You cannot be serious!

Too clever for your own good

Martyn Richard Jones — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:00:00 GMT

Even before the Duke of Gloucester had berated Edward Gibbon for his "thick, square book", the encouragement of ignorance was already a powerful force in the English speaking world.

Whilst it can be recognized that the Right get in a tizzy when the Left use the USA as a reference, the fact is our cousins across the pond do have some of the brightest and best examples. Such as Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, both accused of being unsuitable for political office due to their intellectual pursuits.

Later, Richard Hofstadter, in a classic study of the plight of intellectualism in the USA, noted that "It seemed to be the goal of the common man in America to build a society that would show how much could be done without literature and learning--or rather, a society whose literature and learning would be largely limited to such elementary things as the common man could grasp and use".

Indeed, the widely popularised and populist Andrew Jackson, seventh President of the United States, delighted his followers with observations such as: "It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word".

In France, Sarkozy's "Cultivated Anti-Intellectualism" is something of an embarrassment, given that the Gaullist right were never "quintessentially vulgar" or anti-intellectual. That is in contrast to the situation in other G8 countries, where "bread and circuses" are served up as a daily substitute for political engagement. Indeed, if people consider that a bit of textual chit-chat on the old Dog and iBone is a political statement, then where are we? And so to Isaac Asimov, dead as he is, who thought that there was a " false notion that democracy meant that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'".

Meanwhile, in the UK, a former Education Secretary told an audience, including "gifted and talented" children, that academic success is to be celebrated as much as sporting achievement, adding "being clever is sometimes seen as a term of abuse, for example: 'Too clever for your own good'." But this was the very same person who was a cabinet colleague of a man who blamed the French for the Iraq War, because they had voted against it. It didn't stop there, because the justification for using the "blame the French" ruse was so mangled and indecipherable, that Mark Steel was lead to comment that "the Government would have done better to have their policy explained by Po off Teletubbies".

Anti-intellectualism extends to the political blogosphere, where the established principle seems to be that the way to attack the left is not to address it - because that would involve reading and comprehension - but to mock, ridicule, trivialise, deny, invent, deflect, and misrepresent, and then, when all of that has failed, to attack, with blunt adjectives and rightful indignation.

Of course, there is nothing new in that. Stewart Lee said: "you can prove anything with facts, can't you", since, when an argument cannot be sustained by reason or evidence, then gut instinct and prejudice become your friends.

It seems that giving a reasoned and well placed opinion is actually a transgression, something that decent chaps just don't do, or simply, as if political blogging was a football match, between the Right and Wrong.

The keeper in the red, effortlessly blocks a weak shot, boots the ball right up the field to his mate cruising in the opposition's penalty area, who Villa like, sends the ball crashing into the back of the opponents net. Of course, then Team Right, in the blue strip for those watching in black and white, unleash special pleading on the official in charge of the game: "Oy! Referee! The left are cheating again, that argument was well offside".

Open season in the NHS

Martyn Richard Jones — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:05:29 GMT

Tim Montgomerie, the editor of the ConservativeHome.com blog has suggested that the NHS budget should lose its ring-fenced status; I think he is fundamentally wrong, and is completely mistaken in this proposal, wrong about the nature of the NHS and wrong about the rationale for its very existence, I also think that similar suggestions come from a dark cavernous recess of highly dubious instrumental reason and fetid dogma, rather than being the result of any well thought out, coherent, cohesive and humane rationale. Of course, I could be wrong. This is speculation and opinion after all. Occasionally, some things are idle taxi driver speculation at best, never to be taken to the level debate.

Here are my responses to an article that appeared on The Guardian's highly respect blog "Comment is Free".

The strapline on Tim's article is "If Osborne is brave enough to share out the pain equally – health cuts included – a VAT rise won't be needed". Let's look at some other things we might look at before we touch the NHS:

1. Cancel Trident
2. Nationalise the banks
3. End privatisation in Health and Education
4. Tell everyone what the deal is, how much needs to be cut - take the "we're all in this together" approach, and just don't cut because it's politically expedient but because it's an economic necessity - socialise profit and loss, and make it fair.
5. Introduce real democracy - there's an economic war on, and real democracy, from grassroots - community - up, is needed more than ever.
99. Close down parasitic think tanks.

