Love's Labour's Lost

We've all been there or at least cringed, watching it all unfold.

When a relationship is on it's last legs and despite dropping a million of the biggest hints, the poor guy just doesn't get the message.

-

No matter what the poor guy says or does, she automatically says "I hate that shit" or "God just give me some space". Basically, she's trying to dump him and he just won't quit - everyone, EVERYONE knows game's-a-bogey but him. His over-eagerness is sickening to watch, over the top and truly, truly desperate. If it wasn't you doing the dumping, you might even feel sorry for him.

-

One day she says, "God I could really do with some chocolate", the next minute he's back from the shop with those ridiculous £10, 1kg Dairy Milks.

-

She sees a puppy on 'Vets in Practice' and goes "awww!", the next day he buys her a bloody puppy.

-

We've all seen these situations where he's so in her face trying to impress, just not going to let go, still thinks he can make it work cos he knows his life, as he knows it, will be over without her.

Know what I'm talking about? This happened to you?

-

-

Now look at Gordon Brown. Over the past few months big hints have been laid. The world and his dog (or puppy) is watching this and thinking "God bless the poor bugger, he still thinks he can win it round."

-

"Not happy about the 10p tax thing? Don't worry, I'll take out a loan and make it all better.

-

Worried that I'm not aware of your concerns, I'll go on every talk show that'll have me and tell you that "I am listening to you" (talk show/listening - oh the irony!)

-

Not too happy about the housing market and inheritance tax? I'll produce a raft of measures to try and quell your fears, no matter what financial bracket you fall into.

-

Basically, anything at all that you don't like, just send me a nasty headline and I'll lurch, whichever way necessary, left or right, up or down, and I will make it alright.

-

In the cheesy words of that cheesy Friends song, I'll be there for you, my love.

-

Unfortunately Gordon, have you read the lyrics to the first verse of the song?

-

So no one told you life was gonna be this way

Your job's a joke, you're broke, (your love life's D.O.A.)

It's like you're always stuck in second gear

When it hasn't been your day, your week, your month, or even your year

-

Except for the love-life bit, those lyrics are fucking bullseye!

Right on the kisser!

Ka-POW!

-

It's over, but you won't take the hint. The best part is that we never actually agreed to go out with you. You just sort of appeared when the last guy left and just hung around, never took the time to ask "Hey, is this what you want?".

-

And the crushing blow in a situation like this, to a boyfriend who is oblivious to the hints that it just ain't going to happen?...Crewe.

-

-

The events in Crewe tonight are the equivalent of him overhearing her best-mate saying "He just doesn't get it. She doesn't love him, doesn't even like him. Why won't he just leave her alone cos it's never going to happen. Seriously, it's pathetic. Does he not realise how embarrassing this is for him?"

-

At this stage (Crewe or overhearing a best-mate), the penny should drop.

-

"So in short, Gordon, you're a nice enough guy, but you're not the one for me."

-

"I think if we could take a step back and review events to find a way forward..."

-

"Gordon, you will never be the one for me. Never. Ever. Just stop".

-

Will Gordon quit and leave the damsel to a new life? Will she find a new man, maybe a posh man with a dodgy hairdo? Will the puppy end up at Battersea Dogs' Home?

-

Tune in next week...

A note to Calum Cashley

Kezia Dugdale is organising a rally in support of Obama, which so far has support from every political grouping.

The SNP's Calum Cashley seems to have lost the plot over this issue and after reading his irrational post, am beginning to think he has shares in Clinton Inc.

So I write to him here...


Oh Calum.

Where in Kezia's post does it say they are "telling" Americans who to vote for?

"Support" is the word they use regarding Obama and the elections, and all they are planning to do is "rally" in "support".

At no point do I see the words "demand", "tell", "insist", "order". So why has this caused you so much angst? Taking an interest in foreign politics is no bad thing, as you say, but showing support for a candidate in America isn't telling someone what to do, it's taking an interest in what is undeniably a world event.

You probably know this, but just incase you've forgotten...America is the most powerful country in the land. It has a whopping big arsenal. Loads of money - of which, a shed load ends up here in our economy. Yes, a rally in Edinburgh will probably have little or no impact on the election as a whole, but directly or not, the election affects us all.

