the brilliantly leaping gazelle

This post was meant to be about something else, but that something else will have to wait until tomorrow because I’ve spent too long converting a pdf. into a Word file. Whilst I imagine these things are simple if you know what you’re doing, I don’t and therefore it isn’t.

Anyway is it just me or has anyone else noticed the Nigel’s Farrago has somehow managed to pull off the same trick as Boris’s Johnson. And no, that isn’t a euphemism; much as I’m sure Boris’s Johnson is no stranger to being pulled off. And Donald Fart. Both being pulled off and pulling off the same trick.

How have they done this I mean it’s a clever thing to do and everything, but still, how?

In what possible universe are they outsiders, removed from the political class, that has consistently – as they would have the disenfranchised believe – ignored their political wants as somehow being not as deserving as others.

Possibly some of the blame lies with the mainstream media, which treated Donald Fart’s election campaign as a bit of a joke and therefore failed to subject him to anywhere near the same level of scrutiny as other candidates until it was too late. What do we know about Boris’s Johnson? I mean, really know. Granted, now he’s PM and fighting an election campaign, he’s being subjected to a level of scrutiny about his conduct that he has managed to keep hidden from the public and with good reason, as the public are not liking what they see. Did anyone else hear the boo’s that heralded his entrance onto the stage for BBC1’s ‘Question Time – Leaders Special’

But Nigel’s Farrago seems to have gotten a free pass. He appeared, fully formed and somehow able to channel people’s frustration into serving his own political ends. In fact, rather like Harold Saxon. For those of you unfamiliar with ‘Doctor Who’ Harold Saxon is an invention of the Doctors nemesis, ‘The Master’. Bear with me. Finding himself trapped on earth, he manufactures an identity, an entire history so as to launch a political career. Using mind control, he convinces people to think him good, without knowing why

Only he isn’t. And it’s only when it’s too late and becomes Prime Minister that people realise that.

But hey, ‘Doctor Who’ is only voguish science fiction, and besides, after announcing The Brexit party will not field candidates in over 300 seats, the best he can hope is to do is influence Boris’s Johnson, if he becomes Prime Minister. After all, we know “The Master’ can change gender, but can he?

I’ve read the Brexit party’s contract with the people, so called, because,

The old mainstream parties have made ‘manifesto’ a dirty word. Everybody knows that a manifesto is little more than a set of vague promises that its authors have no intention of keeping.

I think everyone with an I.Q larger than the radius of their kneecap can see the see that that.

And secondly, the contract, is, it pains me to admit it, a model of clarity, both in terms what it says and also how it is presented. Certainly it is a refreshingly easy read. If all of the manifesto’s published thus far were slimmer’s, then the Liberal Democrat and Labour one’s would be the before ‘photo’s and the Brexit party the after one’s. It says to voters ‘We’re different, we’re not tired, we’re dynamic and forward thinking and that’s why we want to make Britain great again. ‘

And up to a point one thinks ‘Yean, it all makes sense, it all seems fair and reasonable.” But then, rather like ‘those pesky meddling kids’ who thwarted the light-house keepers evil plan in ‘Scooby-Do’, you start wondering where on earth have those pesky little details gone? You know, the one’s that give a little substance to these bold claims. For example, they say they’ll

Phase out the BBC licence fee.

And replace it with what? A subscription model of some kind? Adverts? One is left wondering. And there’s more. A lot more detail free playing to the crowd bullshit. They want to,

Invest in our High Streets: alongside our reforms to Corporation Tax, we will replace business rates with a simpler system to assist small High Street retailers and leisure operators outside the M25, with any reductions funded by an online sales tax.

No-one can possibly disagree with investing in our High Streets! Apart that is, from the countless consumers who’d rather spend their hard-earned money to buy more, for less, online. Ah, an online sales tax, you say? That’ll work! Because the big online retailers like Amazon and eBay, not only are they more than happy to disclose how much profit they make in the UK, they want to pay tax! This has been well documented, both in the press and parliament.

There’s more detail free promises, like,

Invest in the NHS and Social Care: we need to keep investing in these essential and treasured public services — with more medical staff and less waste.