Time goes on to say that " George Osborne's favourite slogan is "we're all in this together" and he has gone a long way to prove it". But what does that really mean:

Ring fencing essentially necessary public service is not fiscal irresponsibility but social responsibility. If the UK needs to cut into NHS spending it means that every other avenue of saving has been explored, which is clearly bollox. This is not thinking out of the box, it is thinking inside the darkest recesses nastiness. Old grassroots Tories saw that gradual socialization was not only inevitable but desirable, their major concerns were with controls and the speed of change. In that respect the old Tories were not mean minded, just very cautious - I didn't agree with that stance either, but at least it was socially responsible and intellectually responsible, as well as being relatively coherent.

Tim says that "Fairness is ingrained in the British psychology", but then goes on to completely miss the point of the reason being something taken on face value and used a s a sound bite.

The worst Tories of the Thatcherite era were clearly people who just took an instrumental reasoned approach to everything, without considering for one moment the human consequences, as if their pornographic market dogma were all that mattered. There is no place for anti-social dogma in world that cries out for justice, reason and humanity, no matter if the dogma comes from the left, the right, the centre or an intellectual cesspit. It's a mistake to misuse terms like Nazi, but in strict terms, how does the inhumane instrumental reason of the Nazis differ from the inhumane instrumental reason of anyone else?

Then ... the anonymous spanows jumps in:

spanows:

    21 Jun 2010, 10:13PM

        @MartynInEurope

        If the UK needs to cut into NHS spending it means that every other avenue of saving has been explored, which is clearly bollox.

        or perhaps teh stawman in your sentence is the real bollox. You seriously believe that the NHS budget has no flexibility? No waste? Not trimming possible?

    I didn't agree with that stance either, but at least it was socially responsible and intellectually responsible, as well as being relatively coherent.

So you would prefer a Tory government, not this coalition?

You are mistaken spanows. Just because some people hate the non-Tory voting poor, doesn't mean we all do. There is no place for anti-social dogma in world that cries out for justice, reason and humanity, no matter if the dogma comes from the left, the right, the centre or an intellectual cesspit.

hmmm, know what? I believe you'd accept anti-social dogma from the left.

You know spannows, some people will question my ideology, and hats of to them too, because I have no ideology beyond social justice, no matter who provides it. Does that mean that I respect dogma, dogma that is nothing better than the putrid ideas of those who would go against their own, their country men and women and against the welfare of their own? No,for them let's be clear about this, I have no respect, zero respect, null respect, zilch respect, iteratively and absolutely no respect, and I don't have a problem stating as much. In a democracy, decent people with decent arguments deserve respect, people who just want social aggro by pursuing hate via a socially divisive, racist and aggro position, deserve zero respect.

Now, FUCK OFF!

Stupid Boys and Tall Stories

Martyn Richard Jones — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:21:00 GMT

WORK IN PROGRESS

Work in progress. Check back for updates. Okay, here is the hall of stupid. Exhibits in no particular order.

Item 1: 1peter

02 Jul 09, 6:23pm (48 minutes ago)

MartynInEurope wrote:

And for the record, a 60/40 split is neither a "vast majority" nor "same same".

.....and for the record, how strange that you haven't been chasing down whatever his name is for claiming that the "vast majority" of Jews live outside Israel.....
yet you bluster on and on ad nauseum that it isn't 1/2 the Jewish population that lives in Israel, its 42%.

1peter wrote in reply: pedantry is your game.

MartynInEurope wrote: Because one (claiming a vast majority) is exaggeration and the other is blatant BS and mendacity. There is no way that 60/40 will ever be the same as 50/50. Never, ever, only in someone's alternative universe.

Wouldn't it have been simpler just to state the facts, rather than just to make it up, as you clearly did.

I'm not being pedantic for calling out BS, especially when the BS is so gob smackingly obvious BS. An exaggerated qualitative statement is nothing like the same as a mendacious quantitative statement.

Item 2: More explanation for idiot

MartynInEurope wrote: For every 400 Jewish people living in Israel, there are 600 Jewish people living in the diaspora.

Is the Jewish population of the Palestinian West Bank added to the total Jewish population of Israel? If so, better take them out. They don't live in Israel.

Are the figures for Germany based on Jewish people who have registered, or all Jewish people resident in those countries? In Germany there are roughly 110,000 people registered as Jewish, because AFAIK, the number of Russian Jews alone is around the 200,000 mark.

So you see, if one actually looks at the details of the statistics, and some of the assumptions, the more realistic figure might be: for every 340 Jewish people living in Israel, there are 660 Jewish people living in the diaspora.

Item 3: A cunt, is a cunt, not works as a cunt

      1peter

      02 Jul 09, 9:10pm (about 2 hours ago)

      MartynInEurope

      Is the Jewish population of the Palestinian West Bank added to the total Jewish population of Israel? If so, better take them out. They don't live in Israel.

