinguishable?
Prime Minister and Lord Mandelson: (Together) We'll worry about that kind of detail. Nicky. You ask the ethical questions.
Nicky Campbell: I thought I was, actually, gents... Anyway, I must say, this is a revelation. We'll have to see how our viewers respond. Praying to the Devil... (Pauses, then addressing Lord Mandelson again) And turning to you Lord Mandelson. You kindly agreed to come on this programme alongside the PM. You're clearly interested in the ethical dimensions of politics. So... Who do you pray to, to help you perform your vanquishings, or conversely, your win-wins? (Chuckles) Do you also pray to the same Pantheon, to God and the Devil?
Lord Mandelson: Nicky, you've seen me making things happen, both in Westminster and, before that, in the European parliament? You have seen the respect that I command both here and abroad, have not you?
Nicky Campbell: Of course.
Lord Mandelson: So, don't you think that it is a bit of a strange question to be asking me? WHO do I pray TO?
Nicky Campbell: I'm sorry, I'll re-phrase it. To whom do you pray?
Lord Mandelson: (Shaking his head) Oh dear, oh dear. Nicky. Wakey, wakey? Do I pray? To anybody? Hello?
Nicky Campbell: Oh, I think I see. You don't do the praying?
Lord Mandelson: I should hope not.
Nicky Campbell: Sorry, I should have asked: So,who prays to...
Lord Mandelson: (Cuts in swiftly) Nicky... I don't think you really need to ask that question anymore, do you? I think we know the answer.
Nicky Campbell: Yes, I think we do, Lord Mandelson.
Prime Minister: (Glum) I think we do.
Campbell: So, Prime Minister do you pray before going to bed?
Prime Minister: Yes I do, Nicky. In fact, as someone who has always championed diversity, I pray to a number of deities - although normally just God and the Devil.
Nicky Campbell: (Shocked) The Devil, Prime Minister? You're kidding?
Prime Minister: No, I'm not. I am the Prime Minister and my task is important enough to justify it. Every night I pray to God and the Devil. I ask: Help me destroy my enemies and rule this nation with a rod of iron.
Nicky Campbell: I see...
Lord Mandelson: (Looks worried) If I can just step in... Gordon was not saying that he prays to the Devil as such. More that he has some tough calls to make in this job. Sometimes he must be merciless. Put it another way: The end justifies the means. Isn't that right, Gordon?
Prime Minister: Yes, indeed. Matters not to me whether it is God or the Devil. Just that they crush my enemies. And of course, they both have form in this area.
Nicky Campbell: Perhaps. But people will be a little shocked that you pray to the Devil, won't they?
Lord Mandelson: Listen, we shouldn't be getting hung up on this Devil business.
Nicky Campbell: Frankly, Lord Mandelson, I think that most Christians might get hung up.
Lord Mandelson: Gordon was simply using a turn of phrase.
Nicky Campbell: Were you, Prime Minister? Sounded like more than that.
Lord Mandelson: (Interrupting) Look, Gordon has a tough job running this country. Sometimes you have to crack eggs to make that omelette, yeah? Fine, so we know that God can be pretty mean, when he wants to be. But Gordon just wants to make sure that he has every weapon he can in his armoury. In other words, every possible er,... contender. Understood?
Prime Minister: Right, Peter. Absolutely. I will, if needs be, slash and pulverise those who stand in my way, I will torch the opposition front benches, I will grind down those politicians and journalists who brief against me and scorch the earth on which they tread. I'll show no mercy as I flatten and...
Lord Mandelson: OK Gordon, that's fine for now. (Whispers) Some of those tasks are mine, remember.
Prime Minister: Yes, of course, Peter.
Lord Mandelson: (Still whispering) Why don't you try accentuating the positive? You know, dish out a bit of positive spin, positive gloss. Tell how you saved the banks, why don't you?
Prime Minister: Saved the world, Peter. Saved the world.
Lord Mandelson: (Wearily) Yes, Gordon. Saved the world.
Prime Minister: Yes, Nicky, on the positive side, I scraped together what little wealth this country still had and with all my courage and determination, I chucked it all on red.
Lord Mandelson: You bailed out the banks, Gordon, don't you mean?
Prime Minister: Yes, of course. I bailed out the banks. And in doing so I saved the world. Now, on that particular occasion, I prayed to the Devil and to Mammon. I'm not saying, by the way, that bankers do the Devil's work. Or Mammon's for that matter.