Would you criticise me for organising a rally against Robert Mugabe's treatment of the people of Zimbabwe, where people are dying, starving and being jailed for actions and rights that you and I take take for granted?

Is it wrong of me, when people are dying, to take an interest in foreign issues?

From this day forth, I never again expect to hear you, ever, make comment on
China's human rights abuses
Darfur
Iraq War
American elections or policy (Iran, credit crunch...)
Zimbabwe
Malawi (...I could go on)

because the moment you choose to "...interfere in the politics of another nation...", you will forever be labelled a hypocrite, wrong, and a "...shallow and insincere politician".

Kezia is doing something she believes in, for a cause which she thinks will have benefits the world over. So from now on, if you disagree, then fine, disagree. But there's nothing wrong with expressing an opinion.

And even though this one rally will have little impact, my vote in the next Scottish election will probably have little or no impact on the final result also, but we all still do it, we do what we can, all in the hope that our little contribution can make a difference.

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

Gaun yersel' Kezia. I think Clinton's gonna get it so it's a shame I can't be there to join you all in support of a better America, but best of luck with it.

Thou shall not steal

The picture says what I think.

He'd better not win it, innit!

I am a big fan of Boris Johnson. Now, obviously, I don't think he's one of the great minds of our generation, not a chance, but he has his own, er, 'qualities'. Politics, parliament and especially the Tories benefit from having Boris Johnson in the world. He gets groups of people (students) who might not previously have taken an interest in politics and elections, involved.

Fair enough, getting involved or taking an interest in politics ideally shouldn't be because you find someone funny, or silly-looking or because you're waiting to see which stupid, offensive and ignorant comment he'll come out with next.

But in my opinion, anyone who, while trying to represent the people of this country (however badly he does it), can increase voter participation and give politics a different, albeit odd, perspective, is a character we want involved in politics.

BUT YOU DON'T WANT SOMEONE LIKE THIS RUNNING THE BIGGEST, MOST INFLUENTIAL AND MOST SENSITIVE CITY IN THE COUNTRY - NAE, THE WORLD! I'M STILL NOT CONVINCED HE COULD RUN A WARM BATH, SO LONDON?

I was talking to a (very posh, very tory) life-long conservative voter mum-of-three from London, who put the London Mayoral election/Boris' candidacy in a great way.

"He's a funny and likeable character, but put it this way, if you got a letter telling you he was going to be the Head Teacher of your kids' school, you'd look to change school." Now I don't think this woman was saying she's now going to move out of London if Big-Bad-Boris gets elected, but she knows he is not the right man to run such a large scale and important operation as that of the London Mayor's office.

In fact, think of any other situation where you would have to place someone in charge. If you owned a company and had to take leave for a year, you wouldn't feel comfortable putting Boris Johnson in charge, would you?

Like the example above, you would certainly worry if he was made Head Teacher, no matter how much training and advice he may receive.

On top of all this, it must be pointed out that Boris has...

NO experience of running a large operation (Ken obviously as Mayor and the GLA, and Paddick as high-flier at the Met).

NO experience of London and what it's like living in London (Govt funded crash pad doesn't count) and the general concersn of Londoners (Tory party 'report on poor people' doesn't count either).

NO experience of any significant political position of responsibility.

NO thought-process between brain and mouth.

I'm not saying Ken Livingstone or Brian Paddick would be a sensation of mayoral wonder, but they've got to be better (and less potentially explosive) than an elected BJ.

My other, most prevailing concern is that London is essentially a wee country of its own and therefore needs to have a massive degree of indepenence and separation from Parliament. Ken, let's face it, is never going to be given his orders from the Labour Party. Brian Paddick has been a card-carrying Lib Dem for about six months. Boris Johnson, being as clueless as he is and would continue to be, would be nothing but an extension of David Cameron's tory party, essentially 'Minister for London', taking all his direction from Central Office/DC, and anyone who's lived in London for any length of time knows that London is too big, too complicated, too diverase and too important to be treated in this way. It needs a Leader and a Boris mayorship would not provide what it needs.

I've got a bad feeling about this

Deep cleaning of hospitals throughout England is supposed to be completed in every hospital by Monday - but alas, what a shock, with every target our government sets, this target's not going to be met.

