Opinion: Look at the Fucking Pasty!

Who remembers the famous, infamous... In fact, Legendary 'Pasty-Budget' poor poor George O did in 2012?
Yeah... It was all about Pasties wasn't it? It was 'Pasty-this' and 'Pasty-that'... And then there was loads of stuff about Pasties at the end... Oh and he mentioned the word 'Pasty' seventy times at the start.

You DO remember... There were all the headlines the next day. George O's head photoshopped onto a massive Pasty. The Mail did a screaming headline about Pasties as did the Sun... The Conservatives were on the ropes, reeling under a barrage of left and right blows from the Media... And from Greggs of course...

That's how we all remember it isn't it?
Or not... Luckily for me I stopped looking at the Infinitely Alluring Magic Pasty being puppeted on a strings, inches away from my gawping facepiece, for just long enough to check previous blogs...

And... Well gosh-a-rama and crikey Fucksticks...
Pasty tax was actually a 'Fuck all' aspect of the budget. A relatively minor Own Goal in the 'Amazing Budget that Pleased Nobody'
I remember the Headlines being all about 'Granny Tax'... And then of course Cash for Cameron happened. Before that the forcing through of the NHS bill despite large-scale public resistance.

So what would you rather have?
Scrutiny over that, or, a few vaguely embarrassing soundbites by senior figures regarding the last time they ate a Pasty?

It's clear what the government would prefer and consequently we're seeing a deluge of cringe inducing 'stagey' questions about MPs snacking habits, each one universally failing to mention the crucial point, and basis of the entire ludicrous tax: was it a hot Pasty? Answer me Prime Minister! Was it 'Hot', 'warm' or merely 'Tepid'... Answer me! Newsnight should be fun this week

Obviously, Pasty tax is important to the manufacturers, as well as to fans of warm Cornish Comestibles...

But at the moment it seems to be most important for the Coalition... Derision is bad. Scrutiny is worse. As long as we're all lauging about D-Cam and Poor Poor George O we're not asking them all the tricky questions... We're asking them about Pasties... And instead of working, half of our elected MPs are, as we speak, racing to be snapped in a Greggs with a face full of pastry and an 'I'm JUST like you' Grin...

So...
Look at the Pasty... go on: Look, stare, gawp... With your EYES. look. Laugh
Ha Ha Ha. 'Pasty' sounds Funny. Top Tories are 'Out of Touch' Ha Ha Ha.
Now look at the Pasty again...
Watch it... it's warm... Look...
LOOK AT THE FUCKING PASTY!

Opinion: Dr God... Would he need to Advertise?

What would you say if three MPs from the three major parties wrote a letter to the Advertising Standards Agency saying that they demanded that the allow the advertising of 'Magic Spells' as a working, healing practice...

Well... You'd probably laugh loudly and disbelieve the notion...

Ok... What if they went on to demand that if the ASA couldn't come up with 'scientific evidence' that 'Magic Spells' do not work they would go to parliament about it.

You'd probably be twirling your fingers by your ears at this point, in a juvenile gesture that implies a mental issue. (But obviously in a vaguely ironic, Ricky Gervais fashion, whereby you are clearly not satirizing any specific condition)

Ok... What if those demanding, accepted that it didn't work 'all the time', but didn't seem to think that was a problem, and cited their own, utterly unverified experience as proof that 'Magic Spells' actually work.

By now you'd probably be wishing I'd shut up about it...

Ok, what if I told you these 'spells' were being uttered in the direction of a God... Most likely the Christian-lite deity of the Church of England

Well, the penny would drop, you'd immediately understand and you might even be moved to joyous applause at what a clever textual device I just used.

Yes, three honest-to-goodness REAL MPs, obviously with VERY little to do (I mean, we've only got NHS reform going on... Oh, and a budget... And Cash for Cameron.. And Leveson... And a Global Economic crisis... And Constitutional issues in Scotland... And... Oh... You get the point) are actually mounting the campaign detailed above, albeit without the 'hilarious' satirical diversions.

Anyway, these (alleged) 'Utter Fruitloops' are asking the ASA to change the guidelines so 'anyone' can legally shill God as a Healer...
They want it to be legally able to put out an advert saying: 'Prayer can cure your hidesously Prolapsed Rectum'... Or some such thing...

Ok... First. If you believe in God, you believe he can heal... No big shakes for a 'First Cause' of everything. Maybe he also has little to do and will drop everything to Treat your athlete's foot if you're too busy to go to a chemist... Maybe.

