Thursday, September 02, 2004
No Settling the Precedence Between a Louse and a Flea
This is a blog, and there's an election coming up, so naturally I'm going to discuss politics, right?
Wrong.
Not that I'm against it in principle. It's just that the choice on offer is, frankly, kinda repulsive.
The incumbent[1] is a sleazy warmonger with drunken children[2] who has presided over a recession[3], eroded civil liberties[4] and generally embarrassed his fellow citizens. He has murky ties to dubious business interests[5] and has abused the power of the government to help out the steel industry[6]. Under his administration, the intelligence services have apparently lied the country into war[7]. His economic policy consists of spend, spend, spend and leave office before the bills come due[8].
Meanwhile, the challenger[9] is a corrupt opportunist who will evidently say anything to anyone in the hopes of gaining an increasingly unlikely victory. His flip-flopping position on defence policy[10] has revolted even his nominal supporters, except for the hard core of "impeach the incumbent" wingnuts[11]. Some time ago he was associated with a controversial, extreme position[12] and as a result, is passionately hated by some, despised by many and liked by virtually nobody. To the extent that anyone actually supports him, it is only because he is seen as the man most likely to defeat the incumbent in an election. If he fails to do so, his party will drop him like a hot brick and he will never be heard from again[13].
As you can see from this analysis, British politics is a depressing subject, and I do not intend to blog on it. At least in America, Bush cut taxes...
[1]Tony Blair.
[2]His son Euan Blair was found passed out near Leicester Square after a night out drinking.
[3]A major slowdown in the productive economy has been masked by increased government spending on button-counters. There are now more administrators than nurses in the NHS, apparently.
[4]The Terrorism Act, the proposal to limit trial by jury... pretty much every press release out of Downing Street.
[5]eg Bernie Ecclestone of Formula One. More than one Blairite minister has been accused of taking bribes.
[6]Lakshmi Mittal.
[7]"British intelligence" was cited by George W Bush as a justification of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
[8]Blair, or rather his monkey Gordon Brown, has spent fantastic amounts on hiring deputy-sub-under-administrators.
[9]Michael Howard.
[10]Now opposes the Iraq war, even though he voted for it at the time. Most natural Howard supporters have denounced this policy.
[11]eg The Spectator.
[12]As Home Secretary in the early 1990s, he forced through a Criminal Justice Bill that was seen as amazingly repressive. It was a very big deal when I was a student. Among other things, it eroded the right to remain silent in court.
[13]Which is what the Tory party do to all of their failed leaders.
Wrong.
Not that I'm against it in principle. It's just that the choice on offer is, frankly, kinda repulsive.
The incumbent[1] is a sleazy warmonger with drunken children[2] who has presided over a recession[3], eroded civil liberties[4] and generally embarrassed his fellow citizens. He has murky ties to dubious business interests[5] and has abused the power of the government to help out the steel industry[6]. Under his administration, the intelligence services have apparently lied the country into war[7]. His economic policy consists of spend, spend, spend and leave office before the bills come due[8].
Meanwhile, the challenger[9] is a corrupt opportunist who will evidently say anything to anyone in the hopes of gaining an increasingly unlikely victory. His flip-flopping position on defence policy[10] has revolted even his nominal supporters, except for the hard core of "impeach the incumbent" wingnuts[11]. Some time ago he was associated with a controversial, extreme position[12] and as a result, is passionately hated by some, despised by many and liked by virtually nobody. To the extent that anyone actually supports him, it is only because he is seen as the man most likely to defeat the incumbent in an election. If he fails to do so, his party will drop him like a hot brick and he will never be heard from again[13].
As you can see from this analysis, British politics is a depressing subject, and I do not intend to blog on it. At least in America, Bush cut taxes...
[1]Tony Blair.
[2]His son Euan Blair was found passed out near Leicester Square after a night out drinking.
[3]A major slowdown in the productive economy has been masked by increased government spending on button-counters. There are now more administrators than nurses in the NHS, apparently.
[4]The Terrorism Act, the proposal to limit trial by jury... pretty much every press release out of Downing Street.
[5]eg Bernie Ecclestone of Formula One. More than one Blairite minister has been accused of taking bribes.
[6]Lakshmi Mittal.
[7]"British intelligence" was cited by George W Bush as a justification of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
[8]Blair, or rather his monkey Gordon Brown, has spent fantastic amounts on hiring deputy-sub-under-administrators.
[9]Michael Howard.
[10]Now opposes the Iraq war, even though he voted for it at the time. Most natural Howard supporters have denounced this policy.
[11]eg The Spectator.
[12]As Home Secretary in the early 1990s, he forced through a Criminal Justice Bill that was seen as amazingly repressive. It was a very big deal when I was a student. Among other things, it eroded the right to remain silent in court.
[13]Which is what the Tory party do to all of their failed leaders.
