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.

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!

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.

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.