That said, does 'God' really need to be able to advertise? He is pretty well known around the world, despite the best efforts of the likes of Dawkins, the Late Christopher Hitchens and all that 'Science'. Seems open and shut to me. If he does exist, then all creation already serves as an advertisement. Surely to do more is at best 'gilding the lily'

Also, who are you to advertise on his behalf? Maybe he's got enough on his plate without you whoring his service to every dumbass with a cold. After all, in that world-view, he put all the illness there in the first place, presumably as part of his 'great plan' are you really that confident that you'd argue that he should 'heal' something he's obviously gone to great lengths to set in motion.

So... Bit presumptuous there for a start.

Now I'm an atheist, so maybe I don't understand all the arguments here. That said I would never want to insult a theoretical super-being by being a condescending fusspot who wants to 'stand up' for them like they were a poorly puppy at a rescue centre. This is supposed to be GOD. If he wants the ASA to lift this regulation, I'm sure he'd find away... If not something Old testament and grandiose, I'm sure he could at least influence the ASA directly... Why use try-hard MPs as a go-between, especially if they don't even have the faith to believe that God can 'get things done' on His own...

Perhaps they are just trying to piggy-back on the recent anti-secularism movement for their own ends, hence my decision not to name them (5 seconds on Google should do it)... If this were to be the case, I'm sure their God will see through such a shabby trick and punish them accordingly...

Speaking of 'Shabby Tricks' how about using unverified anecdotes for your point... I.e: my hand got magically healed... But asking for a full scientific investigation from your opponent? Pretty good that, particularly since the Church itself is loath to put religious ideas to the test under laboratory conditions. This is for the simple reason that it tends to put on rather a poor show. No. A wise person of faith accepts that they should let the world of science and faith remain separate, as the Kingdoms maintain, at best, an uneasy peace.

So how could the ASA prove that prayer doesn't heal... Particularly in light of the earlier caveat that it isn't always effective? Well, 'proving a negative' is difficult to the point of near impossibility... Oh and it's utterly unscientific as well... The correct way round to word that request is: prove that prayer does work...

Oh and you would need to keep that prayer a secret from the subject in order to rule out the Placebo effect making an appearance. (The most startling thing in medicine in my mind, a regular, earthbound and measurable scientific miracle... And one that is actually getting more effective as we continue to evolve)

So... To those MPs: if you submit 'Prayer' to the same process as medical drugs go through before they can be 'advertised'... And they pass the double blind trials at a rate that betters Placebo, then we can talk about your request.

Or... A quicker way to prove to me the 'Truth' behind the effectiveness of prayer is this:
Pray for me to convert.
If there is a God, should be simple enough to do... And I will immediately denounce this post as heresy...

Of course if I remain an atheist I will assume that prayer doesn't actually work and we can all go on with our lives.

Opinion: Cash for Cameron punctures the Teflon Knight like a scraping knife on a non-stick pan.

Remember what I said about The 'Teflon Knight' just a couple of blogs ago? It was in the hideously sexualised 'Budget' review that gave me the most amusing 'search terms' report I've had so far?
(based on some of them, I'm pretty sure the readers who found it on Google were disappointed that it wasn't a piece of parliamentary, watersports-based 'slash fiction'... Surely a growth area in literature...)

Anyway, throwing bizarre sexual imagery aside, I made a dig about the 'non-stick' boss of the Cons, missing out on the derision that was heaped on 'Poor George O'... Well looks like someone has incinerated some sausages in Cameron's pans and tried to scrape them off with an angle grinder.

Putting Teflon metaphors aside, it seems the bad publicity has finally hit the top. #CashforCameron has been trending all night, well since the Sunday Times released the footage of the Hugely rich treasurer of the Conservative party offering access to the PM to undercover Reporters under the mistaken assumption that they too were massively rich, and able to pay £250,000 for the 'pleasure'

Of course it isn't only that... I mean, if you have that much money to waste on a meeting, Cameron might well know you socially and forego any charge for a sit down, a chat, and a sip of peasant's tears. What seemed to be on offer for that fee was actual 'influence'... This meeting would be 'amazing' for your business and put you in the 'premier league' of Tory donors... Truly the dullest 'league' of any kind in the History of everything ever...

