Welcome to the Daily Mail Comment Section. Reason and logic not allowed. Not a homophobe, racist or bigot? Sorry, no access!

Okay that's over the top. But ugh I hate Daily Mail Comments sections. It can descend into such a buffet of petit-minded idiocy sometimes. This thread is particularly stomach-churning, even with the token reasonable comments they pepper it with in an effort to look respectable. I dislike the far right just as much as I dislike the far left; probably more so, since being a Conservative tends to link one with these types a lot of the time. What's a liberal tory to do?

Now I know this is a rant, so by definition I'm required to go on a bit. I will. But I'm not going to talk too much about the two lesbian Canadian women who have been refused to have their marriage recognised in Britain. If the comments to that article are anything to go by, half of our population still think we live in Victorian times, so I'm not surprised. We won't make it to equality for some years yet. These two women are fighting a losing battle whatever they do. End of story really.

The article did however lead me to want to ask one important question. Why do so many seem to think marriage was invented by the church? Marriage was not invented by the church, the church just usurped! It was practically a corporate takeover. Marriage was invented thousands of years BC in a time when women tended to have the status of cattle and were regarded a breeders. Women were just sold off by their fathers. They were slaves not partners.

I have to interject at thst point that gay marriage has a precedent as well. In fact the same old ideological argument about same-sex union has been going on since the Roman era!

Mankind is what it is and it just doesn't change.

Today's version of the institution is a rose-tinted one compared to its original. It's more symbolic now. If anything the practise of arranged-marriages in Islam is closest to the original, not the costly overdone show-of-status weddings we seem to value.

I won't argue that marriage, so long as there is no big break-up, is conducive to stability for children. Two people = twice the money = higher chance of stable job/home life. But that can't be its only purpose. If it was, then the marriages of all couples who are unable to have children are as null and void as any married gay couple. Since it's now become more of a symbolic statement of union and love in our society, and both partners have equal rights with regards to property and money, in what way does that invalidate female/female or male/male unions? They are capable of all those things save having children together - and even that is not a given, since many gay people have children anyway or can use science to assist them.

Ultimately this isn't about marriage or civil partnerships. That's not the point those two Canadian women were trying to make. It's not as simple as word definitions. It's about equality of rights. Personaly, I find people who like to sniff shoes disturbing but that doesn't give me the right to stop them from having the same civil rights as I do. I'd rather like to invalidate the marriages of everyone (save a few) who wrote on that Daily Mail comments list to see how they'd like it, but that's just not my right.

Every gay person is somebody's child, somebody's sibling, sombody's friend. Just as we look back on pictures of the racist lynchings of old with shock, I feel somewhat certain that one day we will look back in amazement at this struggle for liberty too.

Is he making excuses for sailing any way the wind blows or is he right? Hmmm... I'm not sure, but I do know this; if he is, we're all in deep trouble.

When we no longer have a system two or three party politics with clear boundaries of ideological thought, what are we left with? Blair might call it a recipe for success but I call it a stepping stone towards dictatorship. We've already seen some of the effects of having a weak opposition and a compromised Upper House; we're only just really seeing the corruption that has bred.

I would even go so far as to argue that it's possible the way he has trampled all over party boundaries has contributed to the feeling of lethargy sweeping Britain; if the people we elect don't operate on the platform we elected them on, and swing any which way they feel like swinging, what else can we feel but helpless in the realm of politics? How can we choose between the parties, except by judging the leaders - we've seen this with both Blair and David Cameron who were both elected to lead their respective parties based on their image and sheen rather than their personal ethics.

Ah well, Blair's speech wasn't a total bust. At least he gave us Tories some ammunition against Brown.

"...in a passage that is likely to be seized on by Mr Cameron and will infuriate the Chancellor, Mr Blair said that opposition to reform was as strong in his own party as from his opponents..."

Ouch.


(Credit: The original transvestite picture was from here.)

...when 54 innocent Lebanese civilians, most of them children sleeping in their beds, were murdered by Israeli rocket bombardments?

Where was Blair when this happened?

And thank heavens someone is willing to give us an inside track on what's going on in the Lords. The Countess of Mar is a long-serving independant peer and certainly no lightweight. I have no doubt that what she is saying is entirely true. And very saddening it is to hear.

It reinforces my opinion that it isn't the Lords or the institution that is either undemocratic or at fault; the rot is in the Commons and, like bacteria, is merely infecting the Upper House.

In fact it would be far better if the Lords were all independant like Lady Mar, in the way Civil Servants are sworn to be. Perhaps that would be a start towards severing the unnatural ties between the two Houses of Parliament and returning some impartiality to the process.

Either way, this is interesting:

"In a further development in the row over the awarding of peerages, a report claimed yesterday that Martin O’Neill, a former Labour MP, may have got his in return for helping Tony Blair win a key education vote."

"In 2004 Lord O'Neill, who had previously said he would vote against plans to introduce top-up fees for university students, changed his mind after a private meeting with Mr Blair."

