The UK election has a week left to run and still large swathes of the country are undecided as to cast their vote for the posh one, the one nobody knew a week ago or the one that was Tony Blair's mate so as usual it comes down to the public asking, ' Who is that woman off of Countdown voting for?'
As it is so tight, the celebrity World is stepping in to try and sway us because heaven knows i lay awake at night wondering what Frank Bruno makes of the plans to increase British manufacturing output.
In the red corner, backing Gordon Brown and the Labour party are JK Rowling, David Tennant, Eddie Izzard, Patrick Stewart and Chris Evans.
Backing the Conservatives are Cilla Black, Chris Rea, Frank Bruno, Joan Collins, Nick Faldo, Michael Caine and Carol Vorderman.
Pulling for the Liberal Democrats are Colin Firth, Jane Goldman, Chris Martin, Kate Winslett, Daniel Radcliffe and John Cleese.
While none of them look particular attractive, if an invite to a dinner party with celebrity guests dropped through my door from all the parties, i would choose to go to the Liberal Democrat one if they promised Chris Martin wouldn't be providing the entertainment.
The Tory line up looks like an invite from hell and the odds of being sat within hearing distance of Chris Evans spoils the chance to meet Eddie Izzard or David Tennant at the Labour Party shindig.
All in all a rather poor sprinkling of celebrity dust over proceedings although with a week to go their is still the chance of the famous 'if Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem win i'm leaving the country' quotes to flow forth from a washed up actor or singer.
Now that sort of celebrity endorsement will sway our votes because i guarantee if Victoria Beckham said it, the party she said would force her out would win by a landslide.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Monday, 26 April 2010
Who I like
I know it is not right to make sweeping generalisations about countries and its populations but we all have our opinions coloured by our experiences while on holiday there or what we read or see on the television or for the most trivial of reasons and everything gets cranked up a couple of notches on the internet anyway so putting aside footballing reasons and just concentrating on the country, here is the countries competing in the World Cup this summer that i would like to see win it, those i hope they get knocked out straight away and those that i just don't particular care about one way or the other.
Being English, i of course want to see England take it but if they get knocked out i would like to see either France, Argentina, USA, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, N Zealand, Spain or Switzerland win it because for various reasons, these are countries i like.
What would ruin my summer would be if anyone from S Africa, Greece, Australia, Italy, Brazil or Portugal won it because these are countries that i dislike.
The old Spitting Image song about not finding a nice South African is true, i have yet to meet one and i had a torrid two weeks holiday in Greece a few years back so they can bugger off as well. It always gives me a warm feeling inside to see the loudmouth Aussies getting beaten at anything and almost every Italian i have ever met has been arrogant, smarmy and instantly punchable. Brazil always win it and i hate Ronaldo with a passion so want to see him, and therefore Portugal, out quickly .
All the rest i don't like or dislike for any reason and would greet any World Cup victory with a nonchalant shrug and the knowledge that nobody from my dislike list won it.
Being English, i of course want to see England take it but if they get knocked out i would like to see either France, Argentina, USA, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, N Zealand, Spain or Switzerland win it because for various reasons, these are countries i like.
What would ruin my summer would be if anyone from S Africa, Greece, Australia, Italy, Brazil or Portugal won it because these are countries that i dislike.
The old Spitting Image song about not finding a nice South African is true, i have yet to meet one and i had a torrid two weeks holiday in Greece a few years back so they can bugger off as well. It always gives me a warm feeling inside to see the loudmouth Aussies getting beaten at anything and almost every Italian i have ever met has been arrogant, smarmy and instantly punchable. Brazil always win it and i hate Ronaldo with a passion so want to see him, and therefore Portugal, out quickly .
All the rest i don't like or dislike for any reason and would greet any World Cup victory with a nonchalant shrug and the knowledge that nobody from my dislike list won it.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
BBC poll: Who we like
The BBC World Service run an annual poll taken from 28 countries to decide which nation is viewed most favourably.
America, for the first time, is viewed as more positive than negative although my suspicions are that has more to do with George W Bush leaving office than anything Obama has done on the global stage which doesn't seem that much to me.
The most favourably viewed country was Germany followed by Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada and France.
The nation viewed least favourably is Iran, then Pakistan, North Korea and then Israel.
I can see the attraction of Germany and Japan, both countries that seem to have learnt from their history, but as the UK has followed Bush's America around like a lovesick puppy for the best part of a decade, i can't see why we are sailing so high in the poll.