The Treasurer responsible, well, Co-treasurer... It's important to be accurate with such things... Apparently. Is Peter Cruddas... A name which may have invited such juvenile bullying he would have had to become the local thug to survive. Luckily for the world he was insulated from this fate by him 'not growing up where I did' and becoming a boy scout, which he says 'Gave him the discipline to suceed'

Now, here is the problem with any Media Strategy involving this fine gentleman. He is rich. Very rich. In fact he was the richest man in the 'city of London' so... Toppest of the top bankers... Shrewdest of the shrewd customers...

How do you make him into a patsy? I mean the footage shrieks 'Bang to rights' so you can't blame the journalists. He is intelligent and ultra successful, so 'conventional corruption' will be hard to pin on him, and he's clearly not simply thick... And he's so much 'their type' that he wouldn't be stitching them up for reasons of ideology...

So... It's top down... It came from the Boss... And it seems he knows it. His tetchy soundbite to the BBC looked like the actions of a guilty child caught stealing biscuits and blaming the babysitter for spying... Sadly the BBC, who I love with a passion have towed an odd party line, reporting the PMs anger at Cruddas as the story, avoiding the 'dodgy donor' aspect... Well... They have the license fee to think about don't they... *shakes head in tormented sadness*

Luckily the Sunday Times have been excellent on this, proving the value of true public interest journalism... This 'scoop' exemplifies everything great about the profession... Sadly though it may be Cameron's main 'Get Out' weapon... And it's been handed to him by some commentators on the left... (The right are all crowing about the fact that this happened while the Guardian were serving ice cream on their open weekend)

The narrative goes like: this is Murdoch's 'revenge' for Cameron turning his back on Newscorp.
Now aside from the insult to the reporters, this also mildly excuses those involved.
If this becomes a battle of two 'Baddies' nobody is expected to behave any better. Maybe this story would have been diminished slightly in times gone by (Even in the most psychotically pro-Cameron newsroon, I doubt that anyone would spike such an important story, and if they did, it would immediately have been leaked by the Journos who had put in such sterling work)

It isn't nasty Mr Murdoch throwing mud back at the Nasty ol' Tories. It's undercover reporters being offered influential access to our elected Prime Minister for cash money... And maybe sacrificing and smearing the 'message-boy' won't be enough this time...

So hats off to the Sunday Times, and hopefully this is the answer to all those Tabloids who dare to use a 'Public Interest' excuse to run nonsense hacked from a D-listers phone.

And for Cameron... I am very interested to see how you deal with this one... If the list of Cruddas appointments includes many 'Private Healthcare' companies you could well be in for a rough ride for a while... But remember, if the deal was 'access to David Cameron' then the buck must stop at David Cameron.

And for Ed... Get your house in order and Publish it... Because if you have any skeletons knocking about, vultures will be circling now for the tiniest morsel... If your knickers aren't clean, be ready for them to be waved in the country's face...

And Clegg... Well do whatever you want. Nobody cares any more.

Opinion: Could the 'Mayor Factor' Finally unite Right and Left?

I don't live in London.
Where I live, we have a Mayor. He is a fairly lumpy looking man, ruddy faced and 'Tory-looking' (in a friendly, rural sort of way)

You probably wouldn't know his name. I would probably spell it wrong anyway, even though I've met him... But he gets his job done, is approachable and understanding in the way that our local MP isn't. A political journeyman.

So... What terrible sin has London committed, that instead of a quiet and humble 'servant of the people' it has a tendency to attract candidates with a near-psychotic instinct to self aggrandise?

Ok... It's obvious who I'm referring to here, but lets look at the other candidates. Two Racists and a Green. I apologise to the 'Green' for putting her in such company, but as far as winning goes, they are fairly comparable. Sorry. Fact. Sadly, caring for our planet seems to be pretty much a 'niche' political objective.

For the Lib Dems, Brian Paddick. Now, aside from the fact that he is a Lib Dem, and thus unlikely to be elected to anything more important than 'token Lib Dem Voice' since their NHS betrayal, he also seems to suffer from that most evil of political maladies: dignity Blindness.
I salute him for being an openly homosexual police officer who has risen to such a powerful position. I salute him for managing to remain a Lib Dem throughout the coalition without tearing his own head off with his bare hands and rugby punting it into orbit.
But.
And it's a 'Big But': Nobody wants to have seen their Mayor on I'm a Celebrity chewing through whatever hacked off animal part they fed him... And this is the London Problem... The problem that is most apparent when you come to the only candidates with a realistic shot at the job...

