Grr! Arg! Politicians!

Okay, this one is going to be a tad angry and sweary (and maybe rehashy), so I apologies in advance...

Theresa May praises public wage cap 'sacrifice'

How dare that stuck-up, backward, regressive, privileged, egregious self-serving cunt talk about 'sacrifice' when slashing pay for police, fire-fighters, doctors, nurses and paramedics*!

*A 1% cap on pay rises means their pay doesn't rise with inflation, and they have all

been increasingly worse off, year on year, since the cap was introduced

"The PM says she recognises the sacrifice nurses and others make but says the deficit had to be tackled."

For the billionth time, you slow-witted fuck-tard, no-one's arguing that the deficit didn't need tackling.  The problem is the way the Tories chose to tackle it: not by going after the bankers, investors and politicians who caused it, or borrowing more to invest in a stronger economy that could then deal with it, or laying the burden on those who could easily bear it, but by laying it on those who couldn't; those who were already the victims of it.

For "being fiscally responsible", read "ensuring the rich stay rich at the cost of everyone else".

And they wonder why they're abused by members of the public!  Blinkered ideology plays its part, but it's mostly because they're predominantly arseholes.  Their abusers are merely treating them with the same respect they've shown everyone who isn't within their social demographic.

"How dare they call us names?!  After all we've done for ourselves in their name!  The proles should be grateful we even acknowledge their existence!"

That's not to say all of the abuse was justified, but it's a lot easier to dehumanise - and so abuse - a group so fundamentally lacking in humanity.

But would they ever look inwards for answers?  Is there any acknowledgement that the abuse they receive may have something to do with how they treat people?

Of course not.

When looking to save on benefits, does it occur to them to means-test their own?  That, just perhaps, someone already worth millions and receiving a six-figure salary can cover their own travel expenses?

That's just crazy talk!

"Well I suppose we could save on some of our parliamentary excesses, but you know, a bill isn't a bill unless it's handwritten by professional calligraphers on the finest vellum.  Besides there are perfectly good food banks for those nurses who do insist on feeding their offspring."

Theresa May is scum. 

Her front-benchers are scum. 

The majority of her back-benchers are scum. 

And the other parties don't fair much better. 

With precious few exceptions, privileged, out-of-touch, self-serving, greedy, gormless, feckless, worthless scum.

The End is Nigh

I have a substantial post sitting in my drafts that I was planning to put up today, but it's a tad rambly, and sporadically on topic, so here's something (hopefully) a little more concise.

GET THE TORIES OUT!

Don't be fooled; Brexit is an element of this election, without question, but it is neither the most pressing concern, nor the reason this all happened in the first place.  Theresa May wants unfettered control, saw an opportunity to get rid of Labour once and for all, and took it.

And in her arrogance, she's barely been coy about what will come as a result of a Tory win tomorrow: the NHS will continue to stagnate and crumble, until it can be sold off at a pittance; police cuts will continue to put all of our lives at risk - something she now plans to offset, not by putting more bobbies on the beat, but stripping away our human rights!

The burden of austerity will continue to be heaped upon those who can't bare it, while the best off in this country will continue to reap the rewards.

No, Theresa, there are not 'any number of reasons' why nurses use food-banks.  Nurses use food-banks because they can't afford food!

Nurses!

Where once, paid-for care in your old age would leave you with at least your final £23,000 of savings - not including your house - the cap will be raised to £100,000, including your house.  In other words, if your house is worth more than £100,000, you'll be left with nothing but a roof over your head by the time your care's paid for, and that roof then goes to the government once you croak.

Free, healthy lunches will be taken from infants, and replaced (in part) with 7p breakfasts.

If the Brexit negotiations don't go her way (and given the rag-tag team of Brexiteers she's put together to handle the negotiations, they won't), then she's promised to just 'walk away'.

"No deal is better than a bad deal."

Bullshit.  The only thing worse than a bad deal, is no deal.

'Strong and stable'?  She's a coward!  While Corbyn was facing down six of his opponents (well, five and a sub), she was in a factory with (pre-vetted) Joe Public, while a woman who'd lost her father that week got laughed at in her stead.

"I've debated him every week at PMQs."

No you haven't.  You've avoided every question he's ever asked, instead spouting soundbites and taking swipes at New Labour, who haven't been in power for almost a decade, and haven't existed (outside of a few misguided and failed rebellions) since Corbyn took over.

And regardless of what happens, she'll be bending us all over in front of Trump (assuming he's still there by the end of the week) in a desperate bid to secure at least one trade deal that isn't too much worse than the one we have already.

"But never mind all that: the Sun, Mail and Express are all running (long ago disproved) headlines about Corbyn being a terrorist sympathiser, and coming from them it must be true...!"

I'm not saying everyone should vote Labour tomorrow, but if they've got the best chance of beating the Tory in your constituancy, then do!  If it's the Lib Dems, vote Lib Dem.  SNP.  Greens.  Whoever it is who will take a seat from May!

Because that's what's important this election: putting an end to this regime, that started with Cameron, and has descended into deepening despair with May.  She claims this election was about a stronger footing at the negotiating table, and if the Tories are down just one seat when the count is done, she will, by her own measure, have weakened the country for the sake of her ego.

Just one seat, and the weak, wobbly, detrimental, arrogant, egotistical, homophobic, greedy, self-righteous...person (fought so hard against typing something else), will be out come the end of the Brexit negotiations, if not sooner.

...

That was considerably longer and ramblier than I intended... Sorry.

Coalition of Common Sense

One of the Tories' myriad stock phrases on the General Election campaign trail has been a warning against a 'coalition of chaos' arising should they not win a significant majority.

