Possibly, maybe, quite obviously correct

by Will, 6 February 2008

Thank you for your input into the DSTPFW today/tonight — you are a valued customer and will be rewarded with valueless tokens like what you get at the shops with your Nectar card and that.

Have a nice day.

Ya’ll.

And that.

When political parties become electoral machines for the ambitions of others we are lost.

I have tonight told the Labour Party to fuck off — I have left the building, I have vacated their premises, I have annulled our contract. They can fuck off. In fact they can fuck off again and again. Errr and again.

I will now be operating under the influence of drink and drink alone — it works for Hitchens so it will work for me — so fuck off haters.

There is nothing left to do but to spoil your ballot. Spoil it good. Left candidates are maniacs, the mainstream are tossers and maniacs. Brown starts by signaling major breaks with Thatcherism, oops sorry, Blairite reforms and rises to 55% of the polls. Then the advisors get on to him - back comes all the shit in spades and he could now lose an election to a posh cunt, pretending to be something he isn’t (he’s a posh cunt — David Cameron is a posh cunt — so don’t you forget it). David Cameron is a posh cunt. No one wants this. Nobody fucking wants this (except cunts). It is unpopular populism, utterly cynical, amoral and stupid.

You can cash you Nectar tokens in at Harry’s Place — I believe that is where there is a utopian village of net curtains and that — peekaboo!

Comments

Scratch
Wednesday 6 February 2008 at 12:13

Laggard.

All the cool kids fucked it off after the Extra Free Cash for Recently Bereaved Tarquins Act (2007.)
Will
Wednesday 6 February 2008 at 13:04

“NO NAMES, no clues, but I know the mole who found out how Derek Conway diverted hundreds of pounds of public money to his wife and sons.
My friend managed to wangle a few weeks work in the House of Commons’ secretive Fees’ Office. She was convinced that a prominent and strikingly repellent MP was on the take. To her disappointment, he wasn’t, and she decided to look at other MPs instead. She began at “A” and moved down the list of MPs’ alphabetically. Conway’s embezzlement leapt out at her, and she tipped off the press. She carried on scrutinising, but before she could reach the end of the “Cs,” her time in the Fees’ Office was up.
As I listened to her, I realised that if Derek Conway had been called Eric Donway, the story of his lavish corruption would never have broken. And what, I wondered, of all the MPs with surnames from “D” on? Are they engaged in what we can politely call “Spanish practices”?
Well, we know Nicholas and Ann Winterton received £165,000 in Commons expenses for their second home in Westminster even though they had paid off their mortgage. We know that Labour’s Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper used neat footwork to get the public to pay £44,000 a year towards the cost of their mortgage on a second home in Stoke Newington. We also know that when faced with a clamour for reform, Michael Martin, the dreadful Speaker, has filled the committee to examine the proper response a growing scandal with dubious characters. There’s David Maclean, who led the campaign against MPs being scrutinised, Stuart Bell, the Labour MP, whose son Malcolm was jailed for a theft he committed while daddy employed him as a Commons researcher, along with three others on the receiving end of the very accusations of sleaze they are meant to stop.
Above all we know that outside Westminster such behaviour isn’t tolerated for a moment. If a company sends employees to work in another part of Britain or abroad, it will pay for a rented flat or hotel room. It would fire them if it found they had used other people’s money to buy a house and pocket the profit.
Outside Westminster, lots of people are stressed, but they can’t say “my marriage is breaking up, employ partner at once”. Nor can they submit expenses without receipts or expect accusations of fraud to be examined by a packed and morally compromised audit committee.
For better and for worse modern Britain is an open country. We value transparency and accountability above all else and are filled with suspicion when they are absent. Parliament must live up to the same standards everyone must abide by or it will become a despised irrelevance”

http://www.nickcohen.net/?p=297
dirigible
Wednesday 6 February 2008 at 14:33

Weren’t you concerned I’d suffered a head injury or something when it was me comparing Blairism to Thatcherism awhile ago? ;-)

I want an Australian-style “none of the above” option on ballots.
Will
Wednesday 6 February 2008 at 14:36

Things change dirig — straw, camel, back and that.