Confession time. I like Boris and I Like Ken. Both of them. Both are very amusing men, and would be an amazing double act if they were given rival teams on one of those ubiquitous panel shows that the BBC put out in place of expensive scripted comedy these days.

When I lived in London I genuinely applied to be Boris Johnston's speech writer, when he was shadow Higher Education secretary. One of the questions was, and this is utterly true incidentally, 'write about a Trip on a spaceship'. I would have been good at that job. I hope he read my submission.

But despite this, neither of these men should be taking on this difficult job. Both have too much political baggage, trading on facial recognition alone. Also neither of them seem to have any control over their oratory functions. For both men to actually deserve the description 'gaffe-prone' speaks volumes about them.

And no, I'm not falling for that Genial Buffoon act Boris does, or the laid back Lefty Uncle who might have once met Joe Strummer bit from Ken. They are career politicians. And they have teams of diamond hard advisors around them, no doubt taking care of much of the actual shovel work.

I think that's my main objection. It's like electing a figurehead, not a Mayor. The man with most name recognition wins. Under this logic you could get David Walliams vs John Bishop. Both comedy/sporting/nearly-killing-themselves-for-charity heroes. Who would go on which 'team'? It doesn't matter, they would have as much real input as Nick Clegg has on anything.

Yes yes, we get the political team, but why have the figurehead in the first place? Surely both sides can put up candidates with some political weight, but who you could also leave alone with a reporter without them saying something that could spark an international incident.

That said, this competition has been funny. Watching commentators from both sides going through the motions of trying to 'photoshop' all the ludicrousness from their boy whilst calling out their opposites for doing the same.

All I've seen on Twitter for months is: Boris said this so we should back Ken (From the left) Well Ken stands for this so we should back Boris (From the Right) blah blah blee blah using official Twitter to campaign' blah blah 'He's an anti semite, honest' blah blah 'dodgy tax' (For both men) blah blah etc etc ad infinitum.

The 'debate' is as predictable as a metronome and has all the political insight of 'Beliebers' Vs 'Directioners', although at least those two can agree on some things, like perhaps that 'The sky is blue' whereas if one of our mayoral candidates stated this, his opposites would start briefing that it was actually Red that day, and he is a Racist for noticing the colour in the first place and anyway, when their candidate wins the sky will be Gold with falling riches...

The upshot of turning the Capital's 'Important Political Decision' into a personality battle, 'The Mayor Factor' is that it lends an air of shrill desperation to the campaign. A lack of 'real' belief. A Simon Cowell-esque cynicism.
Perhaps it's is time for both sides to sit down, as one, and raise the howl that must be locked in all of their hearts as they trot out the stale and unconvincing arguments for their candidate...
A piercing shriek rises from both left and right.
"Fuck me... Do we both not deserve better candidates than this!"

Opinion: How did George O end up in the Pissy mud outside the tent?

Poor poor poor poor George O.

Now there's a sentence I never thought I'd type.... Or read... but there it sits, atop this Blog... and to be clear, I do NOT mean financially, despite him asserting that he is not in the 50p tax bracket... (A creative accountant perhaps, or maybe he gets paid entirely in 'credit' for various 'night-time entrepreneurs'... Maybe he works for the love of the country)

No, somehow our George O has gone from being the man 'inside the tent', directing his urine stream out (and straight into the staring, bovine faces of the various 'plebs' and 'oiks' that he sees making the unpalatable majority of the UK) to a spluttering blinking mess at the centre of some horrific, urine-based, bukkake-circle made up of seemingly, the entire press pack, left and right...

He has been lambasted by everyone this morning, and various permutations of 'Granny Tax' have been trending all night in response to his 2012 budget. The amazing budget that pleased precisely nobody. (I am excusing business's from this, as they aren't real people... No matter how much they, or the law, pretends they are... I'm also excluding any business leader who supports this budget, for pretty much the same reason)

How has that happened? How has it been allowed to happen. A Conservative who values his career doesn't allow himself to be the 'front cover donkey' for both the Sun and the Mail...

So... Poor Poor George.
(Unless of course he really does like S&M, in which case this is the ultimate humiliation, something a true aficionado might spend a fortune on, and could only be improved in the front page had featured him dressed as a baby girl, with frilly nappy and dummy in mouth... Sorry, no mind bleach available for that image... It is yours... Enjoy)

So where is his boss in this?

Laughing probably. He is currently the Teflon Knight. Student fees? Clegg took that grenade. NHS? Wheel out the tattered remains of Clegg for the major offensive, then mop up any spare salvos with Lansley and poor ol' Shirley Williams...