With the Greens' Caroline Lucas urging candidates not to stand against the best anti-Tory hopes, Vince Cable suggesting similar, and Labour activists backing a non-Labour rival to Jeremy C- um, Hunt, there certainly seems to be a lot of cross-party cooperation on the cards.

But is this a bad thing?

Tim Farron and Jeremy Corbyn certainly want us to think they're against it; with one seaming to believe they can take the mantel as the new opposition, and the other suggesting they can actually win this election.

The thing is, unless your name's Donald Trump, delusion does not win elections.  When it comes to a three party race (which is currently the best the Lib Dems can hope for (sorry Tim)), the Conservatives have this in the bag.  Their blinkered, bludgeoning, bungling approach to Brexit, demolition of the NHS, disenfranchisement of the poor and needy, and bending over forwards to please the world's rich and unbalanced is apparently nothing next to how un-Prime Ministerial Corbyn and Farron appear in the eyes of the electorate.

Partisanship is not going to unseat the Tories, or grant any one opposition party a significant voice.  In the current climate, it is vital to have all parties working together.

And not only in opposition to a Tory party fumbling in the dark since Cameron's unceremonious departure, but with the Tories when it comes to negotiating our way out of the EU.

Unfortunately, the Lib Dems can promise a second referendum all they want; it isn't going to happen.  But by the same merit, nor will a Tory majority grant Theresa May a 'strong and stable' hand in the negotiating process.  Brexit was and is a divisive issue, and the backing of one third of whatever percentage of the electorate bothers to vote does not mean you have the support of the nation.  The EU knows this, and will demolish a May-led negotiation if it relies on 'a Tory majority' as a sign of national unity and strength.

The EU cannot, and will not, allow abandoning the union to be a positive move.  And one party - regardless of its perceived mandate from whatever narrow portion of the nation supports them (as is the best any party can achieve under our current electoral system) - cannot stand up to 27 unified nations with a unified goal.

Only a coalition of all parties, representing all areas of the UK, will give us any kind of strength during negotiations.  The only way to force May to accept this is to reduce her majority, and our best hope for doing that is for all opposition parties to work together.

Feverishly Elective: The Feckoning

Well, here we go again.

After spending the best part of a year assuring the Great British public that now was not the right time for an election - that the nation had to come together behind Brexit, rather than be pulled apart by another vote - Theresa may has called for another vote.

*sigh*

I'm still running the ins and outs of this through my head, and struggling to find where I stand on it, but I'm currently leaning slightly towards the positive.

Let's start with what will happen on the 8th of June: the Tories will win, May will (erroneously) claim a mandate from the people, and Jeremy Corbyn will be out of a job.  All of which, of course, is why she's done it.

While I started out with a (relatively) high opinion of Corbyn, that has flagged of late.  It's a rare thing to find a principled politician these days, and rarer still to find one who'll stick to those principles, but that's not enough.  Shallow as it may sound, a leader must have some presence; some charisma.  They must be able to convince others of their way of thinking, and that's not Jeremy Corbyn.

That said, it would have helped to have had his MPs show him even a modicum of backing, rather than plotting against him from the moment their own supporters gave him the position.  While Corbyn may not be a great leader, responsibility for the current state of the party rests firmly with those MPs who'd rather cling to D:reams of the glory days of the late 90s, than deal with the present, and acknowledge a need to move on.

I don't believe Corbyn could have ever won an election, but had his MPs not been so focused on castrating their own party, they may have at least closed the gap on May and the Tories.

That said, the Conservative Party's footing isn't nearly as stable as May thinks it is.  Yes, they've comfortably won a couple of local elections recently, but those were in constituencies that voted heavily for Brexit, and are no doubt enamoured by her all-or-nothing approach (as self-destructive as that is).  National opinion, however, has shifted somewhat since the referendum, with people becoming aware of what Brexit actually means, and the impact it is having and will have.

Not only is the pound clinging desperately to the u-bend, having been dropped in the crapper by the result, but our desperate need for trade-deals will keep it there until it can either clamber up the huge pile of excrement we're finally able to negotiate, or it's flushed into the sewer with nothing but America's meagre droppings to sustain it.

Speaking of the good ol' US of Aw crap, what's he's done now?!, that particular 'special relationship' is also likely to cause May an issue or two on the campaign trail.  Fearing our being cast adrift from the EU and its myriad trading partners, dear Theresa has taken every opportunity since November to plant her tongue firmly in the wigged tangerine's rectum in a display of such hurl-inducing fawning, even George W's prize poodle Blair looks restrained by comparison.

Add to that a crumbling NHS, a widely criticised obsession with Grammar Schools, repeated attacks on the poor and disabled, and telling the Scots that she knows better than them what they want, and any illusions of a free ride look increasingly delusional.

Unfortunately, the party and its leader's demonstrable ineptitude doesn't change the fact there's currently no one to challenge them.  Aside from Labour's obsession with marrying bullets to feet, the Lib Dems are still rebuilding after giving David Cameron carte blanche with a sledgehammer to their foundations, UKIP have achieved what they set out to achieve, and are now struggling to convince anyone they're still relevant, the Greens are enjoying 1980s levels of popularity, and despite being, for all intents and purposes, the Tories' only functioning opposition, geographical restrictions mean there's only so much the SNP can do.

So what's the point of even voting?

The point is that is exactly the question May wants us all asking.  If we're too busy lamenting the lack of a viable opposition to bother voting for any of them, then that will become the reality.  That's not to say everyone should vote Labour just for the sake of it, because that's the flip side of the same problem: if they don't like one, they vote for the other, and regardless of which wins, we're left with a self-indulgent ruling party, and a self-destructive opposition.

