Tory sleaze

David Cameron has a bit of a fight on his hands convincing his party that his new, whiter-than-white, sleaze-free party policy of revealing expenses, is actually here to stay.

Cash for questions, Derek Conway, Neil Hamilton etc etc etc.

Now a leaked memo has cast a shadow over Cameron's vision, questioning whether he can get it through without being too bruised. The Tories are synonymous with sleaze. That, more than 'posh folks', is what they stand for. But this could be their one big chance to rid themselves of an unwanted tag - and Cameron must stay strong.

This is Cameron's equivalent of Tony Blair's Clause 4. It may not finish him off, but it will automatically put an immovable limit on his future influence and credibility. If chucking people out the Tories at the next election is what's needed, even if they are party big shots, then you have to do it...we believe in you.

If he can't get this through to his party, and accepted without splitting the party, then he might as well go home.

Go on Dave, do it. Everyone knows what a ridiculous junket most MEPs are on, doing very little good work (if any work at all) and they are so brazen in their exploits. The leaked memo from today contains the laughable argument that "The more we reveal, the more questions will be asked". And? That is DC's aim, to make politics cleaner, more open, more honest, more voter-friendly than now.

If he succeeds, this would push the ther parties to address the issue, then force Parliament as whole to follow suit, then, we could have an honest revolution of decency in the country.

Never been the biggest DC fan (because I'm a big DD fan), but cleaning up politics along with telling fatties to stop moaning about being fat means he's had a good few days by my reckoning.

--------------------

However

Please can we get rid of such a shockingly bad phrase as "Deep clean" of expenses.

I'm not sure if the new Crap Holyrood Chat blog is exclusively for Scottish stuff, but if not can I add to the recycle bin...

"Deep clean" - trying a wee bit harder
"Not fit for purpose" - shite
"Gordon Brown's backyard" - Fife

Hard Labour

Labour have used many different excuses for losing by-elections, mayoral races and doing badly in local council elections recently.

Whether it's the economy's fault, the media's fault, Red Ken or astrological gravtational pulls going against them, it doesn't matter for Glasgow East.

Now they have a cracker, and I'm confident it will, at least once, be raised by the Labour Party in this by-election.

"Well, the reason we lost is that voters got confused between Margaret Curran and Frances Curran. Their names are too similar."

Let's face it, call me snotty, say I don't give them enough credit, but most people in Glasgow East wouldn't recognise either of these candidates if they passed them on the street. They won't know the difference between the two. The only ones that might've watched the news in Glasgow East are those who've been interviewed by the Beeb and ran home, screaming down the mobile "Rab, switch the fuckin' nooz on, um gonna be on the telly". Not being funny, but voter apathy is some awesome force.

They won't know who's who, anything about what each candidate stands for, or whether to put a cross in the box, or just a big 'x'.

And then Labour can use the 'one surname, two candidates' defence. I can actually hear them saying "This is something we'll have to review for future elections", "It is the voters who I feel have been let down most".

A cowboy operation...

So the Church of England has voted to allow female bishops.

I'm not CofE, I'm not religious and to be honest, it will not affect me in any real way.

From an equality point of view, it's a cracking move and for women who want to follow that path it is undoubtedly good news. (After my post on Harriett Harman's equality nonsense, I'd like to point out she wasn't exactly burning her bra in an equality protest against the church, she certainly doesn't have the balls for that!)

But I have always had an issue with 'reform in the church' (and by 'the church', I mean all religions, though usually I make this argument regarding the Catholic church).

If the church believes in something, then fine, believe in it. Whether their views are popular, right or wrong, old fashioned or whatever, I don't care. They are the church's beliefs and I can't criticise them for their genuine beliefs (though I can certainly disagree).

For example,
The Catholic church, for centuries has said "This is how you should live your life, no ifs, no buts, this is the way as taught by the bible." If you divert from how we say you should live your lives, you shall go to hell, be exiled, killed. They ruled a vast swathe of the earth, scaring the shit out of people with their instructions of how to live their lives, warning of the consequences if they didn't obey.

What really gets to me about the Church is when they change these 'beliefs'/rules to suit the times. This is what makes me think the whole idea of organised (crime) religion is an absolute sham. If you compare what the Catholic Church was like five hundred years ago to how it is now, then you will see a massive, MASSIVE difference - they are essentially two totally separate organisations when it comes to their beliefs, what is allowed, and who can do what within the church. The new one and the old one, really only have one common denominator, admittedly quite a big one, the idea of GOD. But what we are supposed to do for/by him now and what it was five hundred years ago mean that they are not the same thing.

Think about some religious examples...

"No homosexuals" recently changed to adverts on TV saying 'Actually, you are welcome'

'No method of contraception whatsoever' was changed to 'Oh, ok, we've found one way that we'll let you 'do it', the rhythm method.'

