My computer game consumption is very limited indeed. I'm not into the first person shooters where one runs around a virtual Afghanistan with a load of people online, they just don't do it for me. Racing games interest me for about five minutes but then lose their appeal, likewise football games in the mould of FIFA and PES, I just get bored of them.
I return time after time after time to Football Manager, the depth of the game and the almost endless scenarios and variables keep me hooked, it truly is a masterpiece. The Civilization series is also wonderful, the idea of founding a nation in the stone age and progressing it to the near future, with a simple research system, diplomacy, espionage and war is brilliant.
Beyond these two, I don't really play anything else.
The other day I downloaded a game called Rulers of Nations, which is by a small developer from France , it bills itself as a 'geo-political simulator', and it is proving to be very interesting. At the basic level the premise is that you take over the reigns of any of 165 nations and run the country. I've only had a little time to tinker about with it, in parts I'm almost overwhelmed by the detail of the game, the international trade section is really quite complex. In other parts I'm a little frustrated by the lack of detail in some areas, social policy and income tax for example are a little blunt for my liking.
The real problem I've had is that my desire to effect massive changes, especially when I possess the body of Cameron (although the picture is obviously him, all the politicans have fake names), leads to massive unrest, it would appear that change in this game has to be gradual, almost as if you are creeping up on your goals without anyone noticing. In my first game as PM of Great Britain I lasted about 6 weeks until the cabinet resigned pretty much en masse and I faced a vote of no confidence in the House.
Of course, it could be that game is skewed to the statist agenda and that the only way of running a country, as far as the game is concerned, is to run it in a mirror image of France. If that is the case, then I'm wasting my time.
One thing that was hugely entertaining was taking over in Pyongyang, only for the army to come knocking on the door and saying 'you're coming with us, pal' when I tried to bring in a free press. . .
Showing posts with label disaster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disaster. Show all posts
Thursday, 25 November 2010
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
The One That Wants To Time Travel . . .
What a country has been built over the last thirteen years. When I think back to those first few months of the Labour administration in 1997, I think of the hope that coursed through the veins of the British public, the great and good (and Oasis) queuing up to shake the hand of Blair.
Good God, how did he do it? How did he get them to file into his house like star-struck teenage autograph hunters? Say what you like about Blair, but man, his PR was good in those days.
In 1997 it was going to be different this time. The old remnants of a divided, corrupt and arrogant Conservative party had been swept away, replaced by a shining new Labour party, shorn of the old hateful, envious, nationalising mania of the past; waiting to carry us in to this glorious new Jerusalem to the sounds of masses cheering, screaming guitars and hip dance music.
Truth be told, the Tories really haven’t changed over this last decade, they dress in a more modern fashion, they’ve learned how to present and have dulled that edge which many found so objectionable, but the PR transformation is nowhere near that of Labour in the mid 90’s.
We now look at a Labour government which is just as divided as the Tories ever were under Major, and as far as my memory serves me are more corrupt and light years ahead in the arrogance stakes. That those Tories had to be kicked out in 1997 is without doubt. That a good many people called warnings from the sidelines is well remembered. Did anyone, even New Labour’s most venomous critics, expect what we have now?
The vista of British society and community is as devastated, as unrecognisable as the Haitian capital. If you had shown a picture of today’s Britain to everyone’s thirteen years younger selves in 1997, what would their response have been?
How would they have reacted to see legions losing their lives to infections in hospital? They would have heard of nothing like it since the charnel houses of the Peninsular campaign.
How would they have responded to being told that they would have no choice but to be electronically stripped searched before heading off on their holidays?
How would they have accepted the notion of a government that declared a legally questionable war, especially when the threat to our security was almost nil?
What would they have said upon hearing about real suspicion falling on the government following the death of one of its prime experts in suspicious circumstances, especially when they then decided to bury the records for 70 years, after having him thoroughly smeared and discredited?
How would they have felt upon learning that they would face a good chance of arrest, or at least questioning, for taking pictures of famous landmarks, and being suspected of terrorism by a politicised police force?
What would they have thought about the pandering to the professionally offended, or at least those who quake in their boots at the prospect, to the extent that jobs cannot be advertised with a request for reliable and hard working people?
How would they come to terms with a government that illegally imprisons people in their own houses, freezing their assets and allowing them £10 a week to live, because it is suspected they may be involved in terrorism, whilst the convicted are released early and an increasing underclass can claim the monthly average wage in handouts and are penalised even if they do want to work?
How could they have understood that in a democracy, you would have had to apply for permission from the authorities to hold a demonstration outside parliament?
How would they have stared with incompetence when they learned that they had been lied to over getting a say in the signing away of our sovereignty?
How could they deal with the fact that the lowest earners had seen their tax burden sky-rocket whilst the country attracted more debt than had ever been conceivable?
The list could go on, when you look over this government’s achievements you see nothing but failure, deceit, vanity, hubris and the almost complete humiliation of those who elected them.
