Aug 20

David Cameron probably considers himself an intelligent person with values. He has tended to float without an anchor able to lead both Conservative Party and Coalition. He has at times shown magnificent ignorance and been prepared to accept the UK’s past as an imperial power whose malign influence lies behind many of the world’s problems. Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , ,

Jun 10

Labour needed a left candidate apparently to prevent their debate between 4 Brown nosers being moribund. John McDonnell had more initial nominations and had tried to stand against Brown a few years ago – something the rest of the party should have apologised for not supporting frankly. Yet it is Diane Abbot’s name that goes forward thanks to patronising support from senior Labour figures. Abbot has never shown much interest in anything. Even as she watched on disapprovingly of the Blair years her only comment was that things would change when ‘Gordon’ took over and by god they did, for the worse.

Her nomination in the words of McDonnell was to get a woman on the debate. A pitiable sexist sop to rhetoric. Hey we have a woman standing for our leadership and only because this was gerrymandered by a host of clowns like Harman and David Miliband nominating someone they would not piss on if she was on fire.

Really this fools no one. It exposes the party as racist and sexist in the patronising sense not the Alf Garnett/Ed Balls  way.

It also shows an elitest side to the party in that the left candidate with the most support is forced to step down for an achievement less Oxbridger who does not seem to have the slightest idea what she personally is standing for – indeed her standing seem almost a spur of the moment thing she made little effort to back up judged on her lack of nominations. Her standing is apparently to represent that unlike other parties women with the support of the leadership can be gerrymandered on to ballots or something like that.

I guess after Brown who was not Oxbridge educated they are not willing to consider morons who failed to get to Oxford or Cambridge. They would even use a candidate in Abbot accurately summed up by discredited scribe Jeffrey Archer as someone who was far cleverer than she liked to pretend to be.  It says nothing positive about Labour or women or women in Labour it says everything about elitism.

Diversity my arse.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , ,

Jan 29

Looking like Thunderbirds’ Brains with hair loss and too long in the sun. Tony Blair spoke to the softest  inquisition since Denis Healey described being attacked by Geoffrey Howe as like being savaged by a dead sheep. It’s said Blair managed the seeming impossible by wearing out a mirror in the weeks prior practising those comical hand movements.

Blair explained after 9-11 the danger of Iraq became necessary for him to act…. Stop.

What?

What did Iraq have to do with 9-11? They did not press him albeit he acknowledged the two were unrelated.

His starting point is a non sequitur.

Like Blair had let his random side out by chewing Rowntree’s Randoms and said the equivalent of “Snowflake his Teapot” – although that makes more sense. How could they let him whitter on delusionally like a puppet on a string without getting him to explain his start point? Surely if he cannot explain that, as it seems no one can, then everything he says after is the product of irrational and stupid thinking entirely to be expected of an Oxbridge graduate – Stephen Fry made Prime Minister.

It will be interesting if the Chilcot Inquiry let him prattle on trying to settle the battle between his own conscience and his ego because they realised he had nothing to say or because they are the designated apologists. Certainly one has to question the probity and intelligence of the committee in sitting there like drunks and not asking for the explanation of how the path to this war started! It would seem the only thing they should have been interested in?

The real paddling pool depth of this inquiry is that at the end Blair was allowed to express his feelings. It really does not matter what or how Blair feels but it was incumbent on the lickspittle team to at least get Blair to explain his irrationality of thinking that leads from 9-11 to Iraq.

Today confirmed that far from using polarising language and gross simplification as rhetoric to win political arguments Blair thinks like that. He uses one liners and feelings as justification, knowledge and analysis.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , ,