Dickheads are Cool

This is more or less the greatest video of all time...

Not in My Name

This post has been delayed quite significantly by the occurrence of World Cup games every flipping evening. Apologies. I couldn't not watch, though. I love football.

I don't love England (the football team), though. This World Cup has been the first one where I haven't supported the Three Lions (excepting those times when they failed to qualify at all). In fact, I not only haven't supported them, I haven't even watched them play, which has on occasion meant going quite considerably out of my way. My decision not to join my countrymen in supporting “our boys” has gone down pretty poorly with my friends, too. Going for a kip during England's opening match against the USA was a particularly unpopular move.

I've got my reasons, though, by jove. These are they:

1. Loathsome people – especially in the team. I can't go from detesting the very sight of John Terry and Ashley Cole on a weekly basis to cheering for them for a month every two years. It feels weird, two-faced and conviction-less (the last of which I certainly am not).

It's not just the players, though, if I'm honest. It's (some of) the fans, too. They're loud, obnoxious, boorish and sun-burnt. I'm only one of those things, I fondly believe. A large and vocal element of them are basically horrible. I don't want to be associated with them and they put me off. Some people might think that's snobbery, but I don't really agree. Surely I'm allowed to find some people, well, just unpleasant? I wouldn't support the estate agent industry, either, were I in it. This metaphor is confusing and I want out.

2. Patriotism and the last refuge of the scoundrel – isn't actually the best quote on the subject. That award goes to George Bernard Shaw for “patriotism is the belief your country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it”. It's patent nonsense and I don't feel much/any of it. It's almost totally arbitrary where you're born and I don't think the UK's such a screaming big deal anyway. Not for me.

3. Solidarity with my ma – who is only the most prominent (to me) reminder that not everyone likes being invaded by football every time an international tournament rolls around. It's not just internationals, too. The Premiership has grown to monstrous proportions and consumes ever more of our lives, football lover or not. These people are English too, aren't they?

Really, supporting anything is about caring for and relating to it. I'm not fussed in the slightest whether England ever manage to string passes together and I just don't feel part of the whole thing. It's not them, it's me. What the devil's wrong with that?

Waking Up to a Massive Election - Part II

Sorry for the pause.

Where was I? Oh yes:

The day(s)

May 6th was run with all the competence you'd expect of a banana republic holding it's first election, not the cradle of parliamentary democracy. I'm not one to judge anyone when it comes to administration, though, so let's move on. Turnout, at about 65%, was slightly up from last time, but fell well short of the 70% the more optimistic analysts were predicting. Would (relatively speaking) so many people have bothered if we hadn't had a) the debates, b) a supposedly "viable" third party to vote for and c) a hung parliament? I doubt it. I think we were heading for a record-breakingly low turnout. Maybe I'm wrong, though. It has been known.

I stayed up to watch until about 1am, but it became clear at that point that nothing was going to be decided soon. In fact, it wasn't decided for several days. Parliament was hung, as we all know, and the three main parties began schmoozing each other in earnest, trying to find a majority. In the end, the Lib Dems got into bed with the Tories, giving them a majority of the seats in the Commons. I have to say, I found the wheeling-dealing fascinating to "watch". I say watch, but I really mean wait outside a room furiously speculating about what's going on inside until the door opens and a man in a suit tells you how you're going to be ruled for the next 5 years. It wasn't supposed to be like this. In this hyper-democratic age, of Twitter, Google and Wikipedia, we aren't supposed to find this sort of thing interesting anymore. But we (or at least I) did, I have to admit.

Anyway, the negotiations swung hither and thither (we think), but as I said above, the end result was some kind of bastard Clameron, Cleggaron, Libcon, Con-dem-nation arrangement, where the Tories dropped the nasty stuff from their manifesto, picked up the choicest (cheapest and most popular) bits of the Libs' manifesto, gave a few cabinet seats and promised to stop being mean and talking over Nick Clegg at PMQs, and got the majority they were looking for. Some people have said since that this coalition was actually preferable to Cameron than getting a narrow Tory majority of his very own, as this way he gets to rout the right wing of his party and bolster the liberal side that he possibly mistakenly sees himself on. If that's right, it could be great, as we'll see a much less nasty Tory party, but it'll be awful for the Labour party, as the centre ground is claimed for the blues, possibly permanently.