      LOL you're beyond pedantry now....fantasy on top of obsession.

      12 posts of.....OMG.... zealous indignation LOL, at my stating that half the world's Jewish population lives in Israel in reply to the lie of the VAST MAJORITY of Jews live outside Israel.

      Yet not a single post about the initial claim.

      As I said, all bluster and pedantry

      Who let the trolls out,
      who,who,who,who

    *      MartynInEurope

      02 Jul 09, 11:20pm (1 minute ago)

      1peter:

          02 Jul 09, 9:10pm (about 2 hours ago)

          MartynInEurope

          Is the Jewish population of the Palestinian West Bank added to the total Jewish population of Israel? If so, better take them out. They don't live in Israel.

          LOL you're beyond pedantry now....fantasy on top of obsession.

      Didn't Pretzelburg bust this type of juvenile minded donkey-assedness a few days ago?

      Why do you persist 1peter, you have been proved wrong, time and time again.

      And you call me a pedant? LOL ...

http://www.itsmarty.com hacked - commenting suspended

Martyn Richard Jones — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:46:00 GMT

Dear All, Due to a malicious piece of site hacking I have had to unfortunately block commenting on this blog for the time being.
I will reactivate the comments facility when I have the chance to upgrade the software to the level required to prevent hacking attempts that disrupt the site.

With friends like these: Israel and the non-Jewish right

Martyn Richard Jones — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:24:00 GMT

WORK IN PROGRESS

When little boys and girls have more hate and blind prejudice than reason:

Mendacious, idiotic or nasty comments that I have encountered on The Guardian's CiF blog pages from so-called supporters of Israel. There is no statistical and scientific classification for any comments, the content in itself should be enough of an indicator.

1. Hypocrisy?

juanandre

16 Jun 09, 1:21am (6 minutes ago)

I dread all those "right-wing" Israeli leaders. Begin gave the Sinai peninsula (bigger than Israel) to the Egyptians. Now there is no buffer zone between little Israel and Egypt. Then "right-wing" Netanyahu gave Bethlehem, capital of Judea, city of King David, forefather of Jew Jesus, to the arabs, to muslim terrorist Arafat

Oh dear..

2. Recondite Racism?

juanandre

16 Jun 09, 1:00am (27 minutes ago)

So the Jews in the US, a very small percentage of the population, dictates the country's foreign policy? O.k, you will answer that Jews are rich. And Christians are very corrupt - they do whatever the Jews tell them to for money? Is that the logic? What did you expect - the US, a free, democratic, Christian nation to side with the muslim dictatorships and jihadists? About the UN: I am not impressed by their resolutions. 99% of them concern Israel (as if there were no other problems in the world...). The UN today: more than 1/3 of its members are muslim (56 countries) meaning non-democratic + other dictatorships like Cuba, North Korea, etc. They love to speak freely at the UN forum, but at home there is no free press or freedom os speech. They love voting at the UN (against Israel, of course), but at home no elections. The UN is a joke. A new UN should be created, for democracies only - Japan, Australia, Europe, the US, Israel and some South American countries (few).

Racist pig.

3. Just Plain Nasty?

juanandre

16 Jun 09, 12:15am (about 1 hour ago)

MartyninEurope: Sorry, I wasn't telling the truth. Arab countries are civilized, peaceful, democratic and not corrupt. They treat their minorities very well. They don't kill each other all the time, they don't support islamic terror, they don't hang gays in public squares, they don't lynch girls, there are no mass graves in Iraq (and if you dig other arab countries you won't find any either). They don't mutilate girl's genitalia, they don't kill their own daughters for "honour" and also they don't kill their own sisters for the same reason. Arab mothers don't go on tv and proclaim to be happy because their suicide/homocide kids died killing infidels (or other muslims). Suha Arafat doesn't live in a luxury hotel in Paris (while they say they are starving in Gaza). Sorry MartyninEurope.
Sharia now in England? Or a bit later?

Here we go again.

4. Simply Trolling?

juanandre

16 Jun 09, 1:37am (7 minutes ago)

Already 22 arab states, one (or two, if we count Gaza) in Palestine, Jordan. A "viable Palestinian state". What is a viable arab state? Is Somalia viable? Is Sudan (the biggest arab state) viable? Lebanon? Algeria? A viable arab state would be one with democracy and without Islam.

Trolling idiot.