"He was ennobled last year after retiring from the Commons. Lord O'Neill strongly denied he had changed his mind on tuition fees after being offered a peerage."

No connection whatsoever. Just an incredible, amazing coincidence. Move along fools folks, nothing to see here...

Feels like Groundhog Day! Another person claiming to be a blood descendant of a union between Jesus and Mary Magdeline has popped out of the woodwork. This time it's a woman by the name of Kathleen McGowan; a 43 year old middle-class woman with weird hair who you'd think really ought to know better.

At least this one doesn't claim to actually have any proof. All she has is her obsessive search, a dream and some French blood in her family tree. But hats off to the woman for timing, she's going to make a mint from her claim. Magdeline conspiracies are all the rage right now and she's doing well by striking now before the craze eases off.

I don't mean to bust her bubble but there is something I feel it's my duty to point out. The woman in the dream she describes having sounds somewhat familiar to me...

‘I saw a huge crowd of people jostling on what I realised was Good Friday. To my horror, I realised they were the crowds who had been watching Jesus’s crucifixion. That’s when I saw a tiny but beautiful woman with incredibly fine features.

‘I will never forget her huge hazel eyes and the dirt smudged on her face. She was veiled, but one lock of hair had fallen out, and I could see it was auburn...

Fine features, big brown eyes, dirty face, one lock of red hair fallen out... It's Judith from the Life of Brian! (far right in the picture)

"In papers filed with the court, Strabane-born Ms McDaid says: 'I am bringing a claim for damages and my consequential losses as a result of my former employer's negligent behaviour.' "

"...his Labour Party colleagues, who have been made aware of the details of the recent writ, have dismissed it as "fantasy". "

"A Labour party spokesman rubbished the contents of Ms McDaid's writ... From what we have been told, our view is that it is fantasy from beginning to end. "

So, despite not actually seeing the document issued against John Prescott, despite all the other sordid affairs he's had, and despite all the accusations of abuse of trust in the past, Labour have dismissed Tricia McDaid's writ offhand. They are quite happy to support a hypocritical leach with a history of preying on female subordinates with no concerns whatsoever.

Maybe McDaid is lying. Maybe she isn't. But what does it say about them that they don't even bother to examine her side of the story or let the case reach its own conclusion? They just take the word of a proven sexual bully and blindly back him up. They could have said no comment until the writ has been properly examined and the case is in court, and retained the dignity of having impartiality until it is proven either way. Their toadying is utterly pathetic.

Yet another close former ally of Blair's is lining up to haul him up onto the gallows. Now Jack Straw is the one going on the warpath (so to speak). This constant barage of disapproval from his closest allies has been especially damaging to the Prime Minister because, in the past, dissenters like Clare Short and Robin Cook didn't stick around, they just left. We've never seen Cabinet members openly criticising him in this way before. This point is crucial because their support has gotten him through some tough calls. Now, since Blair's in America, he's unable to calm the dogs of war. While the fox is away the chickens are coming out to call him an idiot.

Could this finally be the beginning of the end for Teflon Tony?

While we ponder that fundamental question, here's some Photoshop malarky the above report inspired me to make. Not yet having heard the news from home (or read the signs before he left), Tony decides to send a postcard to his old buddy Jack Straw...

If I had to name two things I really dislike, just two, my answer would be swift and simple.

1. Evangelicals
2. Rappers

So you can imagine what Evangelical Rappers do to my blood pressure.

This article in the Guardian today just about burst an artery. US Evangelical Rappers invited to London, using £20000 of taxpayer's money, with no reference to community's wishes whatsoever... I just can't credit the thinking behind that. What's most disturbing is that it's the Metropolitan Police who were the ones to invite these tone-deaf talentless noise-polluters (to quote a favourite show of mine) and preached alongside them!

"Vivian Bolus, a resident who has been leading the campaign against Truce, said: "How have the council and the people of Hackney found ourselves in the crazy position where the Metropolitan police have invited a bible-belt, homophobic, evangelical preacher to speak publicly in Hackney? And then high-ranking evangelical Christian police officers organise and act as spokesmen for the event."

With regards to the figures at the end of the article, whereby they claim they have caused 51 men to want to quit gangs now, I'm not surprised; with help and support of course these men will find it easier to get out. But it's not because these bunch of clowns are Christian that they are supposedly making progress. It's because they're the only ones trying.

The fact is there are no other schemes with a hands-on mandate going out specifically to help young men get out of gangs in hard-hit regional areas. And this is exactly the same thing as Christian missionaries going out to remote, poor regions and only giving aid in return for conversion. Even if they do make progress what right do they have to only help those of faith if the money being used is ours?

That £20000 should not have been spent on plane tickets and boomboxes for rappers from the USA, it should have been used to build a community centre and to pay social workers, or to sponsor some of these men in apprenticeships so they have a chance at getting good skilled jobs with decent wages. That way at least it would be long-term help. When the rappers close shop and go back home again, where will these young men end up? Right back where they started.

