Why did they do it? Because you asked them to.

Well, here's my take on the whole issue.

I've heard and read a lot of what has been said and written over the last few days, and all that it has done has served to remind me how insular and self-centred the residents of 'Westminster Village' and 'Fleet Street' are.

Rupert Murdoch has no more power over the election of governments than Paul the Psychic Octopus had over the results in the last world cup.

Let's look at the evidence shall we?

When Kinnock and Labour lost that election to Thatcher's Conservatives, they weren't undone by The Sun. They were undone by their own policies while people still had very clear memories of how the previous Labour administration had come to an end, and how little they had changed. Murdoch saw which way the wind was blowing.

It was this, plus the sight of Kinnock falling over on the beach, and his bizarre opening gambit in his Sheffield speech that saw voters stay away. As soon as this speech was made, his goose was cooked, the same was true of Howard Dean as his speech turned into a Ric Flair promo.

So for Murdoch to claim that:

Is bollocks of the highest order. They saw who was going to win and went to back them. Exactly the same happened in 1997:

And when it became obvious that Brown was totally unelectable they dropped Labour like a hot spud.

If the Murdoch media machine is so powerful, then where is the front page from the day after the most recent election, trumpeting The Sun's invaluable assistance in getting a Conservative government elected? Exactly, there isn't one. The Murdoch press doesn't get governments elected, it sees which way the public are going and makes sure it backs them. The only people who seem to think that Murdoch has this power are Murdoch himself and the politicians.

On Question Time this week, it was alleged that if you didn't play ball with Murdoch, then your personal life becomes the next headline. It appears that following some questioning which Rebekah Brooks found uncomfortable, Chris Bryant was outed as gay six months later by the Murdoch press.

Meh, so what? Chris, old chap, in this day and age it really doesn't matter if you're gay or not. They may as well have said that you'd rather have ice cream with your apple crumble than custard. It doesn't matter. I agree that one's personal life should be just that, unless you are engaged in an activity that renders you unfit for public office. I will also agree that even if you are engaged in such an activity, it is wrong to obtain that information by playing 'lucky guess' with people's mobile phone PINS. However, the easy way to avoid being splashed across the papers is to not be acting like a prick. Not hammering the expenses, not screwing that comely secretary, not hiring that rent boy, they are all very easy things to do. I've managed to spend my life not doing any of them. If you've not been stupid enough to do anything like that, then they're not going to find anything if they dig around, are they?

So, we've established that Murdoch doesn't have the power of life or death over governments, and that they're only going to find out what you've done (by admittedly naughty means) if you are stupid enough to do it in the first place, and stupid enough not to ensure your IT is secure in the second place.

The management at News International have overseen this process, and have been found wanting. They are either culpable in allowing it, or incompetent in not rooting it out. As far as I'm concerned, Murdoch Jr, Brooks and the editors should all be shown the doors.

But, and here's the important bit, considerations of criminality aside, News Corp is a private company, so who they hire and fire is up to them. You, as an individual, have the ultimate sanction; and this brings me to my next point.

I'm getting so pissed off with the bleating about Murdoch's supposed vice-like grip on the UK media. Bollocks. The simple thing to do is not to consume it. No-one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read The Sun, NOTW, Times or Sunday Times. Nobody ties you to a chair and sits you in front of Sky News, if you don't like it, don't read it. I don't read the Murdoch red-tops, not through any moral objection, I just don't think they are particularly good papers. Same goes for The Times and its sister, it is as dull and pretentiously worthy as the tabloids are sensationalist and over simple. I do watch Sky News, but only because the offering from the BBC (few seem to grumble about their chokehold on broadcast media, despite the peddling of their own agenda) is so uniformly awful.

Who's fault is this? Is it the eeeeeeeevil Murdoch? No. Is it the terrible Coalition politicians? No, they are just as bad as the last government, unable to see outside their own little bubble and convinced of Murdoch's mystical powers, or more likely, worried that his worker drones know about their little swindles and peccadilloes, which they know they shouldn't indulge but just can't help themselves. Is it the Police, who it would appear wilfully disregarded evidence that this was a widespread problem, probably because they were getting so much money from it, and knew that the finger pointed at them? No.