I've heard plenty of people since the agreement was made calling Nick Clegg a "sell out", for getting into bed with the Tories. I've also heard people say that the Tories conceded too much to the Libs in the negotiations. I think both accusations are nonsense, to be honest. I really can't see that Clegg had any option but to go with the Tories. He'd been saying all through the campaign that he'd support the party with the most seats and votes and, well, here it was. He couldn't really go back on himself. A Lib-Lab coalition would have looked like a coup d'etat, basically. Additionally, the maths wasn't there for Lib-Lab. They would have needed every single rebellious backbencher to walk in lockstep with the party leadership, as well as the single, solitary Green member and a ragbag of assorted nationalists. It wasn't going to happen.

And I'm glad, truthfully. Not that the Tories are in government - that's a bit of a blow - but if you'd offered me Labour out (I really do think they deserved the kicking they got for so many of the decisions they made over the last 10 years), a liberal voice in government, some (if not all - the Libs just didn't have enough votes or seats to demand PR) political reform and coalition (weak) government a few months ago, I'd have snapped your hand off. Let's see how this one goes.

Waking Up to a Massive Election - Part I

Phew! That was exhausting, wasn't it? In spite of myself, I've been pretty captivated by recent proceedings. Maybe I'm not so jaded and cynical after all?

As promised previously, here are my thoughts on the whole shebang:

The campaigns

Were strangely muted, I thought. They would have passed under the national radar almost completely had it not been for the "innovation" (that they've had elsewhere for upwards of half a century) of TV debates. They're a mixed bag, certainly, but they drew surprisingly large audiences and brought the parties' ideas to whole new audiences. I'm pretty sure that many (most?) of the people that watched the first debate, for instance, had never seen or heard of Nick Clegg. For that reason, the Lib Dems got the most out of the debating thang (or so we thought, before we saw the results). Why Cameron and Brown agreed to have the Libs in them is still beyond me. They (possibly correctly?) misunderestimated the yellow peril big time.

My main concern with the debates is that they take us one step further down the line to presidentialism (which would be fine, but that we simply do not have that system here. Maybe we should, but that's another debate). Another issue I have with them is that they're pretty rubbish as information sources go. I for one was spending all my time trying to "score" the leaders' performances, rather than listening to what they had to say (which was largely drivel, to be fair to me). The parallels with boxing were incredible. People were actually talking about "knockout blows" and "points victories", an effect that was only heightened by the other politicians' wildly biased "interpretations" afterwards - all declaring their man to be the winner. Silly stuff. Such concerns are largely irrelevant, though (my views? Irrelevant? I hear you splutter), as leaders' debates are here to stay. You can't put the democratic genie back in the bottle (happily). Anyone complaining about them now is pissing in the wind, I'm afraid.

To vote, or not to vote?

As you may be aware, I am, customarily, a non-voter. I've given all my reasons here before, but, basically, it's partly about not making a difference and partly about not being interested in choosing between a douche and a turd. This time, though (my first time since making said resolution, rather embarrassingly), I crumbled. It was after the first debate. I'm a lot close to the Lib Dems, politically, than the other two. Part of the reason I wasn't planning to vote for them this time is that I assumed (correctly, as it happened) that they had no chance of, y'know, winning. That debate and particularly the Cleggmania that followed it, led me to think otherwise. Silly man. It's clear, now, that the Libs will never get a majority under First Past the Post (not that their, what, 23% of the vote would have won under any system). Cleggmania, in hindsight, was a case of the media getting ahead of themselves, but it was based on solid(ish) numbers of viewers that took to Clegg, due to his masterclass in not being the other two. I think people will look back and see this election as born of the expenses scandal. Nobody trusts politicians and as soon as the novelty wore off and people realised Clegg was one, they left him at the altar. Naughty electorate. Such a tease.

3rd Leaders' Debate III

21.52 - Dave had "a big argument with someone on the street about special schools the other day". He reckons he's in favour of them, but I'm not buying that. They're all trying to demonstrate their "passion" for education. Except Gordon, of course, who's pathologically incapable of displaying passion for anything other than tax credits, so opts simply to state it: "I AM PASSIONATE ABOUT SCHOOLS".

21.57 - Final statements. Dave "loves this country" and wants to back "values", "work" and "safety". So far, so Tory. There's "something we need to know" about him, though. He once met a black man!