I think the people of Hackney should go to the European Court and plead Human Rights infringment against the Met!

I came about this via the excellent Blairwatch site. If we were ever in doubt as to whether George Bush understands the situation in the Middle East, this is incontrovertible proof that he has no idea whatsoever. It's utterly tragic watching the unbelievable stupidity and drivel tumbling out of his mouth.

Even Tony Blair seems to be cringing. Watch his face the first time the camera shot includes him whilst Bush is talking - it's a picture.

The problem with going hardcore Christian is that you have to live up to your own proclamations of piety. In many ways it's very similar to a politician making "holier than thou" or "family values" edicts, as so often they are mysteriously compelled to do. When their fallibility in such matters is inevitably proven wrong, it's not the initial idea that makes people get angry, it is of course the blatant hypocrisy. John Major is one example. John Prescott is another. The entire "whiter than white" proclamation by Tony Blair is a good one in the current climate.

This is why I'm laughing at Mel Gibson. Not because he has a problem with alcohol - I'd never laugh at that - I'm laughing because he has often claimed his "reconnection" with Jesus and the bible has been his cure and now he's on charges of drink driving... again.

It has been entertaining in itself in a way watching Mel Gibson's transformation from much-loved movie star to uber-religious wingbat. I hope he does manage to kick his drink habit and lay off that communion wine but I won't hold my breath while he's still relying on Skydaddy for support instead of AA.


And since it's not polite to call someone a wingbat without proof, I just had to slip in this picture of him from the trailer of his next obscure non-English movie "Apocalypta", which is due out in December. He's not actually in the movie but for some reason felt compelled to appear in the trailer doing his best impression of Saddam Hussein. Yep, the transformation is complete. Mel's lost it, kids.


EDIT: The plot thickens. Now we find out that Mel went off on a huge anti-Semitic rant after his arrest. Yet more proof of his insanity. This man needs help, real help.

In this day and age the House of Lords is a vastly outdated institution. After all these rows about Cash for Peerages, calls for abolishment are to be expected. Surely replacing the Lords with an elected Senate is the only way to go?

Well, perhaps, if one is going to take the rational route.

I was never one to do that. Far from taking that view I want to keep the Lords intact.

I can't pretend to have any good reason. In fact the only real reason I have is based on pure personal idiosycranicity. Why do I like Lords? Well, put simply, I just have this immense swell of Britishness in my chest when I see one or are in the presence of one. I love everything about them; their foppishness, their crustiness, their titles, their stiff upper lips, their accents... For me, the old aristocratic Lords represent a lost part of British culture that, for all its potential for silliness, is immensely endearing.

When the only image of modern Britain one can conjure is that of football hooligans, wasteland estates and obese children, the harmless old gent that typifies the traditional type of Lord is by comparison a wonderful thing.

Labour's half-hearted semi-dismantling of the Lords has removed most of the old hereditaries and put Labour-sympathetics paying their way into the Upper House in their seats. Like everything else remotely British New Labour have cut the heart right out it. But the soul still remains. They can't take that away. Only abolishment would do that.

It's just so damned easy to say "let's abolish it!" but people seem to convieniently forget that what is removed must be replaced. Remove the monarchy, we get President Blair. Remove the Lords, we get a Senate.

In the US, a number of Republican Senators are under investigation for exploiting loopholes and essentially paying their way into Congress...

And now we're back where we started.

David Cameron is waving off today's YouGov poll which, despite a consistently good showing for the Party, has seen a big slump in his personal ratings. The figures were more or less the same as the ICM ones but YouGov also track opinion on specific politicians as well.

While the Conservatives are at 38% (ICM was 39%), David Cameron's personal satisfaction rating has dropped down to +2. In the last YouGov poll, which was taken in April, he was at +14.

Personally, I can't say I'm too worried. It's a drop in personal ratings, not party ratings. It really did have to happen sooner or later, and the vastly misunderstood "hoodies" speech appears to have been the watershed. Besides, he's still miles above Blair, Brown or Sir Menzies and remains the only one still in plus figures.

The real question is whether he will go into minus figures by the time the next report comes out or if he'll bounce back. With the no-policy policy still in enforcement and Labour about to kickstart their Summer of Spin it seems likely he will slump down further before he starts to make headway again.

(An additional note: Will the Daily Mail ever stop using that "behold my crotch!" photo of Dave? I've counted three articles with it in so far! Perhaps it's a subliminal message of some sort...)

Just when you thought you'd managed to count every demographic the New Labour government has managed to fail in some way or another, another one pops up out of the woodwork.

This time, it's that largest demographic of all; women.

According to the Times, despite the government's effort in 2004 to help close the pay gap with by creating yet another government department, it will still take 150 years for a woman to earn the same pay levels in a high-end job as a man. Highly depressing for those of us with no intention whatsoever of ever going the family route. And, I should imagine, for those women who do intend to have children but would like to have a career first.

How on earth are we going to persuade the menfolk to stay at home and just concentrate on looking pretty if we can't earn the same in the workplace as they would?!