I'll tell you who is at fault. It is you. The figures don't lie. You want to know which actress is screwing which actor, which footballer is sleeping with which glamour model. Which TV presenter spends their time powdering their nose. Which young royal is knocking about with which socialite. Which politician is screwing which secretary.

You want to know about the girl who was pretending to be poor missing Millie. You want to howl with rage at the actions which led to the death of a little boy, a little boy who is so important to you that you don't recognise his name unless he is referred to as 'little' Baby P. You want to revel in the Diana like communal pain of the death of a British soldier, you want to know what his family is feeling, dammit.

Their son is dead, how the hell do you think they feel?

You have hoovered it up, it has been nothing more to you than an episode of Eastenders. You have delighted in the tittle-tattle, rumour and insinuation. Your continued support of them has enabled this, they did it, because you asked for it, and you knew it was happening. You knew it when the Prince's mobile was hacked way back, but that was OK, because he's a royal he's not a real person and doesn't count. You knew it when the same happened to Hugh Grant, that didn't matter, because he's in the public eye, he's public property. He asked for it. You knew it when they did it to Prescott, but he's a crooked politician, so it's fair game. All of a sudden because it is poor Millie, tragic little Holly and Jessica, our brave boys in the 'stan, now you kick up a fuss? Depsite knowing this, you kept buying. Well, shame on you.

'Hang on just a minute, Wolfers.' I hear you say with indignation, 'I don't buy that paper.' Well, here's a newsflash, one that will become apparent over the weeks and months; they were all at it. This is a cut throat, ruthless, take no prisoners industry with circulations falling and advertising revenues and profit margins shrinking. Believe me, every single one of them will do anything to get their story, to make their sale.

They did it, not because they are nasty people with no morals - although that is what they are. They did it because they knew you would buy it.

Be angry with yourselves. Because whilst you've been salivating over who Jude Law is screwing, you've been distracted from the find the lady trick going on right under your nose. The real news has gone unreported, the loss of our liberties, the venality of the politicians, the nihilistic corruption in Brussels, all of it, left unwritten or relegated to page 37. But never mind, the revelation that Pippa Middleton has a nice arse? That's real news right there.

For shame.

Dieu et mon goodness isn't it over yet?

I'm getting a little tired of the ceaseless coverage of an event which hasn't happened yet, isn't breaking news and is planned down to the last vol-au-vent.

However, the fault does not lie with William and Kate, but with the media. It's like the build up to the cup final, except the difference (barring a huge shock from one or other of them) is that unlike the cup final, we know what the result is going to be.

Your favourite Canis Lupus is working tomorrow, some non-emergency public servants are, and no, I don't get double time or a day in lieu. No biggie, I'm not that bothered about the wedding. I really hope that the pair have a long and blissfully happy life together, God knows the family could do with a break after the awful matches made by the generation before William. But it isn't my wedding, I don't know the couple involved, so it really doesn't matter to me.

That doesn't mean I'm going to start railing against the Windsors or the notion of a Monarchy though. I wouldn't describe myself as a Royalist, but nor am I a Republican.

One thing tomorrow will show is that despite all our problems, be they self inflicted or otherwise, this country can put on one hell of a show. We do it with magnificence, class and style. The Americans do it with magnificence, but they do it with such military overbearing. That isn't to say that there isn't going to be soldiers all over the show tomorrow, but we do it in a style which is not so overtly overt. It's a difficult feeling to express, but it doesn't have that 'America, hell yeah!' feel to it.

The French do it with class and style, but you can't help the feeling that at the big occasion they still feel that it is a shame that they cut all those heads off. A president just doesn't have the gravitas that a monarch, or a monarch in waiting has. It's just a little, empty. It's like comparing the photo of the meal on the menu in a chain pub with the grub put in front of you, it looks promising at the outset, but ultimately fails to deliver satisfaction.