Likewise, i wouldn't fancy visiting any of those countries at the bottom of the pile. Iran and Pakistan are just about ready to explode while North Korea is a basket case of a country and Israel are the worlds pariahs for a very good reason.
The superpowers, America, Russia and China are all sat around the middle with a fairly neutral view but superpowers are always going to divide opinion anyway.
America, for the first time, is viewed as more positive than negative although my suspicions are that has more to do with George W Bush leaving office than anything Obama has done on the global stage which doesn't seem that much to me.
The most favourably viewed country was Germany followed by Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada and France.
The nation viewed least favourably is Iran, then Pakistan, North Korea and then Israel.
I can see the attraction of Germany and Japan, both countries that seem to have learnt from their history, but as the UK has followed Bush's America around like a lovesick puppy for the best part of a decade, i can't see why we are sailing so high in the poll.
Likewise, i wouldn't fancy visiting any of those countries at the bottom of the pile. Iran and Pakistan are just about ready to explode while North Korea is a basket case of a country and Israel are the worlds pariahs for a very good reason.
The superpowers, America, Russia and China are all sat around the middle with a fairly neutral view but superpowers are always going to divide opinion anyway.
Making space on a crowded island
Immigration seems to be a topic we avoid for fear of being branded racist. I take the view that all are welcome here as long as they benefit the country.
This is different to asylum seekers who come here for their own safety. Admittedly it was us who were making the places dangerous as in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq so we had a moral duty to invite them here, especially if we are raining bombs on their neighbourhood from thousands of feet up.
Sorry just didn't seem to cut it somehow.
The problem we have is that Britain is a cramped little island and so have little room to expand and so as the population grows, the infrastructure doesn't keep up.
It is obvious that more people means we require more schools, hospitals, prisons and houses. But where to build them? Slowly we are creeping into land previously designated as green belt and ring fenced as places not to be built on. They are now redefining large swathes of it brown belt and calling in the builders.
One of the housing solutions is to renovate buildings into homes, with any unused office block or pub rubbed down, sold off and turned into flats.
There are some certain buildings that we never see converted although they hardly get any use at all.
Controversially, these places are churches and probably have some sort of legal protection dating back to Oliver Cromwell that renders them safe but i say we are surrounded by the damned things, let's rip some down and build on the plot.
Apart from on Sunday mornings when three men and a dog wander by, these places are largely empty and each city has many of these buildings of various size within a shake of a collection tin of each other.
Not only must they cost the local authorities a fortune to run and maintain, they are only used by a tiny percentage of the population who would only suffer the indignation of an extra 10 minute walk to the next nearest church.
They are a relic of a by-gone age, take up more than their fair share of land and mostly stand empty so tear up that ancient law (if there is such a thing) and let's have less Bishops and more builders.
This is different to asylum seekers who come here for their own safety. Admittedly it was us who were making the places dangerous as in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq so we had a moral duty to invite them here, especially if we are raining bombs on their neighbourhood from thousands of feet up.
Sorry just didn't seem to cut it somehow.
The problem we have is that Britain is a cramped little island and so have little room to expand and so as the population grows, the infrastructure doesn't keep up.
It is obvious that more people means we require more schools, hospitals, prisons and houses. But where to build them? Slowly we are creeping into land previously designated as green belt and ring fenced as places not to be built on. They are now redefining large swathes of it brown belt and calling in the builders.
One of the housing solutions is to renovate buildings into homes, with any unused office block or pub rubbed down, sold off and turned into flats.
There are some certain buildings that we never see converted although they hardly get any use at all.
Controversially, these places are churches and probably have some sort of legal protection dating back to Oliver Cromwell that renders them safe but i say we are surrounded by the damned things, let's rip some down and build on the plot.
Apart from on Sunday mornings when three men and a dog wander by, these places are largely empty and each city has many of these buildings of various size within a shake of a collection tin of each other.
Not only must they cost the local authorities a fortune to run and maintain, they are only used by a tiny percentage of the population who would only suffer the indignation of an extra 10 minute walk to the next nearest church.
They are a relic of a by-gone age, take up more than their fair share of land and mostly stand empty so tear up that ancient law (if there is such a thing) and let's have less Bishops and more builders.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Why Keep Trident?
I have strong feelings that sometimes the Governments of our countries don't give us a say on some policies because they know they wouldn't like the answer.
I would be very confident in predicting that if there was a referendum on the return of the death penalty, they would be erecting gallows in prison yards by the weekend.
Same with handing the bankers billions. A referendum would have said a firm no and many high street banks would now be occupied by Poundland shops.
That's why i think Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has hit a very plump nail square on the head with his plan, if elected, to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons.