And 'Women cannot be ministers, or representatives of the cloth in any way', and now they're becoming bishops.

Now I'm not saying I think that gay=wrong, contraception is good or bad or that women should/shouldn't be allowed. What I'm saying is that these have been some of religion's deep, strongly held beliefs, and yet, they changed. which means, why should we trust you this time?

It's like the Daz adverts you see, a new one every year, saying 'New Daz cleans everything perfectly'. Then they show you a comparison with old Daz, which still leaves stains but the new one doesn't, it gets your clothes whiter-than-white. But next year, even newer Daz is the one getting all the stains out and the previous Daz just doesn't cut it anymore.

To me, the only thing that is left of these religions, compared to the same institutions from hundreds of years ago is that 'There is a God and we should all worship Him (or, in the spirit if debate, Her)'.

And why does it get to me so much? Cos it's like a shitty shallow politician changing his beliefs and his policies just to stay in power. Some call it opportunism, populist. In fact, I could probably sift through the blogosphere and find thousands of comments slamming politicians for flip-flopping to either side of an issue, performing 'embarrassing u-turns' etc which leaves the party, PM, MP or MSP with less credibility than before. If he does it often, on his/her deepest beliefs, we couldn't take them seriously, in fact we don't. If the Tories suddenly announced that "We hate the idea of private education", Cameron would not be en route to a big win, because we know that's not what he belives, he just wants to win. Yet, when it comes to religion, because that tetchy thing called 'God' is involved, nobody in a position to make a difference is ballsy enough to point out what a big fucking waste of time it all is. They have now become one of these cheap political parties that will say whatever it takes to get bums on seats, which in turn, means money. The bottom line is...the Church is becoming less popular and they are now just whoring out their beliefs in exchange for money.

If you are a carpenter, and nobody needs carpentry, your business will inevitably close down. If you, as a carpenter, then start selling pizza, then people will still come into your shop. But because the sign says Capenter, this doesn't mean your shop is a successful carpentry business, it's just a place where as long as you sell something, anything that people want, you'll make money. But after ten years of selling pizzas, or computer games, please don't keep running round saying you're a carpenter. Also, not being a chef (or Italian) means that the pizzas will probably also taste like shit. And this, to me, is what the drivel that organised religion spouts out, shit.

However, the Church is onto a winner with this religion lark, because the whole system is based on faith. This is the same 'faith' that has convinced many people to kill themselves through cults because of their 'faith' in God, so it's no big surprise some people will continue to buy into it when you just change a few small rules at a time.

Some call it 'modernisation'.

Reform or die springs to mind.

What Gordon would do for such faith in him at this time.

So all in all, congrats to the future women bishops. Problem for me is not who works in the shop, but what you're selling.

The long kiss goodbye?

English votes for English laws.
.
.

The Conservative and Unionist Party, is proposing, arguably, the fairest reform to wipe its nose on Westminster's democratic hanky since women gained the right to vote.

.

To be honest, I've never really known exactly how I felt about the 'English votes' idea as I'm unsure where and what it will lead to in the fllowing 5-10 years. Negativity towards all things Scottish has long been on the increase south of the border, whether it be politically on the West Lothian Question, Brown's inadequate Scottish Cabinet, or Andy Murray.

.

In the past, any anti-Scottish sentiment from Westminster MPs would have been met with my defensive, "fuck the English, what a bunch of racists, I don't give a hoot what they think cos as long they're angry about something, then I support the 'something'" stance. But now, noting a sense of maturity/old fart-ism about my person, I've started to see what the English have been moaning about.

.

Foundation Hospitals won through because of 'undemocratic outside help'. Scottish MPs won the day for Labour's English policy.

.

Student tuition fees the same.

.

Imagine David Cameron suddenly announcing that his Southern English MPs should be allowed to join in the voting at the Scottish Parliament and we could very well have a war on our hands (and even though the UK Army is directed by Westminster, 90% of the SAS are 'Scotch', so I wouldn't be worrying). We just wouldn't have it. It's just not cricket.

.

But the 'English votes' idea could take a lot of the hostility away. The Barnett Formula will continue to harness most of the racism that's left and thunder on it shall until independence, a Tory government or Scotland gets its oil. But even regardless of constitutional concerns, it is culturally a good idea purely based on harmony. Scotland, like myself, appears to be growing up and having a less childish hatred of the English than it used to. For the first time in goodness knows how long, as a nation we are focusing on 'How do we feel' rather than trying to piss on the English.

.

Arguments that this would create two classes of MPs is one of the most stupid I'll ever hear, as under the current setup, we already have this problem. Scottish MPs can vote on some issues and not have to worry about how if will affect their constituents. Not so for the English.

.

Bottom line, the clincher for me, is that this 'English votes' idea WILL essentially create an English Parliament. And why the hell shouldn't they have one? The main reason though that I'm behind having it as a 'two-tier MP' system within the Westminster setup (as some would call it), is that if they had an actual, separate English Parliament, with it's own House, chambers, staff etc, then this would be a ridiculous, spectacular waste of, what is for now, all of our money.

.

Let's face it, the Dome, Wembley, the Scottish Parliament, the Olympics. Do we really want to entrust another £xxbn to folk who will, undoubtedly fuck it up and waste bucket loads of cash? We can have the same end product (English representatives voting on English matters) for practically no extra cost, no extra national embarrassment.

.

So I'm all for it.

.

And so are, I presume, all independence loving SNP people.

.

Yet again the SNP have impressed me by their not voting on English only issues. They chose to do it not through pressure, not through bargaining, but through integrity. They are there to serve their Scottish constituents and by spending no time in debates/votes/negoiations on English only issues, they devote more time to Scottish stuff. Well done to you.

.

But to me, this proposal will increase the prospect of Independence. It will further the distance between the MPs and their countries by having a constitutional dividing line labelling Scotland and England as separate, which will make the prospect of full independence closer to the status quo of the time, and in turn, less of a big shift, less daunting to the daunted and more achievable to those who desire it.

.

So why are the Conservative and UNIONIST party pushing a less unified style of governance? More and more I think that the Tories are in no way Unionist, they are just 'the unnofficial English Party'. This legislation, though I strongly agree is fair, is also divisive across national lines. The arguments against a Scottish or Welsh Prime Minister when he/she wouldn't be able to vote on their own policy proposals, are too compelling to be swept aside. And if it becomes realistically impossible to become Prime Minister solely because you're Scottish, then there will be more agreeable thoughts behind independence, across all parties. You know, that in the end, some of the more eccentric hardcore Scottish MPs will begin to describe us, in this case, as an oppressed colony of the English with no chance of meaningful power or control...unless we gain independence.

.

The Tories, without knowing it, may have begun to nibble the ear in the long kiss goodbye.

.

They may just wake up in the morning, regretting that kiss going too far, spawning a child they simply didn't want, or plan for - how unConservative of them!

.

...and then there was none.

The Tories under Hague, Howard and Duncan Smith.

The SNP under Swinney.

England under McClaren.

Hearts under Frail.


When you have no talent within your squad, a winner you shall not become.
When your boss has been as successful as dying painfully doing a spot of DIY, you know your ship is sinking in a sea full of shit that's full of sharks who like the taste of weak politicians.

But when that boss has just been chomped down like a stale twix by said sharks, and she really was your only heavy-weight (well, as Scottish Labour MSPs go, compared to anything else, she was), you have to worry if you are a Labour supporter, though you could just switch to the ever-improving Greens or BNP?

Nobody who's being touted for 'the top job' (as one reporter described it!) is anywhere near talented enough. In fact, even of those not being touted, I can't see the skill, the panache, and certainly not the desire for job. It's a sign of how politically suicidal it would be to take on the job that none of the 'younger, fresher, new-directioner' Labour MSP's have been trying to do a Cameron, the new political technique.

To an extent, the Labour leader though, as a post, is insignificant. Over the last ten years, it has been pretty much the same shadow/cabinet political twixes bouncing around with impressive inadequecy, failing to wow us with any of the characteristics they call skill, passion or ability. If a football manager (Jack McConnell) buys a load of crap players (Labour ministers), they will lose.
After losing the League and Cup (they of course didn't qualify for the champions league), if they replace the hapless manager with one of the squad as player-manager, AND KEEP THE SAME SHIT SQUAD OF PLAYERS, THEY...WILL...STILL...LOSE.

What Labour needs is a summer clearout, but we know it won't happen. So the Andy Kerr s and the Margaret Currans at ShitLabour FC won't be effective, because, for too long, they have been part of the problem. Throughout the next few years though, if they all get a shot at the shithotseat, they will slowly all die that slow DIY death, until there is no one left from the old guard, and the new generation (by this time probably calling themselves 'Labour+') will have no choice but to takeover.

But will Labour last long enough to reach this stage? There are so many runt's of the litter within Labour waiting to have a go that unless they realise that it's not the Leader that's killing them, something much, much worse could happen.

A democraticly legitimate Lib Dem opposition. We cannot allow such a thing, so please Labour, sort it out.

---------------------

Have just been watching the Obama/Clinton rally, where they're all chanting "Yes we can!"

Just caught a funny picture in my head of a similar sort of rally, in the Barras, with Margaret Curran on some raised platform leading a chant of "No we can't!"

D'you think she's "on"?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

taking a comfort break

ok, so I haven't exactly been giving the blogging too much of my time recently, and to the seven or eight of you that read it, I apologise, I will be back on it asap.

In the meantime, saw this and thought I'd spread the comedy.

Nothing to do with politics, unless you're an avid writer on "the youth of today", but it made my day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPBW0VvYjTA