Dialectics dear boy — dialectics.

“Turning Points”

Now our two sides have a struggle
To see which comes out ahead.
And you’d better pay attention.
You could go from live to dead.

When your water hits its boiling point,
Or a baby’s being born,
When the traffic stops, or a popcorn pops,
Or your clothes get worn and torn,

Everything comes to a turning point
Where the new defeats the old.
When a new day starts, and the old departs,
Springtime ends the winter’s cold.

Changes start out slowly
With one side in command.
That side keeps commanding
For as long as it can.

But keep your eye on the other side;
It may be able to turn the tide.
So things build up to a turning point,
When a big change happens fast–
‘Til an earthquake quakes, a pinata breaks,
Or your day has come, at last.
Will
Wednesday 6 February 2008 at 15:07

http://www.davidosler.com/2008/02/caroline_flint_blaming_the_une.html
DG
Wednesday 6 February 2008 at 19:23

This doesn’t smell right. You waited until 2008 to work out the Labour party is an electorial machine?

[no and that’s not what I said]
DG
Wednesday 6 February 2008 at 19:24

Communism always promoted a strong work ethic; personally I don’t see a great problem with these proposals by Flint.

[we aren’t living in a communist society - we live in a capitalist society - so stop talking out of your hat - and Marxism does not ‘promote’ a strong work ethic - it promotes freedom - the stupid pish utterd by labour party woman is deeply illiberal. Now the footy beckons]

[PS. Stop trolling — you are a HP Sauce piece of vermin — you will henceforth be deleted if you make any other appearance here]
Jez
Wednesday 6 February 2008 at 19:36

I suspect empty posturing that will come to nothing. If someone is in a social housing tenancy, and on benefits, then their rent is almost certainly being paid by Housing Benefit, which is generated by the person being in reciept of unemployment benefits (JSA), so in reality, the procedures to ensure that they are activly seeking work are already in place.

Whether the will exists to enforce this is another matter, but if it isn’t enforced by the job centre, it certainly isn’t going to be enforced by the far more sluggish HB offices, and to actually end a tenancy on the basis that someone is not seeking work would require a major change in the law, which would stand a very strong chance of being rejected the first time it went to appeal. Again, why bother? If you really want to harrass the workshy, the best way to do it is already in place. Like I said, ‘IF’.
Die
Wednesday 6 February 2008 at 20:38

Hitch was on BBC last night, said he’d voted for Edwards on his absentee ballot before he dropped out.

Good man. Lets elect Edwards then.
DG
Wednesday 6 February 2008 at 21:17

Couldn’t you have made those points in the normal way without editing my posts?

What’s the point of having a comments box?

I don’t bite.
DG
Wednesday 6 February 2008 at 21:19

You appear to be saying you’re now fed up with Labour. Are you talking in riddles?
Will
Thursday 7 February 2008 at 0:43

Fucking hell. I can’t even be bothered to delete you. Can’t even muster the strength — seems a bit pointless to bother.
Jon Kay
Thursday 7 February 2008 at 19:47

What I wanna know is why Hitch’s reasons for not liking Obama are so uncharacteristically incoherent. In his anti-Clinton article, he said that he didn’t want to vote for anybody just because they’re firsts, which belies the question of how good they are on their own terms. He answered that question for Clinton anyway, but not for Obama.

In his last article, he said Obama’s inexperienced, and then voted for a less politically aand globally experienced candidate. EDWARDS’ NOT EVEN IN THE RACE ANYMORE.
SnoopyTheGoon
Sunday 10 February 2008 at 7:36

“I will now be operating under the influence of drink and drink alone…”

I see you have been careful to exclude tobacco. Traitors both of ya.