Read this last night and couldn't stop laughing. It's probably a well known story that most of you will have heard before, but for those of you who haven't...
From The Blair Years - The Alastair Campbell Diaries
"Madrid NATO summit...
...There was a bizarre scene during the break, in the Gents. Several leaders, including Clinton, TB, (Romano) Prodi (Prime Minister of Italy), Kok and Khol, were all having a pee in a row of stand-up urinals. Clinton turned around and said 'Isn't this the greatest picture that was never taken?' TB told him the story of the time Churchill moved away from Attlee while they were peeing together. Attlee looked hurt. Churchill explained: 'Every time you see something big you want to nationalise it.' "
Ah, even greats such as Churchill couldn't hold back on a good 'big nob' gag.
Thursday, 17 July 2008
Sunday, 13 July 2008
The knives are out ...pt 2
Oh Gordon Brown. Sending those convicted of committing knife crime to see victims in hospital and to meet families of victims is yet another, stupid, ill-thought-out, wafer-thin reactionary piece of PR desparation from Gordon Brown.
They call it "shock tactics".
Haven't Labour learned that shock tactics don't work? Putting health signs on cigarette packets saying "Smoking causes cancer" or "Fumar obstruye las arterias y provoca cardiopatias y accidentes cerebrovasculares" if you get duty-free fags off your step-gran, didn't have any real impact on smoking figures. Real, physically restricting, truly effective measures such as the smoking ban, which unequivocally altered the smoking habits of almost all smokers, has made a difference.
These knife-crime shock tactics are a fudging waste. How will this make any difference 'on the streets'? It won't. Knife Carrier A is in exactly the same position as before when he steps out the door, where he faces a choice WITHIN HIMSELF, "Should I take my blade?" He's seen pictures on tv, he's seen films which wil make it look much more gruesome than in real-life, so bandaged up and blood-free victims are not going to shock this man.
It kills me to agree with the Lib Dems but here it goes...
Chris Huhne described Ms Smith's plans as "half-baked", and said the government had been in denial about the scale of the knife crime problem...........YUP!
It's like a 4 yr old kid traipsing mud through all the carpeted rooms in the house, then when mum notices, she drags him room to room saying "Look at what you've done!" The kid doesn't understand the concept of cleaning or "nice carpets", he understands the concept of playing football in a mucky field. The kid won't be going to bed, riddled with guilt about how difficult it is to get muck out of cream fabric, cos he's a kid. So gang members won't give a hoot about the causes of what they do because they don't relate to it. You can show them what they've done, but at the end of the day, they're just thinking about their next game of football, not how football leads to messy carpets.
Jacqui Smith says that it was "tougher" than imprisonment to make people "face up to the sorts of implications of young people carrying knives on our streets".
Jacqui, you dizzy fucking cow, these are people who have chosen to plunge a knife into someone else's body, I think they know the implications of 'sharp blade into body - body don't work so good'. When they do that, do you really think they'll give a shit if they see someone recovering from such injuries? Hearing sob stories from victims and families won't affect them, not in the heat of the moment. Tories want to lock them up, no matter what, if they carry a knife...........YUP!
I've also been a long-time fan of the idea of curfews, cos if they aren't out, they ain't going to be stabbing people. A proactive policy which will physically influence the sort of situation activity that knife crime thrives in. Jail, as the Tories say, will also put a limit on their stabbing chances.
But taking them round hospitals? So would you take them on their stabby sightseeing tour before or after they go to prison? Or, with Labour being so weak on crime and puff candy on the causes of crime, would this be their "tougher" alternative. Hmmm, doing three to five years in a cell, or a day out to the hospital to see people I don't care about (cos it's me and people like me that put them there)? Er, I think I'll take the day trip please!
What a fucking non-existent solution to a very real problem. Welcome to New Britain, brought to you by New Labour.
Only when seven people are stabbed in three days do we get any sort of reaction from them, and it's an absolute fudge.
How high the numbers to start saving lives, Gordon?
They call it "shock tactics".
Haven't Labour learned that shock tactics don't work? Putting health signs on cigarette packets saying "Smoking causes cancer" or "Fumar obstruye las arterias y provoca cardiopatias y accidentes cerebrovasculares" if you get duty-free fags off your step-gran, didn't have any real impact on smoking figures. Real, physically restricting, truly effective measures such as the smoking ban, which unequivocally altered the smoking habits of almost all smokers, has made a difference.
These knife-crime shock tactics are a fudging waste. How will this make any difference 'on the streets'? It won't. Knife Carrier A is in exactly the same position as before when he steps out the door, where he faces a choice WITHIN HIMSELF, "Should I take my blade?" He's seen pictures on tv, he's seen films which wil make it look much more gruesome than in real-life, so bandaged up and blood-free victims are not going to shock this man.
