In the news today Nigel Farage has labelled Dominic Cummings as untrustworthy and not a "true believer" in Brexit. This is something I find quite interesting. During the run up to the 2016 referendum. When Cummings was leading the Vote Leave campaign in parallel to the Farage led Leave.EU campaign. I remember just assuming that the Vote Leave campaign, with Boris and Gove in tow, was something of a "controlled opposition" type thing.
I should say to contextualise this that a) I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, and b) I wasn't really following the day to day politics back then the way I'm doing now. In fact, I had no idea who Dominic Cummings was at the time and I've only became aware of him retrospectively.
I'm now not so sure what to think, and I'm very sympathetic to the idea that my instincts were completely off. Even at the time it was more just a gut feeling. Never something I fully believed or stated out loud. Or that I had any evidence for it must be said. My suspicions generally just deriving from my vague appraisal of the campaign - the Boris "350m for the NHS" bus just seemed weak to me at the time. It's just not the sort of argument a genuine leaver would naturally make. It looked like a very underwhelming bribe. Then on top of this my general belief that that's just what they would do. It makes sense to control both sides of the argument on such an important issue. It's a fairly standard tactic.
Anyway, like I said, I'm now not sure what to make of it all. I've since watched Dominic Cummings explain the thinking behind the campaign in talks he's given and it makes sense. He's clearly a very intelligent guy. Plus, leave did win after all. So it's another thing where I may have been being unfair. Or simply not appreciating the complexity of the situation. Or just acting on a natural bias, leading me to a faulty opinion.
It'll be fascinating to watch what happens now though. If the Tories and the Brexit Party are unable to work together at any forthcoming general election then that means the vote will be split. Which makes leaving even less likely should it fail to occur before Hallows' Eve.
Will we be seeing two campaigns yet again?
I should really Photoshop up an image of Farage and Cummings in some type of On The Buses situation, but my eyes are still aching from yesterday's Jeremy Corbyn. So I'll leave it
..for now.
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
Corbyn Owns The Rose
Corbyn coming under fire again from Alastair Campbell today. Campbell doesn't want to be in the Labour Party anymore, Corbynites don't want him. He really should just get on with leaving and join the Lib Dems - a Lib Dems that are beginning to look like a cocktail of poison xD It's almost like they're sucking the venom from every other party.
Whether you like Corbyn or not at the end of the day he's definitely in the right party. He's a socialist in a socialist party. Where else are you supposed to go if you have strong socialist values? Again, we might argue the merits of those values, but either way people have the right to have them represented on the ballot paper.
Wanting to replace Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party because he's too socialist is like wanting to replace Nigel Farage as leader of the Brexit party because he's too much of a leaver.
Of course, the biggest scam ever pulled on the British working class is this Labour scam where the likes of Campbell and Blair get to hide behind the veil of "we're the caring party". Getting elected under the socialist ribbon, but secretly operating with a completely different agenda.
Time and time again normal British people have voted Labour - believing they were voting for a socialist party, a party that cared about them, that reflected their values - only to find they ended up with something completely different. War, debt, unfettered globalism, careerism, chicanery, condescension, communist big state for the elites, but cold blunt capitalism in the housing market, for the low paid and for the unemployed.
Now people have finally cottoned on to this scam and they aren't falling for it anymore. Time to take back the party. Time to make the Labour Party the party it says it is on the tin.
For me personally Corbyn and Labour as they stand are far too far to the left for my tastes. Yes, I think they will be bad for the economy, and it is a worry how potentially radical they would be in government. However, no one's forcing me to vote for them. Or to join them. So I can put my vote elsewhere. Plus they're actually being honest about what they stand for. Vote full-on socialism, get full-on socialism.
Ultimately it's now up to the people en masse as to whether they get elected or not. Either way the genuine socialists in the Labour Party have a right to support and promote a party that represents their views. They represent a decent-sized chunk of the population too. Again, a chunk of people entitled to have their views represented at elections. These people, the rank and file, the trade unionists etc are the Labour Party. Globalist liberals like Alastair Campbell don't have a God-given right to continually piggyback off these people.
If you don't like it, leave. It's pretty simple. There are plenty of other parties. If you find socialism so unattractive then why even join the Labour Party in the first place?
..And the wolf in sheep's clothing stuff just doesn't wash with voters anymore.
I think I'm starting to get a bit ranty here so I better stop 😅. I probably should finish with "rant over" like people do on Facebook. I love seeing people do that. It's like they've genuinely expressed a heartfelt opinion, only to then become self-conscious of it when they've finished writing or have read it back. You can usually be certain that anything written before "rant over" is something approximating their true unedited feelings. So I've possibly revealed something of myself in the above. I wonder if this is a predominantly British thing? What with the old "normally reserved" attitude an' all.
Anyway, I was originally just planning to point out that Jeremy Corbyn is the only thing keeping Labour's head above the water in the polls. He has a core of support and those people that support him sincerely like him. Take that away from Labour and there isn't really a great deal of appeal left. Let's be honest Change UK were basically Blairism in trial mode ..and they tanked. Really, really badly too. As per my rant, they really need to mask themselves in the warm glow of socialism to sell that serpentine residue to the poorer half of the British public. They're gonna have to go some now the way it's going.
Perhaps I should be a little kinder in future posts.
(who's hiding in the labour roses?)
Whether you like Corbyn or not at the end of the day he's definitely in the right party. He's a socialist in a socialist party. Where else are you supposed to go if you have strong socialist values? Again, we might argue the merits of those values, but either way people have the right to have them represented on the ballot paper.
Wanting to replace Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party because he's too socialist is like wanting to replace Nigel Farage as leader of the Brexit party because he's too much of a leaver.
Of course, the biggest scam ever pulled on the British working class is this Labour scam where the likes of Campbell and Blair get to hide behind the veil of "we're the caring party". Getting elected under the socialist ribbon, but secretly operating with a completely different agenda.
Time and time again normal British people have voted Labour - believing they were voting for a socialist party, a party that cared about them, that reflected their values - only to find they ended up with something completely different. War, debt, unfettered globalism, careerism, chicanery, condescension, communist big state for the elites, but cold blunt capitalism in the housing market, for the low paid and for the unemployed.
Now people have finally cottoned on to this scam and they aren't falling for it anymore. Time to take back the party. Time to make the Labour Party the party it says it is on the tin.
For me personally Corbyn and Labour as they stand are far too far to the left for my tastes. Yes, I think they will be bad for the economy, and it is a worry how potentially radical they would be in government. However, no one's forcing me to vote for them. Or to join them. So I can put my vote elsewhere. Plus they're actually being honest about what they stand for. Vote full-on socialism, get full-on socialism.
Ultimately it's now up to the people en masse as to whether they get elected or not. Either way the genuine socialists in the Labour Party have a right to support and promote a party that represents their views. They represent a decent-sized chunk of the population too. Again, a chunk of people entitled to have their views represented at elections. These people, the rank and file, the trade unionists etc are the Labour Party. Globalist liberals like Alastair Campbell don't have a God-given right to continually piggyback off these people.
If you don't like it, leave. It's pretty simple. There are plenty of other parties. If you find socialism so unattractive then why even join the Labour Party in the first place?
..And the wolf in sheep's clothing stuff just doesn't wash with voters anymore.
I think I'm starting to get a bit ranty here so I better stop 😅. I probably should finish with "rant over" like people do on Facebook. I love seeing people do that. It's like they've genuinely expressed a heartfelt opinion, only to then become self-conscious of it when they've finished writing or have read it back. You can usually be certain that anything written before "rant over" is something approximating their true unedited feelings. So I've possibly revealed something of myself in the above. I wonder if this is a predominantly British thing? What with the old "normally reserved" attitude an' all.
Anyway, I was originally just planning to point out that Jeremy Corbyn is the only thing keeping Labour's head above the water in the polls. He has a core of support and those people that support him sincerely like him. Take that away from Labour and there isn't really a great deal of appeal left. Let's be honest Change UK were basically Blairism in trial mode ..and they tanked. Really, really badly too. As per my rant, they really need to mask themselves in the warm glow of socialism to sell that serpentine residue to the poorer half of the British public. They're gonna have to go some now the way it's going.
Perhaps I should be a little kinder in future posts.
Monday, July 29, 2019
Poundland Brexit
It's another day that's passed me by somewhat politically. I'm currently listening to Boris Johnson getting booed by protesters in Scotland. It seems like there are always people out protesting for every little thing these days. I'm sure it's essentially now a hobby for many people. It's the modern, and more annoying manifestation of the train spotter in many ways. It's a little day out where people can get some sort of odd satisfaction by doing something repetitive and pointless.
To be fair I'm probably being a bit unfair on trainspotters here, they're generally polite, quiet and harmless. However protesters are often loud, rude and waste a lot of police time and money.
On this blog and elsewhere I keep predicting the decline of the SNP and keep getting it wrong, but still my feeling is that the Scottish people are beginning to get fed up of the inconsistencies in their arguments. Independence, but not really independence as we're staying in and supporting a fully federal EU.
I've also seen today articles about how the pound has continued to fall in value against the dollar because of Brexit uncertainty. I really need to step up and start paying a bit more attention to the major financial aspects of all this. I think it's probably worth keeping an eye on. My instincts are that these speculators and experts on the whole aren't as bright as they're made out to be, but of course I could be wrong on that. After all, I'm a lot poorer than they are.
They seem like horses in a field that are easily spooked. Brexit hasn't happened. It may not happen. "No deal" is still unlikely, and even if there is no deal it might be great for Britain. Yet the fear has been endless. We're now over three years into the Brexit process and haven't left, so the endless flux in the markets "because of Brexit" has been purely based on speculation. How much relation does any of this actually bear to real life and the real world economy?
To be fair I'm probably being a bit unfair on trainspotters here, they're generally polite, quiet and harmless. However protesters are often loud, rude and waste a lot of police time and money.
On this blog and elsewhere I keep predicting the decline of the SNP and keep getting it wrong, but still my feeling is that the Scottish people are beginning to get fed up of the inconsistencies in their arguments. Independence, but not really independence as we're staying in and supporting a fully federal EU.
I've also seen today articles about how the pound has continued to fall in value against the dollar because of Brexit uncertainty. I really need to step up and start paying a bit more attention to the major financial aspects of all this. I think it's probably worth keeping an eye on. My instincts are that these speculators and experts on the whole aren't as bright as they're made out to be, but of course I could be wrong on that. After all, I'm a lot poorer than they are.
They seem like horses in a field that are easily spooked. Brexit hasn't happened. It may not happen. "No deal" is still unlikely, and even if there is no deal it might be great for Britain. Yet the fear has been endless. We're now over three years into the Brexit process and haven't left, so the endless flux in the markets "because of Brexit" has been purely based on speculation. How much relation does any of this actually bear to real life and the real world economy?
Sunday, July 28, 2019
Is Boris Brexit?
I haven't been following politics too much today. I've been watching football and making music. That's not a euphemism, I have actually been making music. So I've been a bit sidetracked.
The main thing I've noticed is the continuing discussions about whether the Brexit Party will form an alliance with the Conservative Party at any forthcoming election. This seems like a pretty obvious route to Brexit should parliament fail to get it delivered. It makes sense. However, just because it makes sense doesn't mean that's what'll happen. So it's anyone's guess at the moment.
Obviously there's doubt as to whether Boris is serious about Brexit.
Is it his main goal and passion, or is it simply a hurdle he sees in front of him?
Apparently (again I haven't really had time to look) the polls are showing an increase in support for the Conservatives now Boris has taken charge. This is what was to be expected really. So it's no real surprise. The question is will it give the Tories a renewed sense of self-confidence and make them feel that they simply don't need the Brexit Party?
Boris has promised a lot of spending, with particular focus on the north. A policy very much copy and pasted from the Brexit Party plans. The cynic in me continues to wonder if the remain establishment will simply throw money at the country in the hope that everyone (or at least marginal voters) can be pacified enough that they just won't be that bothered about Brexit.
This is maybe being too cynical though.
the music..
the music..
Saturday, July 27, 2019
Cummings and McBride
Back to normal after that little advertisement. Yesterday I expressed my fears over Boris Johnson seeming to take a GE off the table. However, I later read some tweets by Damian McBride (former special adviser to Gordon Brown) where he points out that Dominic Cummings (big brain special adviser to Boris) is a devotee of the military strategist Colonel John Boyd. Apparently his "central thesis was to confuse your enemy and do the opposite of what they expect".
(the McBride tweet)
So perhaps a general election is on the cards after all. Maybe we're seeing a complex master-strategy unfold. Everyone will be on their toes now.
My Books - Available on Amazon
A little bit of shameless self-promotion now. I'm just posting here so I can have a little link to my books in the sidebar. They both bear little relation to the stuff I post on this blog, so I'm being a little bit cheeky crowbarring them in here. Still though, if you can't promote yourself on your own blogs where can you do it :)
My recent publication is Civilisation Judas, which I've just published on Amazon in the last week or so. Hence this post.
Kindle Version: Amazon US / Amazon UK
Paperback: Amazon US / Amazon UK
My recent publication is Civilisation Judas, which I've just published on Amazon in the last week or so. Hence this post.
Kindle Version: Amazon US / Amazon UK
Paperback: Amazon US / Amazon UK
(Civilisation Judas, paperback version)
My other book is about red hair of all topics and is titled An Esoteric History of Red Hair.
(An Esoteric History
of Red Hair)
I should mention that both books are essentially available for free on my other blogs. Though there may be a few more spelling and grammar mistakes on those ones (I publish them as 1st drafts on the blogs, then edit them into shape for full publication).
Friday, July 26, 2019
K i c k i n g T h e C a n 2 . 0 ?
Apparently Boris Johnson has just stated that there won't be a general election before we leave the EU on the 31st October. I'm not going to pretend to be a smart arse and act like I know how sensible or likely this is, but I can at least share my gut feeling. Which is, are we getting more fudge and obfuscation?
The current parliament looks very unlikely to just allow a "no deal" to happen. Hopefully Boris can get a new deal or tweak the old one, but even then will parliament support that? The only thing parliament fear is the public, so were I a Brexiteer politician of any stripe I'd be eager for a general election asap.
Of course, it would be great for the establishment if they could just stall until May, 2022 - when the Fixed-term Parliaments Act stipulates the next one should be. It's similar with the EU elections. Once we had people standing for those then it potentially means they'll be there until 2024.
K i c k i n g T h e C a n.
Plus the closer we get to 2022 the easier it will be to wait until then.
Perhaps Boris is just bluffing and is laying a trap where the remainers in parliament will demand their own execution. Likewise putting the blame for any possible general election on Labour and remain. I'm sure many of those politicians would love to sit there until 2022. Hoping the storm will pass. Or that we'll be so far down the route of EU integration that there'll be no way back.
Perhaps Boris also finds it appealing to maximise his time at the helm before he has to go before the public.
As ever I'm very cynical. Maybe that cynicism is massively unfounded. After all he's only been there since Tuesday. Perhaps it's just this heat getting to me.
The current parliament looks very unlikely to just allow a "no deal" to happen. Hopefully Boris can get a new deal or tweak the old one, but even then will parliament support that? The only thing parliament fear is the public, so were I a Brexiteer politician of any stripe I'd be eager for a general election asap.
Of course, it would be great for the establishment if they could just stall until May, 2022 - when the Fixed-term Parliaments Act stipulates the next one should be. It's similar with the EU elections. Once we had people standing for those then it potentially means they'll be there until 2024.
K i c k i n g T h e C a n.
Plus the closer we get to 2022 the easier it will be to wait until then.
Perhaps Boris is just bluffing and is laying a trap where the remainers in parliament will demand their own execution. Likewise putting the blame for any possible general election on Labour and remain. I'm sure many of those politicians would love to sit there until 2022. Hoping the storm will pass. Or that we'll be so far down the route of EU integration that there'll be no way back.
Perhaps Boris also finds it appealing to maximise his time at the helm before he has to go before the public.
As ever I'm very cynical. Maybe that cynicism is massively unfounded. After all he's only been there since Tuesday. Perhaps it's just this heat getting to me.
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Political Heatwave
Too hot, can't write. Must tell future generations how hot it was.
A few days ago I shared this image on Twitter with the caption "hottest day of the year". I think today must surely be surpassing it.
I'm currently just tuning in to Boris Johnson's first prime minister's questions. Seems like everything is moving very fast at the moment. His cabinet announcements yesterday were strikingly purposeful. He really looks like he means business. If it wasn't so ridiculously hot I'd write more.
Listening to him theatrically respond to Jeremy Corbyn in the house at the moment it seems like he was made for the job.
A few days ago I shared this image on Twitter with the caption "hottest day of the year". I think today must surely be surpassing it.
(heatwave)
Listening to him theatrically respond to Jeremy Corbyn in the house at the moment it seems like he was made for the job.
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
May's Day
I'm currently watching Theresa May's final PMQs. Yvette Cooper stood up to raise concerns about Boris, Brexit and national security. To which May replied, with an air of exasperation, that if Cooper was concerned with national security she should have backed her Brexit deal.
This reminded me once again of just how in the centre of all this the prime minister has been. A remainer trying to deliver leave (sincerely I believe). Hardened Brexiteers to one side. Hardened Remainers to the other. An equally idealistic and intransigent EU across the waters. Not many people can say they've taken a middle ground view such as she has.
Like I've said on here before. Despite being a full-on Brexiteer I'd have signed up to her deal had I been in parliament. Obviously that has passed now and we're moving into a different phase, but I fear some may live to regret not backing it. I hope that's not the case and we sail forward to get a good and sensible Brexit deal. Or leave with "no deal" but in a nice orderly fashion.
I remember when the May Deal was first unveiled. Brexiteers like Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage came out condemning it. Likewise Tony Blair came out condemning it. In fact, he seemed quite agitated about it. I remember thinking "if Blair hates this deal we must be leaving". That might be faulty reasoning, but it definitely said something about where we were at the time and what the deal meant to both sides.
We were never going to get a full leave overnight. So I always viewed "officially leaving" as more a symbolic sword in the ground. Marking against future incursions into our sovereignty, and giving us a baseline to start clawing back the powers we've lost.
Of course, that's just my opinion and it may be that many of the popular Brexiteers like Farage & co. simply have a better handle on things than I do. I'm certainly quite far removed from the action. So I'm happy to be wrong, especially if we do get out.
We are over three years in and still not out though as it stands (if that makes sense), and May would've took us out had her deal been passed. So I don't think that anyone can say she failed to offer a way out. She delivered a version of leave, albeit a soft leave, which parliament refused to ratify.
This reminded me once again of just how in the centre of all this the prime minister has been. A remainer trying to deliver leave (sincerely I believe). Hardened Brexiteers to one side. Hardened Remainers to the other. An equally idealistic and intransigent EU across the waters. Not many people can say they've taken a middle ground view such as she has.
Like I've said on here before. Despite being a full-on Brexiteer I'd have signed up to her deal had I been in parliament. Obviously that has passed now and we're moving into a different phase, but I fear some may live to regret not backing it. I hope that's not the case and we sail forward to get a good and sensible Brexit deal. Or leave with "no deal" but in a nice orderly fashion.
I remember when the May Deal was first unveiled. Brexiteers like Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage came out condemning it. Likewise Tony Blair came out condemning it. In fact, he seemed quite agitated about it. I remember thinking "if Blair hates this deal we must be leaving". That might be faulty reasoning, but it definitely said something about where we were at the time and what the deal meant to both sides.
We were never going to get a full leave overnight. So I always viewed "officially leaving" as more a symbolic sword in the ground. Marking against future incursions into our sovereignty, and giving us a baseline to start clawing back the powers we've lost.
Of course, that's just my opinion and it may be that many of the popular Brexiteers like Farage & co. simply have a better handle on things than I do. I'm certainly quite far removed from the action. So I'm happy to be wrong, especially if we do get out.
We are over three years in and still not out though as it stands (if that makes sense), and May would've took us out had her deal been passed. So I don't think that anyone can say she failed to offer a way out. She delivered a version of leave, albeit a soft leave, which parliament refused to ratify.