I think the Royal Family is important, I'm not going to wheel out the old tourism line, I'm not sure I buy it. What I do think the advantage a constitutional monarchy brings is that the person in the very top job doesn't ask for it, doesn't want it and very, very, very, very rarely uses the power they have. It is, I think, a perfect balance.

I like QEII, but I think she's taken her eye off the ball, especially when signing away her and our sovereignty to Europe, but despite what Cast Iron Dave would have you believe, nothing is irreversible. I'm not so keen on Charles, and I don't think he'll make an especially good King, but then if QEII takes after her mother, he probably won't have much, if any, time in the big job.

With William it is too soon to tell, but I think the early signs are encouraging. Say what you like about Charles, but the fact he has been able, despite the circumstances, to raise such a well adjusted and personable son does him enormous credit.

I don't want a President, another job for a washed up politician if we follow the French/Irish model, or a power hungry grasping politician if we follow the American model.

It is far from perfect, it is elitist, it is archaic, it is a relic of history, but I can think of no better, or at least no more preferable fashion to choose the head of state than the method we have. It is apolitical, it is random, it is sometimes perfect, it is often disastrous, but it is way better than leaving it in the hands of career minded, ruthless, venal, deceitful politicians.

The constitutional monarchy allows us to be seen at our best. Even though it can and does go wrong, at least we have a fighting chance of promoting a positive image, an elected President would always show us at our worst. The constitutional monarchy is alright by me.

Perhaps we can concentrate on him now.

So one of the great conspiracy theories of recent years has been laid to rest with the release of Obama's full 'long form' birth certificate.

It was always a very lazy attack on a president which (at the risk of sounding like a Grauniadista) smacked a little of racism. There's plenty of things to take Obama to task about, but this was never one of them. Perhaps the public can now turn their attentions to the man's policies rather than his place of birth.

No doubt it will be decried as a forgery, counterfeit or some other sort of fraud now.

Meanwhile, what the hell is all this guff about Labour demanding an apology from Cameron over his 'calm down, dear' line to Angela Eagle?

Really? Really? Is that the biggest thing you have to worry about?

Stop being so bloody precious.

Or I'll start demanding she apologise for this comment, when the House was warned about the financial bubble in 2008:

"Fortunately for all of us...that colourful and lurid fiction has no real bearing on the macro-economic reality."

Policitians and conspiracy-theorists, I'm not sure which I have less time for, to be honest.

The cows refused to be milked.

I'll hijack an Orwellian metaphor here.

The farmer's house is on fire and his well is empty, the only way he can put out the blaze is by dousing it with the milk from his cows. But the cows know that the farmer enjoys watching old celluloid movies on his home projector, and will sit in his living room gazing at the old movies, his only other source of light is a candle, which he sits atop the open reels of film.

"Why would we give you our milk, when your own stupid actions have caused the fire?" they ask. "It isn't our fault." They refuse to give their milk.

That is exactly what has happened in Iceland where the population have rejected, for a second time, a cunningly worded invitation to bear the fallout of the Icelandic banks and politicians incompetence.

I applaud their actions.

Private banks, egged on by a venal and short-sighted political class, bankrupted themselves in an orgy of lending they could not support and returns on investments they could never meet. Why the hell should the public of Iceland be forced to pay the debts that accrued as a result?

The Icelandic Prime Minister, Johanna Sigurdardottir, is not happy saying that this is the worst option that could have been chosen.

Really? For whom?

Why do you think that your population should pick up the tab for the idiocy of your class? If a private citizen in Iceland makes a stupid decision, who is there to bail them out? No-one, as is right. One has to take responsibility for one's own actions. Unless, that is, you happen to be a politician or a banker. How wonderful it must be to live in a world where every success is yours and yours alone and every failure is down to everyone else.

Apparently, when Landsbanki went under, the British and Dutch governments had to reimburse 400,000 citizens.

Did they? Why?

When you are putting your money into a bank, you are investing in that business, and every business that that bank invests in. How many times are we told if it seems too good to be true, that's probably because it is? This was a Ponzi scheme, the same thing we've seen repeated time and again since the 1920s and people still fall for it. Well, tough luck. Perhaps you'll show a little more thought next time.

The governments can't very well turn round and say that, as all over Europe and North America they were encouraging this behaviour, both from the banks and the individual savers. And having burned their fingers in the house fire, they now expect the cows to surrender their milk.

Politicians would argue that this bank held a good deal of public money from Britain in the vaults. Well, why? Firstly, taxes are not paid for local authorities to stick the funds in a high interest account. I expect the balance to be zero at the end of the financial year, if you've got some left over, then you've taken too much - you obviously didn't need it. If the balance isn't zero, then you reduce the tax burden for the next year. What you do not do is stick it in the bank and then come back for more, especially in light of the fact that levels of council tax went up pretty much every year under Labour.

Secondly, why the hell were you so bloody stupid? I can understand Joe Soap being taken in by slick advertising and glossy leafelets, but why the hell were supposed professionals taken in by this? Again, it was not your money, surely best practice would dictate that if you absolutely have to put your surplus in the bank, you pick the safest, most boring option. Local authorities and County councils should not be in the practice of making a profit, that is not what they are for. Any employee of the corporation that made this decision should be sacked for poor performance. Any elected individual involved should have this brought up at every available opportunity by his/her opponents at election time.

The Icelanders have said no. It looks like it will go to some court or other. Let them make their judgement, Iceland has not surrendered it sovereignty yet, what will these courts do if the Icelandic people refuse to pay if the court orders them to?

This is a very important point. Your government does not own you. Iceland owes no money, Iceland is its people. If it is judged that the government of Iceland owes this money, then declare the government of Iceland bankrupt - it doesn't matter. It has no assets, all those buildings, roads, vehicles, all the trappings of nationhood, they aren't owned by the government of Iceland, they are owned by the people of Iceland, the government is just the management company. If that goes bust, then you just make a new one. I really see no problem with that, for the politicians it would be a disaster, but for the man on the street, what difference does it make?

Go to Belgium and see how terrible life is in a country with no government. You'll not see a difference, honest. Business still runs, kids go to school, you can still get the bus, the streets are still swept. That's the frightening truth for the politicians, we don't actually need them that much. Looks like the Icelanders may be realising that.

More power to them.

Update:

According to Nanny Beeb, by voting no, the Icelandics are jeopardising their chance of joining the EU as both the UK and the Netherlands could veto their entry.

What are the chances that the good people of Iceland are well aware of this, and having seen what has gone on in Greece, Ireland and Portugal, have no intention of getting involved? Not a nation it is easy to pull the wool over the eyes of, is it?

I also love this comment:

the British and Dutch governments had to reimburse 400,000 citizens - and Iceland had to decide how to repay that money.

Evidently the people and President of Iceland do not concur with that.

So, if you spank your wages on lottery tickets, I'll stand your losses and then demand that the 'good-causes' reimburse me? Uh-uh, I don't think so. I'd love to see how they'll justify holding the population of a country liable for losses incurred via a private business, which they were silly enough to bail out without checking that the liability existed in the first place.

The perils of making a political decision rather than the right decision.

Leave it to the governing bodies.

For what it is worth, I think the ICC got it spot on with the suspensions handed down to the three Pakistani cricketers who indulged in a bit of spot fixing during their tour of England over the summer. Had the three (and the agent) been involved in fixing the outcome of the match, then I would have expected to see life bans handed down.

