Marx, Rand or Keynes? Fuck all your economic prophets

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A post on Twitter from Derek Wall drew my ire. Up front admission of judgment: I only read the first couple of pages of the preface from the linked document. But just read it for yourself. Regardless of what follows the author (note: not Derek) apparently lives his life from the perspective that all government, i.e. all structured human cooperation (that's what government is, fuckface), is A. Tyrannical and wasteful, and B. Well, I don't know if you need a 'B' after that flight of Angel-Dust inspired fucktardery. 

I mean what the blistering fuck?

Derek Wall had the grace to reply to my accusation of libtard propaganda propagation and admitted he hadn't read the doc but a couple of other Twits chipped in in response and demanded to know how the state is not an evil artifact of the ruling capitalist class and therefore TEH EVILLLLlLLL! To them I offer the  response of Mitch Benn to Clegg's similarly retarded proposal:

Yes, if you think the state is a fundamentally malign concept then why do you remain living under its iron jackboot instead of fleeing these oppressed shores to Somalia, the land of ultimate freedom and liberty?

The most bizarre thing, though, is that these comments seemed to result from Marxists, which is not an equation I've encountered heretofore (Marxism = libtardism). This set me thinking about Marx generally and how he's experiencing some sort of resurgence as a political alternative to fuckyounomics and I began to realise that Marxism is a kind of religion. You see, I've always wondered about Marx and his writings and the writings of those who built upon his ideas. I've always felt slightly intellectually inadequate in that I've never read any of his work, although I've read a lot of people who talk about his work in an interesting light. So I've always felt as if I'm missing a fundamental piece of knowledge which could open me up to a new and profound understanding of this diversely fucked up world. 

Then I drank some beer, had a shower and drank some more beer and realised that this was a rank crock of weasel piss. Marxism is just another fucking religion with a bunch of stories in some magic books telling tales of the great visionary. Crucially, I perceived that Marx died before environmentalism was born. And environmentalism changed everything: If your ideology excludes environmentalism, specifically the limits to growth, the laws of thermodynamics, the fundamental importance of energy to the growth of human civilisation and any of a hundred other subjects that highlight that resources and energy are the fundamental currencies of civilisation, not money, then you're a deluded wanker with no more intellectual credibility than some Hari Krishna selling enlightenment on the corner or any other religious outfit trying to sell you platitudes and mysticism from the mouths of their chosen one (Ayn Rand, anyone?). 

This would be a good point to draw attention to this outstanding and outreaching blog post from the Modern Monetary Theory blog of Bill Mitchell which attempts to rationalise this controversially robust fork of economics ( I don't want to call it that as that seems to sully it but that's the field he claims to work in). The post embraces steady state economics, limits to growth and 'biospheric homeostatic boundary problems' (?). I'm going to read it again because I was drunk the first time I read it but I retain a feeling of deep satisfaction that this represents a further entrenchment of ecological economics as the most robust and evidence-based alternative model to fuckyounomics, or Marx or Randian libtardism or whatever your particular chosen blend of misanthropy, delusion and mysticism is called. 

Here endeth ye sermon. Ye canst nowe all fucke off.

#NeoliberalScum

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is one of my favourite hashtags on Twitter because I can apply it to so many public figures. David Milliband is a prime example of the term, as exemplified by this superb polemic. Lets be frank: the ideology of neoliberalism is utterly bankrupt. It is an absurdity and an offence to modern society. The idea that the market is always right, that competition always produces the most efficient system and that private business always, ALWAYS provides superior management, organisation, development, research, accounting and security is just laughable. Every day examples appear in the news of the gross inefficiencies of the corporatocracy, and the criminal tactics they use to defraud clients and customers and- most importantly- the state. I know. I actively seek them out so that I can share them with you all on Twitter.

That Milliband and his fellow ToryScum brazenly adhere to this hideous dogma in the face of mountains of evidence is demonstrative of three things: Firstly, the triumph of mainstream media propaganda in distracting society from the facts, dissuading them from joining the dots between the plethora of examples to perceive the glorious ideological hole and marginalising anyone who manages this and tries to draw attention to it. Secondly, the meteoric rise to success and guaranteed prosperity for those who exhibit exceptional talent proselytising for this malignant cult. Thirdly, the crushing, desperate, gasping essentiality for all sensible and resistant parties to put aside their differences and unite in striving for an alternative. 

Of course this won't happen. Since the Copenhagen debacle and the fuckyounomic triumph of The Great Bailout many rational people have simply resigned themselves to society's death spiral. The chances of meaningful electoral, economic and environmental reform are so distant as to be laughable. Upon whichever path you tread you will find a litter of bones from previous attempts, be it the failure of legitimate electoral reform to undermine the  pseudodemocracy of our elective dictatorship, the bruised and beaten remnants of the public protest movements or the depressingly predictable circus of the Leveson Inquiry and the impunity with which the media barons brush-off criticism or distract from it with royal nudity, demonisation of the poor and vulnerable or hypocritical pleas for a return to core British values of honesty, hard work and respect for the law. (LOLZ!!1!)