Nicky Campbell: Even though in fact they probably do.
Prime Minister: Yes, even though they probably do. And yes, as a Labour Prime Minister I had reservations about the bail-out, I can tell you. But then I had a revelation: Bankers were also doing my, I mean, God's work.
Nicky Cambell: How so?
Prime Minister: The banks were in a position to prop up an ailing Labour government, create the illusion of wealth, the semblance of activity, and, most important of all, they could redefine, rebrand, hide our debt. They reinvented the balance sheet for New Labour. They let Labour achieve goals that once seemed impossible. We could spend, spend, spend like there was no tomorrow, whilst appearing to be prudent. And that is why I prayed to the Devil and Mammon... and, as always, God. All three of us working together in harmony.
Lord Mandelson: And if that isn't synergy, if that isn't win-win, what is?
Nicky Campbell: But, isn't that really a case of the ends and the means becoming indistinguishable?
Prime Minister and Lord Mandelson: (Together) We'll worry about that kind of detail. Nicky. You ask the ethical questions.
Nicky Campbell: I thought I was, actually, gents... Anyway, I must say, this is a revelation. We'll have to see how our viewers respond. Praying to the Devil... (Pauses, then addressing Lord Mandelson again) And turning to you Lord Mandelson. You kindly agreed to come on this programme alongside the PM. You're clearly interested in the ethical dimensions of politics. So... Who do you pray to, to help you perform your vanquishings, or conversely, your win-wins? (Chuckles) Do you also pray to the same Pantheon, to God and the Devil?
Lord Mandelson: Nicky, you've seen me making things happen, both in Westminster and, before that, in the European parliament? You have seen the respect that I command both here and abroad, have not you?
Nicky Campbell: Of course.
Lord Mandelson: So, don't you think that it is a bit of a strange question to be asking me? WHO do I pray TO?
Nicky Campbell: I'm sorry, I'll re-phrase it. To whom do you pray?
Lord Mandelson: (Shaking his head) Oh dear, oh dear. Nicky. Wakey, wakey? Do I pray? To anybody? Hello?
Nicky Campbell: Oh, I think I see. You don't do the praying?
Lord Mandelson: I should hope not.
Nicky Campbell: Sorry, I should have asked: So,who prays to...
Lord Mandelson: (Cuts in swiftly) Nicky... I don't think you really need to ask that question anymore, do you? I think we know the answer.
Nicky Campbell: Yes, I think we do, Lord Mandelson.
Prime Minister: (Glum) I think we do.
Thursday, 25 February 2010
Health Warning!
The public is being told to avoid the Amis-Ford-Hitchens altercation. This display of 'animosity' is simply an attempt to win peer group recognition. In order to dominate the hierarchy, these creatures must fight one another in a public ritual that to outsiders appears terrifyingly real. It is in fact nothing of the sort. Genuine spats are never conducted so openly. And the proximity of "The Guardian" is evidence that the contest is purely attention seeking. Members of the public are warned to keep their distance from all such rituals, as they can lead to drowsiness and, in rare instances, coma. The phenomenon will pass rapidly if denied the oxygen of publicity.
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
The root of all politics
(The Schools Secretary, Ed Balls, is on Radio 4 explaining why schools should be allowed to preserve the right to teach their pupils about sex and relationships in accordance with their own religion despite new legislation making sex education compulsory.)
Humphreys: So, Mr Balls, if the government takes this issue seriously enough to make it compulsory, why the exemption?
Balls: John, this is about the need for a policy on sex education.
Humphreys: On compulsory sex education. Isn't that the point?
Balls: Not really John. This is simply about having a policy. This government passionately believes in policies.
Humphreys: Yes, and we've had a lot of them over the years. And this particular one is compulsory in schools.
Balls: Yes.
Humphreys: So why not faith schools?
Balls: Because what really matters is that there is a policy.
Humphreys: No matter what that policy is?
Balls: Well yes, it does matter what it is. And faith schools have a very clear policy. They don't want to teach sex education. But that is still a policy.
Humphreys: Well, of sorts. But one based on religious belief.
Balls: We're well-disposed towards religious beliefs. Remember: Labour owes more to Methodism than Marxism.
Humphreys: This is not just Methodism. This is all religious organisations.
