I know I’m getting old, but…

…agreeing with both John Gaunt and Kelvin McKenzie in the same week is a bit worrying.

Populism, huh?

Mumbai bombings

Interesting thread at Pickled Politics. PP will definitely be worth watching over the next day or so.

UPDATE: Further comments at The ToI.

Everthing you need to know about the Ross-Brand faux outrage

Georgina Baillie is interviewed in The Guardian.

Another celeb is “made”. *reaches for the revolver*

the irregular comment of the day

Melanie Phillips, who appears to have gone off her rocker.

This understatement of the year is courtesy of Andrew Sullivan.

Billy no mates

You’ll enjoy this short video of Bush getting the “freeze-out” from his peers on the global stage ::

H/t. Toby (email)

UPDATE: Turns out Bush had meet’d and greet’d the folks prior to this vid.

The BNP leak

For the record.

It will surprise no-one that I’m not on the BNP list. As someone who’s liberal to a fault, I think it’s fair to say that the party is run by a group of hateful fucktards. That said, whoever leaked the list online, should be arrested for incitement to violence – or whatever else the police can pin on them.

One’s politics, however hateful and vindictive, should never be reason for violence. Whoever leaked this list must know of the damage it would do to the people featured on this list – many of whom, I’m sure, are frustrated with British politics, rather than being conscious racists or bigots.

I do hope this story will fizzle out without incident.

But what if the Russians come?

I used to live just outside the sleepy village of Eakring in Nottinghamshire. Indeed I used to play pool in its tiny Pub. So imagine my delight when the minutes of the Earking Annual Parish Council meeting made it onto the BBC Radio 4’s comedy show, The News Quiz ::

Any Other Business

1. Tree cutting on Back Lane was discussed. The following things arose from this:

a) It would be a good idea to suggest to the landowner the planting of some replacement trees.

b) Parish Councillors are advised to report things to the Clerk for onward transmission to the relevant authority rather than contact parishioners direct.

c) Parish Councillors and parishioners need refreshing on what constitutes a ‘tree’ and what is permitted work. Clerk to write to Mr Catchpole for a definition.

d) Clerk to report the tree cutting to Mr Catchpole at NSDC.

2. The issue of the ancient drains in the village was raised.
3. A parishioner has raised the question of the PC’s use of the Eakring Echo and its sponsorship.
4. Another parishioner wished to know if the problems with the telephone directories have been solved yet.
5. Mr Neale said a parishioner had drawn his attention to overhanging foliage on the pavement on Main Street between Wellow Road junction and the Old School. Clerk to contact Highways Dept.
6. The missile launcher parked at a property on Kirklington Road has caused comments from a number of parishioners about unauthorised access of a vehicle to a property and causing damage to the road surface. Clerk to contact Highways Dept.

It’s a strange world.

Dangerous populism

The inconsistency of Mr. Gaunt

On the 3rd of this month I wrote about how “Jon Gaunt is the most appalling hypocrite”. I pointed out that even though Gaunty had spent years railing against New Labour’s “nanny state”, his own moral politics demand even greater state control over our lives.

In this week’s column, Gaunt’s confused and duplicitous idea of state intervention was evident, as he tackles the tricky subject of Baby P – a story that has dominated the news cycle ::

A child needs a mum and a dad if possible.

[…]

The doctrine of always trying to keep the “family” together is garbage.

Jon walks his carefully constructed nuance with the words “if possible” and “always”. He carefully checks the box marked “golden rule of rightwing social populism: the traditional family unit is best”, and qualifies it by claiming that in fact this premise is “garbage”. So which is it, Jon?

Also, this “doctrine” you speak of?

Social services remove children from their unfit parents all the time, usually to the righteous indignation of rightwing populists like as Gaunt. That the nuclear family is best, and that social services merely meddle in people’s lives, has always been The Sun’s default position.

Never has there been a doctrine of keeping kids with abusive parents. As one of our writers wrote this week, working in the Social Services is a thankless career. You’re criticised for interfering in family life, yet you’re crucified in the national press if you’re too cautious in breaking up a family and a case turns into a criminal one.

Indeed, without even the slightest awareness of his own inconsistency, Gaunt for the second time in as many columns, refers to the Social Services (who he’s arguing weren’t strict or interventionist enough) as the “SS” – unsubtly comparing the department to Hitler’s Schutzstaffel (this was also, no doubt, a little dig at his current personal woes).

You can’t, in all seriousness, allude to the SS and then accuse the Social Service system of being wishy washy.

Now Jon Gaunt grew up in the care system. So he should be forgiven for having a complex view of the role of social services in our lives – but let’s be frank, a careful and informed opinion hardly fits Gaunt’s bombastic populism, does it?

This is the problem with this brand of lazy commentary: Gaunt and others are allowed to flit between attacking the nanny state for its social excess and demanding that heads roll when they’re accused of not interfering enough.

Commentators never adhere to the same consistency they demand from politicians: a blatant disregard for the privileged position they hold in our society.

Bringing politics into the debate

Also in the same column; Jon Gaunt condemns Gordon Brown for accusing David Cameron of trying to score political points, during a PMQ session that featured a heated exchange over failures in the case of Baby P.

There was no party politics. But Labour have been playing at social engineering for the past 11 years. I believe the ultimate responsibility lies with them and the Guardianistas that they have created in every section of public life.

So in the very same paragraph where he argues that Cameron wasn’t attempting to bring party politics into the debate, Gaunt launches into a partisan tirade against who he blames for the baby’s death.

Hypocrisy? Gaunty? Never!

So it’s not with the abusive mother and boyfriend, where the “the ultimate responsibility lies”, or indeed the Haringey social services, but with the government and those loathsome Guardian readers [meme alert!].

Of course everyone directly involved in Baby P’s case must be sacked.

How very big of you Jon. Without knowing the outcome of either the police or government investigations, Lord Gaunty feels qualified to demand the immediate termination of everyone involved.

Is this not lynch mob journalism at its very worst?

Originally written for The Sun – Tabloid Lies.

Meltdown at PMQs

So yesterday there was a rather distasteful kafuffle at PMQ’s over the political fallout over the sad story of Baby P.

I just said over at Justin’s that this is a case of shame on both their houses. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder…

Cameron must be getting pissed off with Brown’s constant and blunt refusal to answer a straight question. And it is the duty of the LOHMLO to hold the government to account. I can understand if Cameron becomes annoyed if the PM continues to belittle his questioning by his avoidance techniques, but then Cameron should have risen above the fray once it was clear Brown wasn’t going to retract the accusation of playing party politics.

Had he made his feelings clear and moved on, he would have been the Statesman to Brown’s partisan beast.

In truth Cameron probably did see capital in this line of question. It’s in his nature. Anyone who watches Cameron closely could say he is anything more than a political animal. He’s never convinced me of any hidden intellectual or ideological vigour. He’s a careerist and a prominently placed spin-doctor.

That said, Brown was a fool to challenge Cameron – as the questioning itself didn’t provide clear political malice. It was a reasonable line of questioning (even if it was probably tinged with a deliberate intent to show Labour in a bad light – not that this is necessarily a bad thing, as Labour do have serious questions to answer).

Had he any real class though, Cameron would have called Brown on his slur, and moved on. We don’t pay Cameron to be overly sensitive.

For a brilliant analysis of a terrible day for Westminster, try Septicisle’s article at LC. (update) I did start reading the comments on Iain’s predictably hyperbolic outrage post, but really many of these people are so partisan and reactionary, it’s a waste of my time. I think Iain is a very talented writer and I can’t say I dislike the guy, but his penchant for exaggerated outrage is tiresome. I really wish he could return to his more independent musing.

Neither of two party leaders excelled yesterday.

P.J. to the rescue…

This is the most honest and best articulation of the GOP defeat I have read…

…no surprise it’s from P.J. O’Rourke.

Money quote ::

Our impeachment of President Clinton was another example of placing the wrong political emphasis on personal matters. We impeached Clinton for lying to the government. To our surprise the electorate gave us cold comfort. Lying to the government: It’s called April 15th. And we accused Clinton of lying about sex, which all men spend their lives doing, starting at 15 bragging about things we haven’t done yet, then on to fibbing about things we are doing, and winding up with prevarications about things we no longer can do.

etc. etc. It’s all brilliant.

Pure class. If conservatism were indeed such, I’d call myself a conservative.