It is very easy to criticise the governing bodies of sport, it is also usually justified. The governing body of cycling, the UCI, have been pretty ineffective in tackling the performance enhancing drug abuse which seems to be running rampant through the sport. Alberto Contador, who won le Tour last year, is the latest high profile case to fall foul of the doping regulations, with the usual claims of accidental contamination. Another big name from the sport, Floyd Landis, who has held his hands up to the offence has also implicated the absolute biggest name in the history of the sport, Lance Armstrong in the same.

I'm not about to defame Contador here, it may be that his protestations of innocence are credible, certainly from the amounts declared it would appear that if you want to be a top class athlete you also need to be a food scientist.

The football world in the UK is scratching its head at the fine of £25,000 imposed on Blackpool for fielding a 'weakened' team in a match against Aston Villa in the Premier League in November. Blackpool's entertaining manager, Ian Holloway, said at the time that if the club were fined for making ten changes to their team, then he'd resign. The situation is a farce. At the start of the season, each Premier League club is instructed to submit a squad of 25 players for registration in the competition (excluding players under the age of 21, who can be, but do not have to be registered). One would have thought that having submitted that squad, each manager is then free to pick whichever 11 players he sees fit. So Holloway has registered his squad, picked his eleven, all from the registered squad and has seen his club fined by some administrators who obviously think that they are more qualified to pick his team than he is. The irony is that the 'big' clubs, the Manchester Uniteds and Chelseas of the league will regularly make large changes to teams in the games immediately before Champions League fixtures, when facing smaller opposition in the FA cup and will stick out a team comprised completely of reserve, youth team and very occasional first team players in the League Cup. Has the FA ever fined them? No. They wouldn't dare.

It is an unfortunate truth that the ICC have marked themselves out as being the exception rather than the rule. In most other sports, the governing bodies quake at the thought of rapping the big clubs and names over the knuckles, and as a result sanctions that they hand out are uneven and inconsistent. By handing out 5 year bans to Butt and Asif, the ICC have shown no such fear in the face of two of the most established stars in the game.

But there's a problem, sport is popular, so the authorities can't help getting involved in it. Just because it is popular, they make the mistake of thinking it is important. So we see stories like this:

The Football Association say there is "no justification'' for direct Government intervention into the governance of the game and have warned their organisation could face FIFA sanctions if politicians overstepped the mark.

The comments, made in written evidence from the FA to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee inquiry into football governance, follow comments from sports minister Hugh Robertson, who described football as the "worst governed'' sport in Britain.

Which is kind of like Charlie Kennedy berating the pub industry for taking one or two too many drinks. There simply is no justification for politicians to get involved here, and given the track records of politicians any intervention from them would increase costs, expand red tape and ensure the sport is even worse governed. It is what politicians do.

It is also the CPS getting involved as well.

Prosecutors in Britain announced on Friday that batsman Butt and seamers Amir and Asif would face criminal charges over their part in last year's alleged spot-fixing scandal, specifically over their actions in the fourth Test at Lord's.

Why? No-one has been injured here. The result of the match was unaffected and the noises about spot fixing in the game in the sub-continent have been running for so long that any punter who stuck a few quid on anything beyond the final result is a fool or in on it. Likewise the bookies who took such a bet need to take a look at themselves for being so credulous.

The three Pakistani cricketers are in Pakistan, a country we have no extradition treaty with, so any attempt to get them back to the UK if they don't surrender themselves would be very expensive and probably fruitless, that, coupled with the expense of trial and imprisonment, means that surely a prosecution just isn't in the public interest.

The ICC have shown that governing bodies are perfectly capable of administering their own kingdoms without 'help' from the politicians or apparatus of state. The politicians would do well to realise this and back off. We need to cut back areas of life where they are involved, not to increase them. 

Crisis of confidence.

I think I'm losing it folks. I just don't know where to start.

Another politician, this time a sitting MP, pleads guilty to pilfering on a pretty grand scale. Of course this story has been running for ages now. But really, an elected representative shamelessly stealing from the public? In 21st Century Europe? Really? I am still shocked by this. How dare they? It is easy to say this and that about our politicians, but the realisation that our political class really are that venal, that arrogant is a betrayal which makes me as sad as it does angry.