22.00 - Gordon suggests that the Libs will ally with the Tories again. That'll be the line, I suppose. Clegg says the usual, pretty well, though.

This is extremely tough to call. They all did okay, there were no clear winners and noone dropped any clangers, though Clegg did take a horrible kicking on immigration. Cameron probably shaded it, I'd say. 1. Cameron, 2. Clegg, 3. Brown, I reckon. It's very marginal, though, so who the hell knows (my soothsaying confidence took a beating after calling it wrong last week). Let's see.

3rd Leaders' Debate II

9.00 - Brown comes out for the Tobin Tax, interestingly (assuming he can get the rest of the world on side, internationalist that he is).

9.01 - Dave talks about "Fred the Shred" and it's 2008. Clegg's flying here. He's talking complete bollocks, of course, but he's doing so with style. He's just good at this, simple as that.

9.03 - Dave goes after Wonderboy for his support for joining the Euro. Clegg shrugs it off pretty well, but he's on dangerous ground in this country, with it's wide-spread Euroscepticism.

9.07 - The questioner wants us to go back to the 19th Century and "make things" again. "We can't all work in shops and offices." Why the hell not? Clegg is "proud of Sheffield's industrial heritage", somewhat nauseatingly.

9.09 - Dave manages to remember the questioner's name. Yet another play from the yellow handbook. Do him and Gordon even have their own tactics?

9.10 - There's been a surprising lack of sweating in these debates thus far, but Clegg is doing his level best to address that. Maybe it's the lights.

9.12 - Dave says that "Gordon doesn't seem to know the difference between the Government and the economy". He's said it twice now. I think there's something in that, but that's just me. They're all pointing to green jobs as the future of the British economy.

21.17 - We're off the economy and Dimbleby plugs everything the BBC plans to do over the next 40 years.

21.18 - We're on to immigration, though, sadly. Think I'll put the kettle on.

21.19 - Dave sounds unbelievably posh when he says "roll" (as in "we need to control immigration"). Really surprised his advisors haven't stamped that one out.

21.21 - Dimbleby repeats and refocuses the audience's questions, as per Adam Boulton last week. Good stuff.

21.23 - Dave brings up the Lib Dems' immigration amnesty, which is Clegg's single weakest point. He does good work, though, by pointing out the dishonesty in pretending that immigration is a simple, easily solved issue. Gordon "agrees with Cameron", unsurprisingly. He bashes Clegg from the other side and it's assassination. It's still going on. I want none of this.

21.30 - Mercifully, we're off immigration. Housing next. Who's going to promise me one? All of them. Terrific!

21.33 - The Beeb has a funky purple graphic behind the leaders, which riffs nicely off Gordon's tie. Policy is for other people.

21.36 - Benefit abuse. I live in the wrong country, I really do. Nick Clegg "believes in work", courageously.

21.38 - Brown's policy is "no life on the dole". Lovely stuff. He "believes in work too". Who the hell would'a thunk it?

21.46 - Education and opportunities for poor kids. Gordon answers strongly on social mobility. Dave praises teachers. Yuk. The Conservatives seem to have only noticed poverty in the last few weeks, but still have the audacity to lecture Labour on it. Ridiculous.

3rd Leaders' Debate

The third and final debate. It's on the economy and it kicks off at 8.30. Let's be havin' ya.

Incidentally, I just heard Jon Snow saying how the debates have sucked the life out of ordinary campaigning. He's right, I suppose. The debates have utterly overshadowed the usual electioneering shenanigans. I'll write up my thoughts about this whole debating thang shortly.

Right, here we go.

8.33 - Dave witters on about being "stuck in a rut", or somesuch. He means the economy, of course, not the Conservative Party.

8.34 - Clegg is in the middle again. That's a surprise. Why would the others let him have that for free? Have they learnt nothing about underestimating the yellow surge?

8.35 - Gordon faces his demons by saying "as you saw yesterday, I don't get it all right". You can teach humility, then.

8.36 - If there was ever a debate topic for Gordon, though, it's this one. He simply must win this one. Behind in every poll, he needs a "game-changer", apparently.

8.38 - Dimbleby (for it is he, of course) has a deeply wacky floral tie. The candidates have stuck with the slightly weird party colour scheme, for some reason. Maybe it's one of the fabled 76 debate rules.