5. Idiocy?

juanandre

16 Jun 09, 2:17am (about 7 hours ago)

And can someone (arab or Jew-hater) explain me please why arabs have the right to 22 states (on stolen land) and Kurds to none? Why can arabs (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and muslim Iran and Turkey) occupy the Kurd's only country and at the same time demand a third (after Jordan and Gaza) country in Palestine?

Nasty, knows no bounds.

6. Foolishness?

juanandre

16 Jun 09, 2:19am (about 7 hours ago)

And following that (or lack of) logic, can someone explain why arab muslim terrorist Arafat rushed to Iraq to kiss arab muslim dictator Saddam when he invaded Kuweit? Why are the "palestinian" arabs entitled to three states and the Kuweiti arabs to none?

Here we go again.

7. False WItness?

chasnb

16 Jun 09, 10:32am (about 4 hours ago)

Seven Jewish Children is Jew-bashing pure and simple. A shame you weren't brave enough to confront that, and instead just fudged it.

Will you be publishing the Gert Wilders film or the Danish cartoons? No. Funny that.

Cowardice and hypocrisy.

http://www.oyvagoy.com

Liars bluff.

8. Caryl Churchill is anti-Semitic?

pete999

15 Jun 09, 12:13am

Neither journalism nor art.

It was a simple statement of where the Guardian stands on the matter of anti semitic literature.

And it wasnt the place one would expect to find the left.

Ah, yes.

9. No to homophobia on CiF?

rainieri

23 Jun 09, 3:10am (about 4 hours ago)

This pub sounds like a really cool pub,that horny Israeli soldiers would love to frequent.Hopefully there will be tepid tea( that should be drunk with an extended pinky finger) served with alfalfa sandwiches that are mouth watering,and the riveting conversations about the latest methods of goat milking in Upper Mongolia should also be exiting.

I'm going to visit this pub,hoping it doesn't close before I get there.

Brazen homophobic shit!

10. Next?

next

11. Next?

next

12. Next?

next

13. Next?

next

14. Next?

next

Palin, Letterman and the Outrage of Moral Shysters

Martyn Richard Jones — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:31:00 GMT

WORK IN PROGRESS

David Letterman, a US chat show host, made some completely naff comments - called jokes - about a daughter of the US Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. I agree that they were in very poor taste, but my overall comment about the affair was placed in the overall context of its importance relative to everything else. As any sane and balanced person should try and do. So, when this item was discussed on The Guardian's Comment is Free blog, my comment was a simple: "It was a small error of judgement, no big deal". Of course, then some Palin loving Republican dick jumps in all calls me a "Hypocrite", and so it went on.

Me: Would you care to explain yourself?

Just to qualify the comment. Compared to killing hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children based on duff intelligence and lies, it was a very small error of judgement.

Now go back to your shapes, colours, sounds, lights .....

ContedeQuincy: Look at your past posts and you'll soon find out why. I really would not like to add "selective amnesia" to the list.

Me: Ok, so let's assume I have "selective amnesia". Just what are you referring to? Can you pony up some evidence or am I just being targeted with simplistic trolling bullshit?

Geoffrey Alderman and a Disservice to Fascism

Martyn Richard Jones — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:16:00 GMT

Geoffrey Alderman, commenting on the comments section of an article by Seth Freedman, It's not British fascists we should fear, wrote:

geoffreyalderman

12 Jun 09, 4:07pm (about 1 hour ago)

Seth, can we at least agree that anyone who calls the BNP "fascist" does a serious disservice to the political ideology known as "fascism?"

Geoffrey Alderman

Is it me, or is this a bizarre defence of fascist ideology?

Rapid Response Team Replies to Peter Tatchell and Fellow Travellers

Martyn Richard Jones — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:39:00 GMT

The Righwing Rapid Response Team Replies to Peter Tatchell and His Fellow Travellers

You just couldn't make it up! The following is a statement issued by The Righwing Rapid Response Team in response to an alarming and malicious article published by known leftwing green guardianista Peter Tatchell, who goes by the name of "Peter Tatchell", and which was published today (or yesterday) in The Guardian. And which has been supported by a number of treasonous and traitorous Britain hating, minority supporting, LGBT loving, race denying, feminazi gits!

Today, we call upon every upstanding British white male and not male to join us in condemning this "political correctness", which has gone from mad to stark raving bonkers on the Political Wrister scale! We are sure that you, like us, will appreciate all too well the urgency of our call, and the need for action (bank account details to be supplied later).