Balls: Yes, but that is a secondary issue. For us, the point of policy is policy. We must set the agenda, create a policy platform, if you like. That is why we're in power. It's what power is all about.
Humphreys: So its all about power now is it? And no doubt you want to stay in power. And that means not ruffling too many feathers.
Balls: No one wants to ruffle too many feathers.
Humphreys: And so what is the object of this power then?
Balls: That should be clear by now, John. Just as the object of policy is policy, so the object of power is power.
Humphreys: Really?
Balls: Yes, John. We have been in power thirteen years. I don't need to tell you that. Do I?
Humphreys: So in fact this whole debate isn't really about sex, or sex education at all, is it, Minister?
Balls: I suppose not, John. Not entirely.
Humphreys: It's really just about power. That's all you care about. Staying in power.
Balls: Not all we care about. But you can't do anything without power.
Humphreys: (Ponders) So then, in a roundabout sort of way...? Maybe sex does come in to this debate in the end.
Balls: Sorry John?
Humphreys: Well, they say, do they not, that power is the best aphrodisiac.
Balls: Yes, John. And you know what? We have a policy on that too.
Humphreys: I'm sure you do, Minister.
Humphreys: So, Mr Balls, if the government takes this issue seriously enough to make it compulsory, why the exemption?
Balls: John, this is about the need for a policy on sex education.
Humphreys: On compulsory sex education. Isn't that the point?
Balls: Not really John. This is simply about having a policy. This government passionately believes in policies.
Humphreys: Yes, and we've had a lot of them over the years. And this particular one is compulsory in schools.
Balls: Yes.
Humphreys: So why not faith schools?
Balls: Because what really matters is that there is a policy.
Humphreys: No matter what that policy is?
Balls: Well yes, it does matter what it is. And faith schools have a very clear policy. They don't want to teach sex education. But that is still a policy.
Humphreys: Well, of sorts. But one based on religious belief.
Balls: We're well-disposed towards religious beliefs. Remember: Labour owes more to Methodism than Marxism.
Humphreys: This is not just Methodism. This is all religious organisations.
Balls: Yes, but that is a secondary issue. For us, the point of policy is policy. We must set the agenda, create a policy platform, if you like. That is why we're in power. It's what power is all about.
Humphreys: So its all about power now is it? And no doubt you want to stay in power. And that means not ruffling too many feathers.
Balls: No one wants to ruffle too many feathers.
Humphreys: And so what is the object of this power then?
Balls: That should be clear by now, John. Just as the object of policy is policy, so the object of power is power.
Humphreys: Really?
Balls: Yes, John. We have been in power thirteen years. I don't need to tell you that. Do I?
Humphreys: So in fact this whole debate isn't really about sex, or sex education at all, is it, Minister?
Balls: I suppose not, John. Not entirely.
Humphreys: It's really just about power. That's all you care about. Staying in power.
Balls: Not all we care about. But you can't do anything without power.
Humphreys: (Ponders) So then, in a roundabout sort of way...? Maybe sex does come in to this debate in the end.
Balls: Sorry John?
Humphreys: Well, they say, do they not, that power is the best aphrodisiac.
Balls: Yes, John. And you know what? We have a policy on that too.
Humphreys: I'm sure you do, Minister.
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Bullying: What they are saying
David Cameron - Did New Labour put an end to fagging? I don't know. You'll have to ask them. What I do know is that Brown looks the kind of fellow who could do with a damn good thrashing now and again.
Ed Balls - I can't remember the last time I threatened to kick the shit out of anybody. My wife takes care of that kind of thing nowadays.
Harriet Harman - Can I just make it very clear that there is a wealth of difference between bullying and the kind of pressure a working mum has to put on her partner in order to make the relationship work. I'm sure my husband Jack would agree.
Tony Benn - Well, of course m'father introduced me to a number of famous bullies: Lloyd George, Herbert Morrison, Mosley. And I worked with one or two m'self - Ernie Bevin and Jim Callaghan, to name but two. And y'know what? To a man they said to me "This is going to hurt me more than it will you." And they were right, y'know.
Ann Widdecombe - The Catholic Church should never have dispensed with torture. All it's led to is an orgy of sado-masochism and self-pity. Of course you'll get bullying if you're always telling people that they must 'turn the other cheek'.
Ed Balls - I can't remember the last time I threatened to kick the shit out of anybody. My wife takes care of that kind of thing nowadays.