8.41 - Almost unbelievably, Dave mentions Mothercare again. That's all three debates. Great PR for them. Utterly whorish from Cameron (what the hell was I expecting?).

8.42 - Gordon "smiles" and my housemates cringe as one.

8.44 - Gordon and Dave are in PMQs mode. They're crossing swords with abandon, which always goes down badly with the public.

8.45 - This one's in the Great Hall at the University of Birmingham. It's gorgeous. No debates in London, eh? It does have the dubious honour of playing host to these guys for the next 4-5 years, I suppose, so fair's fair.

8.47 - Audience question on the need to cut tax. Dave should be at home here, except that this is no time for anyone to be cutting taxes. Clegg remembers the questioner's name and is rewarded with an earnest "listening" look. He goes for the bankers, as always, which goes down pretty well.

8.50 - Gordon rather pointedly says that he would "never go into alliance with the Conservatives" (not that he'd be asked), which is an indirect kick at Clegg.

8.52 - Gordon and Clegg are both giving Dave a kicking for wanting to cut inheritance tax. Dave calls it "desperate stuff".

8.54 - Clegg pulls out his old "look at these two!" line. He makes his pre-planned, scripted attacks so much better than the other two.

8.58 - Dave says that he "agree's with Mr Obama's plan" for dealing with naughty bankers. Cracking bit of name dropping there.

2nd Leaders' Debate II

8.27 - Clegg gets a breather as we move on to climate change - where he should be strong. Sadly, though, he opts to make a slightly rubbish point about the need to tax air travel. Gordon goes for renewables and Dave picks the 3rd runway at Heathrow. Choose your weapon/hobbyhorse.

8.30 - Gordon Brown is terribly advised. Just drop the forced smiling. It ain't you. He also calls Clegg "anti-American", interestingly. Not sure what he's referring to, but he must have a point to make, as he's said it twice now. Dave gets "anti-European", for his part.

8.37 - Spicy question on whether the parties should distance themselves from the Pope in the light of his fruity views on homosexuality, AIDs, sex scandals in the church and pretty much everything else. None of them are up for it, obviously, despite opposing his views. We're all bathing in the warm water of British tolerance.

8.44 - Clegg must be elated to be asked about his plan to restore faith in politics. What the hell has that got to do with foreign affairs, though? Gordon basically begs the audience to vote for someone, anyone (him). Dave wants to cut the cost of politics, which we heard last week. He also mentions open primaries, which the Tories have taken the lead on (I think). Clegg strongly suggests that we all "get stuck in" in this election. It's almost as if low turnouts favour the Tories...

8.51 - My housemate puts me out of my misery by explaining that we've moved onto general issues and away from foreign affairs, which explains a lot.

8.52 - Dave tries to prevent Clegg from "getting on a pedestal" about expenses. Clegg concedes that he's "no angel". Ouch.

8.54 - An OAP asks whether the leaders think that £59 is a fair weekly pension. None of them think it's enough. Gordon points out that the questioner isn't getting all her entitlements, to use an Americanism, which is so like him ("the money is there if you can only navigate my labyrinth!"). Dave does pretty well by explaining exactly how he plans (to afford) to raise the figure. They're all doing their best "earnest" faces. This is much closer than last week.

9.05 - Is coalition government the way forward? Good question. Dave nods to bipartisanship, obviously, but also warns of the terrible dangers of a hung Parliament. You thought Dave liked bipartisanship? Clegg loves bipartisanship. He also declares that "we need a Committee for Financial Stability". Gordon points out that we already have one, actually. Doh.

9.08 - Adam Boulton is moderating pretty well. He seems more relaxed than ITV's man last week, who actually shouted the leaders' names to get them to yield the floor to each other. Boulton's also re-phrasing the questions that they fail to answer. Excellent work.

21.11 - Dave mentions Mothercare again. You don't think he's chasing the Soccer Mom vote, do you? Shameless. We're on the banking system. Clegg's bashing away, as he likes to do. Dave tries to joke with the audience about the now fabled "other two" bickering. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I suppose, so Clegg should feel pretty good right now.

21.15 - Immigration, which could be another banana skin for Clegg. His immigration "amnesty" might be eminently sensible, but will not play well with the public, sadly. Gordon instantly mentions it and I'm basically a genius. Clegg, bravely, wants to target the criminal gangs that prey on illegal immigrants, rather than the aliens themselves. I agree with him and wish the rest of the country did too, but I reckon he could founder upon this here rock. Gordon throws away any (remote) chance he had of me voting for him by saying that he's "deeply concerned" about "Nick's" policy. To hell with him and his cowardly politics.