It will be different this time, there will be no cheering crowds, no film and pop stars waiting patiently in line to be seen pressing the flesh, no glorious new Jerusalem; there will be the knowledge that there will be no change, and a flinty look in the eye of the electorate waiting for the Tories to show themselves to be as feckless, reckless and thoughtless as Labour, and for an opportunity to remove them from power as soon as possible.
Let’s see how the ‘others’ column does over the next five years. Democracy is not dead in Britain, it is just being born.
Update:
A very interesting item over at Captain Ranty's place, not a million miles removed from my ramblings.
Good God, how did he do it? How did he get them to file into his house like star-struck teenage autograph hunters? Say what you like about Blair, but man, his PR was good in those days.
In 1997 it was going to be different this time. The old remnants of a divided, corrupt and arrogant Conservative party had been swept away, replaced by a shining new Labour party, shorn of the old hateful, envious, nationalising mania of the past; waiting to carry us in to this glorious new Jerusalem to the sounds of masses cheering, screaming guitars and hip dance music.
Truth be told, the Tories really haven’t changed over this last decade, they dress in a more modern fashion, they’ve learned how to present and have dulled that edge which many found so objectionable, but the PR transformation is nowhere near that of Labour in the mid 90’s.
We now look at a Labour government which is just as divided as the Tories ever were under Major, and as far as my memory serves me are more corrupt and light years ahead in the arrogance stakes. That those Tories had to be kicked out in 1997 is without doubt. That a good many people called warnings from the sidelines is well remembered. Did anyone, even New Labour’s most venomous critics, expect what we have now?
The vista of British society and community is as devastated, as unrecognisable as the Haitian capital. If you had shown a picture of today’s Britain to everyone’s thirteen years younger selves in 1997, what would their response have been?
How would they have reacted to see legions losing their lives to infections in hospital? They would have heard of nothing like it since the charnel houses of the Peninsular campaign.
How would they have responded to being told that they would have no choice but to be electronically stripped searched before heading off on their holidays?
How would they have accepted the notion of a government that declared a legally questionable war, especially when the threat to our security was almost nil?
What would they have said upon hearing about real suspicion falling on the government following the death of one of its prime experts in suspicious circumstances, especially when they then decided to bury the records for 70 years, after having him thoroughly smeared and discredited?
How would they have felt upon learning that they would face a good chance of arrest, or at least questioning, for taking pictures of famous landmarks, and being suspected of terrorism by a politicised police force?
What would they have thought about the pandering to the professionally offended, or at least those who quake in their boots at the prospect, to the extent that jobs cannot be advertised with a request for reliable and hard working people?
How would they come to terms with a government that illegally imprisons people in their own houses, freezing their assets and allowing them £10 a week to live, because it is suspected they may be involved in terrorism, whilst the convicted are released early and an increasing underclass can claim the monthly average wage in handouts and are penalised even if they do want to work?
How could they have understood that in a democracy, you would have had to apply for permission from the authorities to hold a demonstration outside parliament?
How would they have stared with incompetence when they learned that they had been lied to over getting a say in the signing away of our sovereignty?
How could they deal with the fact that the lowest earners had seen their tax burden sky-rocket whilst the country attracted more debt than had ever been conceivable?
The list could go on, when you look over this government’s achievements you see nothing but failure, deceit, vanity, hubris and the almost complete humiliation of those who elected them.
It will be different this time, there will be no cheering crowds, no film and pop stars waiting patiently in line to be seen pressing the flesh, no glorious new Jerusalem; there will be the knowledge that there will be no change, and a flinty look in the eye of the electorate waiting for the Tories to show themselves to be as feckless, reckless and thoughtless as Labour, and for an opportunity to remove them from power as soon as possible.
Let’s see how the ‘others’ column does over the next five years. Democracy is not dead in Britain, it is just being born.
Update:
A very interesting item over at Captain Ranty's place, not a million miles removed from my ramblings.
Friday, 4 September 2009
The One That Is Disturbed. . .
The following is a very brief extract from an article by 'Not Born Yesterday' posted over at Old Holborn's place.
Certainly since Thatcher, who was the first PM I remember, it seems to me that the model has been for the PM to be in charge of every facet of Government. Well, it simply can't be done, there are not enough hours in the day for one person to do this job, and I believe it is beyond the physical and mental abilities of any human to do this.
So why try? I appreciate with Brown that he is simply not emotionally capable of letting anyone do their job without constant guidance and interference. No doubt in his mind when things do go wrong (and they will always go wrong, regardless of who is in Government) it is because the minister or Sec of State has failed to carry out the instructions as set out, so he has to do it himself.
The result? A high turnover of appointees to office, each more unsuited and incompetent than the one that came before. In a PM where the driving force is naked ambition, the best and brightest can never be given a position where they have proper control over their department, lest their star shine a little too bright and threaten the incumbent of Number 10.
This suggests to me that the person who holds the keys to Downing Street has that job because they believe that they are the only person who is capable and can be trusted to do the job, it must be them that does it. What no doubt started off as a desire to do the best for the country gets shunted onto a side track as they fall into a spiral of a belief in their own infallibility.