Harriet Harman - Can I just make it very clear that there is a wealth of difference between bullying and the kind of pressure a working mum has to put on her partner in order to make the relationship work. I'm sure my husband Jack would agree.
Tony Benn - Well, of course m'father introduced me to a number of famous bullies: Lloyd George, Herbert Morrison, Mosley. And I worked with one or two m'self - Ernie Bevin and Jim Callaghan, to name but two. And y'know what? To a man they said to me "This is going to hurt me more than it will you." And they were right, y'know.
Ann Widdecombe - The Catholic Church should never have dispensed with torture. All it's led to is an orgy of sado-masochism and self-pity. Of course you'll get bullying if you're always telling people that they must 'turn the other cheek'.
The future is here! The GordWeb Anytime Package!
Working with the government we're giving our customers the opportunity to interact with Gord as never before. The GordWeb Portal is expanding its horizons beyond the Internet! We will be rolling GordWeb out to every town centre, every street corner in Britain. Soon you'll be able to communicate with GordWeb not just at your desk, but while you are driving, shopping, or going about your daily business.
GordWeb will create a network of interactive screens and cameras situated in every town, city and vehicle across the UK. Wherever you are you'll see Gord announce his latest policy initiatives. Amazingly, you'll be able to offer feedback at any time of the day or night, via pin-drop sensitive, high-definition cameras mounted nearby. Of course, the response from No10 will not be immediate. Following Home Office examination, No10 will respond, in most instances, via your mobile phone - which will also be connected to the network.
And here's the great bit: Since the package carries the government's Responsible Technology Warrant, users will automatically qualify for a range of citizenship privileges. These will include "priority user" access to essential local and central government services (see leaflet for details), exemption from a range of statutory government databases, plus a whole host of discounts on government-approved mobile technology and neighbourhood surveillance systems.
Responsible citizenship is simply a click a way! Order now and show that In Gord you trust!
(GordWeb is a public-private partnership, developed and administered by Govsurv UK Ltd, part of Govsurv Consortium Worldwide PLC.)
GordWeb will create a network of interactive screens and cameras situated in every town, city and vehicle across the UK. Wherever you are you'll see Gord announce his latest policy initiatives. Amazingly, you'll be able to offer feedback at any time of the day or night, via pin-drop sensitive, high-definition cameras mounted nearby. Of course, the response from No10 will not be immediate. Following Home Office examination, No10 will respond, in most instances, via your mobile phone - which will also be connected to the network.
And here's the great bit: Since the package carries the government's Responsible Technology Warrant, users will automatically qualify for a range of citizenship privileges. These will include "priority user" access to essential local and central government services (see leaflet for details), exemption from a range of statutory government databases, plus a whole host of discounts on government-approved mobile technology and neighbourhood surveillance systems.
Responsible citizenship is simply a click a way! Order now and show that In Gord you trust!
(GordWeb is a public-private partnership, developed and administered by Govsurv UK Ltd, part of Govsurv Consortium Worldwide PLC.)
Monday, 22 February 2010
Neo-Liberal Laboratory
Transcript -
(Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have been discussing the implications of a hung parliament and the kind of coalition they might join.)
Nick: We really need to think ahead, Vince. We need a working title, a name. One that says: We'll be calling the shots.
Vince: Isn't it a bit early to worry about that kind of thing, Nick? The actual election should be our primary concern right now.
Nick: Bit early, Vince? Not really. This is crucial. A coalition is the only way we'll ever get our hands on power. That we know. I believe we must set the agenda for that coalition early on, before the election, by constructing some kind of a narrative, some kind of pitch... Before the other parties try to hijack it.
Vince: Hijack it?
Nick: Hijack the agenda. In the event of a hung Parliament, they'll be out there briefing and spinning, telling everyone what a coalition can achieve - whilst basically pushing their own agenda. We must get in there first. Give people our perspective - and this is the point - before the election's begun. Look it can't hurt at least to consider what that narrative should be? Can it? Prepare a vision?
Vince: I suppose, maybe not... You've obviously given this some thought. So what exactly have you come up with so far?
Nick: Okay, so it was actually the name that I considered first. I thought, how do we convey something positive, something that says this is a good thing for the country, not just some cobbled together deal. And I thought... how about calling it the 'Coalition of the Willing?'
Vince: (Uneasy) Not sure about that. Echoes of the Iraq war. Bit of a risky one, don't you think?