It kills me to agree with the Lib Dems but here it goes...
Chris Huhne described Ms Smith's plans as "half-baked", and said the government had been in denial about the scale of the knife crime problem...........YUP!
It's like a 4 yr old kid traipsing mud through all the carpeted rooms in the house, then when mum notices, she drags him room to room saying "Look at what you've done!" The kid doesn't understand the concept of cleaning or "nice carpets", he understands the concept of playing football in a mucky field. The kid won't be going to bed, riddled with guilt about how difficult it is to get muck out of cream fabric, cos he's a kid. So gang members won't give a hoot about the causes of what they do because they don't relate to it. You can show them what they've done, but at the end of the day, they're just thinking about their next game of football, not how football leads to messy carpets.
Jacqui Smith says that it was "tougher" than imprisonment to make people "face up to the sorts of implications of young people carrying knives on our streets".
Jacqui, you dizzy fucking cow, these are people who have chosen to plunge a knife into someone else's body, I think they know the implications of 'sharp blade into body - body don't work so good'. When they do that, do you really think they'll give a shit if they see someone recovering from such injuries? Hearing sob stories from victims and families won't affect them, not in the heat of the moment. Tories want to lock them up, no matter what, if they carry a knife...........YUP!
I've also been a long-time fan of the idea of curfews, cos if they aren't out, they ain't going to be stabbing people. A proactive policy which will physically influence the sort of situation activity that knife crime thrives in. Jail, as the Tories say, will also put a limit on their stabbing chances.
But taking them round hospitals? So would you take them on their stabby sightseeing tour before or after they go to prison? Or, with Labour being so weak on crime and puff candy on the causes of crime, would this be their "tougher" alternative. Hmmm, doing three to five years in a cell, or a day out to the hospital to see people I don't care about (cos it's me and people like me that put them there)? Er, I think I'll take the day trip please!
What a fucking non-existent solution to a very real problem. Welcome to New Britain, brought to you by New Labour.
Only when seven people are stabbed in three days do we get any sort of reaction from them, and it's an absolute fudge.
How high the numbers to start saving lives, Gordon?
The knives are out
I watched the Schools QuestionTime last week and there were two main topics discussed (I don't include the 15 minutes they dedicated to how many courses Gordon Brown had at the G8 meal).
Firstly, and quite obvious as it was in London, they looked at knife crime, especially regarding young people. The other focus was on Iran and nuclear proliferation. The main argument the grown-ups on the panel used on knife crime, which has been the Government's line for many a year, was, as the child-sized Douglas Alexander said...
"Not only is carrying a knife wrong, but you are more likely to make yourself more vulnerable to a crime of violence if you carry a knife"
But if you speak to someone who carries a knife for self-defence, who doesn't feel safe walking home at night, or knows that there is someone out there who is out to get them, they will carry a knife to feel safer.
I don't agree with it, but in this situation you can understand the thinking...
If someone attacks me with a knife, chances are that knife's going to be used to stab or slash me. In turn, if I get stabbed, I've a good chance of dying and little chance of defending myself, especially if that guy has already decided, no matter what, he is going to stab me. If I have a knife, even though I may have to stab him, which I don't want to, it does mean, in this situation (which is the only reason I'm carrying a knife and the only situation in which I'd use one), I have a better chance of seeing my next birthday.
You can see the logic behind that, right?
Well, it dawned on me, this is probably quite similar to how Iran is feeling:
"They've got the bomb, they've got it in for us, so we want the fucking bomb!"
So does the knives argument not also work, at least from Iran's perspective, on the Nuclear bomb issue? Couldn't Iran just say to Britain, India, America, ISRAEL etc, "Put your nuclear weapons away and I won't need one". This is what the politicians don't get when it comes to knife crime, is that it is a self-assurance thing, defintiely to Iran, and undoubtedly to a large number of knife carriers.
If I get into a fight with someone with a knife and don't have one myself, I will invariably lose the fight.
If Iran gets into a fight with Israel or the US, it has NO WAY TO DEFEND ITSELF, and after Iraq and Afghanistan, we can't expect Iran to bow to pressure from these hypocritical Governments.
I don't like knives, and I don't like nuclear bombs.
But in either of these situations, especially against someone who I know, 100% for sure, is out to get me, you can understand why I'd rather have equal weaponry with which to fight my fights.
The problem isn't that I might carry a knife, its that someone else has got one. I'd have no reason for one if it wasn't for 'the other guy'. Iran wouldn't feel like they needed the bomb if Israel, America didn't have one. So let's have a nuclear bomb amnesty, get rid of them all and the problem will disappear.
Somehow, I don't see the world following my idea.