The problem with our political system isn't the number of supporters for one or the other, but the number of people who support neither, but see only the two options.

If everyone voted, and everyone voted based on policies, rather than old ideologies or attempting to back a winner, then we'd see a significant shake-up of the political landscape.  And while that might not solve any of our problems, it will at least put us on a path to solving them by showing all parties that if they're not good enough, we'll vote for someone else.

That might seem obvious, but the Tories have gutted our industry, crippled our NHS, demolished our education system, disenfranchised the poor and needy, are jumping into bed with a schizophrenic nuclear-weaponised five year-old engaged in a pissing context with a schizophrenic nuclear-weaponised ten year-old, all-but destroyed our economy and only ever help those who can already comfortably help themselves, and they're set to win a third general election!

May might get everything she thinks she wants out of this election, but that doesn't mean we can't lessen her standing, and make this a challenging few years.  Then we can finally look forward to a decent fight in 2022.

We just have to take the opportunity.

Orange is the New White (Supremacist)

It has been a struggle writing this entry, not just because every other day has brought fresh insanity from Trump and his team of twisted, totalitarian turd wombles, currently driving the US headlong towards the 19th century, but also because that is just one branch of the ugly tree slapping our species around the face as we tumble towards its roots.

Whether it be extremists in the East butchering their fellow man and kidnapping children to sell as sex slaves, or wealthy scumbags in the West praying on the ignorance and fears of the unwashed masses to secure themselves a bit more power and a lot more cash, at the expense of the very people raising them to their thrones, it's all too easy to look at the current state of the world and despair.

The Trump age of Twattishness began before he'd even taken office, as he seemed to be back-tracking on a number of pre-election promises regarding the arrest of Hilary Clinton, the abolition of the Affordable Care Act - or 'Obamacare', for those seemingly unaware they're the same thing - his totally-not-a-Muslim-ban and his border wall.  While this apparent softening was reassuring to those panicked by his impending presidency, it did not sit well with the Kla- sorry, clans of ignorant hick halfwits who'd voted for him on the back of those pledges.

But fear not, blinkered bigots of backwater America!  No sooner was his little hand off the Bible than it was clamped to the pussy of Lady Liberty, as he spewed forth such isolationist rhetoric that had not been heard since a greasy little mono-bollocked Charlie Chaplin impersonator had waxed lyrical on the benefits of inbreeding.

And then, without even pausing for the weekend, he was off with his pen, scrawling over hastily compiled, clumsily written, insulting, ill-thought-out and downright childish literature, like Stephanie Meyer at a book signing.

Yes, all that hateful crap he said he'd do, then sorta acted like maybe he'd put a bit more thought into, he went ahead and did anyway.

Except for the Hilary thing, of course.  Pre-election, Trump's idea of high treason was using an unsecured email account.  Post-election, it's questioning the legality and constitutionality of a targeted immigration ban.

Not that it is a Muslim ban!

All it is is a temporary restriction on people from certain (predominantly Muslim) countries 

(that Trump doesn't have business investments in), with a...softer focus on those who are...

not of those countries' predominant (Muslim) faith...

See?  Totally not a Muslim ban!

The big overarching reason behind all of this nonsense appears to be his chosen sources of information, but that in itself brings up a question: does Trump genuinely believe this crap (as his ever-more beleaguered press secretary suggests), or is he looking to those for excuses for everything he's doing?

Part of me wishes it was the latter because, whatever his endgame is - how ever nefarious and self-serving - at least he'd be in some kind of control.

Unfortunately, I suspect the former is far more likely: that the President of the United States is an ignorant, unstable, small-minded halfwit believing everything Steven Bannon whispers in his ear between thrusts.

Meanwhile, a few miles due east, our own woefully under-qualified and un-democratically elected head of government was continuing the age-old tradition of the Tory leader skirting difficult questions by repeating the same empty, noncommittal rhetoric until the questioner gets bored and moves on.

In her defence, her focus was possibly elsewhere; most likely thinking of ways to suck up to little Donald while subtly staying out of groping range.

Her visit was as wretched as anyone could have predicted, with her not only avoiding any topic of conversation that might ruffle his hairpiece, but slavering over him like a cheerleader over a quarterback.

However, while May was keen to avoid any mention of immigration or torture (probably because they're not entirely at odds (at least when it come to the former)), the Beeb's Laura Kuenssberg was not so reticent.

Compare May's grovelling, too, to the responses of Angela Merkel, François Hollande and a number of other EU leaders, as well as Chinese State Media and even the Speaker of the House of Commons, and I'm left wondering - as I have before - is this really the best we can do?

A spineless, witless, clueless, feckless, directionless, blithering, flapping, vapid, hypocritical cretin on one side of the Atlantic, and a weak-willed, thin-skinned, perverted, angry, disrespectful, petty, greedy, small-minded, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, hypocritical, cheap-wigged varnished turd on the other?

Xi Jinping must be laughing his knackers off at two of the biggest economies in the western hemisphere being led by a pair with less combined human worth than the stuff the slime at the bottom of the barrel scrapes off its brogues.

Sadly, when one looks at the opposition, the answer appears to be 'yes'.

When the Shadow Cabinet quit in protest at Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, I thought it was not only a pathetic and desperate ploy by a bunch of Blairites to return the party to the ideals of 10 years ago (that have seen them pummelled in two General Elections), but a disgusting betrayal of both their supporters who'd overwhelmingly put Corbyn there in the first place, and the British people as a whole by crippling any opposition to the government when we needed it most.