9.26 - Closing statements and Gordon says "the buck stops here. If I'm in the job, you're in". Seriously, what does that even mean? Gordon says that Dave's a "threat to the economy" and Clegg's a "threat to our security". The cameraman's a Tory, because we're zooming in (uncomfortably closely) on Dave's face. Stop it. Don't nobody need to see that. Clegg's closing is better than last week, but I think he's (narrowly) lost tonight. I score it 1. Cameron 2. Brown and 3. Clegg. I don't think it's been overwhelming, but might this be the end of the yellow surge?

2nd Leaders' Debate

Here we go again. This one's on foreign affairs.

8.02 - Gordon actually says "like me or not, but I know how to do the job".

8.03 - All three are doing what Clegg did to good effect in the first debate - looking directly (spookily?) into the camera. Clegg's in the middle this time, which is a nice place to be and looks terribly prime ministerial.

8.05 - The most Bristolian man in the world (the debate is in Bristol, to be fair) says he "can't see the point in being in Europe". Noone show him a map. Dave (I simply can't bear to call him Cam anymore), quite boldly, comes out as wanting to stay in the Union. The other two sing the same tune ("it's flawed, but we basically need it").

8.09 - Dave wins the hotly contested nicest tie competition.

8.10 - Gordon's giving Dave a kicking for his party's eccentricity on the subject. Dave replies, calling Gordon and Clegg "the other two", which was one of Clegg's most frequent refrains in the first debate. There's been some frantic coaching before this one.

8.14 - Gordon's at the old "the other two are squabbling like children" now. Shameless robbery of Clegg, but I suppose it was to be expected.

8.24 - Dave takes us into Trident territory. This could be rough for Clegg. Gordon directly advises Nick to "get real". Dave shocks himself by saying that he "agrees with Gordon". Doubleteam.

8.15 - The 2nd most Bristolian man in the world asks if the UK would go into another war along the same lines as the one in Afghanistan. They're all in a slightly difficult position, having voted for the Afghan War, but there are plenty of criticisms to safely make, which they all duly do.

8.18 - The inevitable troops love-in is just around the corner, I just know it. I feel pre-nauseous.

8.20 - I've been wondering whether Clegg will stick to Lib Dem policy on Trident, amongst other things, or whether he'll try to hide behind the "outsider" persona. He's not dodging the issues, though, to be fair to him.

8.21 - They're all on about their various photo ops in Afghanistan and their admiration for "our boys" out there and I want to shoot myself, I really do.

Just Add Hot Water

To this beauty.

As Predicted

Sadly.

The Leaders' Debate III

21.45 - My speech therapist housemate points out that the weird, goldfish-like mouth movements Gordon makes are in response to a speech impediment. He's doing pretty well against some fairly significant natural disadvantages, in fairness.

21.47 - Clegg says that "this is a phoney debate". You said it, mate. He's clearly winning, though. Cam looks decent too. Gordon hasn't done awfully, but he probably needed to do better than that. I reckon Cam just needs to play it safe and not drop the ball in order to win. Maybe the Libs (with a hung Parliament) are the biggest threat to him now? I wonder if he'll start aiming for them in the weeks ahead?

21.52 - Final question is on care for the elderly. Clegg suggests that "all the parties get together on this one", meaninglessly. Gordon's using his caring voice. Eww! He should take this one though. He can make spending promises with the best of them. Cameron does disappointingly well by lionising carers. Clegg's forced to join the eulogy. They're all being terribly serious.

22.01 - In closing, Clegg goes back to his old vs new politics shtick. My old buddy change gets his tummy tickled too. Brown goes economic, obviously. He also tries to make a joke, with predictably cringe-worthy results. Cameron will personally be behind you in your business. Scary!

In conclusion, as they all press the flesh, it looked like 1. Clegg 2. Cameron 3. Brown to me. No one dropped any major clangers. Great night for the Libs, but to what end?

The Leaders' Debate II

8.58 - Audience question about expenses. Cam calls it a "horrendous episode". Gordon was "shocked and sickened", apparently. You didn't expect anything else, did you? Cam suggests "cutting the size of politics", which may go down fairly well, I imagine.