Well we can all agree with that. But read on a few pages further and you’ll find this,

We need to develop a National Health Service fit for the 21st Century. The Brexit Party believes in continued investment in the NHS, better management, increasing the number of medical staff and cutting waste. We want the NHS to be a beacon of excellent care. It was the Labour governments of Blair and Brown that burdened the NHS with billions of pounds of debt through their Private Finance Initiatives.

Mmm. Details, schemtails! Yes Blair and Brown did introduce P.F.I, into the N.H.S, no-one denies this, but it was and has been massively increased and aggressively pursued by successive ideologically driven free market Conservative governments.

The NHS must remain a publically-owned, comprehensive service that is free at the point of use. Your postcode should not determine your care or health.

Again, nothing contentious here. All good, yes? Er, no!

There should be no privatisation of the NHS; where existing private initiatives have failed to deliver we will return them to public ownership.

No one has ever mentioned the privatisaiton of the NHS. What is a concern though is the increasing tendency of NHS. Trusts being forced to sell off lucrative services to private providers. So yes, whilst,

The NHS must remain a publically-owned, comprehensive service that is free at the point of use.

It’s the lack of any detail of what they mean by privatisation. It’s not clear how all – not just some – of these services that the NHS currently provides will be paid for, who is going to be paid and how so called ‘Cinderella’ services – the not money-making one’s, the un-glamouress services most of use – be funded? Fine and everything if they’re ‘free at the point of use’ but if taxpayers money is boosting the profits of private companies, that money that could be put to greater use if it were re-invested in the NHS.

I was going to stop there, but then I spotted this promise of theirs to,

Introduce 24-hour GP surgeries to relieve the strain in A&E departments.

You mean they’re going to re-negotiate GP contracts? Does the trouble Jeremy Hunt had with junior doctors not ring any large fucking bells? That would be a walk in the park compared to incurring the wrath of a workforce whose members are already leaving in large numbers. And who would want to visit their GP at 2am?

I know I’m nit picking but it’s their fault, simplifying it and all, making it so easy to read and find fault with. What did they expect?

There are a lot of faults to be found and I haven’t finished finding them yet…

Just watched ‘the BBC’s ‘Question Time – Leaders Special’ and my initial thoughts are these

Jeremy Corbinned looked as if someone a size too big had lent him that suit back-stage, like a boy wearing a new school uniform that his Mum says has a couple of years in it And he didn’t answer all the questions asked of him, rather, he did that politicians trick of answering the question he wished he’d been asked

Jo Swindle. It was nice to see her being called out on things the Lib Dems had helped the Tories push through when they were in coalition with them. Nice to see her voice go up an octave when she was challenged on reconciling being a democrat with revoking Article 50 and ignoring the wishes of 17.4 million people. Her response was basically, ‘We’ve been honest with what we believe….we’ve been honest and we don’t care what you think. I mean, we have to pretend like we do, but we don’t really

Boris’s Johnson walked onto the stage to the sound of boo’s. And it didn’t get much better from there. He looked so uncomfortable, so ill at ease, that he made Gordon Brown seem like a showman.

But the leader who impressed was Nicola Sturgone. She had command of the issues, tackled what could’ve been difficult questions head-on and left one with the abiding impression that if she was not out and out enjoying it, she was less terrified by it than the others.

It’ll be interesting to see what the press and social media make of it.

Just a quick one, as I’ve only got up, thanks to leaks in my bedroom last night, including one that woke me up by dripping onto my face! Exactly!

Anyway, Priti Patel made headlines yesterday with her claim that,

Tory government not to blame for poverty in UK

And she’s so right, in a cold factually correct way. How could they? They’re only policies after all. In much the same cold and factually correct way, guns don’t kill people either.

In both cases it’s how they are used that does the damage. And by who, on whom.

I must confess to feeling a sense of political déjà vu as I read the Labour manifesto yesterday. I mean it was all going so well. There’s all these fine and noble promises to do this, solve that, how under the Conservatives the other has happened but that Labour would do the very opposite, and from this that many and wonderful benefits would transform our nation. And all this for the measly price of one – ONE! – vote per person.

Or not, if you believe the ‘Daily Mail’

But I digress. There’s a lot in the Labour manifesto to like, and whilst on some plans their ambition could be argued to stretch credulity, as least it comes from a good place. And then I came to this,

Labour will radically reform early years provision, with a two-term vision to make high-quality early years education available for every child. We will also extend paid maternity leave to 12 months.

Which seemed to me to be worryingly similar to proposals in the Liberal Democrats manifesto. It had to be me, surely! Ah, that joke never gets old! But no. It was them, not me, because they added,

Within five years, all 2, 3 and 4-yearolds will be entitled to 30 hours of free preschool education per week and access to additional hours at affordable,subsidised rates staggered with incomes. Labour will also work to extend childcare provision for 1-year-olds.

How exactly is this a good thing? In what way is state sponsored parenthood in any way compatible with some of their other lofty ideals? Here’s one,

Tackling the destruction of our planet is a question of justice – for the communities at home and abroad who are most affected by it and for our children who will bear the consequences if we don’t.

That would be the other consequences then, the one’s not to do with the planet not being able to sustain the amount of people alive right now, never mind adding to the problem. We need to be rewarding people for not having children, make it an act of altruistic on behalf of the planet, a civic duty, much more effective than adopting a vegan diet. Now there’s a thought! If people want a child that bad, let them do good instead and adopt. Because by providing free childcare, a parent who would otherwise have stayed at home and looked after the child, will now be free to re-join to world of work. And with the wage they’ll earn, the extra income will mean extra expenditure. Oh good, more consumption.

And don’t be thinking Labour’s unjoined up thinking had stopped there. Oh no,

We will recruit nearly 150,000 additional early years staff, including Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators, and introduce a national pay scale, driving up pay for the overwhelmingly female workforce.

So, let me get this straight. Their plan is to offer more childcare, that will increase the size of the labour market by freeing up parents to work. And to make this a reality, the plan is to create 150,000 new jobs. Am I missing something here? Aren’t these jobs going to be paid for out taxation? And where does tax revenue come from? In part, from us buying things. You can see the fundamental flaw here, can’t you?

This is our last chance to tackle the climate emergency.

Yeah, tell that to the rest of the manifesto.

Oh, alright since you asked, here it is,

I was getting ready for bed last night I thought, ‘I know what I need, some light reading.’, and as good fortune would have it, earlier in the day I downloaded the Liberal Democrat Little Book of Aspirational Mindfullness. It really is quite soothing. I’d say that it isn’t too taxing, but even though I’ve only skimmed it, they do talk about raising tax. Which, by the way, I think is a good thing, as no matter how efficient you want something to be, sooner or later someone, somewhere has to pay. Anyway, moving on.

Where was I? Oh light reading and children’s stories, that’s’ where.

Oh yes. Contained in their grim fairy tales is the claim that they will, if elected,

Offer free, high-quality childcare for every child aged two to four and children aged between nine and 24 months where their parents or guardians are in work: 35 hours a week, 48 weeks a year.

Hang on! How does offering people free childcare in any way help alleviate the climate emergency they so earnestly bang on  about. If anything, it makes it worse. Because a parent who would otherwise have stayed at home and looked after the child, will now be free to re-join to world of work. And with the wage they’ll earn, the extra income will mean extra expenditure. Oh good, more consumption. And that’s not the end of it. No. Because the jobs that’ll be created by this provision will create more workers, who in turn will earn more, and who in turn will spend it. Whoopie-fuckin-do!

Is it just me or is this sound in any way like a good idea?

Rather than offering rewards for successfully helping destroy the planet by breeding yet more consumers, they should offer incentives for people not to have children.

As I say, I’ve only skimmed it, but there’s a lot about ‘wellbeing’, which is best read later, possibly in the morning, ideally with a bowl of a high fibre cereal and natural yoghurt. Mmm. Yumee

The main problem for me with last night’s debate was the lack of any debate. Did we really learn anything about them, other than they stuck to the key messages they wanted to hammer home? And secondly, I doubt very much if anyone was going to change their opinion about either man, if anything it’d reinforce them. What was a revelation was the readiness of the audience to openly laugh at both leaders when they said something worthy of ridicule.

But the format was the main problem and the audience’s laughter only served to highlight it. Two men, each stood on a stage in front of a lectern, facing the audience, answering questions asked by a host with her back to the audience, what century are we living in? She’d ask the question and then they’d parrot off their clearly very well rehearsed answers. Interventions were far to few for my liking and I wished that John Humphreys had been in charge. But therein lies the problem. It was no good telling us how important this election was, how this was our chance to get answers from the two candidates, if they weren’t challenged, robustly if need be. They politicians who want to be the next P.M, for Darwin’s sake! However, a journalist who knows how the system works and plays the game, isn’t going to be as forceful as a member of the public, who, when confronted with a politician who they think is lying to them, pulls them up on it. Conversely, the politician, no matter how angry or irritated by this they are, can’t show it, because, after all, it’s a member of the public

And of course, only a cynic of the very highest order would suggest that one reason politicians are nervous about meeting or having any interaction with the general public is because of this their irritating propensity to ask unhelpful questions. One’s that don’t allow for carefully scripted and on-message answers to be given, and with presentation and social media being an ever present factor in elections, this presents a problem for politicians. Of course they say they like to meet to the public. It’s not just because they can’t control what they say or they don’t play the game, but they are not dependent on access to boost their journalistic career, and therefore don’t have anything to lose. I think of course of Diana Gould’s famous questioning of Mrs. Thatcher over the sinking of the Argentine battleship ‘The Belgrano’ on the BBC’s ‘Election Call’. Thatcher was visibly frustrated by being challenged on this, but couldn’t be rude to a member of the public, not in an election campaign. Unfortunately, the sinking of ‘The Belgrano’ happened during the Falklands War and I can remember being in a shop, when someone burst in, shouting, “We’ve taken Port Stanley” and everyone, including me, cheered.

My main takeaway from tonight’s leaders debate on shITV ‘was why on earth didn’t the host have a cut off switch for their mics, so that when they droned on or their answers rambled on, she could cut them off and move on?’

Jo Swindle is wrong.. Her much publicized and widely reported claim that her exclusion from the ITV debates tonight was sexist is utter nonsense/ If she was treated differently to a man in the same or similar position, there might be a case to answer here. The only person who thinks Jo Swindle has a chance of becoming the next Prime Minister is Jo Swindle.

Unpalatable as it may be for many voters, it is only Jeremy Corbinned or Boris’s Johnson that have a realistic prospect of being our next Prime Minister. It isn’t sexist to suggest this.  Because the facts don’t support this preposterous assertion..

In the 2015 General Election they got 7.9% of the vote, and in 2017, this went down, DOWN!, to 7.4%. Granted they got 20.3% in the recent European elections, but they use proportional representation and I’ve written a post all about the Iliberal Democrats abject failure to push for electoral reform, a reform that benefit them massively.

But under our electoral system as it is, at no recent general election have they ever won than 8% of the vote. If the Liberal Democrats had gotten 26% of the vote in 2015, and 31% of the vote in 2017, then she could with some justification make the argument that a decision to exclude her from the debates was sexist, as their share of the vote was increasing and that would they treat a man that way? But there share of a vote at a general election hasn’t increased. They only reason  had more MP’s before this election was called than after the last one was because of defections. They may have had an appeal, but not to voters at a general election they didn’t.

But that’s the thing with facts. Whilst they tell a story, it may not always be the story one wants to hear!

I know that my earlier post today concerning political leaders not just talking about fighting for our votes, but actually fighting to the death for it, may have seemed not their sort of thing for some readers. I get that. I really do.

But then I see this headline on the BBC website:

Boris Johnson to step into the ring with Jeremy Corbyn

Accompanied by a link to a Twitter post by the one of the BBC’s political correspondents, who followed Boris’s Johnson into a boxing club, where this carefully stage-managed  ‘photo op, showing BJ wearing boxing gloves emblazoned with ‘Get Brexit Done”