This time, however, I believe Corbyn is the one on the wrong side of the fence.  Despite the government's repeated claims that they're exercising the 'will of the people', who voted with their 'eyes wide open', the Leave campaign won by the narrowest of margins on the back of a torrent of lies.  How many now lament their vote (or lack thereof)?

Forcing your MPs to vote a certain way for fear of looking out of touch, or upsetting your base, is pathetic, divisive and destructive, and very much not the will of the people.

Not to mention pointless.  Despite all the talk of blocks and oversight and amendments, and after a fight in the courts to give Parliament a say on the bill, it was passed without a single change, opening the door for May to handle Brexit how ever she sees fit.

Good job, Jezza.

So where do we turn in this time of political strife, when the leaders of two of the most significant powers in the western world are as beneficial as diarrhoea at rush-hour?  Many look to this handsome devil:

The one on the left

And it's easy to see why: he's young, handsome and erudite; an advocate for women's and LGBTQ rights; outspoken on environmental issues and those affecting indigenous people...

Right?

Well, about that... Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Makes Major Decisions for Canadian Pipeline Approvals 

But let's look on the bright side... 

Um...

Ooh! The Lego Batman Movie was good!

Feverishly Elective: US Edition

Hoist the bunting, pop the champers and crank up Kool and the Gang: the US election is finally coming to an end!

And what a tragic indictment it has been of what US politics has become.

I've mostly avoided writing about his election because, really, what's to say?  Clinton is your typical Wall Street shill, as entrenched in the politics of greed as anyone else in Washington, but at least she's not Donald-Smegging-Trump!

Trump is not only every bit the typical Wall Street shill Hillary is, despite protests to the contrary (how else is he going to hold on to what little fortune he has left?), he's a sad, thin-skinned, neurotic, spineless, witless, crooked, cowardly, racist, misogynist hypocrite, who has survived his myriad failed business ventures through tax evasion and his sole talent of selling his own name.

And that's really all there is to it: one candidate who isn't great, and one candidate so pathetic, his own party have abandoned him.

So how has this even become a race?

Many have been citing what happened in the summer with the Brexit vote, suggesting people are voting against the status quo because of how ineffectual and unrepresentative it has become.  'Business as usual' hasn't been working for a while, so regardless of what the anti-establishment vote is, at least it's anti-establishment.

Unfortunately, much like the Brexit vote, this misguided 'protest' hurts only those already let down by the establishment.  Okay, Brexit got rid of Cameron and Osborne, but their legacy is being carried on by their like-minded peers, and the only change on the horizon is that lot gaining unfettered control of our rights, while having to think up new ways of directing funds into the pockets of them and theirs.

By the same token, Trump in the White House is going to in no way upset the status quo.  Perhaps if he had any savvy about him, he could enact some genuine change (though the change he'd enact is, in itself, a troubling prospect), but the reality is he's nothing but a spoiled, petulant child, wanting a go at being the big boss.  Handing him the presidency would be equivalent to handing him a toy phone and telling him the cow, sheep and chicken at the other end are Congress, Fox News and the Pentagon.

"When cow says 'moo', you've enacted a bill!  Isn't little Trumpy-wumpy clever?"

Meanwhile, the Republicans in office can finally do whatever they like without the president keeping their scumbaggery in check.

Make no mistake, how ever many Republicans have come out against the hamster-haired tangerine, you'll see few willing to vote against him.  They'll call him a disgrace, and unrepresentative of the party, but at the end of the day, they'd rather be answering to a weak-willed ignoramus, mistaking their empty platitudes for loyalty, than one of their opposite number seeing through every vapid grin, and kicking them in the nuts till they do as they're told.

And so they trot out the usual batch of braggarts, buffoons and blustering cretins, whose political careers are long-past ruining, to mindlessly defend every moronic soundbite he comes out with, while the rest can try to claim the 'Country Before Party' moral high-ground in an attempt to save their own seat, while secretly hoping the majority of voters really are that gullible.

The sad thing is, Trump really was one of the best candidates the Republicans put forward.  Chris Christie is a fat, simpering nobody, so lacking in self-worth and future prospects, he was the ideal first sacrifice to be thrown on the Trump dumpster fire.  Debating Hillary, Marco Rubio would've come across as a scared little boy getting a spanking form mother.  Ben Carson is so befuddled and out-of-touch, he'll be in a nursing home by this time next year, trying to rally the political support of his apple purée.  The majority of Ted Cruz's supporters would think today better spent in church, praying to God for the win, rather than actually voting.  And by the time of the third primary debate, the rest had already become 'the rest'.

Ironically, much like Ron Paul before him, the only candidate who'd have stood any chance of drawing some liberal support away from the Democrats, and making this a fight of principals and policies, rather than personalities, was John Kasich; the one candidate too sensible for the party base to ever accept.

Despite fears of Trump bringing the apocalypse down upon us all, I see very little being changed by this election.  This time tomorrow, the US will prove to be either not quite as stupid as we thought they were, or that mentally-deficient little nation that was big in the '80s, but now spends its time getting fat, ranting about greatness and shouting at a wall.

Too Broke to Better Myself

As may be apparent from previous posts, I’ve become increasingly fascinated by science as I’ve gotten older, and appreciative of its impact on our lives.

Our last significant evolutionary step was our increased capacity for intelligence, which contributed to a shift from physically adapting to our environment, to adapting our environment to us, and developing the ways and means to cope with environmental shifts: we made clothes and lit fires to protect us from the cold; made clubs and spears to help us ascend the food-chain; learned to cultivate the land to improve and broaden our access to food; erected shelters so we no longer had to rely on caves.