(Theresa May, arty style)
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Sun's Out and Boris is PM
So Boris is the new PM. It's hard to weigh up the situation, but it kinda feels right. Beautiful day. Red hot. Sun's out. It must be one of the hottest days of the year here in the UK. It's absolutely lilting. So it all fits well.
It must be weird becoming prime minister when it's always been your ambition since you were fifteen years old. That must mess with your head a little bit. It reminds me of when I started a new job to find the girl I'd had a ginormous crush on when I was thirteen was starting on the same day. It felt like fate (sadly it didn't quite work out like that lol). Hopefully it'll go better for Boris.
It's just a case of seeing what his cabinet looks like now. It'll really set the tone for the next few months.
I get a chance to use this image again now too..
It's a bit gloomy though. Perhaps I should do a more summery one.
Much better :)
It must be weird becoming prime minister when it's always been your ambition since you were fifteen years old. That must mess with your head a little bit. It reminds me of when I started a new job to find the girl I'd had a ginormous crush on when I was thirteen was starting on the same day. It felt like fate (sadly it didn't quite work out like that lol). Hopefully it'll go better for Boris.
It's just a case of seeing what his cabinet looks like now. It'll really set the tone for the next few months.
I get a chance to use this image again now too..
It's a bit gloomy though. Perhaps I should do a more summery one.
Much better :)
Boris Crowned Makes Corbyn Kingmaker
Tomorrow we find out who the new Tory leader is. It's pretty much a given that it'll be Boris, but I guess you never know. I'm certainly just taking the word of everyone else. I haven't followed the details, more just the soap opera. In fact, it reminds me that when I regularly started posting on this blog it was to make predictions about the EU elections. I seem to have shifted in tone quite a bit since then, but I guess I may head back in that direction if a general election is on the cards.
I'm basically expecting a general election now assuming Boris wins. It really looks like he just won't have the numbers to command the house. I've heard some talk of the rebels in parliament coming together to form a government of national unity. I'm not sure if that's possible or how that would work. Likewise there's now talk that there could be a remain alliance between Labour and the Lib Dems if there is an election. To counter the possible Brexit Party/Conservative alliance.
So all this stuff really puts Corbyn front and centre. I would guess that he'd be the main obstacle to any such remainer shenanigans. There is talk that they'll get rid of him altogether and put a Tom Watson or Keir Starmer in charge. Again I don't really know how possible or likely that is. It does seem like all sides are now seriously wargaming the future scenarios though. This makes me fearful for the leave side as the remainers are simply much more Machiavellian. Corbyn could be their biggest obstacle, so it'll be fascinating to watch what happens.
Of course, if they ditch Corbyn they also ditch the Corbynite vote, so they're going to have to do some juggling. The Boris/Brexit Party alliance is a much more natural fit. Will the likes of Rees-Mogg be cunning and disloyal enough to truly ditch the remainer Tories though? You get the feeling the remainers on the other side would do it in a blink, but the leavers tend to play everything with a straight bat - "the law says we leave on the 31st, so we must leave on the 31st". The remainers say stuff the law and just engage in realpolitik. It's nice being on the honest team, but it's frustrating to watch the remain side lead the narrative.
They still haven't got rid of Corbyn though have they :)
I'm basically expecting a general election now assuming Boris wins. It really looks like he just won't have the numbers to command the house. I've heard some talk of the rebels in parliament coming together to form a government of national unity. I'm not sure if that's possible or how that would work. Likewise there's now talk that there could be a remain alliance between Labour and the Lib Dems if there is an election. To counter the possible Brexit Party/Conservative alliance.
So all this stuff really puts Corbyn front and centre. I would guess that he'd be the main obstacle to any such remainer shenanigans. There is talk that they'll get rid of him altogether and put a Tom Watson or Keir Starmer in charge. Again I don't really know how possible or likely that is. It does seem like all sides are now seriously wargaming the future scenarios though. This makes me fearful for the leave side as the remainers are simply much more Machiavellian. Corbyn could be their biggest obstacle, so it'll be fascinating to watch what happens.
Of course, if they ditch Corbyn they also ditch the Corbynite vote, so they're going to have to do some juggling. The Boris/Brexit Party alliance is a much more natural fit. Will the likes of Rees-Mogg be cunning and disloyal enough to truly ditch the remainer Tories though? You get the feeling the remainers on the other side would do it in a blink, but the leavers tend to play everything with a straight bat - "the law says we leave on the 31st, so we must leave on the 31st". The remainers say stuff the law and just engage in realpolitik. It's nice being on the honest team, but it's frustrating to watch the remain side lead the narrative.
They still haven't got rid of Corbyn though have they :)
(dreamz)
Sunday, July 21, 2019
Britain and the Free Seas
A little shorty today considering I posted twice yesterday. Just following on from those two really. I've been thinking more about Britain and how our foreign policy should be shaped. Historically we've generally done best when we've stayed away from continental land wars and focused on maintaining free seaways. It's probably a good rule of thumb for today. I very much doubt an actual war against Iran would be in any way productive whichever way you look at it. However, having a strong navy to protect our vessels at sea is essential. So I think that's the way I'd be looking to go were I in charge. Avoid war, but stay strong at sea.
Saturday, July 20, 2019
Iran: History Never Sleeps
A little update to earlier re the Iran tanker issue. I've just watched George Galloway state that essentially the sanctions are only against jet fuel and not crude oil, so therefore the Iranian tanker was detained unlawfully. Or as an act of piracy as he states. In counterpoint I've also just watched Rudy Guiliani advocate for possible action against Iran, calling them a murderous regime. Imploring the UK to join America and also stating that it was unlikely France and Germany would help as they "do business with Iran".
I'm certainly against the idea of war, but apart from that I really don't know what to think. Perhaps they're all just bad hombres.
What's interesting though is that Guiliani popped up in my little googled investigations last night.
After the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979 most major oil companies left Iran and the country (I'm basically copying and pasting Wikipedia here) struggled to sell their oil internationally. However, an Israeli-Swiss businessman called Marc Rich entered Iran with his company Glencore, which was based in Switzerland. He then ignored US and international sanctions on Iran and became the major trader of Iranian oil over the next 15 years. Supposedly the oil bought from Iran was secretly piped and sold to Israel.
The United States found him guilty of sixty-five related offences and he was on the FBI most wanted list until Bill Clinton controversially pardoned him on his last day in office.
See his Wikipedia page for more details; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich
The original indictment against Rich in 1983 was "filed by then-U.S. Federal Prosecutor (and future mayor of New York City) Rudolph Giuliani".
I've always been very suspicious of the overthrow of the Shah. Mainly because the Ayatollah arrived back in Iran (having been in exile in France) on a plane full of journalists. Which just seems very odd and stretches credulity a bit in regard the idea that it was a purely internal revolution.
It also leads one to wonder who really runs Iran. Are they all just mad Mullahs? Or are they rather more business-minded? They certainly seem to have strong ties to China. Who in turn seem to be very cosy to the "Party of Davos" types in the west, as Steve Bannon describes them. Again, it's hard to say who the good guys and who the bad guys are, if indeed there are any good guys at this high level of international politics. Perhaps it's just one big game where both sides are effectively controlled by the same hand. Or maybe it's more akin to gangster rivalries between the various powerful interest groups. Who knows? ..perhaps I can find out at some point.
You kind of get the feeling that we're currently in some vast cold war that the average sheeple are just completely unaware of. Brexit feels simple in comparison. Though no doubt that's all a part of it.
I'm certainly against the idea of war, but apart from that I really don't know what to think. Perhaps they're all just bad hombres.
What's interesting though is that Guiliani popped up in my little googled investigations last night.
After the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979 most major oil companies left Iran and the country (I'm basically copying and pasting Wikipedia here) struggled to sell their oil internationally. However, an Israeli-Swiss businessman called Marc Rich entered Iran with his company Glencore, which was based in Switzerland. He then ignored US and international sanctions on Iran and became the major trader of Iranian oil over the next 15 years. Supposedly the oil bought from Iran was secretly piped and sold to Israel.
The United States found him guilty of sixty-five related offences and he was on the FBI most wanted list until Bill Clinton controversially pardoned him on his last day in office.
See his Wikipedia page for more details; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich
The original indictment against Rich in 1983 was "filed by then-U.S. Federal Prosecutor (and future mayor of New York City) Rudolph Giuliani".
I've always been very suspicious of the overthrow of the Shah. Mainly because the Ayatollah arrived back in Iran (having been in exile in France) on a plane full of journalists. Which just seems very odd and stretches credulity a bit in regard the idea that it was a purely internal revolution.
(Is this what the Glorious Revolution
was like?)
It also leads one to wonder who really runs Iran. Are they all just mad Mullahs? Or are they rather more business-minded? They certainly seem to have strong ties to China. Who in turn seem to be very cosy to the "Party of Davos" types in the west, as Steve Bannon describes them. Again, it's hard to say who the good guys and who the bad guys are, if indeed there are any good guys at this high level of international politics. Perhaps it's just one big game where both sides are effectively controlled by the same hand. Or maybe it's more akin to gangster rivalries between the various powerful interest groups. Who knows? ..perhaps I can find out at some point.
You kind of get the feeling that we're currently in some vast cold war that the average sheeple are just completely unaware of. Brexit feels simple in comparison. Though no doubt that's all a part of it.
Iran Tanker Crisis - I Have No Idea
The big thing at the moment is the Iran tanker crisis. As I've stated on here before I have no real idea what's going on and I think it's difficult to make judgements about things you're so far removed from. These events are all happening far out at sea and are taking place in the murky world of international power politics.
Last night however I did my due diligence and began, belatedly, to try and read as much as I could about the situation and the surrounding factors. I'm still none the wiser in many ways, but I do feel I'm at least edging a little closer to an understanding.
As a Brit I'm very wary of us getting dragged further into conflict. We tend to get a bad rap, we tend to be the very public bad guys. However, I'd really like to know why we're always so front and centre in these things. Why are we enforcing EU sanctions by essentially impounding the Iranian tanker Grace 1?
Where are all the other EU countries on this? The story goes that the Iranian tanker was taking oil to Syria. I'm presuming they were doing this by sailing through the Mediterranean. Is this common for Iranian vessels to be sailing back and forth through the Mediterranean? Are the UK the sole authority when it comes to patrolling these routes?
