25/09/2006
Brownian motion
Yes - there wasn't a great fluidity, was there? About Mr G.Brown's speech today. At conference. The voice is solid yes, but he's got no real sense of phrasing or timing. And he didn't say a word about Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or Iran. Or Palestine. Or Trident. Or the NHS strikes. Or the pensions black hole. Or anything.
Soundwise, it worked well-ish as a Credo; a crie de coeur in the Presbyterian / humanist mould, setting out a craggy-faced, wind-swept vision of chilly-thighed, freshly-starched Brownite leadership - all "neeps and tatties with pastor Brown in the grey, stone rectory", washed down with strong, bad tea and then in the morning crisp, cold white clothes laid out on the bed by a disapproving, black-clad mother, who glowers at the suspicious stains on the eiderdown before thrashing you down the street to school, and to hours of Calvin and Erasmus on hard benches.
And in that moment I found myself thinking "fuck that".
Yours etc.,
Spinoff.
15:16 Posted in News | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
07/09/2006
The love of power
The reason is this – to become a politician, one has to be attracted to the job. One does not become a politician by accident. There are those that are attracted by the prospect of doing good works, joining committees and so on and so forth. These, however, are the politicians that are rarely seen. They eschew the limelight in favour of dark, industrious corners.
But then there is the other, much more famous animal, the political star, and it is this animal that is most significant and telling. This type of politician is drawn to the political flame not by the thought of being able to help, but by the promise of power. Quite how attractive this breed finds power is currently being demonstrated with shocking clarity by T.Blair’s pathological inability to cede power (just as, before him, Mrs Thatcher demonstrated the exact same trait). God, he loves it.
For despite the media storm, paralysed party, growing Tory threat, and despite the fact that neither his party nor the country want him in power any more, idiotic foreign policy and ongoing wars that he cannot attend to for political strife at home – despite all these things, he clings to power. He clings to power because his life and career – and indeed his entire reason for being – are predicated on it.
And this brings us to the unelected second chamber, and to a question. Consider this: do we want to be governed exclusively by individuals such as Blair, who are motivated by power? Because if an individual is so concerned with power when in fact he or she ought to be concerned with the wellbeing of the country, then that individual is surely undesirable as a leader.
The principle concern ought not to be for the maintenance of personal position because, as we see with Blair, a fixation with the ins and outs of staying on the throne can bring government business to a complete standstill.
And this is why an unelected second chamber is so vital. The Commons is filled with and led by a group of men and women fixated with power. What could be better than a second chamber to keep them in check, peopled by individuals who do not share this fixation? What better way to hold back the aspirant megalomaniac tendency inherent in the Blair / Thatcher-style political animal than to dilute their juice with individuals who have come to power by accident (for what could possibly be more accidental than birth?)
So bring back the Dukes, Earls and Honourable Ladies to blockade the way of the thrusting plebs with their stiltony, tweedy reasonableness! All these people who actively seek power and then blub when they have it taken away are too sick-making for words. Yuk.
Yours etc.,
Spinoff.
11:15 Posted in News | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
06/09/2006
An apology
Many apologies. World going mad; there is currently nothing further to say.
Yours etc.,
Spinoff.
10:44 Posted in News | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this