Short of revenge if we attacked by a nuclear armed country, it is hard to think of a reason why we keep on pumping billions into keeping our nuclear arsenal and to be honest, the odds of us being attacked by one of the other 6 nuclear powers is remote in the extreme.
While it is true that we don't know what the future brings, it is also true that while we are making people redundant and closing public services, it seems folly to pay out billions for something just because of some event that is unlikely to happen at some unspecified time in the future.
By scrapping Trident, we free up £100 billion that would make things very much more comfortable now and more than half the £180 billion debt our country is currently struggling under.
The real problem seems to be that we would lose our seat at the top table with the big boys because we have very little else to offer apart from being in the nuclear club.
I don't know how much a comfort it is that we have nuclear missiles when you are clearing out your desk but i wouldn't have thought it crosses many peoples mind and it seems almost criminal to keep ploughing money into Trident when the country is desperate for funds.
And that's why we won't get a choice of whether to keep or scrap it.
I would be very confident in predicting that if there was a referendum on the return of the death penalty, they would be erecting gallows in prison yards by the weekend.
Same with handing the bankers billions. A referendum would have said a firm no and many high street banks would now be occupied by Poundland shops.
That's why i think Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has hit a very plump nail square on the head with his plan, if elected, to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons.
Short of revenge if we attacked by a nuclear armed country, it is hard to think of a reason why we keep on pumping billions into keeping our nuclear arsenal and to be honest, the odds of us being attacked by one of the other 6 nuclear powers is remote in the extreme.
While it is true that we don't know what the future brings, it is also true that while we are making people redundant and closing public services, it seems folly to pay out billions for something just because of some event that is unlikely to happen at some unspecified time in the future.
By scrapping Trident, we free up £100 billion that would make things very much more comfortable now and more than half the £180 billion debt our country is currently struggling under.
The real problem seems to be that we would lose our seat at the top table with the big boys because we have very little else to offer apart from being in the nuclear club.
I don't know how much a comfort it is that we have nuclear missiles when you are clearing out your desk but i wouldn't have thought it crosses many peoples mind and it seems almost criminal to keep ploughing money into Trident when the country is desperate for funds.
And that's why we won't get a choice of whether to keep or scrap it.
Monday, 19 April 2010
Why not under the sea?
We have long been able to take any form of transport and move holiday makers around the planet.
In the air with planes and airships and over land on trains and motorised vehicles and even over sea with ships, hovercrafts and boats.
One area that we don't seem eager to exploit is under the sea although we have long had the technology.
Submarines skim along under the water and are not affected by erupting volcanoes, high winds or snow yet apart from military purposes, we have not yet had anyone that has taken the submarine idea and turned it into a method to offer travellers to get from one point to another.
Possibly it is too expensive or there are other unseen reasons i have not considered why this has not been thought of but i see a great opportunity for someone to introduce a new form of transport that moves along beneath the waves.
If they do, remember who mentioned it first and i expect a mention in the history books.
In the air with planes and airships and over land on trains and motorised vehicles and even over sea with ships, hovercrafts and boats.
One area that we don't seem eager to exploit is under the sea although we have long had the technology.
Submarines skim along under the water and are not affected by erupting volcanoes, high winds or snow yet apart from military purposes, we have not yet had anyone that has taken the submarine idea and turned it into a method to offer travellers to get from one point to another.
Possibly it is too expensive or there are other unseen reasons i have not considered why this has not been thought of but i see a great opportunity for someone to introduce a new form of transport that moves along beneath the waves.
If they do, remember who mentioned it first and i expect a mention in the history books.
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Iceland Erupting
There has been a long list of people who, while during difficult times, have burnt down there premises in order to claim on the insurance and clear themselves of debt.
Is it merely a coincidence that bankrupt Iceland now finds itself a burning mass of smoke and ash?
The biggest complication due to Iceland burning down is that the ash is being blown directly over Britain and most of western Europe forcing our planes to sit idly on the tarmac which is probably a good thing for air quality if it wasn't for the mass of volcanic outpouring filling the atmosphere instead.
Another drawback is that as no flights can get out or in, we are finding Brits stuck abroad and lots of other nationalities knocking about here moaning they can't get home.
The ferries are fully booked and the Eurotunnel is at capacity so unless you can get to mainland Europe and make your way to Spain or Southern France where the planes are still going, you are stuck here with us on this green and pleasant land for at least another couple of days.
It should be no problem for Americans because our television is pretty much full of American shows anyway and stranded Canadians can feel at home in any of the local zoo's which all have a seal enclosure. Please resist the urge to club them almost to death and skin them.
Any homesick Australians can just wander into any of our public houses and get as drunk as they would at home and Israelis can go along to White Hart Lane which has a large Jewish community and on most Saturdays you can also get to see a very shaky defensive wall just like you have back home.
Enjoy your time here and remember that the bit at the top and to the east are not England.
Is it merely a coincidence that bankrupt Iceland now finds itself a burning mass of smoke and ash?
The biggest complication due to Iceland burning down is that the ash is being blown directly over Britain and most of western Europe forcing our planes to sit idly on the tarmac which is probably a good thing for air quality if it wasn't for the mass of volcanic outpouring filling the atmosphere instead.
Another drawback is that as no flights can get out or in, we are finding Brits stuck abroad and lots of other nationalities knocking about here moaning they can't get home.
The ferries are fully booked and the Eurotunnel is at capacity so unless you can get to mainland Europe and make your way to Spain or Southern France where the planes are still going, you are stuck here with us on this green and pleasant land for at least another couple of days.
It should be no problem for Americans because our television is pretty much full of American shows anyway and stranded Canadians can feel at home in any of the local zoo's which all have a seal enclosure. Please resist the urge to club them almost to death and skin them.
Any homesick Australians can just wander into any of our public houses and get as drunk as they would at home and Israelis can go along to White Hart Lane which has a large Jewish community and on most Saturdays you can also get to see a very shaky defensive wall just like you have back home.
Enjoy your time here and remember that the bit at the top and to the east are not England.
Saturday, 17 April 2010
Boring Debate #1
We have their toast, sticks and letters so i guess we may as well have France's Presidential debates as well and although i watched it, i'm not really sure what use they were.
The three politicians had their answers so polished they almost gleamed as they smiled in the right places and said the right things to the pre-picked questions.
Interestingly the programme that followed was Question Time where the audience get to fire questions at the politicians and generally give them a hard time which is much more informative to the viewer then the sterile talking shop we got.
Why Gordon Brown agreed to it is any ones guess because presentation is not his strongest point. He has the type of dour delivery that he makes everything sound like a particular boring shipping forecast.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg was always going to seem more interesting stood beside him, not because they are anymore entertaining, just by virtue of being alive.
The general consensus was that Liberal Democrat Clegg won the night with Gordon Brown a distant third although much of that was because while the Labour and Conservatives concentrated on trying to trip each other up, the cactus burning Clegg stood at the end and got away relatively unscathed.
As a sop to Rupert Murdoch, the next debate is on Sky TV which means the viewing figures for the second show will be disappointing although i do question how much use there is to watching the three of them repeat parrot fashion lines that they have been practising since the debate idea was first mentioned.
All i learnt was that when it comes to questioning members of Parliament, the public given a free hand, do it much better.
The three politicians had their answers so polished they almost gleamed as they smiled in the right places and said the right things to the pre-picked questions.
Interestingly the programme that followed was Question Time where the audience get to fire questions at the politicians and generally give them a hard time which is much more informative to the viewer then the sterile talking shop we got.
Why Gordon Brown agreed to it is any ones guess because presentation is not his strongest point. He has the type of dour delivery that he makes everything sound like a particular boring shipping forecast.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg was always going to seem more interesting stood beside him, not because they are anymore entertaining, just by virtue of being alive.
The general consensus was that Liberal Democrat Clegg won the night with Gordon Brown a distant third although much of that was because while the Labour and Conservatives concentrated on trying to trip each other up, the cactus burning Clegg stood at the end and got away relatively unscathed.
As a sop to Rupert Murdoch, the next debate is on Sky TV which means the viewing figures for the second show will be disappointing although i do question how much use there is to watching the three of them repeat parrot fashion lines that they have been practising since the debate idea was first mentioned.
All i learnt was that when it comes to questioning members of Parliament, the public given a free hand, do it much better.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Listen to Liam
When i was younger i would sit in the kitchen with my finger hovering over the pause button of the tape deck while Radio 1 played the Top 40. For most of my youth all my cassettes had songs with Gary Davis speaking on the end of them.
To me, this is exactly the same as downloading MP3's off the internet and i have never bought into the downloading is killing music shtick. Almost every record i paid for in the pre-digital era had a warning that home taping was killing music and as far as i can tell it never did.
Kids will grab free music anyway they can, we all did, whether it was taken off the radio or by swapping the Frankie Goes to Hollywood album for your friends Madness one so you can tape it.
This view brings me into an uneasy alliance with Liam Gallagher who today launched into a rant at stars who moan about illegal file sharing.