1.a : Fair votes, fair votes is it? So, you want to hang on to Old Mother Brown, that Sugar Honey Honey and your Not Now Darling … you want to have them re-elected without an election. You are taking away our historic rights! This is not British justice! This is Scotch Corner! We want Cameroon for PM now! No! No Welshman or woman is going to tell me what to do. We, the great Britons, we, together, don't want a foreign clown as PM, we want our own. Our own!

1.b : Representative parliament – you lot of socialist layabouts just want your Labour to be in power, forever. Just like the Stalinists, and your Mao and your Fidel. Why do you hate our freedoms, why do you betray your jeans? You want to be able to hand pick MPs? We don't want your New Labour rubbish! Just say no to Ali G, Mark Steel, Mark Thomas and Georgina Galloway. Just say NO to RESPECT! "No room for respect", that's our battle cry.

1.c : Scottish electoral system – Ah! Bloody marvellous isn't it. Here we go again! The Celtic Mafia! As our great Professor Snodpod Smith - who rests in The Scrubs - said "You'll want to force the pasty faced, blue haired, and fair eyed British indigenous male to wear plaid skirts, as the ultimate, last and final act of the humiliating humiliation of a once proud nation of ethnically and genetically and similarly indigenous equivalence".

2.a : A written constitution – you want to complicate things, so you can steal our native British rights, and give them to ethnic minorities. Look sunshines, we've got a constitution, and a Margot Charter, rewritten by your great Henry the Eighth - I am, I am, and nurtured with care, and handed down from blue-blooded generation to blue-blooded generation, and now to this very day, where it resides in the careful hands of your majesty, the Queen. God bless her! Anyway, if we had a constitution that was written down, on paper that is, your bloody Prescott would probably use it as toilet paper, and put it on expenses.

2.b : Bill of rights – Named after your liberal President who couldn't keep his privates under control. This is just to allow the illegal government to issue even more taxing and spending rights – to mosques and 7th day Advertists. And we, the white oppressed, pick up the tab, we pay for Gay Pride marches, just because you don't want to offend LGBT rights and feminists. Bollocks to that! More rights for the scuffers, less rights for the liberal-socialist scroungers and their rubbish causes!

3. Replace the monarchy – How dare you! How dare them! They want to outlaw the memory of the old Queen Mom, her elegant hats on Ascot day, the Royal tipple – it's a bloody outrage! - their evil people who want to kill The Queen of Hearts – again! Smash up her wonderful fountain, yes, that's right, the fountain that flows with the tragic romantic river of sobbing children's tears! … Then, for President of the UK, they'll want Branson Pickle, Mother BlIar, Obarak bin Laden or Alexei Sayle. You're all fookin mad!

4. An elected second chamber – No! The Lords is the only thing what works! We know why, don't we? We know what's behind all this elected lords nonsense, don't we? People only want second chamber election bollocks because the House of Lords, with all that is fine and righteous in British pomp, circumstance and empire, might upset the Pakistanis and the filthy Paediatricians. We educated and civilised the world, taught the French to cook, the Germans to think and the Italians to make cars, and THIS is the THANKS we get? Have you ever stopped to wonder why Nicked Griff is so poplar? NO! Anyway, people are daft. You can't replace the Lords, it's a job that's passed down, from father to son, in the blood.

5. The right to recall MPs – you want to pick on the BNP even before they are elected, just because they are honest to goodness British racists and homophobes, not your foreign decadent, same sex marriage, "Oh! My vicar is a lesbian" … "would you like another vol au vent", rubbish.

6. Abolition of the royal prerogative – you want to surrender the country to foreign terrorists, give up the commonwealth and give all our money to lost causes. And ban Her Majesty … the Queen! So, who is going to run the country then, Mister and Misses Funny Clogs? Where will the knowledge and experience come from, if you take away the Royal Prerogative? Eh?

7.a Strengthen the powers of select committees – that's just an invitation for more select jobs for the select boys. Why do we have to have gay and other privileges rammed down our throats, championed on our streets and up our alleyways? We don't want selection we want inheritance, and maybe an election. When do we want it? NOW! Or, whenever it is convenient for Her Majesty.

7.b It would also involve sufficient staff to service the committees – Oh yes, "room service", Typical liberal-left scroungers, Hanging around in bed all day, being waited on hand, foot and finger. You just want bigger government and multiculturalism and the EU banning our conkers and beef and bangers and bananas and taking away our right to the great traditional cooked - COOKED - English breakfast.

8. Abolition of unelected QUANGOs – Here we bloody go again! If it doesn't pour it pisses down! Removing our last connections to the commonwealth. What did Australia ever do to you??? You just want to ban smoking and drinking and Christmas, because it upsets the Jews, Muslims and Baptists. Eat your greens and shut up! Haha! haha!