Now I am not going to sit here and say any cleaning of hospitals is a bad idea, beit "deep" or otherwise. Matters of cost and effectiveness are another matter of course (MRSA/CDiff spread from person to person so all it takes is one person to carry one of these infections and...), but the principle of 'the government wants to give our hospitals a damn good scrubbing' is rather agreeable.

But although I don't dislike the policy, it's the politics that worries me.

Gordon Brown is a stupid man. Ben Bradshaw is even worse, but I'm going to go after GB on this one. Announcing, with typical GB pomp and 'love me' grandeur, that all hospitals are going to get a "deep clean" in order to tackle MRSA and CDiff, was a stupid thing to do. The govt made out that this big gesture-policy was the answer to solving the MRSA/CDiff crisis and by announcing it in such a big way have set themselves up to fail.

Every hospital is getting a deep clean. Does GB, his advisers, anyone of use to him not realise that all it will take is ONE SINGLE case of MRSA or CDiff being contracted by a patient within two weeks of the deep clean before the whole problem comes back to haunt him and then that is the big, new, bad story, where yet again Labour are getting fisted on health?

Then, once a month has gone by, if just one hospital has two, three or four cases in that time, then the government are going to get hammered with front pages of our (ridiculous) media proclaiming - "Deep Clean Fails", "Brown in deep sh*t over deep clean" for the new outbreak sweeping through our hospitals. And we all know that, with these infections being as complicated and infectious and politically poisonous as they are, they're always going to come back to bite.
Really, what do you think the chances are that no one throughout the whole of the NHS system in England in the next few weeks will contract MRSA or CDiff and the media won't pounce on it and pound him so hard with editorials and personalised sob stories that he needs hospitalisation?

As a result, Gordo now has two problems. One, his credibility over yet another big, bold, stupid statement is shafted because the perception he gave, that he was going to rid the NHS of disease, was never possible. While never exactly saying it, he dawned the emperor's new matron's outfit and made it seem like he was going to save the day and eradicate them, but what he's effectively done is taken out a massive loan to pay off his massive debts, on an even bigger interest rate.

Unfortunately, Monday, two weeks, a month from now is payday! (and there's no new loan to take out to put off paying the devil).

As a result, Gordon Brown who took the lead role on this policy, is in for a ruddy good kicking for failure. This is reason #1 why he has played bad politics on this front.

The other is that when this 'new outbreak' breaks, public confidence in the NHS and NHS safety is also shot. The last thing this country and this government needs is another NHS crisis story all over the papers, with the PM now having no clue, no credibility and no frsh ideas that anyone will trust (because he f*cked up his last big play).

It worries me that no one around him thought this through when it should've neen so simple to foresee. It worries me that we can't get all the hospitals cleaned, even when there's easily enough time and the money in place. It worries me that yet again, Gordon Brown, in his attempt to look like he's leading the country, has painted over the cracks when we need pollyfilla, not paint.

It worries me that this policy won't get rid of MRSA and CDiff, we're out a fair few £millions and we're no closer to the end goal.

Most office workers don't...

have lunch, apparently.

I'll be honest, usually I don't have time for lunch but if I do, I have a pack of crisps and a chocolate covered snack. Not healthy, nothing spectacular, but that's what I have.
I also, maybe, have a wee look at the bbc news pages.
Occasionally I flick through a few newspapers as well.
Might even do a sudoku.
Smoke a fag.
Pee.


Gordon Brown freed Nelson Mandela in his lunch break. I'm almost impressed.

Snouts in the trough

Michael Martin's got a wee secret.

I don't know what it is, but we all know he's got one.

Why is he so, so adamant that we don't get a wee sneaky-peak at his financial-expenditure-adventures? Surely he knows, that we know there's something to know. And when it does come out, the press are going to have a great big bloody carnival. The more fervour he throws behind not letting the truth out, the more and more sordid I'm convinced it is (anyone else reckon he used to be Betty Boothroyd and paid for the op through expenses?). But the big problem is that he is not alone and a large number of MPs are keen to avoid publishing these expense lists.

We all know they have there snouts in the trough, to an extent we accept it as part of having people in power - it's what they do and we don't complain - unless they're really taking the piss. But when he has gagged MPs from even talking about the appeal against releasing these details, of course 'on legal grounds', we know whose been a naughty boy. Just how naughty, Mick?