Again, I have no real idea about such things, but I'd like to know why it's our job to enforce EU sanctions against Syria and why we're consequently facing the backlash from Iran. Iran are portrayed as an isolated pariah state, but it seems they're far from isolated. With strong ties to China and other countries, who in turn seem quite pally with the EU at present. I don't want to get too conspiratorial about all this, but I'm very sceptical that things are entirely as they're portrayed.
Our actions in regard Syria may be in "Britain's interest", but I very much doubt they're in Britain's interest.
Last night however I did my due diligence and began, belatedly, to try and read as much as I could about the situation and the surrounding factors. I'm still none the wiser in many ways, but I do feel I'm at least edging a little closer to an understanding.
As a Brit I'm very wary of us getting dragged further into conflict. We tend to get a bad rap, we tend to be the very public bad guys. However, I'd really like to know why we're always so front and centre in these things. Why are we enforcing EU sanctions by essentially impounding the Iranian tanker Grace 1?
Where are all the other EU countries on this? The story goes that the Iranian tanker was taking oil to Syria. I'm presuming they were doing this by sailing through the Mediterranean. Is this common for Iranian vessels to be sailing back and forth through the Mediterranean? Are the UK the sole authority when it comes to patrolling these routes?
Again, I have no real idea about such things, but I'd like to know why it's our job to enforce EU sanctions against Syria and why we're consequently facing the backlash from Iran. Iran are portrayed as an isolated pariah state, but it seems they're far from isolated. With strong ties to China and other countries, who in turn seem quite pally with the EU at present. I don't want to get too conspiratorial about all this, but I'm very sceptical that things are entirely as they're portrayed.
Our actions in regard Syria may be in "Britain's interest", but I very much doubt they're in Britain's interest.
Friday, July 19, 2019
BBC - Cutting, Cut and Brexiting
I watched three programmes on the BBC last night. First up, the Panorama episode about, you guessed it, Brexit. I actually thought it was okay. Reasonably balanced. Of course, I'm of the general opinion that there's a huge pro-EU bias in the mainstream media, so I'm always expecting a heavy degree of bias now. However, this wasn't actually too bad, and being an avid follower of all things Brexit I naturally enjoyed watching it.
After this I watched a documentary about circumcision on BBC 1 titled A Cut Too Far. As per above, I'm always expecting the worst with mainstream documentaries these days, but this one was surprisingly balanced and considerate. I'm pretty much against circumcision, and being from a secular family of Christian stock it's something that I don't really understand the attraction of (though I do have a close family member who was circumcised for medical reasons, so it's not a completely foreign notion in our family). Anyway, seeing Muslim, Jewish and also Christians from the African tradition express their views on the practice was interesting. It was very well worth watching.
Then finally I watched This Week - the final ever episode. It seems odd that it's ending given how increasingly popular it's been getting. It has a weird blend of incredibly light-hearted satire and serious political discussion. A very enjoyable show to watch. All centred around Andrew Neil's part-poetic, part-comedic introductions and segues.
Some of the scripted feature pieces on the show are truly awful (they excelled themselves in that regard with the Grease satire last night), but they're done in that knowing way where they're self-aware of how awful it is. So it's almost self-satire. Very British in a way. I'm sure they'll try to replace the show with something else similar now, but they won't get the tone right.
After this I watched a documentary about circumcision on BBC 1 titled A Cut Too Far. As per above, I'm always expecting the worst with mainstream documentaries these days, but this one was surprisingly balanced and considerate. I'm pretty much against circumcision, and being from a secular family of Christian stock it's something that I don't really understand the attraction of (though I do have a close family member who was circumcised for medical reasons, so it's not a completely foreign notion in our family). Anyway, seeing Muslim, Jewish and also Christians from the African tradition express their views on the practice was interesting. It was very well worth watching.
Then finally I watched This Week - the final ever episode. It seems odd that it's ending given how increasingly popular it's been getting. It has a weird blend of incredibly light-hearted satire and serious political discussion. A very enjoyable show to watch. All centred around Andrew Neil's part-poetic, part-comedic introductions and segues.
Some of the scripted feature pieces on the show are truly awful (they excelled themselves in that regard with the Grease satire last night), but they're done in that knowing way where they're self-aware of how awful it is. So it's almost self-satire. Very British in a way. I'm sure they'll try to replace the show with something else similar now, but they won't get the tone right.
Thursday, July 18, 2019
General Election Getting Ever Nearer
I've noticed that my posts seem to be a bit more chipper and cheeky when I do them in the evening as opposed to when I do them first thing in the morning. I'm not really much of a morning person so I'm not really that surprised. I might start doing them nightly rather than daily now if that makes sense. Plus you have a day's worth of events to write about. Though then again, saying that, it's probably best to have a bit of a mix really. So I'll probably just continue to do them whenever. Why am I even writing about this. Why are you even reading it?
The big thing today is that parliament has passed an amendment that essentially blocks (or attempts to block) any attempts to prorogue parliament. I think every Labour MP with the exception of Kate Hoey either voted for the amendment or abstained. So they're most definitely a remain party now. You can't leave if you essential say to the EU we'll only leave if you agree to it.
17 Conservative politicians also voted in favour of it. It's now looking ever more likely that we'll see a general election before the end of the year. I'm actually starting to look forward to it. I just hope the British public has good pro-Brexit candidates standing to provide an alternative.
The big thing today is that parliament has passed an amendment that essentially blocks (or attempts to block) any attempts to prorogue parliament. I think every Labour MP with the exception of Kate Hoey either voted for the amendment or abstained. So they're most definitely a remain party now. You can't leave if you essential say to the EU we'll only leave if you agree to it.
17 Conservative politicians also voted in favour of it. It's now looking ever more likely that we'll see a general election before the end of the year. I'm actually starting to look forward to it. I just hope the British public has good pro-Brexit candidates standing to provide an alternative.
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Newsnight Fright Night / HALLOWEEN Brexit
Been staring at a laptop screen far too much today doing other things. My eyes are aching "..must post daily though".
I listened to the final Tory leader hustings just over an hour ago. I must say both seemed like alright blokes. Again, being a Brexiteer I'm hoping it's Boris, then just hoping he delivers. However, they both seemed okay tonight. Neither said anything that particularly irked or offended me.
Also, earlier today I watched Brian Gerrish on the UK Column YouTube channel. I'm never entirely sure what to make of all that stuff, but I always instinctively feel that Gerrish is a thoroughly decent bloke. Anyway he was discussing, among other things, the recent Newsnight piece featuring Rod Liddle (local lad!) and the People's Vote advocate Tom Baldwin. It was quite a heated discussion and felt like a bit of an anti-Brexit hit job by the Beeb - though I guess I would say that. However, what Gerrish pointed out was the bizarre imagery in the Newsnight studio. His take was that it was a bit of subtle subconscious programming used to help nudge along the remain narrative.
I'm not sure what to make of it myself, perhaps just artistic license on the part of the programme makers. It certainly looked very odd and creepy though.
I listened to the final Tory leader hustings just over an hour ago. I must say both seemed like alright blokes. Again, being a Brexiteer I'm hoping it's Boris, then just hoping he delivers. However, they both seemed okay tonight. Neither said anything that particularly irked or offended me.
Also, earlier today I watched Brian Gerrish on the UK Column YouTube channel. I'm never entirely sure what to make of all that stuff, but I always instinctively feel that Gerrish is a thoroughly decent bloke. Anyway he was discussing, among other things, the recent Newsnight piece featuring Rod Liddle (local lad!) and the People's Vote advocate Tom Baldwin. It was quite a heated discussion and felt like a bit of an anti-Brexit hit job by the Beeb - though I guess I would say that. However, what Gerrish pointed out was the bizarre imagery in the Newsnight studio. His take was that it was a bit of subtle subconscious programming used to help nudge along the remain narrative.
I'm not sure what to make of it myself, perhaps just artistic license on the part of the programme makers. It certainly looked very odd and creepy though.
(The Newsnight set backdrop, showing Britain emblazoned with
"remain" on the left, and then what appears to be a chaotic mangled
"leave" version of Britain to its right)
All I can see when I look at it is a man in a peaked cap holding what appears to be a scary face lol. I'm sure it's just some type of odd pareidolia effect. Plus I've been sticking Brexit hats on a lot of images over the last few weeks. So perhaps that has something to do with it.
..Or maybe it's some Freudian window into the troubled soul of the makers of Newsnight, as they grapple with their nightmare of Brexit.
(creepy hat dude highlighted)
Of course, as I've mentioned before on here, Brexit is now scheduled for Halloween (!). So it's all quite fitting in some way. If it's this creepy in the middle of summer Christ knows what it'll be like in the darkness of late Autumn.
Mwah-ha-ha-haaaa...
Sorry, that was a bit cringe wasn't it ;p
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
EU Army or The Beatles ..you choose
I almost forgot to post today. A devastating prospect for my millions and millions of readers.
The big news seems to be that Ursula von der Leyen has been elected president of the EU Commission. She was elected by quite a narrow margin. She's quite an attractive woman, so she'll probably run rings around Boris for that reason alone. It's generally a good tactic though if you're selling a product that people don't want to put a pretty face on the bottle. It's much easier to be rude to a faceless man in a suit, so she might get a fraction more goodwill from EU critics.
She's very big on further European integration too, so it's now very much out in the open that an EU army, etc is on the cards. It's probably quite a good thing that they're being honest and open about it now. Remainers in the UK will be forced to get their head out of the sand and acknowledge that it's all actually heading that way.
The choice that's been presented to us - i.e. the choice between the "status quo" of staying and the change that will come with leaving - now has to be abandoned by remainers. They'll now have to publicly own everything that the EU stands for. No more throwing the label "conspiracy theorist" at everyone who speaks the words "EU army".
I've got a feeling a few more people will be putting on their Brexit hats the way it's going. I think I may have to get mine back on too.
The big news seems to be that Ursula von der Leyen has been elected president of the EU Commission. She was elected by quite a narrow margin. She's quite an attractive woman, so she'll probably run rings around Boris for that reason alone. It's generally a good tactic though if you're selling a product that people don't want to put a pretty face on the bottle. It's much easier to be rude to a faceless man in a suit, so she might get a fraction more goodwill from EU critics.