Unbound from a limited number of natural shelters and uncultivated food sources, we were able to spread far and wide, seeking out better land and better hunting grounds, and ultimately to diversify our species through interaction with those who’d developed elsewhere.

We navigated the oceans, the skies, and even space!

Our progression as a species is tied directly to the progression of our knowledge and understanding of our environment, and of the wider universe; and to study science is to be an active part of that progression.

It’s infuriating, therefore, that such a high barrier of entry is placed on studying anything in this country. Privileged scumbags, who had their education paid for by the rest of the country, decided this generation shouldn’t be granted such a free-ride, and so introduced tuition fees.

Even more privileged and scumbaggier scumbags (backed by a bunch of feckless, two-faced, ineffectual twerps) then decided the barriers weren’t quite high enough, and trebled said fees.

It’s a sad pattern that has been repeated throughout our history: those in charge doing what they can to ensure the continued ignorance of those beneath them; whether it be religious leaders persecuting anyone who dares question their sacred texts, or politicians distracting us with spectral enemies to shift focus from their own incompetencies and inadequacies, the stupider we are, the easier we are to manipulate, and the less likely to ask awkward questions.

The last thing any of them want is the expansion of knowledge and understanding, and their reluctance to allow it is made loud and clear by the (at least) £27,000 worth of debt they want every student lumbered with when they graduate.

And if, like me, you’ve already accumulated said debt, and no longer qualify for the loans, then any desire to return to studying can be put on the shelf of unlikelihood next to being debt-free, being a home-owner, and being an astronaut.

Between the ongoing work at CERN, the potential of the FAST and James Webb telescopes, and Elon Musk’s ever more ambitious plans, I should be more excited than ever about where we’re potentially headed as a species.

And I am, as far as I can be. But at the same time, it’s devastating not to be able to be a part of that progression.

Sticking (reluctantly) With Politics...

One of the aims of this blog was a repository for the vast amount of junk that swims around in my head on myriad subjects from film, to politics, to art, to astrophysics, to the nature of the 'self' and what it truly means to be a tomato (you're a fruit, but you're used in salad, and no-one wants you on a cake!).

Unfortunately, the western world is currently in a state of political upheaval, with conservatism under threat, and hitting back at anything and everyone it can paint as a target.

In the US, broadening social openness and awareness - which has led to improved civil rights for the LGBT community, closer cross-cultural integration, questioning of gun laws, distrust of those in power and the realisation that perhaps religion is not the sole source of morality in the world - has drastically reduced the number of 'enemies' conservatives can claim to be the nation's shield against.  As a result, they've gotten even more hard-line in their actions and rhetoric, ignoring increasing calls from all sides for stricter gun-control, denying (against all evidence) their unending issue with institutionalised racism and allowing state laws created specifically to restrict the rights of certain pockets of their citizenry.  They've even gone so far as to promote privileged, extremist halfwit  Donald "If I wave my tiny hands enough, people might mistake my ignorance for passion" Trump (nay, Drumpf) as leader of the GOP.

Then again, ineffectual and self-defeating as it may be, at least the US has a government.  Here in the UK, our PM risked our country's economic stability, generational prospects and global standing on a referendum he thought would secure his office, but managed to lose to a gibbering buffoon and his entourage of racists, sycophants and ignoramuses.

So he quit.

The resultant leadership contest was set to be between Theresa May - a former equalities minister who changed her mind on gay adoption when it suited her career, supported the invasions of Iraq and Syria, backed Trident renewal, fox hunting, tuition fee increases, welfare caps and cuts to low-income households, a tax on households with 'extra' rooms (regardless of whether that room is for carers, or specialised equipment for the severely disabled) and scrapping the Human Rights Act, and voted against environmental controls for fracking (including a report to determine how harmful it might be) and exempting cancer sufferers from a rule that only allows the claiming of certain benefits for 365 days - and Boris Johnson; the aforementioned buffoon.

However, that contest never took place, and May instead had to fight off a delusional prat  - already sacked once for handing a mate tax-payer money for a job that didn't exist - who thought keeping out Johnny foreigner was more important than being a part of the single market (dumped when no-one voted for him), a homophobe who 'totally, totally' wasn't really (quit when no-one voted for him), whatever this is (quit, presumably, when he caught himself in a mirror), and some batty woman who apparently wasn't aware that, when you say something to a journalist, they're liable to share it with other people (quit when she found out).

Things are even worse across the aisle, with the Labour Parliamentary Party deciding it's more interested in tearing itself apart than mounting any kind of opposition.  A large bulk of the Labour front-bench quit in protest of a leader (elected by an overwhelming majority of party faithful) who voted against the invasions of Iraq and Syria, keeps his parliamentary spending to a minimum (I understand he once claimed for a sandwich) and believes there are better things to spend £200,000,000,000 on than a shiny new end-of-the-world delivery system.

If there's one thing that makes politicians nervous, it's one of their own having principles.

Standing against him is Angela Eagle.  In brief:

• Stood for Deputy PM under Gordon Brown (came 5th)
• For the invasion of Iraq
• For the increase in tuition fees
• For 90 day detentions without charge
• For Trident renewal
• For airstrikes on Syria
• Against the investigation into the Iraq war
• Abstained when the Tories proposed £12bn welfare cuts
• Abstained when the Tories proposed forcing the unemployed to do unpaid work

In other words, Theresa May without a spine.

Her leadership bid didn't exactly get off to a shining start when it was revealed her campaign manager had set-up her leadership website before the EU referendum, despite citing Corbyn's supposed inability to convince the Labour masses to vote Remain as her reason for quitting.