Firstly, and quite obvious as it was in London, they looked at knife crime, especially regarding young people. The other focus was on Iran and nuclear proliferation. The main argument the grown-ups on the panel used on knife crime, which has been the Government's line for many a year, was, as the child-sized Douglas Alexander said...
"Not only is carrying a knife wrong, but you are more likely to make yourself more vulnerable to a crime of violence if you carry a knife"
But if you speak to someone who carries a knife for self-defence, who doesn't feel safe walking home at night, or knows that there is someone out there who is out to get them, they will carry a knife to feel safer.
I don't agree with it, but in this situation you can understand the thinking...
If someone attacks me with a knife, chances are that knife's going to be used to stab or slash me. In turn, if I get stabbed, I've a good chance of dying and little chance of defending myself, especially if that guy has already decided, no matter what, he is going to stab me. If I have a knife, even though I may have to stab him, which I don't want to, it does mean, in this situation (which is the only reason I'm carrying a knife and the only situation in which I'd use one), I have a better chance of seeing my next birthday.
You can see the logic behind that, right?
Well, it dawned on me, this is probably quite similar to how Iran is feeling:
"They've got the bomb, they've got it in for us, so we want the fucking bomb!"
So does the knives argument not also work, at least from Iran's perspective, on the Nuclear bomb issue? Couldn't Iran just say to Britain, India, America, ISRAEL etc, "Put your nuclear weapons away and I won't need one". This is what the politicians don't get when it comes to knife crime, is that it is a self-assurance thing, defintiely to Iran, and undoubtedly to a large number of knife carriers.
If I get into a fight with someone with a knife and don't have one myself, I will invariably lose the fight.
If Iran gets into a fight with Israel or the US, it has NO WAY TO DEFEND ITSELF, and after Iraq and Afghanistan, we can't expect Iran to bow to pressure from these hypocritical Governments.
I don't like knives, and I don't like nuclear bombs.
But in either of these situations, especially against someone who I know, 100% for sure, is out to get me, you can understand why I'd rather have equal weaponry with which to fight my fights.
The problem isn't that I might carry a knife, its that someone else has got one. I'd have no reason for one if it wasn't for 'the other guy'. Iran wouldn't feel like they needed the bomb if Israel, America didn't have one. So let's have a nuclear bomb amnesty, get rid of them all and the problem will disappear.
Somehow, I don't see the world following my idea.
The big debate - Glasgow East
Politics Scotland hosted the first live debate between the 'main four' candidates in the Glasgow East by-election. Now considering the Times and I are in agreement that Labour are rightly worried about losing a chunk of their votes to Granny Maggy's Socialist namesake, Frances Curran, I would have thought she could have got a place in the studio, but alas not.
Anyway, to the debate. Christ alive what a poor calibre of candidate, from all the parties.
Maragaret Curran (Lab)... just wouldn't shut the fuck up. My God, her voice goes through me at the best of times, but when she interupts everyone else, the whole way through the debate, making ridiculous 'the poverty is at the heart of my politics' speeches, she really is not a shining light candidate. As with the majority of senior Labour MSPs, she has that angry chip on her shoulder about not being in power anymore, and I think that Scotland, Glasgow in particular, doesn't need that sort of bitter Labour politics anymore. It certainly won't help the constituents in Glasgow East. And on the topic of standing down as an MSP should she win, or even now, she did nothing but waffle shite, which took me back to her days as a minister.
Davena Rankin (Con)... a more invisible candidate in a debate I never did see. First of all, when she was involved in the debate, she seemed clueless. It seemed like she had been given seven one-line cue-cards to memorise, and that is strictly what she has done and had nothing else to offer. Now the Tories were never going to do anything worth noting in this by-election, but she certainly failed the party spectacularly, a wee bit of homework might have helped her. But the fact that she was only willing to speak when prompted, made it more like there's a three-way debate and a side-show interview (with a side-show candidate).
Ian Robertson (Lib Dem)... first of all, he's a Lib Dem, so was never going to get a standing ovation from Political Dissuasion. But he rarely spoke on issues relating to Glasgow East. He spent the majority of the debate, bitching, condemning Labour and SNP (cos being invisible, he didn't notice the Tory candidate), and just whinging. He offered nothing to any prospective voters to entice them over. More than once he criticsied Labour's leadership in the Scottish Parliament over the last two terms. Firstly, the by-election is for Westminster, and it irks me when they cross the Parlimentary divide to help them try (and in Ian's case, always fail) to score some points. Secondly, the Lib Dems seem to keep on forgetting that they were Labour's partners in crime, they were in coalition...they were the poop, to Labours scoop, hand in hand.