(Ursula von der Leyen - yes, I think she
looks attractive, don't judge me)
She's very big on further European integration too, so it's now very much out in the open that an EU army, etc is on the cards. It's probably quite a good thing that they're being honest and open about it now. Remainers in the UK will be forced to get their head out of the sand and acknowledge that it's all actually heading that way.
The choice that's been presented to us - i.e. the choice between the "status quo" of staying and the change that will come with leaving - now has to be abandoned by remainers. They'll now have to publicly own everything that the EU stands for. No more throwing the label "conspiracy theorist" at everyone who speaks the words "EU army".
I've got a feeling a few more people will be putting on their Brexit hats the way it's going. I think I may have to get mine back on too.
(..he remembers the Hamburg days with
fondness, but still wants Brexit)
I should say for the record I have no idea what Ringo Starr's current position is on Brexit. Though he did come out in 2017 and say that he wanted Britain to "get on" with it. Stating, "I think it’s a great move I think, you know, to be in control of your country is a good move."
I only have the image on my computer as it was his birthday a few weeks ago and I saw it trending on Twitter, so stuck a hat on him lol. I quite sensibly decided not to share it. I knew it would come in handy someday though.
Monday, July 15, 2019
It Was English Day Yesterday It Seems
I didn't watch the Cricket World Cup final, so I kind of feel like I missed out. I normally don't pay too much attention to cricket, but I can watch it now and again if family members have it on. It's in the snooker/Olympics/American football bracket, well well below the only sport I genuinely care about - football. I was totally oblivious to it all yesterday until I saw it trending. I would have just been jumping on the bandwagon had I tuned in, but still I don't think it's too bad when people suddenly get interested in things they don't generally pay attention to when it's these national communal type events. It's a kind of collective experience. Great moments. So I wish I'd watched really.
The other big thing yesterday was that it looks like the next James Bond will be a black female. Personally I don't really mind either way. I get why people are annoyed about it though, as it seems like we constantly see this type of thing in everything these days. That is - decisions made about art for political reasons rather than artistic ones. There's nothing wrong with a black or female Bond, but if you're just making Bond black or female for the sake of diversity then it'll feel unnatural and forced.
It's similar with the whole gamergate thing. It's not that women and minorities are involved that irks gamers so much, but the fact that games are being designed to meet political demands rather than due to a genuine artistic or gaming impetus.
Example :)
It's like if I designed a game. The characters and scenarios would naturally reflect my own experience of life to some degree. The hero would no doubt be a reflection of myself, as we tend to envision our heroes as idealised versions of ourselves. So being a white male my main character would most probably be someone who looks a bit like me, only better looking, stronger and faster. These artistic biases are generally something of a subconscious thing too, so there's no desire whatever to exclude or malign any other human trait in the process. It's just a natural thing to write from ones own perspective.
Likewise if I was creating a love interest character for my hero they would no doubt reflect my own tastes as a straight male ..so over accentuated female characteristics and, er ...cleavage. I'd like to think I'd be self-aware enough to not go too overboard, but still my ideas of beauty are in part a consequence of my nature. So I'm naturally going to create art that reflects my aesthetic tastes.
Now if on releasing this game people complained that there were no black characters, or Chinese characters, or strong females, etc. Then I could add some more characters for the second edition to fill these omissions. However, I'd then be making not the game I wanted to make, but a game that others were telling me to make. Consequently my heart wouldn't be in it in the same way. Nor would I be focusing purely on the game itself.
On top of this if I tried to add, say a Chinese character, then this character would be crude and stereotypical. As I simply don't have the same in depth experience or understanding of that culture. So it would purely be an inauthentic caricature. It would lack nuance. It would perhaps be different if I had a genuine interest or passion for Chinese culture. However, again, if I had that passion I would naturally make a game reflecting that and wouldn't need to be told to include it.
So all this political correctness in art is just leading to fake and unsatisfying artworks ..or games, or books, or comics, etc.
Like I said, with Bond though I'm not too annoyed or worried. I'm not a mega Bond fan, but the last movie was pretty good. So I'm happy to go with it and see what happens.
The other big thing yesterday was that it looks like the next James Bond will be a black female. Personally I don't really mind either way. I get why people are annoyed about it though, as it seems like we constantly see this type of thing in everything these days. That is - decisions made about art for political reasons rather than artistic ones. There's nothing wrong with a black or female Bond, but if you're just making Bond black or female for the sake of diversity then it'll feel unnatural and forced.
It's similar with the whole gamergate thing. It's not that women and minorities are involved that irks gamers so much, but the fact that games are being designed to meet political demands rather than due to a genuine artistic or gaming impetus.
Example :)
It's like if I designed a game. The characters and scenarios would naturally reflect my own experience of life to some degree. The hero would no doubt be a reflection of myself, as we tend to envision our heroes as idealised versions of ourselves. So being a white male my main character would most probably be someone who looks a bit like me, only better looking, stronger and faster. These artistic biases are generally something of a subconscious thing too, so there's no desire whatever to exclude or malign any other human trait in the process. It's just a natural thing to write from ones own perspective.
Likewise if I was creating a love interest character for my hero they would no doubt reflect my own tastes as a straight male ..so over accentuated female characteristics and, er ...cleavage. I'd like to think I'd be self-aware enough to not go too overboard, but still my ideas of beauty are in part a consequence of my nature. So I'm naturally going to create art that reflects my aesthetic tastes.
Now if on releasing this game people complained that there were no black characters, or Chinese characters, or strong females, etc. Then I could add some more characters for the second edition to fill these omissions. However, I'd then be making not the game I wanted to make, but a game that others were telling me to make. Consequently my heart wouldn't be in it in the same way. Nor would I be focusing purely on the game itself.
On top of this if I tried to add, say a Chinese character, then this character would be crude and stereotypical. As I simply don't have the same in depth experience or understanding of that culture. So it would purely be an inauthentic caricature. It would lack nuance. It would perhaps be different if I had a genuine interest or passion for Chinese culture. However, again, if I had that passion I would naturally make a game reflecting that and wouldn't need to be told to include it.
So all this political correctness in art is just leading to fake and unsatisfying artworks ..or games, or books, or comics, etc.
Like I said, with Bond though I'm not too annoyed or worried. I'm not a mega Bond fan, but the last movie was pretty good. So I'm happy to go with it and see what happens.
Sunday, July 14, 2019
The big fish eat the little fish...
It seems like everyone in politics is threatening libel action or debating what can and can't be published at the moment. This is one of the benefits of having such a low profile and a lack of readership. You can pretty much say whatever you want and no one really cares :)
Personally I think it's always best to avoid the courts as much as possible. The law should never become a political weapon. Of course, it always is to some extent whatever the circumstances. When things get politicised though it always favours those with money, and then even further above that those with their hands on the actual levers of powers. So the little fish always lose out, and the big fish themselves eventually get eaten by those even bigger.
It's a very messy distraction too.
Personally I think it's always best to avoid the courts as much as possible. The law should never become a political weapon. Of course, it always is to some extent whatever the circumstances. When things get politicised though it always favours those with money, and then even further above that those with their hands on the actual levers of powers. So the little fish always lose out, and the big fish themselves eventually get eaten by those even bigger.
It's a very messy distraction too.
Saturday, July 13, 2019
It's Getting Harder By The Day To Support The Brexit Party
I posted not too long ago about the whole Brexit Party turning their backs at the EU parliament thing. I thought that was silly and a bit of a faux pas. It wasn't too unforgivable, but it did sour the milk a little. Now we have another faux pas of sorts. This time a tweet from the Brexit Party MEP Robert Rowland. Where he said, somewhat tongue-in-cheek it must be said, that foreign fishing vessels should be sunk like the Belgrano. The ship famously sunk by Britain during the Falklands conflict.
(The Brexit Party; turning their backs, tweeting
and generally having a good time)
It was a pretty tasteless and unhelpful comment, and the last time I looked it was still up on his Twitter page. So there's been no backtracking or public regret over the statement.
Obviously it again brings into question the character of these people we've sent to the EU parliament. I've helped send (!). It also makes it difficult to win floating voters over to the Brexit Party, or indeed to Brexit altogether. If there was another election would I really be able to convince friends and family members to vote for the party when they're saying and doing things like this? Would I want to?
It really makes you wonder.
Friday, July 12, 2019
Corbyn anti-Semitism, really long tweet...
The other night the Panorama episode aired which highlighted the apparent anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. On the night I tweeted, in response to the multitude of other tweets I was seeing, that most the people calling Corbyn anti-Semitic were doing it out of sheer self-interest. Either to point the finger at others to save themselves, or to simply virtue signal. I still think this is the case for most the media pundits and political figures, but I really need to stop firing off tweets like this, as on reflection I don't think it's the best way to help the situation.
I hadn't even watched the Panorama episode myself at the time of the tweet, however I've since watched it and it seems that the problem really stems from confusing criticism of Israel with hatred of Jewish people.
This is why it's so frustrating watching the media discussion surrounding this issue. We really need impartial observers pointing this out, but everyone who otherwise would be impartial is just dogpiling on top of Corbyn through fear of being labelled anti-Semitic themselves. This is understandable in a way, but definitely not helpful.
People on the far left have a problem with Israel, not because they hate Jewish people, but because they're on the far left. Consequently they tend to see things through the victim/aggressor lens. In this case the Palestinians are the "victim" group, so they naturally support that side. Whereas Israel, along with its allies America and Britain, are the dominant force and therefore the "repressive" bad actors.
It's the same with every other area of conflict. Venezuela for example - people on the far left view Maduro as the good guy, "the victim" so to speak, and the Americans as the bad guy. Likewise on the Northern Ireland issue. People on the left, including Corbyn, tend to see the Irish republicans as the "victims" of British imperialist aggression.
Rightly or wrongly these are political viewpoints, based on political outlooks. They're not racial views, based on racist attitudes. These people aren't siding with Maduro because they racially hate Americans. Nor was Corbyn meeting members of the IRA due to a racial hatred of English genes. By all means criticise these views and call them out, but they're not racist, and they shouldn't be shut down.