Yet, a stupid sixth form student, who has shown genuine remorse for his actions, backed up a mother who must have searched her soul to the very depths before advising him to turn himself in has been sent to prison for two and a half years. He undoubtedly deserves prison time, but does he deserve more than a man who stole with such ruthless, methodical cynicism? I would submit not. And he never tried to argue he was above the law. Yes, he could have killed someone, but he didn't. Yes, he took the right to peaceful protest and stamped all over it, but pretty much every government has done worse in our name.

Like trying to stop people receiving vaccinations against a disease we're all told to be very very very scared of. Really? What do you want to do? Hang on to the vaccine so people you don't like won't get it?

The BBC, the organisation which perhaps represents best the modern attitude of equality, diversity and a whole host of other left wing policies has been found guilty of age discrimination (and in my opinion, were lucky not to be found guilty of sex discrimination as well) in such a fashion that the Guardianistas would have been screaming for blood had it been any other organisation or business in the country. Really? Really? I mean, how? Or is this another case of rules only applying to the little people?

Then to top it all, some complete arsehole has stolen a meerkat from my local wildlife park, a place I am very fond of, because. . . well, why? Why would you steal a meerkat? Lovely little buggers they are, very endearing, and yes they are high profile because of the advertising campaign, but as a house pet? No. That's not going to work. They are social animals and I should imagine when in distress will make a real mess of someone's house. I fear that when this becomes apparent in the next couple of days, the poor little sod will end up dead in a dustbin.

What I want to know is this, has the world really gone totally barking? Am I the only sane one about, or is it me that is the nutter? Because I'm having real trouble squaring this circle.

The One That Wonders What You Expected. . .

Sorry folks, but it was all so predicatable. Of course Jacqui Smith did wrong. Of course an investigation would return that verdict. Of course she would be made to show contrition, although how you can show what you do not have is a mystery to me, it's akin to shoving the wierd kid into the stinging nettles at school and being made to say sorry, even when it is obvious that you aren't. It's what nice people do, and we must appear nice, even if we're not.

Of course she wouldn't get punished. It's an inside job.

Of course those with relatively small amounts of moody expenses would be told to pay them back.

Of course they, in the main, know that this will make it all OK. It would happen to you if you 'mis-claimed' benefits. If you paid it back, you'd be fine.




Wouldn't you?

Nothing will change. Oh, the rosettes worn by the people walking into the offices of state will change, but there will be no change.

That's not their fault, it is our fault. We are, as a nation, stupid enough to vote for them time and again, expecting change and then scratching our heads when none comes.

Perhaps the penny will drop, but I doubt it.

I am a Libertarian Party member, and believe that we should effect change via the electoral system. However I also understand that I am in a minority, both in my party membership and in my desire to do things by the book.

Look out for the EDL, look out for the enviromentalists, look out for the BNP, look out for the disapproving groups hurling abuse at returning soldiers.

Every single group has no confidence in those elected to represent them, nor in the system that gives them access to the levers of power. Increasingly desperate stunts will take place. Protests will increase and become increasingly more forceful. Increasingly desperate people will turn to violence. Hatred and resentment at anyone representing authority will grow.

Who is to blame? Well, to borrow a phrase from good old Gordon; we're all in this together. The politicans have abused and taken advantage of us, like an abusive partner. Like a weak, abused partner, incapable of breaking the cycle, we keep letting them back in.

We have no-one to blame but ourselves, and we will reinforce the cycle by returning the same people again.

When will we learn?

Perhaps we already have, perhaps these groups are like the abused partners, smacked in the mouth once too often. Divorce court? Pah! The iron or the frying pan are in easy reach, and they'll resolve the situation much quicker than some avaricious divorce solicitor.

I wouldn't want to win this coming election for all the tea in China.

The One That Doubts Even Our Policitans Would Try This Stunt. . .

Christiane Chocat, a French politician, and her son have been arrested and charged with trying to smuggle illegal migrants into Britain.