Nick: Ah, that's what you might think at first. But who is actually going to war? We're not, that's for sure. However, the name will remind people of an unpopular policy that we opposed. So that's good.
Vince: I see. Yes... well, perhaps it could work if you were to look at it like that... Its all down to the detail ultimately. Are you able to fill me in on that at all?
Nick: Yes, Vince. I was thinking, why not adopt the best of what the old Labour and the old Conservative parties had to offer. It would make us more attractive to the grass roots supporters of both parties - The guys who have felt let down over recent years and want someone to listen.
Vince: I see. In principle it sounds a smart move, but how would Liberals achieve that? Can you be more specific? What do you mean by the best?
Nick: Right, now here's the really important part, I reckon. What was it more than anything else that used to distinguish the two main parties, something you don't get nowadays?
Vince: (Chuckles) I suppose that they were actually different.
Nick: Precisely.
Vince: (Surprised). Oh, sorry, I was being facetious. I thought that was too obvious. (Composing himself) But, yes, it is a serious point too, I admit. And what are you saying? We would be offering something different?
Nick: Got it in one... But more than that: our 'Coalition of the Willing' will in fact be different precisely because everything is so similar nowadays. I know that sounds like sophistry but I am just trying to develop a strategy.
Vince: I see where you're coming from, Nick. But slight problem: This is the Liberal Democratic Party. This isn't what liberals, small or large L, do, surely? We'd effectively be adopting the New Labour and the New Conservative consensus approach to politics whilst, paradoxically, embracing the polarised politics that they'd abandoned.
Nick: Bit of a mouthful that, eh, Vince? Sure we can find something snappier. And don't worry, we will. But the point is, through our 'Coalition of the Willing' we can do what the other two parties cannot possibly do anymore.
Vince: And what's that, Nick?
Nick: Shift sideways. They have moved so much to the centre, that they cannot go any further.
Vince: I see, Nick. So we are shifting our political standpoint? That is what you're saying?
Nick: Well, we're going to have to anyway if we join a coalition. So let's start getting used to that fact right here.
Vince: What are you saying. Moving left? Right?
Nick: Doesn't have to be left or right. Could be left and right.
Vince: That sounds like political schizophrenia, Nick.
Nick: No, Vince. It is all about playing the two sides off against one another. Oldest game in the book.
Vince: Oh its a game, is it?
Nick: (Frowns) Where have you been? It is a game of sorts.
Vince: Is it a solution? That's what concerns me.
Nick: Of course. Left and Right have been invading our territory for years. But here, we will be able to play left and right off against each other because neither has anywhere to go, no more territory to invade.
Vince: Okay, Nick. All very sophisticated, at least in theory. And I am wondering where these ideas are coming from. Hours of reading? Smoke filled rooms?
Nick: (Shrugs) Nothing that new, you'll find.
Vince: But leaving all of that aside... I'm still not sure whether it is really liberal, be it small or large L.
Nick: Well ok then maybe it is time for a brand new name for the party as well.
Vince: What? A name to replace LibDems? I'm not sure that's worth embarking upon, Nick. Not now at least.
Nick: It is and I'll tell you why. We must show people that we are still liberal, but with a slight name change, we will also be offering this new narrative?
Vince: (Looking weary, the penny drops.) And so have you by any chance decided what that name might be, Nick?
Nick: I have indeed, Vince.
Vince: And will you enlighten me?
Nick: Of course, Vince. I'd love to. The new name will be... well, how about The New Liberal Party?
Vince: (Sighs) Yes, Nick. Funnily enough, I thought it might be something like that. And that will encapsulate everything that we have just been talking about, will it?
Nick: Indeed it will, Vince. Indeed it will.
(Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have been discussing the implications of a hung parliament and the kind of coalition they might join.)
Nick: We really need to think ahead, Vince. We need a working title, a name. One that says: We'll be calling the shots.
Vince: Isn't it a bit early to worry about that kind of thing, Nick? The actual election should be our primary concern right now.
Nick: Bit early, Vince? Not really. This is crucial. A coalition is the only way we'll ever get our hands on power. That we know. I believe we must set the agenda for that coalition early on, before the election, by constructing some kind of a narrative, some kind of pitch... Before the other parties try to hijack it.
Vince: Hijack it?