By adopting a definition of anti-Semitism that includes and extends to criticism of Israel it not only creates problems, but also amplifies division by stifling real political debate.
Of course, people will point out that there's a fine line between criticism of Israel and criticism of Jewish people in general, and that often such criticism of Israel crosses this line. However, it also needs to be remembered that Jewishness is not just a racial trait, but also a cultural and religious phenomena. Such things can be discussed without it necessarily implying racism on the part of the person discussing it.
It's similar to recent events in Hong Kong. Personally, I'm very sympathetic to the Hong Kong protesters. However, someone may come along and say "Well, you would say that, you're British". Implying that there's a bias on my part because I'm British and Britain used to control Hong Kong. Now that may be the case, it may not be. Either way though people have to be able to point that fact out. It doesn't necessarily mean that they hate all British people, or that they think all British people have the exact same views on Hong Kong. They're just pointing out an obvious connection, and something that may have a bearing on the attitudes people may have towards an issue.
I'd like to think that my views are unbiased and based on pure reason, but at the end of the day I am British, and I am looking at things to some extent from a British perspective. So it's quite reasonable for people to point out that it's possible I could have a bias because of this. It only stands to reason that I may be more stirred to emotion by people waving Union Jacks on the streets of Hong Kong than someone completely unconnected to the situation.
Likewise it stands to reason that someone with Jewish ties is more likely to be moved by the problems facing Israel than someone with no connection. So this is a reasonable thing to talk about as long as it's not done in a hateful way.
In fact, the shutting down of debate is probably doing a lot of harm to Israel. Especially in this age of the Internet where vigorous and frank discussion is the norm. Again, imagine how bad it would look for Britain if we tried to censor people making reference to biases we may have in regard Hong Kong or Northern Ireland. It would make us look even more nefarious than people already think we are.
So I think the anti-Semitism debate is something of a vicious cycle. It would be better if everyone on all sides tried to be a bit more sympathetic to the views of other people. Including me with my spikey tweets :)
I hadn't even watched the Panorama episode myself at the time of the tweet, however I've since watched it and it seems that the problem really stems from confusing criticism of Israel with hatred of Jewish people.
This is why it's so frustrating watching the media discussion surrounding this issue. We really need impartial observers pointing this out, but everyone who otherwise would be impartial is just dogpiling on top of Corbyn through fear of being labelled anti-Semitic themselves. This is understandable in a way, but definitely not helpful.
People on the far left have a problem with Israel, not because they hate Jewish people, but because they're on the far left. Consequently they tend to see things through the victim/aggressor lens. In this case the Palestinians are the "victim" group, so they naturally support that side. Whereas Israel, along with its allies America and Britain, are the dominant force and therefore the "repressive" bad actors.
It's the same with every other area of conflict. Venezuela for example - people on the far left view Maduro as the good guy, "the victim" so to speak, and the Americans as the bad guy. Likewise on the Northern Ireland issue. People on the left, including Corbyn, tend to see the Irish republicans as the "victims" of British imperialist aggression.
Rightly or wrongly these are political viewpoints, based on political outlooks. They're not racial views, based on racist attitudes. These people aren't siding with Maduro because they racially hate Americans. Nor was Corbyn meeting members of the IRA due to a racial hatred of English genes. By all means criticise these views and call them out, but they're not racist, and they shouldn't be shut down.
By adopting a definition of anti-Semitism that includes and extends to criticism of Israel it not only creates problems, but also amplifies division by stifling real political debate.
Of course, people will point out that there's a fine line between criticism of Israel and criticism of Jewish people in general, and that often such criticism of Israel crosses this line. However, it also needs to be remembered that Jewishness is not just a racial trait, but also a cultural and religious phenomena. Such things can be discussed without it necessarily implying racism on the part of the person discussing it.
It's similar to recent events in Hong Kong. Personally, I'm very sympathetic to the Hong Kong protesters. However, someone may come along and say "Well, you would say that, you're British". Implying that there's a bias on my part because I'm British and Britain used to control Hong Kong. Now that may be the case, it may not be. Either way though people have to be able to point that fact out. It doesn't necessarily mean that they hate all British people, or that they think all British people have the exact same views on Hong Kong. They're just pointing out an obvious connection, and something that may have a bearing on the attitudes people may have towards an issue.
I'd like to think that my views are unbiased and based on pure reason, but at the end of the day I am British, and I am looking at things to some extent from a British perspective. So it's quite reasonable for people to point out that it's possible I could have a bias because of this. It only stands to reason that I may be more stirred to emotion by people waving Union Jacks on the streets of Hong Kong than someone completely unconnected to the situation.
Likewise it stands to reason that someone with Jewish ties is more likely to be moved by the problems facing Israel than someone with no connection. So this is a reasonable thing to talk about as long as it's not done in a hateful way.
In fact, the shutting down of debate is probably doing a lot of harm to Israel. Especially in this age of the Internet where vigorous and frank discussion is the norm. Again, imagine how bad it would look for Britain if we tried to censor people making reference to biases we may have in regard Hong Kong or Northern Ireland. It would make us look even more nefarious than people already think we are.
So I think the anti-Semitism debate is something of a vicious cycle. It would be better if everyone on all sides tried to be a bit more sympathetic to the views of other people. Including me with my spikey tweets :)
Thursday, July 11, 2019
Global tensions..
Just a shorty today. It feels like a lot is going on at the moment in the world. I've just seen a headline on the BBC stating Iranian boats 'tried to intercept British tanker'. I have no idea what's going on, but I instinctively feel that the war game is being ratcheted up.
The trouble with things that happen out at high sea is that you essentially just have to take someone's word for it. How can civilians verify what has or hasn't happened? So you're just second guessing people's motives primarily. Low trust world.
The trouble with things that happen out at high sea is that you essentially just have to take someone's word for it. How can civilians verify what has or hasn't happened? So you're just second guessing people's motives primarily. Low trust world.
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
The Left Can't Meme
Been photoshopping today. I can't meme ..fun to try though. I'm just not edgy enough sadly. In fact, I just posted this one on Twitter and someone liked it - "hey, recognition!" I thought 💗. I then clicked the avatar to find it was a remainer who'd liked it lol, not my target audience. This happens quite a lot to me. The left can't meme. So it's a ringing indictment.
(challenge ..name all six figures)
I should really post the original for context. This diagram was published in the Times and shows the network of intrigue surrounding Isabel Oakeshott. The journalist responsible for the scoop that has now finally led to the resignation of the diplomat Sir Kim Darroch.
(the original image)
I find all this interesting as it seems that the remain media are now publishing what can only be described as "conspiracy content". The Guardian journalist Carole Cadwalladr is perhaps the most notable proponent of this type of journalism in the UK currently. It's almost becoming cliché it's that prevalent.
Personally I don't have a huge problem with people pointing out such links. The people in the diagram are linked, and do have common cause and values to some extent. So it's interesting, informative and worthy of note. In fact, I follow all these people on Twitter, so if someone visited my Twitter account and saw this they would probably assume I also shared some of their views ..and in that case they'd be right. I am firmly a Brexiteer. So acknowledging such links, even loose ones, can be useful. However, it's not always an accurate way of judging things, and it's silly to overemphasise such connections.
Evidence of links between people isn't evidence of bad behaviour either. There's nothing wrong with formal or informal networks. We're all connected in groups in one way or another. Six degrees of separation. Nor should one person be deemed guilty merely by having association with another. This is a mistake online conspiracy theorists often make. Finding a photograph of one person shaking hands with another and then jumping to the conclusion that both are part of some nefarious secret cabal.
Amusingly some of the mainstream media content is now almost surpassing online commentators in this regard.
Of course, to complete outsiders, lower down the ladder, such as myself, all the "elites" just look like one big network of mutual interest. So it's hard not to be a conspiracy theorist. The way the globalist remainer class are now seeing conspiracy behind every curtain perhaps suggests that ultimately they're no different to ourselves.
I always thought the accusations of "Russian involvement" were just an outright lie. Now I'm beginning to think these people really believed it.
An Illuminati conspiracy dreamed up and believed by the Illuminati themselves ;)
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
Labour, An Out And Out Remain Party Now?
Yesterday's post was a bit of a Halloween black pill. Today I'll keep it shorter. The thing that seems most apparent is that Labour now seems to be fully behind a new referendum. This seems really dumb. Simply because if Brexit does happen come Halloween then it's not Labour's problem. So why come out with a clear stance now after all this time when there's literally just a few months left. Needlessly alienating voters.
I wonder if they perhaps understand something we don't. So maybe it's a sign that this will drag on well beyond Mischief Night. So the political class can continue to toilet roll the country for many more months and years to come.
The smart thing for Labour to do would be to let the Tories deliver Brexit ..then let them take the blame for any problems that occur. The fact that they're not doing this suggests that many people in the Labour Party really, really want Britain to remain. They seem quite prepared to destroy their party to do this.
I wonder if they perhaps understand something we don't. So maybe it's a sign that this will drag on well beyond Mischief Night. So the political class can continue to toilet roll the country for many more months and years to come.
The smart thing for Labour to do would be to let the Tories deliver Brexit ..then let them take the blame for any problems that occur. The fact that they're not doing this suggests that many people in the Labour Party really, really want Britain to remain. They seem quite prepared to destroy their party to do this.
Monday, July 8, 2019
Halloween Chaos and Remainer Danger
I'm posting after midnight. So technically this one can count as tomorrow's daily post :)
In the Guardian today (yesterday :p) there was an article where Rory Stewart outlines his plans for an alternative parliament, should Boris try to prorogue parliament to push through a "no deal" Brexit.
In the Guardian today (yesterday :p) there was an article where Rory Stewart outlines his plans for an alternative parliament, should Boris try to prorogue parliament to push through a "no deal" Brexit.
(Looking for your perfect partner)
When I thought about this prospect it filled me with some concern. In my last post I was very positive about the state of British politics. In this one I'm expressing a little more pessimism.
In short, I think it could be a very bad idea if Boris attempts to prorogue parliament. Not so much because it's a bad idea in of itself (I've mentioned the pros and cons on here before), but because I think Rory and his friends will cause absolute chaos.