Things went downhill from there when, during the announcement of Eagle's leadership bid, Andrea Leadsom quit the Tory race, effectively making Theresa May the new PM.  By the time poor little Angela got to the Q&A section, any journalist that might've had a Q was hightailing it across London for quotes from someone who suddenly mattered.

Her cloudy day appeared to have a slight shimmer at the edges when reactions and comments went through the roof on her Twitter and Facebook posts, but a closer glance revealed the majority of those reactions were HAHA! accompanied by a slew of #VoteCorbyn.

As things stand, Corbyn's opponents are desperately trying to skew Labour's own rules to suggest he needs the backing of 50 MPs to challenge for the leadership - "Where there is no vacancy nominations may be sought by potential challengers... In this case any nomination must be supported by 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party] and members of the EPLP [European Parliamentary Labour Party]. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void." - not noticing, it seems, that the post is not vacant, Corbyn's still leader, and is therefore the challenged, not a challenger.

It also goes without saying that those party faithful who put Corbyn in there in the first place, aren't exactly overjoyed at attempts to oust him.

The most concerning thing about all this is - despite repeated assertions that bringing forward the General Election would just add to the uncertainty already rocking the country - the Tories are now perfectly poised to hold a snap election.  Not only would they effectively be running unopposed, May could claim the easy victory as confirmation of her Premiership, and a mandate to drag the UK kicking and screaming out of the EU how ever she sees fit.  Not to mention lumbering us with the Tories until at least 2022 (instead of 2020).

Great plan, PLP. Great plan...

Is This All We Have To Offer?

The names are in, the gloves are off, and we have our five contenders for the new leader of this supposedly once-great isle.

Lead candidate, Theresa May, is pro fox hunting and spying on the internet habits of every single UK citizen, and anti gay adoption (though changed her mind on the latter when it conflicted with a new job).  Not a great person to be leading the pack, but when considering her opposition...

Michael Gove (now out) has failed dismally at every office he’s held under Cameron, rode Boris Johnson’s coat-tails throughout the Brexit referendum, and used his new status as a ‘winner’ to piss on the blonde bollock’s leadership ambitions.  He’s also being supported by Nicky “any suggestion I’m not in complete control of my department is sexist, and all schools should totally be academies, regardless of what experts say...what’s that, David? Sorry, my mistake, I’ve decided we’re not doing that after all” Morgan.

Stephen Crabb (now out) voted against same-sex marriage, and sponsored - and employed interns from - an organisation that claims homosexuality is a curable disease, but - like May - now that he’s after a better job, he “totally, totally” didn't mean it, and supports gay marriage, and any suggestion otherwise is a “falsehood” (regardless of historical evidence).

Andrea Leadsom is a befuddled non-entity still regurgitating all of the Brexit rhetoric from the referendum build-up that even the head Brexit campaigners went back on the day after they won.  She’s also received the possibly poisoned chalice that is BJ’s backing.

And Liam Fox  (now out) - who once housed and employed (with tax-payer money) one his mates as an undeclared aid, just so he could jet about drumming up some business - has placed himself as racist pond-scum's candidate, declaring leaving the single market is a price worth paying to ‘regain control of our borders’ ("But that’s fine because the US isn’t a member of the single market, and they can trade with it, so we’d be totally fine, because we can be like the US, and afford all the same tariffs and contributions, and totally stop anyone else coming into the country ever again, ever").

In other words, he’s a delusional prat.

Additionally, every candidate is pro-Trident renewal, because hey, when it comes down to a choice between feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless, and being ready to efficiently ignite a million people to the surface temperature of the Sun, an apocalyptic fireworks display wins every time.

Whatever happens, in a mere two months' time, one of these people will be the new British Prime Minister...how ever much is left of Britain by then.

Yes, the UK may not be quite so U for much longer.

And on the off-chance Scotland does remain united to the kingdom, the SNP - currently the third largest party in the nation, but with the most sitting MPs - may soon be deciding between a coalition with the Labour Parliamentary Party, or the Labour Union Party.

So that's the state of British politics today: our ruling party is leaderless, and choosing our next PM from a puddle of unsuitable cretins, our opposition is tearing itself apart because a pack of Blairites are uncomfortable with being so different from their more successful Tory counterparts, and the closest thing we currently have to a genuine opposition may be ruling their own independent nation long before we have anything even approaching a suitable working parliament.

I don't suppose Canada is accepting immigrants...?

**UPDATE**

With three down and two to go, the one shock we've had of this leadership election is the rise of someone less well known, but seemingly even more sickeningly clueless than Michael "I drink a glass of water like a goldfish giving a blowjob" Gove.

In the brief time anyone outside of the parliamentary Tory party has been aware of Andrea Leadsom, she's gone from befuddled outsider, to right-wing Christian homophobe, to militant matriarch.

However, some context is required for these latter two.

"I didn't like gay marriage law because it hurts Christians..." was the direct quote taken from Leadsom that the Independent ran with as a headline, thus painting her as a devout, anti-gay dip-shit.  And while she did say that in an interview with ITV - and while it is a monumentally stupid thing to say - it is nevertheless worth noting that, in the very same interview, she clarified that she did not agree that marriage should be a strictly Christian service between a man and a woman, and that she 'positively abstained' from the vote (actively voted both for and against).

Personally, I feel that makes her pathetically mimsy over the subject - she's all for it, unless it insults a bunch of religious homophobes - but that doesn't justify running a headline that paints her in a very particular light, and I'm disappointed in the Independent for stooping to Daily Mail levels of gutter-press shenanigans.