Nick: Hijack the agenda. In the event of a hung Parliament, they'll be out there briefing and spinning, telling everyone what a coalition can achieve - whilst basically pushing their own agenda. We must get in there first. Give people our perspective - and this is the point - before the election's begun. Look it can't hurt at least to consider what that narrative should be? Can it? Prepare a vision?
Vince: I suppose, maybe not... You've obviously given this some thought. So what exactly have you come up with so far?
Nick: Okay, so it was actually the name that I considered first. I thought, how do we convey something positive, something that says this is a good thing for the country, not just some cobbled together deal. And I thought... how about calling it the 'Coalition of the Willing?'
Vince: (Uneasy) Not sure about that. Echoes of the Iraq war. Bit of a risky one, don't you think?
Nick: Ah, that's what you might think at first. But who is actually going to war? We're not, that's for sure. However, the name will remind people of an unpopular policy that we opposed. So that's good.
Vince: I see. Yes... well, perhaps it could work if you were to look at it like that... Its all down to the detail ultimately. Are you able to fill me in on that at all?
Nick: Yes, Vince. I was thinking, why not adopt the best of what the old Labour and the old Conservative parties had to offer. It would make us more attractive to the grass roots supporters of both parties - The guys who have felt let down over recent years and want someone to listen.
Vince: I see. In principle it sounds a smart move, but how would Liberals achieve that? Can you be more specific? What do you mean by the best?
Nick: Right, now here's the really important part, I reckon. What was it more than anything else that used to distinguish the two main parties, something you don't get nowadays?
Vince: (Chuckles) I suppose that they were actually different.
Nick: Precisely.
Vince: (Surprised). Oh, sorry, I was being facetious. I thought that was too obvious. (Composing himself) But, yes, it is a serious point too, I admit. And what are you saying? We would be offering something different?
Nick: Got it in one... But more than that: our 'Coalition of the Willing' will in fact be different precisely because everything is so similar nowadays. I know that sounds like sophistry but I am just trying to develop a strategy.
Vince: I see where you're coming from, Nick. But slight problem: This is the Liberal Democratic Party. This isn't what liberals, small or large L, do, surely? We'd effectively be adopting the New Labour and the New Conservative consensus approach to politics whilst, paradoxically, embracing the polarised politics that they'd abandoned.
Nick: Bit of a mouthful that, eh, Vince? Sure we can find something snappier. And don't worry, we will. But the point is, through our 'Coalition of the Willing' we can do what the other two parties cannot possibly do anymore.
Vince: And what's that, Nick?
Nick: Shift sideways. They have moved so much to the centre, that they cannot go any further.
Vince: I see, Nick. So we are shifting our political standpoint? That is what you're saying?
Nick: Well, we're going to have to anyway if we join a coalition. So let's start getting used to that fact right here.
Vince: What are you saying. Moving left? Right?
Nick: Doesn't have to be left or right. Could be left and right.
Vince: That sounds like political schizophrenia, Nick.
Nick: No, Vince. It is all about playing the two sides off against one another. Oldest game in the book.
Vince: Oh its a game, is it?
Nick: (Frowns) Where have you been? It is a game of sorts.
Vince: Is it a solution? That's what concerns me.
Nick: Of course. Left and Right have been invading our territory for years. But here, we will be able to play left and right off against each other because neither has anywhere to go, no more territory to invade.
Vince: Okay, Nick. All very sophisticated, at least in theory. And I am wondering where these ideas are coming from. Hours of reading? Smoke filled rooms?
Nick: (Shrugs) Nothing that new, you'll find.
Vince: But leaving all of that aside... I'm still not sure whether it is really liberal, be it small or large L.
Nick: Well ok then maybe it is time for a brand new name for the party as well.
Vince: What? A name to replace LibDems? I'm not sure that's worth embarking upon, Nick. Not now at least.
Nick: It is and I'll tell you why. We must show people that we are still liberal, but with a slight name change, we will also be offering this new narrative?
Vince: (Looking weary, the penny drops.) And so have you by any chance decided what that name might be, Nick?
Nick: I have indeed, Vince.
Vince: And will you enlighten me?
Nick: Of course, Vince. I'd love to. The new name will be... well, how about The New Liberal Party?
Vince: (Sighs) Yes, Nick. Funnily enough, I thought it might be something like that. And that will encapsulate everything that we have just been talking about, will it?
Nick: Indeed it will, Vince. Indeed it will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