Call the police, quick! Anyone can see that dog is hungry for flesh! And you can practically see "antisocial" in that old lady's eyes...

Sorry, I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but sometimes I just can't help myself. This story is just too hilariously ridiculous for words!

"A woman has been told by police that she must remove a sign on her garden gate that reads "Our dogs are fed on Jehovah's Witnesses" because it is "distressing, offensive and inappropriate".

"Mrs Grove, 77, said: "If someone had told me they were offended, I would have taken it down. Why should it suddenly be a problem?"

"A spokesman for the Jehovah's Witness movement in Hampshire accepted that the sign was a joke. He said: "If we see signs like that we turn around and walk away. If they were naming individuals, then obviously that would be deeply offensive, but a sign like that is just stupid rather than deeply hurtful."

Hell, even the Jehovah's Witnesses got the joke, and those guys aren't known for their sense of humour! So what were the police doing attempting to have a sign, that's been up for 32 years with not a hint of offence taken, removed? As the villiage official with the amusing surname stated, why weren't they doing something more important with their time like say, tackling yobs and preventing vandalism?

You got me.

But I know this for certain. I want one too!

Every now and then on Comment is Free, someone starts up the faith-schools debate again. And why not? Now not only do we have Christian Fundamentalist Academies teaching creationism on our shores (thanks to Tony Blair), but state-sponsored Muslims-only schools etc... are all springing up as well; all in the interests of "fairness" of course.

Stuart Jeffries believes we should abolish all faith schools. It's an argument I can't disagree with. I believe vehemently that indoctrination alongside education is harmful not only to the kids involved but to society as a whole if it has any desire for true multiculturalism. I think Professor Dawkins said it best when he described faith as an infectious disease passed on from parents to children. While parents will always have a right to teach their children whatever they want, no matter how nonsensical, I contend that school should be a sanctuary; a melting post of all beliefs and people from all backgrounds. It's the only way to get some sort of worldview and to learn that the world is bigger than your parents and their four walls.

But of course, we have the usual pleas that abolishment of faith schools cannot be done in a democracy (anyone been to France lately?) or that it would cause further segregation (surely communities refusing to mix together is a whole other matter). These are fair arguments I suppose.

So, just in case they're right, I've come up with an alternate plan. Instead of Christian schools and Muslim schools and Catholic Schools and Jewish Schools etc... why don't we have "secular" schools and "faith" schools, the implication being that in the faith schools all faiths are mixed up? That would be a laugh. They can all be schooled in Sky-daddyism together. And hey, if we get the occasional firework between the Catholics and the Protestants, or the Muslims and the Jews, more the fun!

Meanwhile all the secular schools will carry on teaching their kids about the history of religion, the various different beliefs and the conflicts they have caused across the world. They will teach science and technology and will produce the next generation of biologists finding cures for crippling diseases, and geologists predicting earthquakes and saving thousands of lives.

Concurrently, the kids in my "all-faith" schools will have experienced the violent, segregationalist reality of faith before they're old enough to go shoot somoene's kneecaps off (Northern Island) or strap bombs to their chests (Yorkshire London-bombers). That can only be a plus, right?

You might think it's a moral argument being put forth by the US administration right now; that Hezbollah provoked Israel at the behest of Iran and Syria, and therefore deserves support in its bombardment of Lebanon.

You might think that but you'd be completely wrong.

Christians United for Israel, an organisation run by popular televangelist and prize frootloop John Hagee, are at the front of the queue of fundamentalist Christians clamboring to gather in support of Israel. The John Hagee Ministries Website states this;

Our Commitment to Israel
We believe in the promise of Genesis 12:3 regarding the Jewish people and the nation of Israel. We believe that this is an eternal covenant between God and the seed of Abraham to which God is faithful.

For the non-Bible savvy, Gensis 12:3 is "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." I know - how they got from that to "eternal covenant" we can only guess at!

All typical stuff from the fundies really. The point of the matter however is not that this group exists or they are rallying, but that they have very strong political ties to Washington. In fact, they not only have the ear of President Bush, they have his blessing;

"President Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr. Hagee and his supporters for “spreading the hope of God’s love and the universal gift of freedom.” The Israeli prime minister also sent words of thanks. Israel’s ambassador, its former military chief and a host of U.S. political heavyweights, mostly Republican, attended."

According to literalist Christian beliefs, Israel's current woes are the signal that Armageddon is on the way. If they're right, Jesus should be touching up his highlights and washing his best robes ready for his Come-Back Special around about now. They will be sucked up into the skies and the rest of us will be condemned to an eternity of fiery agonies. They've been hanging around waiting and hoping for the Rapture to start for ages, so they're all having shivers at all of the piled up bodies of civilians in Lebanon and orgasms at the prospect of eternal damnation for 90% of the human race (nice bunch of people).

Bush is a believer. That is the material point.