21.02 - Clegg knows he's on the firmest ground here, as he's being making noises about political reform for a long time. Cam basically has nothing here, but does make the point that Labour have had 13 years to make reforms if they wanted them.

21.05 - Cam wants to pick "Nick" up on what he's said, because there's "a slight danger of a holier than though attitude". To be fair, it is good to see the Libs get a grilling for once, much as they might have the best lines on this.

21.07 Cam makes a repulsive "whoops" face when Clegg doesn't answer a question about some old financial scandal. He didn't even hear it, to be fair to him.

21.09 - Schools. Some posho asks what they'll do to "improve education". So general, so easy to answer. Poor question. He was a kid, though, to be fair. I'm in a fair mood tonight.

21.11 - Cam (so sorry to be calling him that - it's just quick to type) harps on about cutting bureaucracy and quangos, not for the first time. He also mentions discipline, ffs. C'mon , where are these modern Tories I keep hearing about?

21.15 - Cam's just as smooth as ever. Clegg's actually doing pretty well. He appears pretty likeable anyway (whatever that's worth). Brown's smirking weirdly and basically having a bit of a shocker. My housemate reckons Brown's playing it tactically - being nice to Clegg and avoiding engaging with Cam. Wants the Liberals' support, you see.

21.20 - We're on to the economy. I'm surprised it took us this long, as this is supposed to be the biggest issue in this election. Campaign speeches ahoy!

21. 24 - Clegg's all about being "straight" with us, thankfully. The other two are obviously lying then. Clegg is pulling "oh, you two" faces at every opportunity. He's so different! Don't you believe it?

21.28 - Brown's forced smiles are even more embarrassing than his grimaces. He looks insane. He has a nice tie though. I notice such things. I'm not ashamed of it.

21.30 - Clegg keeps talking about "politicians" like they're other people. I do like him and he's doing quite well tonight, but I can't see how you can change the system from inside it (unless you're far enough inside it to, y'know, win).

21.32 - We have now arrived at Platitude Central - the armed forces. They're all fans. Who knew?

21.35 - Clegg keeps mentioning Sheffield (part of which is his constituency), weirdly. The others haven't referred to their constituencies. Maybe Cam is ashamed of Witney. Clegg clearly has no such feelings about his. It's in the North, you know. I might be reading too much into this.

21.39 - Ah, Trident renewal. Lonely ol' Clegg is the only one against it, sadly. Clegg's left hand is in his pocket. Nonchalant, or effected? I report, you decide. More importantly, is it effected, or affected? Fingers crossed.

21.43 - The NHS. Cam makes a massive deal about being a massive fan. This is the new Tories, I suppose. Lies, basically. Not to be cynical...

The Leaders' Debate

Hold on to your seats. Three charlatans are about to stage a press conference where they make speeches written by other people and read from an auto-cue. I'll try to contain my cynicism if you try to contain your excitement.

The first ever (in this country) leaders' debate is about to kick off. Let's blog.

8.34 - The stage looks utterly budget. Clegg has a ludicrously shiny tie. He speaks first. Something from his campaign speech about the "old politics" and the opportunity to usher in the new by voting for the Lib Dems.

8.35 - Gordon says that the only thing that matters is the economy and our need to avoid a "double-dip" recession.

8.36 - Cameron completes the opening speeches by reaching into his own campaign mantras. They're all emphasising the themes that suit them, obviously. Cameron said, um, something...

8.37 - Audience question about immigration.

8.39 - Cam thinks there's just "too much", unsurprisingly.

8.40 - They all make the argument that immigration is good ("we're in favour of darkies"), but that we need "tough, new" controls.

8.41 - Gordon claims immigration is actually falling.

8.42 - Cam calls the immigration system "out of control".

8.43 - Clegg sensibly mentions two popular areas of immigration: football and the NHS.

8.45 - First bit of sword-crossing from the leaders. This is going fast. Really having trouble keeping up with this. Gives me something to do other than listen to the debate, though, thankfully.

8.46 - Clegg suggests a regional immigration system, interestingly (sort of).

8.48 - On to crime. Who's got a magic bullet? Not the Gov, says Cam. He tells a "moving" story about a victim of crime. He sounds very, very old Tory on this.