Mrs Chocat, a 51-year-old municipal councillor from Seine et Marne south of Paris, is in custody in Portsmouth, Hants.

She and her son Benjamin Chocat, 20, are accused of bringing 16 Vietnamese migrants into the city in the back of a hired van.

What?

What the bloody buggering hell? I mean our lot have pulled some bloody tricks in their time, but smuggling a load of Vietnamese in a bloody van really does push the boundaries of 'technical breaches' of the law. It's the sort of the thing you'd expect to see on the Daily Mash.

The case will prove an embarrassment to the French authorities

No shit? D'you think?

The One That Wants To Know What It Is He Is Supposed To Have Done. . .

Reports all over the local media yesterday and this morning that LimpDem Councillor on Canterbury City Council, Roger Matthews has been arrested following an 'anti-corruption probe' by Kent Police and subsequently charged and bailed to appear before Maidstone magistrates on March 26th. I look forward to the outcome with relish, hopefully he'll be remanded in custody before appearing in Crown Court.

The thing is, that neither Pravda nor the local media, actually detail what it is he is supposed to have done. Well why is this? Any other case with local or national interest would carry details of the allegations, so why is it different here?

In this article, he gives a direct quote:

"I cannot see why it would affect my day-to-day council duties.

"I don't see why it should."

And that, dear reader, is what is wrong with the political class in this country. If a policeman were charged with armed robbery, would you expect him to continue in his job whilst awaiting a trial? What if a teacher were accused of doing inappropriate things to his charges, would the line 'I cannot see why it would affect my day-to-day teaching duties' hold any water? I don't think so.

It is all very well Alex 'Porky' Perkins (a worse example of LimpDem simpering, holier-than-thou, preachyness it is hard to imagine) saying that 'we would urge people to remember that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.' But I would expect to be suspended from duty at least if I found myself in this sort of pickle. It would happen in pretty much any other job from brain surgeon to road sweeper, so again, why is it different here?

If the arrogant and (alleged) corrupt old bastard won't do the decent thing and step back until what is bound to be portrayed as an 'honest mistake' or 'a moment of madness/weakness' is cleared up, then his party could at least withdraw the whip. Unfortunatley the anger on the inside in this case is not directed towards Matthews for doing whatever it is he is supposed to have done. Only a slither will be directed at him for getting caught doing whatever it is he is supposed to have done. A little bit more will be directed to the media for reporting it. Most of the anger will be reserved for Joe Soap for daring to ask what is going on here.

As far as they are concerned, they are our masters. I've said it a number of times, don't vote for the Big 3, vote for anyone, anyone other than these people who belittle us, cheat us, lie to us, use us as chattels and serfs, feather their own nests at our expense and show us nothing but total and complete contempt.

Vote Libertarian, vote for the Indie who wants a hedgehog underpass, vote UKIP, vote Natural Law Party, hell even vote BNP if you feel you must. Just make sure that these venal fuckers know that you're screaming 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE.'

The One That Says It Could Never Happen Here. . .

Ha! Those Irish! How naive are they? They think that if they turn out in sufficient numbers, make a big old fuss and say things like:

I am sick and tired of the way this government conducts itself and what it's doing to this country." "I've worked all my life, I've never broke the law, never walked out on strike. Instead I've went to work and done my job, I've a mortgage to pay, I've children to put through school, and now I'm being told I have to take cutback, after cutback, after cutback.'

that things will change. Well, perhaps they might in Ireland, Iceland, or Lithuania or Umbongoland or somewhere, but not here in the UK.

No, our politicians are proper sociopaths, all that would happen here is that protesting would be made illegal, police would be given riot training and extended powers to deal with people who have the temerity to voice dissent and would probably find themselves locked up for a long, long time. The politicians would carry on, because they are right, even if they are wrong, they are right, they are on a mission to save us and this mission must be seen through to the end, even if it means us all being destroyed.

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.

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.