Israel can bomb as many UN Peacekeepers as they like, Bush will happily stand by them. Blair, who's on his way to Washington right now, could get down on his hands and knees and lick George's shoes clean and (aside from asking Tony why he's not woofing and playing doggy like usual because he really likes that game!) it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

In fact, it's more likely Blair will come away having signed us up for war on Iran...

I liked this article by Yvonne Roberts in the Guardian today. It's ever so confusing that the Guardian switches from being anti-Cameron to being pro-Cameron all the time, but at least they're willing to back him when he's right.

" 'Imagine a housing estate with a park. The estate has 'No ball games' and 'No skateboarding' notices. The park is an empty space. Imagine you are a 14-year-old and you live in a flat. What will you get up to today? Take in a concert, go to a football game, visit the seaside? You're talking £30 to £50. [Instead] you hang around the streets and you are bored, bored, bored ... " So spoke David Cameron in his perceptive but much mocked "hug a hoodie" speech, which looked at how youth has become pathologised."

I do like that; "perceptive but much mocked". Just how I feel about that speech, which I still feel was an important step-forwards for our renewing party and deserved a lot more praise than it got. Plus, I can entirely sympathise with the youths that are "bored, bored, bored", I have entirely the same problem. (Why else would I spend so much time writing this blog?!)

"Confusion and lack of coordination reign: 17 government departments are involved in youth provision, but the only unity comes in the relentless ministerial criticism of teenagers. Reasonably behaved youngsters have been rendered politically invisible, making it easier to divert the bulk of resources to "bad" boys and girls - often with unimpressive results."

Sounds about right. More of that big government edict New Labour do so dearly love. If in doubt throw as many people/pounds at a problem and assume it'll go away. If it doesn't work, it the public's fault (see Blair's most recent speech on health for example).

"This time next year, when the review has completed its work, we may have the answer. In the meantime, several hundred junior Asbos will have been handed out and a swath of neighbourhoods besieged by teenagers who should have better things to do than wreak havoc.

As for the majority of non-criminally minded under-16s, they will be bored, bored, bored. Is that an inevitable teenage rite of passage? Or a sign of how successfully this government has elbowed young people off stage and into the wings?"

Welcome to yet another tragedy of life in Britain under New Labour. Of all tragedies this has to be one of the saddest.

That's how Action Aid and GQ magazine are portraying Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron... (click on the preview pics to be linked through to their respective webpages)

The accompanying polls of each are worth a look at too. Especially the results of Blair's one... ouch!

ICM's poll on voting intention is out. The Conservatives are right up on top again, hovering near the magic 40% mark. Labour is holding steady, while the Liberal Democrats continue to slide downwards.

CON 39% (+3)
LAB 35% (nc)
LDEM 17%(-1)

I think the interesting thing to note is how Labour support remains at the same levels through thick and thin. Makes you wonder just what Labour have to do for people to abandon them! Actually, Mike Smithson over at Political Betting has an interesting theory, which I actually think might just be right on the money.

While the Tories were no threat the hardcore Labourites felt no particular pressure to come out and show support, particularly since many feel alienated from the party. But now the Tories are on top the anti-Tory tribe are springing into action against the threat. So in that way, David Cameron is not only boosting Conservative support, he's also unfortunately boosting Labour support into the bargain.

Either way, it will be easier to judge the accuracy of these figures tomorrow when YouGov's poll comes out.

I came across this excellent article in The Times with regards to British Muslims and the way they regard their fellow Britains with contempt.

As the article asks, what right have Muslims to claim moral superiority? It's their culture which is inspiring terrorist acts. It's their culture which inspires so-called honour killings. It's their culture which treats women as owned slaves. It's their culture which refuses to integrate with ours, not the other way around.

"Broadly, with only a few exceptions, ours is a law-abiding society in which we tolerate difference and get on with our lives while trying to behave well towards each other. So why, in that case, are Muslims so negative towards us? We hear a lot about Islamophobia, but to judge from a survey conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, British Muslims are far harsher on the rest of us than we are on them — and they are far more critical of us than are Muslims living in Germany, France or Spain.

Pew gave both Muslims and non-Muslims a list of positive and negative characteristics and asked which applied to each other. Between half and two thirds of British Muslims claimed that Westerners were selfish, arrogant, violent, greedy and immoral. Even Pakistanis living in Pakistan were less likely to say this than British Muslims, and German, French and Spanish Muslims had a markedly less jaundiced view of Westerners.

Meanwhile, British non-Muslims were among the least likely of all Westerners in the countries surveyed to attribute those negative characteristics to Muslims. We were also among the most likely to say that Muslims were devout, honest, generous and tolerant.

It is both remarkable and heartwarming that non-Muslim Britons are prepared to be so open and appreciative to a community that has such a censorious view of us. For if anyone deserves to have a grievance, it is surely non-Muslims whose generosity is not being reciprocated. Forget Islamophobia for a moment: why does no one ever complain about Britannophobia? "

I doubt I would agree with this if I had not seen it with my own eyes in day to day life. A scary majority of Muslims are quite happy to come here, live on our land and raise their children here so long as they don't mix with our communities or go by the rules that make us a democracy. Some time ago, there was a survey which found that a frighteningly high proportion of British Muslims wanted Sharia Law. Now there are Muslim-only faith schools springing up. That about says it all really.