So... George... Do you see a pattern? Who are the silvertops going to lynch? It won't be D-Cam... He's hiding behind the curtain, Oz the great and powerful style. You're the one appearing in caricature on all the front pages, looking furtive and sneaky, with one hand in a pensioners pocket.

And don't forget, some of them learned to shoot weapons in a 'massive-fuck-off-war' (excuse the technical term there)

Maybe George should get some insurance in place for any briefings that are being prepared as we speak... Do governments ever use the 'One rogue MP.' excuse? Either way... George... Get some damaging leaks on others out there... Go on... If you're in the game, play it dirty... You'll look good with bloodied knuckles... Maybe that Risk Register? I'll give you my email address if you like...

Incidentally, I KNOW this has very little about the budget in it. People who know more are speculating enough. Let them do the 'projected' (read: imaginary and wildly open to interpretation) numbers...

I also know that the Sun and the Mail are taking 'point' on this one...
Fair play... Still don't like them... Or any newspaper.
enemy's enemy ain't no friend of me...

Opinion: Not a Supporter of NHS Reforms? You MUST want to Kiss Trotsky on His Dead Mouth.

Who wants to be a Trotskyist, or a Trotskyite... Or whatever you call anyone who follows the example of Lev Davidovich Bronshtein?

Nobody?

What.. none of you?

Well... Chances are, if you have any critical words to say about Andrew 'Benny Hill' Lansley's NHS Reforms then you are a Trotskyismer... Or a 'Trot' as is the preferred dismissive terminology.

Ok... Well let's look at Mr Trotsky. He was a Marxist, He was a founder and Commander of the Red Army, He opposed Stalin's pact with Hitler and was subsequently assassinated by him in 1940, having been expelled from the Communist party and Exiled.

He dies 6 years before the establishment of our NHS. As far as I can see he makes no comment on it... or on anything of it's kind. No 'Trotskyism' appears to be more concerned with the act of revolution, and the establishment of a 'Working Class' led society. It is about Means of production, land ownership and all that exciting 'Commie' stuff. No mention of a provision of Universal Healthcare.

Would he have approved?

Maybe.. Maybe not... He probably wouldn't have liked our system, based as it is on a centralised power structure, with an 'Elite' sitting atop it, making the decisions. No he probably would have preferred the decision making to be deferred to more localised 'Cells'... Or not.. I mean.. The guy's been dead for more than 60 Years... He never saw a health service in action...

Why should he have had any opinion on it at all?

Ok.. Confession time. I didn't know any of this. I looked it up. I didn't know much about Trotsky before a few days ago, having been called a Troskyist/ite/ismer by someone for daring to say that Lansley looked like a fool running around a hospital, being heckled and then releasing the 4 most Staged looking pictures you'll see this side of a North Korean Dictator's Funeral.

Being that my only real understanding of 'Marxism' was from a literary criticism standpoint (Thanks Manchester Met Uni) I decided to look up what this 'Insult' meant in the context of the NHS. And what did I find?

It means nothing.. It's meaningless... A way of Screaming 'LEFTY' at any criticism and thus shutting it down:
"If you don't 100% support Lansley you are a Lefty Marxist, who probably looks and thinks like Rik from 'The Young Ones' and wants to find Trotsky's grave, disinter him at midnight and French Kiss his dead mouth and maybe feel his Bottom... No.. Probably feel his Bottom.. No Definitely"

Aside from being a 'Non-Debate' this is also less and less plausible... It's not just 'Lefties' who are starting to grumble about this... and it's not just 'Lefties' who are concerned with the way this is being bludgeoned through with very little support, and it's not just 'Lefties' who think that a bill with so many amendments is clearly unfit for purpose.

So.. a rethink is in order... and maybe actually 'listening' to people with opposing viewpoints instead of just plucking a historical figure from Marxism and applying his name to them.

If you don't do that and in fact you just want to forge ahead with your own ideas based on a series of shadowy consultations and staged/managed meetings... well.. In that case I'd say that you definitely Love Stalin... In fact you probably want to kiss him right on his dead mouth.... and probably feel his Bottom.
No.. Definitely...


(Ps.. Thanks to any of the people I've linked to... I don't really know the etiquette here.. but if you want any links removed, let me know... Oh.. and any Rabid Trotskyismerationers who know more about him, and disagree with my Wiki-Lite Research, let me know and I will correct where appropriate... Isn't Democracy lovely?)