Just looking at the make-up of the parliament as it currently stands. The obstructive SNPs, the vehemently pro-remain Lib Dems, Caroline Lucas (!). A Labour Party that for the most part never misses an opportunity to protest - whether it be against the government or against Corbyn himself. It's like a parliament filled with student protesters.
If they get the chance to protest by forming an "alternative parliament" it'll be like Christmas come early for them. They'll all be in their element. Feeling very special and rebellious, "defending democracy" from the big bad Tories. The fact that a renegade Tory, and a highly charming renegade at that, will be leading this rabble of protesters will only give them the green light even more. Further strengthening their belief that they're causing mayhem in a just cause.
Similar to how leaver Tories, by bad-mouthing the "May deal" so publicly and virulently, gave Labour MPs the perfect excuse to not vote for it themselves when the third reading came round, by which time many leavers had realised it was something of a lesser evil.
Added to this. If Boris prorogues parliament (this is all assuming he wins of course) it will hand the moral high ground over to the remain side. The cry will then come that the government are "suspending democracy". Whether this is technically the case or not will be moot. It will look like a suspension of democracy.
The narrative will then take care of itself. The nasty "fascist" leavers are a threat to democracy. Again, the truth is quite the opposite, but that hasn't stopped the media and their fellow remainers from throwing labels such as fascist so readily at those leading the leave side.
Of course, the rabble of protester MPs, sat in their studenty counter-parliament, will only be the start of it. They'll be joined by the multitude of well-heeled and well-funded remain protesters. Bused in from across the country as they were for the last round of protests.
The coup de grâce will then come when the fake leavers, led by the likes of Tommy Robinson, crash into the capital to amplify the impressions of "fascism". Starting fights and screaming profanities. London will see chaos. If we do leave, we'll leave amidst that chaos.
Alternately the government or PM may see the absolute chaos and simply bottle any attempts to leave. Leading to further perceptions of ineptitude and mishandling.
So .. surely it would be better to avoid all this. The sensible option would be to ditch any idea of proroguing parliament. Accept that this lot we currently have may block any attempts to leave. Accept the delay. Then go to the public in a general election and give the people a chance to get rid of this remain parliament once and for all.
The danger is however that the bravado of stating we'll definitely be leaving on Halloween may make it difficult to step back from the brink. It'll look like giving in. Meaning the two sides will go head to head with neither willing to back down.
Think about it, Halloween, the perfect time for chaos. Cold dark spooky nights. Just five days before Guy Fawkes. Almost movie-like.
(Boris looks out across a London in chaos?)
This is all just speculation of course :) ..but it's worth bearing in mind. The fact that Stewart himself is already considering drafting in an alternative speaker in the form of Betty Boothroyd suggests that he at least is already thinking about the possibilities.
Sunday, July 7, 2019
Controversial opinion..
I'm actually feeling quite positive about politics today. No particular reason, just a general realisation that, actually, things aren't looking as bad as everyone is constantly saying. Yes, big problems, as ever, but I think things are heading in the right direction overall.
Now I'm not hugely confident about either Boris or Hunt as PM, though I would prefer Boris. However, I certainly don't hate either by any stretch of the imagination. They both seem like decent blokes. Likewise I don't fear Corbyn the way many do. Firstly, I think it's highly unlikely he'll ever become PM anyway. Secondly, for all his leftism, I don't think he'd do too much damage in a single term. Certainly not quite as much damage as people are imagining. Sure, you can whack up taxes etc, but you certainly can't just nationalise everything in a few years. That's just not gonna happen whoever is in charge. Plus, the party is so split and out of his control he'd struggle to get anything done anyhow.
The Brexit Party are a force for good, and give British voters another option. Which is a great plus. And the Greens, Lib Dems and SNP - for all the disagreements I have with those parties - are not that bad really. Ultimately they are all for the most part decent people with good intentions.
So democracy in this country is quite healthy really when you step back and take a broader view.
Now I'm not hugely confident about either Boris or Hunt as PM, though I would prefer Boris. However, I certainly don't hate either by any stretch of the imagination. They both seem like decent blokes. Likewise I don't fear Corbyn the way many do. Firstly, I think it's highly unlikely he'll ever become PM anyway. Secondly, for all his leftism, I don't think he'd do too much damage in a single term. Certainly not quite as much damage as people are imagining. Sure, you can whack up taxes etc, but you certainly can't just nationalise everything in a few years. That's just not gonna happen whoever is in charge. Plus, the party is so split and out of his control he'd struggle to get anything done anyhow.
The Brexit Party are a force for good, and give British voters another option. Which is a great plus. And the Greens, Lib Dems and SNP - for all the disagreements I have with those parties - are not that bad really. Ultimately they are all for the most part decent people with good intentions.
So democracy in this country is quite healthy really when you step back and take a broader view.
Saturday, July 6, 2019
"At Least Five Days A Week"
Definitely something to mention today. Easy. In fact, posting on here may save me annoying people on Twitter. Yesterday, the MP Jess Phillips took her child to the steps of Downing Street to complain about schools cutting their hours. Apparently some schools are now dropping lessons on Friday afternoon because of financial constraints.
I don't know if this is true or not, but you'd have thought if this was happening it would be more well known by now. I don't ever recall hearing a normal person complain about this either in real life or on social media. So this political stunt, complete with its well funded campaign (see the slickly designed t-shirt she's wearing), is the first I've heard about it.
A few months ago we had politicians and media figures encouraging children to skip school on a Friday to protest climate change.
Now we have a campaign complaining that children aren't getting access to education on a Friday. Again using children as political props.
Go figure.
As with the Greta Thunberg campaign no one ever seems to ask how these things are funded and organised. Nor how they manage to get mainstream media coverage so readily. The obvious question with Greta Thunberg is how a young girl with Asperger's manages to travel the world of her own accord. Organising protest events and meetings with major politicians along the way.
People just seem to accept it on face value and then proceed to argue about how great/bad she is depending on what side of the argument they find themselves on. Never once questioning the adults that are putting her in that spotlight to begin with.
Similarly with this latest Jess Phillips stunt. People will debate the school funding issue, or the actions of Jess Phillips in general, but will never ask where the impetus for all this is coming from.
Who designed the campaign slogans?
Who printed the t-shirts?
Who runs the various dedicated Twitter accounts?
Why are we only finding out about this now via the mainstream media and not via standard word of mouth?
If Jess Phillips has only just discovered her child's school will be cutting Friday lessons how come she has a very slick campaign ready to roll straight away?
Alternately, if she found out about these cuts much earlier then why hasn't she mentioned them before? She has such a high media profile it's not like she hasn't had the opportunity to raise the issue.
Is it not a little bit odd that one of the 250 schools cutting hours just happens to be one that Jess Phillips has a child going to?
It was only back in May that Jess Phillips was arguing with school protesters who were complaining about sex education being taught to their children. It's odd how there always seems to be funding for things like that. Regardless how much parents do or don't agree with it.
On a side note education is an interesting topic for me, as it's my belief that parents should have much more control over their children's education. Aside from choosing whether or not children take part in sex education classes and the like I also believe that parents should actually be able to choose their child's school hours. The school days and weeks are far too long in my opinion and I believe parents should have the option to lessen the amount of time their child spends at school.
Children would be much happier if they had more time to just be children. Plus parents would be able to opt for a combination of school and home schooling. Rather than the situation we have at the moment where it's either all or nothing. Either you completely remove your child from school and home school them - if you even have that option. Which most people for practical reasons don't. Or you just surrender your child to the full force of the state and to state education.
I say give parents options.
#GiveMe5
When Jess Phillips was interviewed regarding the school cuts she actually said; "the government has a responsibility to be looking after our children for at least five days a week". At least five. Perhaps this was just a slip of the tongue. Either way though it sounds pretty bad, and suggests a desire to have even more state control over children.
The campaign slogan for all this is #GiveMe5 - again quite a slickly contrived piece of promotion, and it appears children, adults and celebrities have all been mobilised to promote this demand at protests and in online videos. The use of children as a political tool is once again highly reminiscent of the climate protests. These people seem to have no concern whatsoever about putting small children front and centre of political campaigns. In fact, the use of the "high five" as a marketing campaign suggests a very deliberate attempt to engage children.
Basic common sense and experience tells us that children generally don't like going to school. Everyone loves a day off. It's a joyous feeling to have that freedom. Even for just an afternoon. So putting these words in the mouths of children is dishonest to say the least in my opinion.
I don't know if this is true or not, but you'd have thought if this was happening it would be more well known by now. I don't ever recall hearing a normal person complain about this either in real life or on social media. So this political stunt, complete with its well funded campaign (see the slickly designed t-shirt she's wearing), is the first I've heard about it.
(Jess Phillips outside No. 10)
A few months ago we had politicians and media figures encouraging children to skip school on a Friday to protest climate change.
Now we have a campaign complaining that children aren't getting access to education on a Friday. Again using children as political props.
Go figure.
As with the Greta Thunberg campaign no one ever seems to ask how these things are funded and organised. Nor how they manage to get mainstream media coverage so readily. The obvious question with Greta Thunberg is how a young girl with Asperger's manages to travel the world of her own accord. Organising protest events and meetings with major politicians along the way.
People just seem to accept it on face value and then proceed to argue about how great/bad she is depending on what side of the argument they find themselves on. Never once questioning the adults that are putting her in that spotlight to begin with.
Similarly with this latest Jess Phillips stunt. People will debate the school funding issue, or the actions of Jess Phillips in general, but will never ask where the impetus for all this is coming from.
Who designed the campaign slogans?
Who printed the t-shirts?
Who runs the various dedicated Twitter accounts?
Why are we only finding out about this now via the mainstream media and not via standard word of mouth?
If Jess Phillips has only just discovered her child's school will be cutting Friday lessons how come she has a very slick campaign ready to roll straight away?
Alternately, if she found out about these cuts much earlier then why hasn't she mentioned them before? She has such a high media profile it's not like she hasn't had the opportunity to raise the issue.
Is it not a little bit odd that one of the 250 schools cutting hours just happens to be one that Jess Phillips has a child going to?
It was only back in May that Jess Phillips was arguing with school protesters who were complaining about sex education being taught to their children. It's odd how there always seems to be funding for things like that. Regardless how much parents do or don't agree with it.