The standard answer always given is that we need to help Muslims integrate with our society more. That would be marvellous, if they had any interest in that. I really am all for integration and multiculturalism. But since they seem to think that our culture is immoral, why would they want to? And therein lies the paradox and the signpost towards future culture clashes.

While no real attempt is made to integrate Muslims into our society the honour killings and the jihadist conversions will roll on. Bright young Muslim women like Samaira Nazir will always be the real victims. It is tragic beyond words that she is not the first and she will not be the last to die so horrifically in the name of Muslim values.

So, ask us again, whose culture is immoral one?

So the Chancellor has got his way at last, and New Labour are going to go on the offensive against David Cameron over the summer.

I can understand why they're scared. He's licking Labour in the polls consistently and despite many desperate cries of "it must be over!", Cameron's honeymoon still doesn't seem to have ended. Now Gordon Brown has finally won out and so the summer of spin begins. (And finally we know why he hired Bill Clinton's old joke writer for a pretty penny recently!)

"Mr Brown is determined to destroy Mr Cameron as a political force before the next election but has been restrained by allies of Tony Blair who have argued that personal attacks will backfire on Labour."

"Mr Cameron's spokeswoman said: 'This is a sure sign that they are rattled by David's success. Instead of concetrating on the issues that matter, they resort to taking pot shots.' "

"Labour Party chairman Hazel Blears is on duty over the summer and party sources say she will coordinate a series of speeches and photo opportunities designed to target Mr Cameron. "

Heaven forbid they actually spend the summer sorting out their own party's woes. No, it'll be more Chameleons and, if reports are to believed, caracatures of Cameron as an estate agent. I can't wait!

They can start with this image. After all, the last government to use this ploy was mired in sleaze, had party members jumping ship left right and centre and was dead in the polls too. And they didn't even have a criminal investigation going on behind the scenes spicing things up. It would be so apt if they kicked off with old demon eyes.

It's all just a little bit of history repeating...

I really am beginning to despair of this Government ever learning the meaning of the word "independent". Gordon Brown especially doesn't seem to be grasping the concept. More independence for the Office of National Statistics was a cornerstone of his last Budget Report.

That would be great if it were true. Actually, what his plans actually outline is a system where an Independent National Statistics Office only get to check 17% of government releases, with Ministers retaining control over the other 83%. So basically, Ministers can gaily put out whatever old rubbish they like with no troubles.

Way to inspire dwindling public confidence.

Some years ago, before my interest in politics took hold, I actually had a career in performance comedy in mind. Some might say by going into politics I have done just that, but I digress.

Anyway, I was reading this article at the BBC about Blair's speech on Health and was suddenly reminded of a quick sketch I wrote, oh about 4 or 5 years ago... I dug around my computer and managed to find it hidden away in some old files.

Okay, so here's some of the old sketch. Then I'll add some quotes from that article, and you can judge the similarities;

PRIME MINISTER: ...I have come to the conclusion that what is causing the NHS to be under such strain… is sick people. Sick people account for, well, just about every complaint and every cause for concern within the system. So, I propose we ban sick people from the National Health Service. It’ll free up all the waiting lists, solve the problem of Doctors working too many hours a week, allow for substantial pay rises to all hospital staff and ensure a 100 per cent hygiene record in every institution...

(Funnier before it came true.) Now, some of the article;

"Under the banner "Our Nation's Future", and behind a rostrum carrying the labels HM Government and Boots, Mr Blair's key message was that the NHS could be crippled by the cost of treating people affected by obesity, alcohol abuse and smoking."

"He said that failure to address bad lifestyles was putting an "increasing strain" on the health service, and was hindering efforts to outlaw social inequalities."

Is it me, or is he implying that the NHS is crippled by sick people? Now, you can debate the semantics of how to encourage people to improve their own health, and whether the state should have a hand in that, but I find the argument the NHS would be fine if it weren't for the sick people kind of bizarre if he's being serious, which he is.

It's just more of that morally bankrupt argument suggesting that fat people, smokers and alcoholics should be forced to pay extra for healthcare, and are a burden on society etc... Setting aside for a moment the fact that obesity, smoking addiction and alcoholism is most prevalent in the poorest eschelons of our society, why are people suffering from these conditions any less deserving of treatment than anybody else?

If you're going to say, if it's percieved to be "self-inflicted" entitlement to NHS treatment is rendered void, why stop there? Take footballers for example; they go out and get themselves injured all the time. That's fairly self-inflicted. What about those into extreme sports? Should the next person who survives a snapped bungee chord not get treatment for their broken limbs? What about those people who drop dead during marathons, or those 80 year olds who still insist on running 10 miles a day and end up having heart attacks? Will there be a diferentiation between those fat due to overeating and those fat dues to medical conditions? Does addiction count as choice?