8.49 - Nick Clegg in support for Police shock. He also reminds us that he's an MP. Who the hell didn't know that? People with actual votes? Christ.

8.51 - Ah, yes. Cam blames all our problems on drugs. So progressive.

8.52 - Clegg describes British prisons as "colleges of crime", which is a good line. Nice to hear a politician being even slightly critical of prisons.

8.54 - Clegg basically makes the same point again. Perhaps I'm being harsh here, but it looks like he had a mental blank.

8.55 - Gordon "humanises" himself with a lame and laboured joke about the Tories' election posters.

Modern Boss

I had the misfortune of being lent a book by my boss. Not reading it wasn't really an option, but it turned out to be great. Well, not great, perhaps (it was about management theory), but fascinating. It's called The Future of Management and it's by Harvard Business School's Gary Hamel (who I recently found out advised Enron, but we'll ignore that).

The reason I enjoyed it was that it's really about the end of management, rather than the future. This interests me greatly and not just because I'm not a manager myself. I've been thinking the same thing for a while now, that what we need is fewer, not more, managers/bosses, so it's nice to see such a luminary as Hamel giving voice to the idea. He told me a few (alright, many) things I didn't know, too. The idea of the employee, for example, is a fairly recent development in management. Before the Industrial Revolution, or something, people were almost all self-employed. The idea of one person being another's minion was totally alien to people. Not in the 20th Century, though, where we all became Henry Ford's assembly line bitches. That made some sense, though, I suppose, when there was a very clear ruling/boss class and an army of the Great Unwashed to perform single, repetitive tasks in the production of Model Ts. Not today, though, when employees are perfectly likely to be more educated or intelligent than their employers. Not that I'm either, you understand.

Hamel's argument is that today, in the global economy of the 21st Century, creativity and innovation are more important than ever before. It's hard to innovate, though, if you're relying on a few specially labelled "creatives" or even the dreaded "blue sky thinkers" to do it all for you. Hamel uses the example of Toyota, which has vastly outperformed/innovated it's competitors, largely by utilising the brainpower of its entire workforce, not just the higher echelons.

That's quite true, but isn't the whole story, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe it's the liberal in me, but I'm not at all keen on the boss/minion model. I want to look my colleagues in the eye, not at my shoes. That's impossible while one of you has the power to fire the other at the drop of a hat, no matter how nice individuals might be. It's stifling, then, and not just of creativity. The future will be non-hierarchical, I'm quite sure. Living in someone else's pocket was soooo 20th Century.

Isn't it Good (Norwegian Wood)?

This post is overdue. Apologies to my legions of fans, but I've been hella busy of late. I went to Oslo the weekend before last, though, and this blog will be about that.

Fascinating place. I haven't travelled as much as I'd like over the last few years, as I've had to start paying for myself (well, sometimes). This trip really reminded me how great it is to see new places, though. It's a shame, in a way, because Oslo/Norway is worthy of far more consideration than I could really give it at the time, as I was either drunk or hungover the whole weekend (I was visiting uni pals - it was never going to be a civilised affair).

The little cognitive processing I did manage, though, left me thoroughly impressed. I tell you, the UK doesn't look so hot in comparison. More on that later. The first thing to mention, almost to get it out of the way, is that the women were spectacularly beautiful and very, very generous with their eye contact (this probably goes along way to explaining why the UK looks so rubbish now). More interesting, though, was the society. I genuinely didn't lay eyes on a single "chav" all weekend. This wasn't an accident, either - they really are a single class society (well, as close as I've seen, anyway). Norway sits on a tremendous amount of oil and gas, true, but they sell 99.9% of it on the international market, I'm told. They get almost all their power from hydro-electric dams in the fiordlands. All that oil money, then, allied with high taxes and eye-wateringly high prices (a tenner for a Big Mac! It's not so bad for them, though - they earn correspondingly high salaries), makes for the kind of public spending Polly Toynbee can only dream of.

Added to that, their salary distribution is much more equal than ours. Where, in the UK, the CEO of McDonald's probably earns 20 times what a burger-flipper does, in Norway it's probably only 2-3 times. They still have richer people, then, but not nearly like we do.

It's a fascinating social experiment. A lot of lefties over here would like us to try to recreate the "Nordic Miracle" and it's easy to see why. A gentler, more tolerant, more civilised society would be a wonderful thing. The biggest differences between Norway and the UK, though, it seems to my untutored eye, are that a) we don't have fiords to dam, and b) we have more than 60 million people, where Norway has *hastily checks Wikipedia* just under 5. To replicate the experiment on such a grand scale would be a huge undertaking, which we Brits aren't exactly famous for.