9. Creation of a federal Britain – you just want to make the country weak and divided, and give money to economic migrants, and their seven kids per household – all paid by us, yes us, the great British taxpayer!

10. Greater powers for backbench MPs – You don't fool us! You just want to make sure that New Labour carries on as the worst dictatorship since Stalin, Mao and Paul Pot created the axis of evil and declared war on our values. If you want to live in that type of society, then you can jolly well go and live in Cuba, or Cardiff!

For Cod, Queens, Club and Country!

Signed on behalf of the Rapid Response Team:

Dick Headley, Chairman
Major Pratt, retired-Army
Ben Dover, MD
Jenna Tolls MP
Ura Hogg, QC
Chief Inspector Hugh Jass
Teflonda Slick, JP

European and Local Elections - June 2009

Martyn Richard Jones — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:16:00 GMT

Election Notes 2009

1. UK

The election results were not entirely unexpected. So, PR represented the will of the people who actually bothered to get out and vote. Whether you like the outcome or not, and there are things that I am not particular happy about, e.g. 2 seats for the BNP, but that's a part of representative democracy.

At the local level New Labour were pretty much wiped out when Blair was in charge, so no change there.

Interim elections (as distinct from General Elections) will almost invariably serve to punish the government, especially when the economy is a concern for many people.

Everybody who benefits from the results of these elections will claim that the vote was for them, whereas frequently it's a vote against rather than for,

Low turnout in elections is too a serious problem for the claim that the UK is a democracy.

2. Early General Election - UK?

There are many reasons why a government would call an early general election, and there are some valid reasons for placing a motion of no confidence before the Houses of Parliament, but the shrieking despair of a small minority of hysterical twits is not one of them.

Does Cameron have the courage to take on Brown in a House of Commons vote of censure?

If he does, all fair and good, if he doesn't then maybe he isn't up to the job of even leader of the opposition.

3. Brown and the critics

It's quite bizarre that a lot of the criticisms of Brown are as vacuous, inane or as daft as any concatenation of meaningless clichés from the likes of Prescott or Blears.

4. Tuscanny, Bali or Rhyl

Nobody wants to lead New Labour into an electoral defeat. It's as simple as that. Now, if they gave me the job I'd balls it up in no time - there'd be elections in August, when there's a heatwave and all the nobs are in Tuscany, Bali or Rhyl.

5. War, what is it good for?

He can go, but only after after a War Crimes Commission has started what needs to be done. If he can pull that one off, Gordon's place in history wont look quite so bad. IMHO

6. The heat is on

He should call elections for August. Never mind, whichever way the voting goes the Tories (Cons or NL) will get back in.

7. No confidence

I would rather that the MPs first place a motion of no confidence to the vote in parliament. A government that loses such a vote is typically expected to convoke elections.

If MPs don't have the courage to place the motion and then vote down the government, then the general election will probably be next year.

8. War crimes inquiry now!

The best thing that Brown can do is to launch a massive inquiry into the Iraq War. Including traces on all telephone calls made, emails exchanges, messages, documents produced and circulated, etc.

Lst's get to the bottom of this, even if it means putting people on trial for war crimes, sedition and propaganda used to support war crimes.

Go on Gordon, these obnoxious people are gagging for it. Stick it to them.

9. Prats in public places

The first job is to persuade the Home Office that it is working for the British people, not against them.

Persuade? If they don't like it, keep sacking them until they get the message. Start at the top, work down. The elected MP doesn't need to persuade, they need to lead. They have a mandate, the civil service do not.

10. Come on, call a vote of no confidence, if you think you're tough enough

If the Tories think the Government should call early elections, then they should place a motion of no confidence before Parliament.

If they don't want to do that, because of a belief that their motion would be defeated, then there is no legitimacy for the Tories to simply call for early elections.

There are parliamentary procedures for removing a government, the rigged clapometer is not part of these procedures, nor should it be.

11. Right said Ken

Ken Livingstone, on this, you're bang in the money. Good riddance to right-wing rubbish, it's about time some left-wing policies were implemented, like, protecting those who are most likely to suffer from the economic crisis, who did not contribute to the crisis, and who did not really benefit during the good times.

12. Blairites out!

The only reasonable solution is to expel Blairites from the New Labour party, and to convert the party into a real social-democracy party. The pernicious influence of the Blairites has been more destructive than any militant tendency ever was.

New Labour are rubbish. So what if Purnell resigned, what difference does it make?

Absolutely none.

13. More lies about who is responsible

The lie being perpetrated is that Brown is directly responsible for the financial and economic crisis. The fact of the matter is that the New Labour government shoukd have done much more to regulate the financial sector in the UK, however, regulation of the The City would not have averted the global financial and economic crisis. Simply stated, New Labour may be responsible for many reprehensible policies, but the problems associated with the free and easy availability of credit should also be laid at the doors of those who availed themselves of over-borrowing and under-saving.

14. Liars poker

If we were experiencing an economic boom, most people wouldn't even bother to comment on some expense fiddling, beyond the usual .. "Politicians! What do you expect?" and "we're all at it". In times of economic crisis there are far fewer people willing to take a liberal view of some dodgy expense claims, for as relatively small as they may be.

Well, what is going on is some pretty blatant righteous indignation mixed with heavy doses of political opportunism, and a lot of gratuitous aggression - albeit, just in print. Which is hardly surprising, given the circumstances.

15. Fiddling with the seats

I don't think that it is reasonable to expect political parties not to be able to select the candidates for election. These candidates are also chosen to represent the party, it's values, its principles, but more importantly it's manifesto commitments with the electorate and for the party. The UK has a party political system, to pretend that this is not the case would be foolish, to try to change that fact by tinkering with the system as it is, would be counterproductive and damaging.

In my view, parties must be legally obliged to follow a democratic process for selecting candidates. That is, parties must not be allowed to dictate to constituency organization who they must choose as their candidates. But this is not the same as saying that there "must be no lists where parties get to choose their candidates". This only works in one party, multi-faction states, such as the USA and China, and to be quite frank, although it might make common-sense for the USA and China, this is not the sort of political system I want to see introduced to anywhere in Europe.

16. Right-wing Hysterical Twats

Just when you thought the European and local elections were over, the hysterical decide to go into over-drive. Are the detractors so afraid that the public may look at the facts of the matter?

To paraphrase Mister Angry Dick from Someplace-Not-Worth-Mentioning, "I'm not interested in facts, I find they tend to colour my judgment, I prefer to rely on instinct and blind prejudice".

17. Hobbes, Nobs and Cobblers

Where have we seen this before?

New Labour are like GIs in Vietnam, without a clue about what they are supposed to be doing there, what they fighting for or who they are against?

No wonder everyone in NL is worried about friendly fire.

MartynInEurope

08 Jun 09, 12:03pm (1 minute ago)

The New Labour leviathan is eating its own.

18. Dismal indictment of a failing democracy

The dismal turnout has not only been a blow for New Labour, but it's also been a terrible indictment for any self-respecting party that considers themselves to be predominately democratic.

As for the leadership of the Labour party? Well, that's neither here nor there. What could be better than having Brown as PM for the next 11 months? A dead-beat Blair-lite clone? That's not change even worth getting out of bed for.

Simply stated, the government must either lose its majority in the House of Commons, lose a vote of no confidence, or lose a General Election. The rest is not even academic.

If Brown has any sense he would rush through constitutional reform, so at least, come May 2010, there would be a chance to use PR to obtain a House of Commons that is far more representative of the will of the people.

That could well serve as the basis of wide-sweeping and much-needed constitutional change.

19. Sally Keeble says

This is an open letter to my constituents in Northampton to explain why, after 12 years of complete loyalty to my party, I am withdrawing support from Gordon Brown as Labour leader.

This is not a letter to constituents, it's an opinion article on The Guardian's blog site.

I withdrew my support from New Labour more than twelve years ago, when I first started noticing the measure of the new candidates.

This article comes as no surprise, quite frankly I would have expected more.

The Labour party needs purging of Blairites in much the same way it was purged of the Militant Tendency.

For all his faults, I was never ashamed of Michael Foot. You lot are just a bunch of potential war criminals.

20. Denis MacShane Says Something Else

Ten lessons for the left from Europe

Developments such as a rise in racism, the collapse of faith in the left and the recession have changed the political landscape:

Denis MacShane
guardian.co.uk, Monday 8 June 2009 19.30 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/08/europe-elections-lessons-learned

The problem is, the right think New Labour are left, New Labour think they are left, and me on the left - maybe more than just me - think NL and the extreme right are insufferable twats.

New Labour has tried to play both sides, and has succeeded eventually in pleasing few, especially those greedy and reckless troughers who were quite happy with New Labour during the boom times, even when NL went to war - on more than one occasion.

What needs to be done.

21. Media Coverage and Analysis of the UK Elections has been Rubbish

The biggest problem of the last elections revolves around one central issue: low turnout.