I just don't see any merit in the argument of some being more deserving than others. Everybody pays taxes. Therefore everybody is entitled to treatment. If the government has mishandled the NHS so badly its deficits are in the millions, that's their fault, not ours.

Blair blaming his abysmal failure on the sick people doesn't cut it. And just for the record, I don't believe a word of his "we want state empowering individuals not trying to control them" spin. The day New Labour stops trying to encroach on every aspect of our lives is the day I'll drop dead of shock.

On ID cards, you can read the full questions and break down of ICM's results here [PDF document]. Here are the main results though:

ID Cards
GOOD IDEA: 43%
BAD IDEA: 54%
(Don't know/refused: 2%)

National Identity Scheme
GOOD IDEA: 41%
BAD IDEA: 56%
(Don't know/refused: 3%)


On London Casinos, all of the YouGov results can be found here at their poll blog. There are several sets of results, but here a two important ones:

Supercasino "With Unlimited Jackpots"
SUPPORT: 33%
OPPOSE: 49%

Smaller Casino "In Your Local Area"
SUPPORT: 25%
OPPOSE: 53%

A very interesting story has been coming out recently, which I admit I initally ignored. Now I think it may just be very worthwhile taking a look at this...

It's a story of two parts actually. First of all, it regards Lord Levy and the fact that we now know he did not answer the questions the police put to him. He answered "no comment". Yet when he came out of the station, he and his paid cronies were eager to say that he'd fully co-operated with their enquiries.

On what planet does refusing to answer all questions equate to full co-operation?

The second half of this sorry tale is about our Press. Why aren't they covering this? The BBC are silent. The Mail and the Guardian haven't breathed a word. Nor have any of the others. Don't they think it important that Lord Levy has been so slippery; that his non-disclosure might just mean there's something to hide?

There is a disturbing trend in our media towards "conspiracy of silence". We saw it before when Tony Blair's daughter tried to commit suicide. There was zero coverage by mutual agreement. Even now it's not widely known.

Do they have the right to freeze the public out? To decide what we can and can't know? The BBC are the most guilty in this particular matter because they are supposed to be entirely non-partisan yet continue to show a Labour-bias. For example, when the Prescott affair with his diary secretary was breaking, the BBC were incredibly slow to pick up on it; and it was later revealed that the person who made that decision is a near relative of John Prescott's (who happens to work at the BBC)!

The good news is that the days when the established media are our only route of information are beginning to dwindle as bloggers take to the internet in droves and start to force the Press into action. I liked the idea this blog put forwards, that it equates to a "Blogosphere Peasants' Revolt"...

These media blackouts are still disturbing though.

Can it be possibly true? Am I coming to... *choke* like... a Labour Cabinet Minister?

Maybe it's just a phase. It's a phase, right? Tell me it's just a phase!

Then again, the Daily mail is attacking him, so he must be alright, right? (Joke!)

First Alan Johnson helps a bright kid in his constituency with a Private School bursary, despite knowing what his Labourite colleagues would say about it. Now he stands up for modern families, and concedes that marriage is not a catch-all solution to society's ills. Wow!

"The minister, making his first speech on the family since taking over as Education Secretary two months ago, went on to declare that couples did not need to be married to be good parents..."

"Mr Johnson declared: "These are such deeply personal matters that our first over riding assumption must be to respect the rights of parents to make their own decisions about their family commitments and to provide them with a genuine choice."

Yeah, I actually think I do like this guy! Of course, it'll probably wear off soon, but for now, it's refreshing to hear a Labour man speaking some sense (in my humble opinion).

I just think that, even if it was proved irrefutably that the best way to raise children is the old man+woman+marriage situation, society just isn't ever going to be that simple again. Women aren't expected to be housemaids and men aren't expected to be tireless breadwinners. Some families will even have *gasp* two dads or two mums instead. Generalising is pretty useless. Sure, I can get behind supporting marriage as an institution in many ways, but not by undermining every other type of family unit. That just seems futile in this day and age.

(Then again, I owe my existence to a six-pack of beer. What do I know?)

A Muslim and a Person Of No Particular Faith are having a chat when the subject of religion comes up...

Muslim: All other religions that worship idols are wrong!
PONPF: Yeah? How so?
Muslim: They bow down to lumps of rock. Can't you see that's wrong?
PONPF: Okay, so when you pray, what do you pray to?
Muslim: We pray to Allah!
PONPF: You don't need a statue or something to represent Allah when you pray?
Muslim: Of course not. Allah is everywhere.
PONPF: So since Allah is everywhere, it doesn't matter which way you face?
Muslim: We must face Mecca.
PONPF: Oh right. But what if you're in Mecca, which way do you face then?
Muslim: We face the Ka'abah.
PONPF: And what is the Ka'abah?
Muslim: Well, it's this huge rock...
PONPF: *sigh*

Mark Oaten, the Lib-Dem MP who slept around with rent-boys and then blamed it on going bald (perhaps we should keep an eye on William Hague!) is going to step down from Parliament.