On the subject of 'gutter press', The Sunday Times recently ran with the headline: "Being a mother gives me an edge on May - Leadsom"

This one is not a direct quote, and Leadsom and her campaign team have been eager to stress that she has been taken wildly out of context on this one.

Except, she wasn't.

While she may have been careful not to utter the words, "I'll be a better leader because I'm a mother", she did say that two of her advantages over May were "economic competence and family".

"So really carefully - because I am sure...she will be really really sad she doesn't have children so I don't want this to be 'Andrea has children, Theresa hasn't' because I think that would be really horrible - but genuinely I feel being a mum means you have a very real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake.
"She possibly has nieces, nephews, lots of people, but I have children, who are going to have children, who will directly be a part of what happens next.
"So it really keeps you focused on 'what are you really saying?'. Because what it means is you don't want a downturn but 'never mind, let's look ahead to the ten years', hence it will all be fine. My children will be starting their lives in that next ten years so I have a real stake in the next year, the next two."

So, in context, Leadsom suggested May has less of a 'stake in the future' because she doesn't have kids.

Leadsom, of course, went bat-shit over the article being framed in this context, but I personally couldn't care less how often you use the qualifier 'I don't want this to be a thing, but...': When you raise a thing, you make it a thing.

Leadsom had the brass ones to suggest those of us who don't - or, in May's case, can't - have kids have less of a stake in the future than she does.


I am not a supporter of Theresa May - she has proven herself to be two-faced, conniving and untrustworthy, and I believe she'll be an awful leader for this country - but Andrea Leadsom is a moronic, blinkered, ignorant, self-serving scum-bag; a description I use only because I am endeavouring to keep swearing on this blog to a minimum.

The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same

Still a lot of bad blood going round today, following the Brexit vote, from both sides.
The Remain camp are questioning Leavers' intelligence and accusing them of ruining the lives of the younger generation, while the Leave lot are calling the Remainers whiney and anti-democratic, just because the vote hasn't gone their way.
Here's the thing: had the nation voted more substantially for Leave, then there'd be no arguing with the result. Similarly, had there been any substance to the arguments made by the Leave politicians, there'd be a lot less backlash against the result, FROM BOTH SIDES.
But the truth is, the vote was incredibly tight, and following the result, the biggest claims by the Leave lot have already been debunked (and, in fact, were debunked weeks ago, for anyone paying attention):

Not only will we have to uphold the free movement of people if we want to remain in the single market (which we do), but we're going to find it more difficult to keep an eye that movement once we're out.
On top of that, that whacking great slogan on the side of the Leavers' bus...

...has been denounced as bollocks by one of the drivers of the freakin' bus!

David Cameron, who pledged to remain in charge whatever the outcome, said this:



In the face of all this, the government are now being petitioned to hold a second referendum; a petition that, of the 100,000 signatures required to force a discussion in parliament, has at the time of writing this 1,664,757.

Leave supporters are, of course, calling this undemocratic.  From their point of view, the nation has already democratically voted for Leave.

But have they?  How many of those voters voted Leave because they thought it would net the NHS more money?  How many of those voters voted Leave because they thought we'd regain control of our borders?  How many of those voters voted Leave because they didn't believe it would have a significant impact on our economy?

The entire referendum was based on demonstrable lies from both camps.  No, now that the nation's voted Leave, it isn't going to cause an economic apocalypse, it isn't going to trigger World War 3 and it isn't going to sever our trading ties with Europe.  On the other hand, the NHS isn't suddenly going to be flooded with more money, we aren't going to regain control of our borders, we aren't going to be free from EU regulations, and given our reduced economic standing, we aren't going to be able to dictate terms and trade with who we want, how we want.

This entire referendum has spat in eye of democracy.

You an Inny or an Outy?

Holy sweet nanny of Jehova, is this referendum proving a moral quandary!

On the one hand, do we want to stick with the safety and security of the EU, ensuring solid trade links, and our human and workers' rights are maintained, but at the cost of a not-insignificant financial contribution, modestly open boarders, being held to various rules and regulations largely beyond our control, and, worst of all, supporting Dodgy Dave C and his bosom buddy, Gideon of the House Osbore?

Or, do we want to take a punt at the freedom of independence from the EU, theoretically securing our own trade deals, policing our own boarders, and distributing those contribution savings where we see fit, but at the double-whammy cost of our rights and financial distributions being dictated solely by parliament, and supporting Boris the Blond Bollock, Pob and IBS?

David Cameron's currently in a flap because it doesn't seem to matter how demonstrably full of manure the Leave campaign are, or how apocalyptic Remain claims Brexit will be, support is growing for Boris and his Outers.  The problem he appears to be having is, not one of his arguments is on particularly solid ground: the 'unique status' he negotiated for the UK amounts to little beyond possibly vetoing things we don't like if enough EU members agree with us; while we may have to work harder at securing trade deals, the UK's economy is one of the biggest in the world, and far too lucrative to be ignored (especially in these continually shaky times); and claiming it would put our 'economic growth' at risk is a bit rich coming from the man who put George 'surely if we throw everyone's money at our debt, we'll look so good the economy will heal itself' Osborne.

And this didn't help:

I see now why they're having to fuck the NHS. £9.3mil well spent. Nice one #DodgyDave #CameronOut

A photo posted by Michael Adam Brockbanks (@mabrock1980) on Apr 12, 2016 at 8:29am PDT

"We share a lot of intelligence with the EU, so Brexit could put national security at risk."
So you're saying Europe wouldn't bother telling us of an impending attack if we're not part of the club?

This could, of course, be easily solved by the one argument that would turn the tide for innumerable doubters, but the one argument DC himself can't make: "Without the EU, I'll be free to shaft you all like so much fresh pork!"