I'm surprised that political commentators would prefer to piss around with peripheral and inconsequential nonsense rather than to try and address the tough issues, the core issues. What the story is really about.

Media commentary in the UK, by and large, has been pathetic, shallow and reactionary.

MartynInEurope

09 Jun 09, 4:05am (6 minutes ago)

Well, I don't remember the Graun having any problem in supporting this nauseating bunch of Blairite bastards, who are now deserting the ship and then rebelling - trust a Blairite to even get that sequence wrong.

22. More than 50% of the voters stayed at home

It's pretty stupid extrapolating some sort of "mood of the country" conclusions from the EU elections apart from: most people were not arsed enough to go and vote.

How can there be a surge in vote for almost anyone when most of the individual parties vote went down?

That's not analysis, that's wilful stupidity in the face of statistics.

23. More valid representation is just a facet of reform

PR, and not just any old PR, is what is needed. But that's only a small part of the raft of constitutional reforms that must be made in order to give the UK the type of robust and representative political system that can lead to more decisions being made closer to the people those decisions affect, and government and opposition that represents far more closely the will of the people.

24. Stupid and pathetic "political analysis"

Ian Black, writing in The Guardian : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/13/ian-jack-labour-party-comment

Last week in the Rhondda, ex-miners and their children voted Tory. In Glasgow, the sons and daughters of shipyard welders switched to the Scot Nats. In Lancashire, the descendants of mill workers stayed at home and let in the British National party. These are the landscapes that laid the foundations of Labour. It seems incredible that their ancient political loyalties should have withered so quickly and completely.

When will these twats come up with some reasonable political analysis? It was an appallingly low turnout, this was not a normal election, it was not a general election, many of those who turned out were the Tory loyalists and the protest voters, how difficult is this to understand?

There have always been Tory voters in the Rhondda, but a Tory is more likely to get out and vote, come hell and high water, than a socialist, especially when the socialist has really nothing to vote for.

You cannot compare apples with pigs ears, it doesn't work.

It's not rocket science after all, is it.

European Socialists: Defiant in disarray?

Martyn Richard Jones — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:46:00 GMT

Ilana Bet-El writing for The Guardian's Comment is Free online blog has been making some rather odd claims about European socialism and socialists. Even though these articles are opinion pieces, I would have expected something a little bit less speculative and less simplistic - whether the conclusions were right or wrong. Anyway, the opinion piece is along the lines of: "European socialism: defiant in disarray - The European right are sitting ducks – so why are the socialists still shooting each other?" This is my (work in progress) reply to this blog piece.

Well, there are two issues here. Socialist unity throughout Europe and the Presidency of the EU.

Why is there disunity amongst some socialists in Europe? Principally, because there is also disunity amongst a number of socialists at the national levels as well, in a number of countries. Just look at the divergences of opinion between the UK Labour Party in Europe and the UK Government. Another factor that divides socialist is opinion over the first the EU Constitution and then when that was rejected, over the alternative Lisbon Treaty, especially in places like France.

As for the campaign slogan "They follow the market. We follow our convictions.", I think it is apt, and for a number of reasons, the primary reason being what this simply states, is generally correct. In Spain the socialist government has made significant efforts to ensure that brunt of the impact of the crisis is not borne by those who weren't responsible for it in the first place, and especially those who really did not benefit significantly from the boom times. The Spanish government, for example, despite protests from the conservatives, aren't targeting the workers or fundamental welfare for cost-cutting, nor are they throwing away tax payers money on bailing out the banks, even that aspects has had a socially libertarian edge to it. So they probably can use the slogan without the stigma of being overly hypocritical. Actually, in Spain the socialist's local campaign slogan is a rather cute one "Este partido se juega en Europa", which has a double meaning – This party plays in Europe and This match - Footie match; A touch of the old Harold Wilson, Spanish style - is played in Europe.

So, what's all this almost existential type nonsense about the EU Presidency? The problem could be that it's a job that many senior socialist politicians simply don't want, or that simply not many people really want it.

Some cynics once suggested that José Manuel Durão Barroso was given the Presidency so that the left in Portugal would have better electoral chances – by removing him from national politics, and so that Barroso would have to temper his pro-Bush Administration stance, in line with the political views of some of the major centres of political power in Europe.

So, is the selection of the President of the EU the biggest challenge facing European Socialists? Does the election of the EU President represent a potential inflection point in European Socialism?

Well, simply stated, no and no. In conclusion, what a thoroughly dismal piece of political analysis.