But not until the next General Election.

So plenty of time to squeeze in a few more appearances on The Daily Politics Show. Oh well, what's one more adulterous hypocrite sticking around in Parliament? At least he didn't sleep with his rent-boys in Westminster, with Civil Servants outside the door, or at home with his wife downstairs!

And when a sentence like that is actually a compliment, you do have to wonder at the sort of people who get elected to potentially run our country...

...resorts to telling the truth to try and get rid of Prescott, you have to wonder how much longer Tony Blair can ignore the matter of Prescott's involvment with Anschutz and refuse to allow an independent inquiry.

"...Tessa Jowell today admitted to the culture, media and sport select committee that he was holding meetings with her to discuss casinos and regeneration."

"This clearly shows that Mr Prescott had a role in casino policy and surely calls into question the decision to accept gifts from the American billionaire Mr Anschutz."

"Clearly John Prescott was heavily involved in government policy on issues that would directly affect Mr Anschutz's bid."

Just because Blair's as deep in it as Prescott is no excuse. Until the baying hounds are satisfied neither he nor Prescott will ever hear the last of this. It's not the press or the bloggers or the Tories spinning this out, it's they themselves. I'm amazed they can't see that.

The only thing to conclude is there is something to hide (or Blair doesn't think they can fix this independent panel like they apparently did with the Casino Advisory Panel). Surely they would both have everything to gain from an independent enquiry otherwise...

It's not every day you find an article that makes you laugh out loud without actually meaning to. Today I stumbled upon one such piece of work.

Entitled "Is George Bush an Idiot?", it lists all the reasons he is percieved to be and then defends him with such pearls of wisdom as;

"...a wise man once said people get the leaders they ask for. And speaking from personal experience, if George Bush is the kind of guy I think he is, then he’s the most fitting leader we could ask for in this American moment. "

"That wasn’t a rare side of Bush we saw at the summit. It was the real Bush—the Bush that Bush pretends not to be, in order to keep his job."

"He doesn’t want to be the world’s most powerful person. You can see it in his eyes when he jokes with reporters. He’d rather be off doing stand-up comedy somewhere. And you know what? He would be good at it."

"In context, the Iraq War sort of resembles every project I’ve ever taken on in a moment of over-ambition. His secretiveness reminds me of every time I’ve ever said, “Don’t worry… I’m working on it,” in order to keep my job."

"If anything, we shouldn’t be embarrassed by Bush, but by the culture that mass-produces directionless young men just like him every summer... they enter a world that only allows creativity within the contexts of conformity. They don’t have it as bad as starving children in Russia or China (or wherever children are starving these days)."

Well at least I can say this for sure; this article is a beautiful thing from a comedic perspective.

Now, I don't want to be unfair here. There is a point in there amongst all the fluff, that George Bush is just as socially inept and fallable as many other guys are, but when you try to argue that he's a great President because the American people want someone just as idiotic as they are (him saying it not me!) to be leader, you compare not telling the people the truth about invading an entire country with not owning up to missing deadlines on your officework, and seem to think Russia and China have it worse off than Africa, it's really hard to take what is being said seriously.

Still, fun for a read.

I was somewhat amused to find myself the subject of a post over at Labour Humanists. I appear to have bemused them a little, since in my relatively lonely role attempting to de-link conservatism and religiousness, I suppose I am a minor oddity.

You find the strangest stuff on the internet
Rarer than a red squirrel, but one's been found on the internet...a Tory Humanist! Historically being Conservative meant supporting Authority with a capital A, and this of course meant The Church. The Labour movement also represented a challenge to the churches ability to keep the working classes in line. So, to this day, you don't get many Tory humanists to the pound. So, it's worth flagging up MJ Martin's beware of the dogma site. Although be warned, it's very Tory, very anti-Labour and into knocking Labour personalities. But, all in all, a bit more diversity in Tory ranks is probably a good thing in the long run.

Perhaps that should be "blue squirrel"!

I have always had a link to the Labour Humanists in my Best Blogs sideroll because, although we disagree on politics to a fairly vast degree, they are very informative and interesting. When it comes to blogs I try not to be partisan. In any case, I would recommend the blog to anyone with humanist/athiest/agnostic leanings who is in need of a good read.

Here's a little foray into the wonderful, weird, crazy, politically incorrect world of YTMND (You're The Man Now Dog). Since I can't be the only chronically bored person out there right now, here are a few of the funniest/cleverest political ones for your distraction (pssst, turn your audio on)...

• Tony Blair is an Evil Genius
• Bush Doesn't Know Where His Heart Is
• What Gordon Brown Hears When Blair Speaks in the Commons
• Why George Bush Likes Spongebob
• Bush Denies They Will Have a Draught/Draft
• Ian Blair has a Monty Python Explanation for Police Killing
• Religion and Politics Without Taking a Breath
• Best Bushism Soundbyte Ever