Not that claims from the other side hold enough water quench the thirst of an arid gnat.  Every argument from the leave campaign seems to have been clipped straight out of the pages of The Daily Mail: a 'news'paper so ripe with judgement, yet thin on facts you could base a church on it.

Personally, curious though I am to see what would happen if we did leave - not only would it piss on Cameron's chips and make his PMship rather tenuous, the savings could be put to good use if the people in charge of them have an iota of sense and morality (which they don't), and we could secure trade deals, that may be better than the ones we have already, as long as the people doing the negotiating aren't a bunch of autocratic self-promoters more interested in doing favours for their friends than securing a profitable position for all (which they are) - and pathetic, hypocritical and hyperbolic as a lot of the Remain rhetoric has been throughout the campaign, I feel what few potential benefits we might enjoy on the outside, don't stack up against the benefits of being a member.

At the end of the day, I must constantly remind myself that, nauseous as voting with our cretinous PM makes me feel, I'd rather drink a cocktail of bile from the bellies of all who oppose the EU than grant that Etonian swine shagger and his friends unfettered control of our rights and finances.

Feverishly Elective! (a political rant (sorry))

It's [Local] Election day!

*w00p*

And here in Cheltenham we have the democratic privilege of voting for our Police & Crime Commissioner (from a list of people I've never heard of and have no idea about) and our Ward Councillors (from a list of people I've never heard of and have no idea about).

Can you feel the excitement?  Taste the eagerness?  Smell the anticipatory sweat?

No?  How about sense the soul-numbing apathy?


Yup, that's more like it.

Twenty years ago, there was a genuine sense of excitement in the run-up to the General Election.  After a close run fight in '92, the Tories were flagging and Labour were in a position, for the first time since the '70s, to give them a good kicking.  They had a charismatic leader, a positive message of hope heading into the new millennium, a raft of aspirational policies, and even a catchy theme song:


(I didn't say it was a good theme song)

Sadly, as is the way with political parties, it was soon apparent that New Labour was little more than old Tory light, and '97's +70% voter turnout dropped below 60% by 2001.

Politicians on all sides blamed an apathetic generation, disinterested in politics, but from my point of view, the problem wasn't a lack of interest so much as a struggle to see the point: New Labour were two-faced, the Lib Dems were weak and the Conservatives were...well, Tories.

By the '05 election, it wasn't apathy keeping people away from the polls, it was wilful non-participation: Why vote if there's no-one worth voting for?

Jump to 2010 and we had a dull, unrelatable, unelected Prime Minister going up against a resurgent Tory party under their first leader since Thatcher with genuine balls; and the Tories still failed to secure a majority.  Of course, this was in part due to a Liberal Democrat leader who, unlike his opposition, could engage with people from behind a lectern.  It wasn't enough to make the Lib Dems a genuine 3rd contender, but it did make the country indecisive enough to result in the ConDem coalition.

However, engaging leader or not, the Dems proved as weak as ever, and a more apt. name amalgamation there has never been.

So here we are with a Tory majority* back in the saddle and back to trying to put everything in the hands of their business chums, albeit with slightly more subtlety than their straight-forward privatisation of the '80s.  This time around, they've put a pair of expendable imbeciles in charge of Education and the NHS, each with an aggressive simpleton's approach to 'improving' their respective areas.

*Quick side-note: Cameron, please stop using the phrase 'mandate from the people'.  You secured just over a third of votes from the electorate that bothered to turn up.  Of the 30.7 million people who voted, 19.4 million voted against you.  More people cast their vote in the bin than cast it for you.  Until we have a truly representative voting system, no party - whatever their majority - can claim a 'mandate from the people'.

Nicky Morgan has looked at the way a few schools have improved since becoming academies, and decided that ALL schools should do the same (because, obviously, every non-academy school is exactly the same).

Jeremy Hunt was handed a bunch of numbers he was told indicated some hospitals were a bit iffy at the weekend, and decided it was down to all junior doctors not working hard enough.

As far as the party's concerned, their moronic ideas are ideal, given that they are so staggeringly unpopular among the professionals who know better that they will lead to crippling strike action by the unions, denigrating each service to such a degree that they can be snapped up for a pittance by grateful Tory donors.

Just like the coal mines.

Then, come 2019, both proven failures can be put out to pasture (to deflect all the public backlash from the party as a whole), the Tories can put some seemingly competent people in charge of the sales, and claim, in the run-up to the election, that by replacing the 'old guard' with experienced business folks, they're in the best position to ensure the fallout is as beneficial as possible to the whole of the UK.

So what of our local elections?  Well, Cheltenham is currently in the hands of Alex Chalk; a typical Tory drone who supported cuts to child tax credits and disability benefits, and rejected the condemnation of VAT on women's sanitary products, because that was the party line, and he's so lacking in will, spine and individual thought, he couldn't possibly do something sensible without a line of blue-tied bureaucrats telling him which box to tick.

Unfortunately, his position isn't up for grabs, and so our only recourse is to surround him with enemies.

You see, my outlook has changed somewhat since those 'apathetic' days of the mid-noughties.  Everyone should vote, regardless of how samey, useless or vapid every candidate might be.  If there's no-one decent to put in place, the second best option is to remove the cretin already there.  Part of the problem with UK politics stems from the majority settling for the familiar, not because they're the best people for the job, but because the other lot don't appear to be any better.

If, however, incumbents were constantly under threat of losing their seat, they'd be forced to put the effort in, listen to the people and not be arseholes.  And the only way to light that fire under them is to show that, if they don't do a good job, they'll be replaced faster than a shit-stained toothbrush.