John Mason (SNP)... is just a little weasel of a candidate. There's no secret that I've been pretty impressed with the SNP and building up to this by-election, would have loved it if Labour got spanked, or just narrowly beaten. But with Mason as the candidate, I can't get on board. When he repeatedly goes on and on about Curran being a part-time MP if she won, he is repeatedly asking us to question Alex Salmond's role, which from the party's perspective, is just plain stupid, and from a campaign perspective, is hypocritical which looks like what it is, cheap, News of the World style political sniping, which does nobody any good and just makes you look like a greasy little shite.
So all in all, if I was one of the twelve residents of Glasgow East who might have watched the Politics Scotland debate, and wasn't one of these masochists who, "live or die - I VOTE LABOUR", then I wouldn't know who to vote for. Nobody seems good enough. None of them seemed to want to represent Glasgow East, and while I'm not an idealist who thinks that the candidates' only desire is to benefit these constituents, even a bit of faking it, a bit of compassion towards them may have gone a long way to securing my non-existent vote.
This is a great advert for "I don't like any of them so I'm just not going to vote".
But seeing as I don't believe in such a mindset, I have to pick someone...er......and the winner is...
Frances Curran, Scottish Socialist Party. She's the only one who'd stand up for the area, kick up a fuss and truly represent the people. By god I hate Socialists, so it kills me to say she'd be best, but invariably, she would be.
Anyway, to the debate. Christ alive what a poor calibre of candidate, from all the parties.
Maragaret Curran (Lab)... just wouldn't shut the fuck up. My God, her voice goes through me at the best of times, but when she interupts everyone else, the whole way through the debate, making ridiculous 'the poverty is at the heart of my politics' speeches, she really is not a shining light candidate. As with the majority of senior Labour MSPs, she has that angry chip on her shoulder about not being in power anymore, and I think that Scotland, Glasgow in particular, doesn't need that sort of bitter Labour politics anymore. It certainly won't help the constituents in Glasgow East. And on the topic of standing down as an MSP should she win, or even now, she did nothing but waffle shite, which took me back to her days as a minister.
Davena Rankin (Con)... a more invisible candidate in a debate I never did see. First of all, when she was involved in the debate, she seemed clueless. It seemed like she had been given seven one-line cue-cards to memorise, and that is strictly what she has done and had nothing else to offer. Now the Tories were never going to do anything worth noting in this by-election, but she certainly failed the party spectacularly, a wee bit of homework might have helped her. But the fact that she was only willing to speak when prompted, made it more like there's a three-way debate and a side-show interview (with a side-show candidate).
Ian Robertson (Lib Dem)... first of all, he's a Lib Dem, so was never going to get a standing ovation from Political Dissuasion. But he rarely spoke on issues relating to Glasgow East. He spent the majority of the debate, bitching, condemning Labour and SNP (cos being invisible, he didn't notice the Tory candidate), and just whinging. He offered nothing to any prospective voters to entice them over. More than once he criticsied Labour's leadership in the Scottish Parliament over the last two terms. Firstly, the by-election is for Westminster, and it irks me when they cross the Parlimentary divide to help them try (and in Ian's case, always fail) to score some points. Secondly, the Lib Dems seem to keep on forgetting that they were Labour's partners in crime, they were in coalition...they were the poop, to Labours scoop, hand in hand.
John Mason (SNP)... is just a little weasel of a candidate. There's no secret that I've been pretty impressed with the SNP and building up to this by-election, would have loved it if Labour got spanked, or just narrowly beaten. But with Mason as the candidate, I can't get on board. When he repeatedly goes on and on about Curran being a part-time MP if she won, he is repeatedly asking us to question Alex Salmond's role, which from the party's perspective, is just plain stupid, and from a campaign perspective, is hypocritical which looks like what it is, cheap, News of the World style political sniping, which does nobody any good and just makes you look like a greasy little shite.
So all in all, if I was one of the twelve residents of Glasgow East who might have watched the Politics Scotland debate, and wasn't one of these masochists who, "live or die - I VOTE LABOUR", then I wouldn't know who to vote for. Nobody seems good enough. None of them seemed to want to represent Glasgow East, and while I'm not an idealist who thinks that the candidates' only desire is to benefit these constituents, even a bit of faking it, a bit of compassion towards them may have gone a long way to securing my non-existent vote.
This is a great advert for "I don't like any of them so I'm just not going to vote".
But seeing as I don't believe in such a mindset, I have to pick someone...er......and the winner is...
Frances Curran, Scottish Socialist Party. She's the only one who'd stand up for the area, kick up a fuss and truly represent the people. By god I hate Socialists, so it kills me to say she'd be best, but invariably, she would be.
Wednesday, 9 July 2008
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
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
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
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".
Monday, 7 July 2008
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 (
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