He said: ‘Downloading's the same as what I used to do - I used to tape the charts of the songs I liked (from the radio). I don't mind it. I hate all these big, silly rock stars who moan - at least they're f**king downloading your music, you c**t, and paying attention, know what I mean? You should f**king appreciate that - what are you moaning about? You've got f**king five big houses, so shut up.’
Not exactly eloquent but his gist is a lot more sweary version of how i feel.
The record companies are making massive profits and the stars are ridiculously well paid so why begrudge some kid getting their music for free rather than paying the 79p to download it of which the star would only make a tiny fraction of with the lions share going to the record company?
Yes Liam is a royal prat, but i'm with him on this one.
To me, this is exactly the same as downloading MP3's off the internet and i have never bought into the downloading is killing music shtick. Almost every record i paid for in the pre-digital era had a warning that home taping was killing music and as far as i can tell it never did.
Kids will grab free music anyway they can, we all did, whether it was taken off the radio or by swapping the Frankie Goes to Hollywood album for your friends Madness one so you can tape it.
This view brings me into an uneasy alliance with Liam Gallagher who today launched into a rant at stars who moan about illegal file sharing.
He said: ‘Downloading's the same as what I used to do - I used to tape the charts of the songs I liked (from the radio). I don't mind it. I hate all these big, silly rock stars who moan - at least they're f**king downloading your music, you c**t, and paying attention, know what I mean? You should f**king appreciate that - what are you moaning about? You've got f**king five big houses, so shut up.’
Not exactly eloquent but his gist is a lot more sweary version of how i feel.
The record companies are making massive profits and the stars are ridiculously well paid so why begrudge some kid getting their music for free rather than paying the 79p to download it of which the star would only make a tiny fraction of with the lions share going to the record company?
Yes Liam is a royal prat, but i'm with him on this one.
Monday, 12 April 2010
Arresting the Pope
In one of his series of lectures, Mark Steel tells of a 14th poll tax introduced by the monarchy of the day to pay for their ongoing wars with France.
The tax was levied on each person in England over the age of 14 but as the tax collectors didn't know how many people were in each household, a rule was passed so the tax collectors could decide if a person was over 14 by checking if they had pubic hair and to allay any fears, all checks carried out by the local Catholic priests.
Move on 650 years or so and it seems that the Priests are still doing it which is why the Catholic Church, and the Pope, finds itself under such attack today and rightly so.
Dismissed initially as petty gossip, a letter from Pope Benedict, then plain old Joseph Ratzinger and deputy at the Vatican doctrinal office, has emerged where he told Wisconsin Bishops to drop a Church trial for a priest with a record of molesting children to protect the reputation of the Church for which it would have grave significance if it become public.
Now Ratzinger has the top job and the pressure is on him to resign which of course he won't so i truly hope that the attempt by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to have the Pope arrested and put on trial for the covering-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church when he lands here in September succeeds.
The Vatican has already suggested the pope is immune from prosecution because he is a head of state but the duo are arguing that because he is not the head of a state with full United Nations membership (the Vatican has only observer status), he does not hold immunity and can be arrested.
As a German and former Nazi youth of the Third Reich, he should be fully aware that as an officer of state he is responsible for all actions carried out by those under his authority.
It should make it an entertaining September this year.
The tax was levied on each person in England over the age of 14 but as the tax collectors didn't know how many people were in each household, a rule was passed so the tax collectors could decide if a person was over 14 by checking if they had pubic hair and to allay any fears, all checks carried out by the local Catholic priests.
Move on 650 years or so and it seems that the Priests are still doing it which is why the Catholic Church, and the Pope, finds itself under such attack today and rightly so.
Dismissed initially as petty gossip, a letter from Pope Benedict, then plain old Joseph Ratzinger and deputy at the Vatican doctrinal office, has emerged where he told Wisconsin Bishops to drop a Church trial for a priest with a record of molesting children to protect the reputation of the Church for which it would have grave significance if it become public.
Now Ratzinger has the top job and the pressure is on him to resign which of course he won't so i truly hope that the attempt by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to have the Pope arrested and put on trial for the covering-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church when he lands here in September succeeds.
The Vatican has already suggested the pope is immune from prosecution because he is a head of state but the duo are arguing that because he is not the head of a state with full United Nations membership (the Vatican has only observer status), he does not hold immunity and can be arrested.
As a German and former Nazi youth of the Third Reich, he should be fully aware that as an officer of state he is responsible for all actions carried out by those under his authority.
It should make it an entertaining September this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)