Surely for us, the best PM is one who has competent people manning departments they understand (and better still, have experience of) and holds a gentle hand on the tiller, almost acting as a referee, rather than Pele taking on the opposition single-handed in the style of Escape to Victory.
Unfortunately, such an individual does not exist, as anyone with the required temprament would look at the job description of PM and run a mile.
Anyhow, do and read the whole article. It's a cracker.
"The Prime Minister of Great Britain is a man too ill to be holding the Office." This was the conclusion last week of a senior civil servant liaising regularly with Gordon Brown. For reasons which will become clear, the person involved will not go public with the evidence for this conclusion. The same applies to a high-ranking Treasury official who told us "In both a physical and mental sense, the Prime Minister is a very sick man, seriously disabled."Whatever one's opinion of Brown, if what is said in this article is accurate then it is bad for the country and for the man who holds the office of PM to be in this position. It is equally bad news for the rest of us that the opposition would eather see a man destroyed in a very public fashion than risk taking on someone they may not beat so easily.
Certainly since Thatcher, who was the first PM I remember, it seems to me that the model has been for the PM to be in charge of every facet of Government. Well, it simply can't be done, there are not enough hours in the day for one person to do this job, and I believe it is beyond the physical and mental abilities of any human to do this.
So why try? I appreciate with Brown that he is simply not emotionally capable of letting anyone do their job without constant guidance and interference. No doubt in his mind when things do go wrong (and they will always go wrong, regardless of who is in Government) it is because the minister or Sec of State has failed to carry out the instructions as set out, so he has to do it himself.
The result? A high turnover of appointees to office, each more unsuited and incompetent than the one that came before. In a PM where the driving force is naked ambition, the best and brightest can never be given a position where they have proper control over their department, lest their star shine a little too bright and threaten the incumbent of Number 10.
This suggests to me that the person who holds the keys to Downing Street has that job because they believe that they are the only person who is capable and can be trusted to do the job, it must be them that does it. What no doubt started off as a desire to do the best for the country gets shunted onto a side track as they fall into a spiral of a belief in their own infallibility.
Surely for us, the best PM is one who has competent people manning departments they understand (and better still, have experience of) and holds a gentle hand on the tiller, almost acting as a referee, rather than Pele taking on the opposition single-handed in the style of Escape to Victory.
Unfortunately, such an individual does not exist, as anyone with the required temprament would look at the job description of PM and run a mile.
Anyhow, do and read the whole article. It's a cracker.
Monday, 7 July 2008
The One That Is Guilty Of Plagiarism . . .
Well, not completely, I'll not be passing it off as my own work. I'm not about to come over all Raj Persaud (I'm assuming we don't call him Dr. anymore?) This from the UK Libertarian Party blog, which you can find on my blogroll to the left.
When a system is so fundamentally flawed as this, when millions of sheeple shrug their shoulders, it makes you wonder when that Bug's Life moment will come and we'll realise that there's a hell of a lot more of us than there is of them. We must take an interest in politics and keep an eye on these bastards. I appreciate the very fact you've read this far means I'm preaching to the choir, but really, we are sleepwalking to disaster, and I'm afraid as a nation we deserve every bit of it.
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Conservative and Labour parties are against national debt, we have a national debt? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a budget. The Chancellor does. You and I don't have the authority to vote on Government spending plans. Members of Parliament do. You and I don't write the tax code. Members of Parliament do. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Members of Parliament do. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Chancellor does, and the Bank of England follows his instructions.
646 Members of Parliament -- 646 human beings out of our 60 million population -- are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I've excluded the House of Lords for a sound reason. They don't originate legislation, and any suggestions that they make can be overruled by the House of Commons. Members of Parliament, and Members of Parliament alone, are responsible for legislation.
I've excluded all of the special interest groups and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a Member of Parliament to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer an MP one million pounds in cold, hard cash. The MP has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Don't you see how the con game is played on the people by the politicians? Those 646 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They co-operate in this timeless con regardless of party.
When a politician speaks of honour, it's the kind that's only found amongst thieves. When they speak of trust, you know it's yours that they will be taking advantage of.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 60 million cannot replace 646 people who stand convicted -- on a daily basis -- of gross incompetence and irresponsibility.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 646 people exercise the power of our national government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax system is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If our troops are in Iraq, it's because they want them in Iraq.
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 646 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they took an oath to do.
These 646 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. These 646 people are employed by us, to work for us, but have miserably failed us at every turn.
It's time to sack every last one of them.
When a system is so fundamentally flawed as this, when millions of sheeple shrug their shoulders, it makes you wonder when that Bug's Life moment will come and we'll realise that there's a hell of a lot more of us than there is of them. We must take an interest in politics and keep an eye on these bastards. I appreciate the very fact you've read this far means I'm preaching to the choir, but really, we are sleepwalking to disaster, and I'm afraid as a nation we deserve every bit of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)