I really don't know if we could do it here. A large part of me wishes we could, though. A single, civilised class - it'd be like Islington writ large - heaven or hell, depending on your tastes.

Riddle me this, though: why do we (so often) blindly accept living where we were born? Maybe the UK ain't some big, screaming deal - why live there? We'll be much more discerning about where we live in the future, I would have thought, and that's a great, great thing.

Wordplay Costs Extra

Clearly.

Round My Way

Deep, isn't it? It's not so bad in town, but I live up a hill, in a residential area without much foot or motor traffic. Makes for good snow and bad walks to work. Pretty though.

Rise of the Idiots

A new and horrifying beast stalks our land. Young people everywhere are falling victim to the monster's ceaseless hunger for human minds. I speak, of course, of the rise and rise of the (mis)use of the term "literally".

Regular readers, both of them, will know me as something of a pedantic fascist (or, more accurately, a fascistic pedant). To this charge I can only plead guilty, but I still think this is a uniquely grave situation. Don't make this about me.

Thing is, poor English has been around for ever, but this is new. A ridiculous number of the people with whom I associate (and can't just kill - some of them are actually quite nice) use literally to mean virtually/almost/very much. I've even, gulp, done it myself. People these days do seem to exaggerate ("it was the biggest glass of wine I have ever seen") and literally seems have become the exaggerator's weapon of choice ("it was literally the biggest glass of wine I have ever seen"). For all of them. All the time. Not to exaggerate.

The worst offences I've ever seen (literally) are the following (from football - an incomparable source of stupidity):

• "He's literally on fire at the moment" - Jamie Redknapp, discussing Robin Van Persie's good form

And, most awesomely of all:

• "The defender is literally, literally right up his backside" - Andy Townsend, discussing some close marking. He said it twice!

None of my associates have quite reached these heights/depths yet, but it doesn't matter - I am jarred by the word's misuse about 15 times a day. I'm (not literally) going round the bend.

*Update* - While hunting for the above graphic I stumbled upon this article, which (literally?) blows my argument out of the water.

Kings of the Road

In the most recent of many vain attempts at self-improvement, I am cycling to and from work. I live at the top of a hill, so the way to the office in the morning is a breeze. The way back, however, is a beast. I seem to be sticking with it, though, at least so far, because of both my awesome levels of determination and the happy realisation that I can afford to give up on my existing press-up routine now that I’m getting some other exercise. Possibly more the second thing.

Some insights:

1. It is impossible for a cyclist to avoid being overcome with self-righteousness. I’m greener, leaner and meaner (in the economic sense) than all the bastard cars swarming around me and only partly because I can’t afford to run my own car and wouldn’t know how to operate one even if I could. This is a great feeling and one that frequently affords me the chance to swear loudly at (or at least think murderous thoughts about) my fellow road users, whose fault it almost certainly isn‘t, whatever it may be. A cyclist is quite simply never in the wrong.

2. Car drivers are more aware of the safety of other road users than cyclists. Because it isn’t our concern. We can’t hurt people (at least not really), but we can certainly be hurt. I have to say, though, that I expect a great deal more awareness and, well, competence from car drivers than I display myself. Me wobbling around (albeit at hilariously and possibly illegally low speeds) on a bike is basically the equivalent of a toddler behind the wheel of a car. Thank God most drivers seem to know what they’re doing, because I certainly don’t. I’m terrified that they will assume the same level of competency in me that I do in them. So far they don’t, possibly because of the aforementioned wobbling.

3. Good (by which I mean indulgent, patient and most likely pitying) car drivers treat cyclists like idiots. We require at least 1.5 metres of wobble room, dramatic reduction of your speed and probably a few extra minutes added to your journey, as well as constant vigilance. We offer nothing in return. Why, questionable moral superiority notwithstanding, do cyclists have the right to expect such indulgence from car drivers? We offer nothing and expect everything, it seems to me. Mystifyingly, this deal seems to be upheld on our nation’s roads. Flip knows why.

Cycling, then: practised by self-righteous, reckless and incompetent fools for their own benefit entirely. And car drivers get a bad press.