(Jess Phillips arguing with Muslim protesters back in May
- check out the guy in the prototype Brexit hat.)
On a side note education is an interesting topic for me, as it's my belief that parents should have much more control over their children's education. Aside from choosing whether or not children take part in sex education classes and the like I also believe that parents should actually be able to choose their child's school hours. The school days and weeks are far too long in my opinion and I believe parents should have the option to lessen the amount of time their child spends at school.
Children would be much happier if they had more time to just be children. Plus parents would be able to opt for a combination of school and home schooling. Rather than the situation we have at the moment where it's either all or nothing. Either you completely remove your child from school and home school them - if you even have that option. Which most people for practical reasons don't. Or you just surrender your child to the full force of the state and to state education.
I say give parents options.
#GiveMe5
When Jess Phillips was interviewed regarding the school cuts she actually said; "the government has a responsibility to be looking after our children for at least five days a week". At least five. Perhaps this was just a slip of the tongue. Either way though it sounds pretty bad, and suggests a desire to have even more state control over children.
The campaign slogan for all this is #GiveMe5 - again quite a slickly contrived piece of promotion, and it appears children, adults and celebrities have all been mobilised to promote this demand at protests and in online videos. The use of children as a political tool is once again highly reminiscent of the climate protests. These people seem to have no concern whatsoever about putting small children front and centre of political campaigns. In fact, the use of the "high five" as a marketing campaign suggests a very deliberate attempt to engage children.
Basic common sense and experience tells us that children generally don't like going to school. Everyone loves a day off. It's a joyous feeling to have that freedom. Even for just an afternoon. So putting these words in the mouths of children is dishonest to say the least in my opinion.
Friday, July 5, 2019
Americans Do Irony Now
It was 4th of July yesterday, and what struck me most was the banter on Twitter between Anglos and Americans. Good spirited stuff. Mainly tongue-in-cheek, but sometimes descending into genuine debate about who was really to blame for the War of Independence. I think this is one of the biggest changes in America over the last few decades. At least looking at things as an outsider. Americans do irony now. It's like they've rejoined the commonwealth banter family. We can have a bit of craic with them the same way we do with the Irish or the Australians.
I'm guessing it's mainly down to the Internet. That cross-fertilisation that comes from all the instant communication it allows. The Trump election seemed like the first American election where humour played a huge role. Though again, as an outsider, that might just be a perception thing. Satire has always been a part of politics of course, but it does seem that meme war is a whole 'nother level.
A similar thing worth mentioning is perhaps the cultural shift that followed 9/11. It seemed like America, this time in TV and pop culture, opened up to Britain much more following the 9/11 attacks. It felt like all of a sunder Americans were watching British TV shows. Whether it was borrowing British formats like Pop Idol, or actually watching outright British TV like the Office. We even started seeing standard TV personalities such as Gordon Ramsey become famous on that side of the Atlantic. Something truly unthinkable when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s. When all British television just seemed lame in comparison to the glamour and excitement of America.
Even in music, the one realm where Britain perhaps had the edge on America, it was still difficult for UK bands to break the US market.
So I wonder if 9/11 shook American self-confidence, which in turn then led to some unconscious reach for the comfort of the mother culture. Saying that, I was going to mention the show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire as a similar example. However, having looked this reached America pre-9/11. So perhaps it's all just purely coincidental, and I'm just confounding things needlessly. Maybe things were just heading that way in general.
Either way I think it's great to see a re-synthesis of of these divergent cultures.
Happy Traitors' Day ..belatedly.
I'm guessing it's mainly down to the Internet. That cross-fertilisation that comes from all the instant communication it allows. The Trump election seemed like the first American election where humour played a huge role. Though again, as an outsider, that might just be a perception thing. Satire has always been a part of politics of course, but it does seem that meme war is a whole 'nother level.
A similar thing worth mentioning is perhaps the cultural shift that followed 9/11. It seemed like America, this time in TV and pop culture, opened up to Britain much more following the 9/11 attacks. It felt like all of a sunder Americans were watching British TV shows. Whether it was borrowing British formats like Pop Idol, or actually watching outright British TV like the Office. We even started seeing standard TV personalities such as Gordon Ramsey become famous on that side of the Atlantic. Something truly unthinkable when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s. When all British television just seemed lame in comparison to the glamour and excitement of America.
Even in music, the one realm where Britain perhaps had the edge on America, it was still difficult for UK bands to break the US market.
So I wonder if 9/11 shook American self-confidence, which in turn then led to some unconscious reach for the comfort of the mother culture. Saying that, I was going to mention the show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire as a similar example. However, having looked this reached America pre-9/11. So perhaps it's all just purely coincidental, and I'm just confounding things needlessly. Maybe things were just heading that way in general.
Either way I think it's great to see a re-synthesis of of these divergent cultures.
Happy Traitors' Day ..belatedly.
Thursday, July 4, 2019
Ann Widdecombe EU Parliament Speech
Nothing to say today. So why am I posting? Because I'm determined to post daily ..no matter what. Imagine the actual news was like this.
I have just watched Ann Widdecombe's speech at the EU parliament though. Quite a sight to behold. Certainly worth mentioning.
It's really going to be fascinating to watch how things unfold over there going forward.
I have just watched Ann Widdecombe's speech at the EU parliament though. Quite a sight to behold. Certainly worth mentioning.
It's really going to be fascinating to watch how things unfold over there going forward.
Wednesday, July 3, 2019
Civilisation Brexit?
I was a little bit annoyed yesterday. Seeing the Brexit Party MEPs turn their backs on the national anthem was one of those "awwh God why?!" moments. It seems like such a self-defeating move. I'm a little more forgiving today. Having heard the full story it seems at first they refused to stand for the anthem, then when implored, chose to stand but with their backs turned. Still very childish though. Terrible optics too.
With the Liberal Democrats turning up in "Bollocks to Brexit" T-shirts the cynical side of me is now wondering if it's all just a game. A pantomime Punch and Judy show. Used to distract and divert the anger and rage coming from both sides.
Is it possible that all these adult politicians are really so childish?
I was going to copy the cool kids in the Brexit Gang and put a blue hat on my little Twitter avatar, but this has soured it for me. Am I just being dragged along for a fake-outrage ride while all along the real grown-ups behind the scenes are just continuing full steam ahead with their beloved EU project?
Also looking at the wider political picture it does seem to be the case that politicians are throwing an awful lot of money around at the moment. The Brexit Party with their Brexit dividend and all the various Conservative candidates with their promises of more spending.
Perhaps the short term plan is just to buy the voters off in the hope that in a few years time, when things are much better, they won't be so miffed, and will be more willing to embrace globalism in all its centralised glory.
I'm getting very cynical now. I promised myself I'd stay away from conspiracy theories. So for the time being I better put my Brexit cap back on and just hope for the best.
..Sort it out Nigel
With the Liberal Democrats turning up in "Bollocks to Brexit" T-shirts the cynical side of me is now wondering if it's all just a game. A pantomime Punch and Judy show. Used to distract and divert the anger and rage coming from both sides.
Is it possible that all these adult politicians are really so childish?
I was going to copy the cool kids in the Brexit Gang and put a blue hat on my little Twitter avatar, but this has soured it for me. Am I just being dragged along for a fake-outrage ride while all along the real grown-ups behind the scenes are just continuing full steam ahead with their beloved EU project?
Also looking at the wider political picture it does seem to be the case that politicians are throwing an awful lot of money around at the moment. The Brexit Party with their Brexit dividend and all the various Conservative candidates with their promises of more spending.
Perhaps the short term plan is just to buy the voters off in the hope that in a few years time, when things are much better, they won't be so miffed, and will be more willing to embrace globalism in all its centralised glory.
I'm getting very cynical now. I promised myself I'd stay away from conspiracy theories. So for the time being I better put my Brexit cap back on and just hope for the best.
..Sort it out Nigel
Tuesday, July 2, 2019
Brexit - The Cringe Wars
I was going to post about the Brexit Party rally, having now watched it. However, today events at the EU parliament have overshadowed it.
It seems the Liberal Democrats have turned up in "bollocks to Brexit" shirts and then to top it off the Brexit Party MEPs turned their backs when the EU anthem was played.
It's difficult to know which is more embarrassing. Turning your back on a national anthem, whatever the circumstances, is just rude and childish. It's quite frightening that they all seemed to deem it a good idea. Did not a single one of them have the sense to point out a) how rude it would be, and b) how bad it would look?
It's easy fodder for Brexit critics that's for sure.
All they had to do was turn up, act dignified and vote in our interests. They're effectively just placeholders really until Brexit gets resolved. To be fair the writing was on the wall already looking at some of the social media output from Brexit Party MEPs. They're basically going over there and nitpicking every little thing. Like they're on that Channel Four programme Four In A Bed. I'm surprised they haven't complained about finding pubes in the shower or dust on the curtain rails.
It just doesn't feel serious.
It seems the Liberal Democrats have turned up in "bollocks to Brexit" shirts and then to top it off the Brexit Party MEPs turned their backs when the EU anthem was played.
It's difficult to know which is more embarrassing. Turning your back on a national anthem, whatever the circumstances, is just rude and childish. It's quite frightening that they all seemed to deem it a good idea. Did not a single one of them have the sense to point out a) how rude it would be, and b) how bad it would look?
It's easy fodder for Brexit critics that's for sure.
All they had to do was turn up, act dignified and vote in our interests. They're effectively just placeholders really until Brexit gets resolved. To be fair the writing was on the wall already looking at some of the social media output from Brexit Party MEPs. They're basically going over there and nitpicking every little thing. Like they're on that Channel Four programme Four In A Bed. I'm surprised they haven't complained about finding pubes in the shower or dust on the curtain rails.
It just doesn't feel serious.
Monday, July 1, 2019
Rock Stars of Brexit
The Brexit Party had their Big Vision Rally yesterday. I haven't had a chance to watch it or even really catch up that much. However, from what I've seen on Twitter the response seems very positive. Certainly from the base anyway. People putting Brexit hats on their Twitter profile pics. All very exciting. I'll post in more detail and give my thoughts once I've sat down and watched it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)