I sit here, in my shack on the outskirts of Auckland, and follow this circus on a daily basis; pausing occasionally to throw some offhand epithet to these people, confident that few of the powerful will ever even glance at my words. And yet it could have been so different. Back in the late 90s the UK Labour Party could have fought for their democratic representation and resisted the ascendance of Emperor Blair. They could have pushed forward the program of investment and development whilst resisting the CBI's strenuous efforts to co-opt the revolution for their own profit in nuclear power, PFI and military adventurism. The Jenkins Report could have been accepted- nay, embraced- by Labour as an electorally painful but fundamentally essential set of reforms to establish the nation's supremacy as a democracy. Instead of imprisoning asylum seekers, terrorising their children and deporting them to face torture, the Labour Party could have lobbied across globe for an end to the neoimperial policies of the IMF and World Bank. They could have gone the whole Robin Cook and genuinely embraced an ethical foreign policy (shock! horror! cries of "won't somebody think of the children?"). You see the thing with asylum seekers is that what they're often seeking in Western Nations is asylum from situations created in their countries by Western Nations. That's irony for you. And that's why I have no sympathy whatsoever for the petites racistes of the United Kingdom. They voted for neoimperialism, they must take responsibility for the resulting refugees.

The UK today needs many things but another career politician with a hard-on for neoliberalism is not one of them: Many of the things the UK does need are being taken away from it at just the moment when they are most needed. The irony of this will come back to haunt anyone reading this in ten years or so when the food riots start. I will still be here in my shack, drinking homemade cider and calling them all sociopathic cunts. And I'll still be right. 

Green Party results in Bradford West

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I want to briefly record a comment about the Bradford West by-election result. I am utterly nonplussed about George Galloway's "Bradford Spring" (a description which instantly earns him a nomination for this week's Most Arrogant Prick On The Planet). What I am concerned about is the region's Green voting history:

Source: Wikipedia

What has the Green Party been doing in this constituency to have fallen to its lowest number of votes and share of the vote in its history? When the coalition government is vacillating between crudely transparent demagogy and outright sadism and the official party of opposition is indisputably obsessed with outcompeting them in either field, why didn't the Green Party of the United Kingdom and Wales put any apparent effort into upping their profile and share of the vote in what seemed to have been a wide-open race?

hiatus

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just started writing a blog post and then deleted it because it was meaningless self-centered and personal.  It felt like I was trying to blog just to fill space here. I just don't feel the urge to expound upon events at any great length these days, unless some moron declares something so incredibly infuriating and mindless that I am driven to vent.  So I'm declaring a temporary hiatus on this blog.  I continue to tweet regularly so do keep up with me on Twitter for regular doses of swearing, misanthropy and debauchery.

Laters, kids.
ps

okay Sunny, you're not an oik but you're still a sociopath

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Correction 08-02-12: Corrected "pedagogy" to "demagogy" in 1st para. Idiot. 

When I read this reply from Sunny to my earlier crowing I had a moment of genuine contrition because he's done some really good work at Liberal Conspiracy building a forum for thinking people and there's some really great stuff posted there. Then I re-read Martin Robbins' original tweet and I thought, "No, fuck it. Martin's about as right as anyone can be." You see, Sunny is happy to purse the truth and to share it with the world as long as it furthers his agenda to put the Labour party back in power. Sunny's a Labour fanboi. He sucks on the teat of social democrat demagogy like a parched camel after two months in the desert. Its his oxygen. And that's why he, like all partisan hacks, is a part of the problem. He's fundamentally disinterested in the entirety of the gritty truth behind any issue. 

Lets dig a little deeper into the issue. Martin's tweet was responding to this one of Sunny's:

@sunny_hundal: First NHS hospital gets privatised - article avoids mentioning company's links to Tories bit.ly/w3OLuL

And yes, the article avoids mentioning the link to Tories' pockets, which have been well established and are broadly appreciated by anyone who has the time and wants to take an interest. That isn't news. We all know the Tories are the Nasty Party, in bed with big business and happy to use their positions of enormous responsibility to throw the interests of the UK population on the bonfire in order to profit personally. I'm happy to read about this sort of thing, despite being already too familiar with it because every time I read something like this it fuels the fire inside me. It drives me to seek justice and to challenge the pricks responsible wherever I find them. The thing is, I'm equally happy to crow about Martin's post because Labour did a hell of a lot to advance NHS privatisation before the Tory's picked up the baton and ran with it. I can't be arsed to research links to it now, my name's not Google. Start with PFI and George Monbiot's book 'Captive State'.

For a Labour slut like Sunny to point and shout at the Tories for doing the same is rank, steaming hypocrisy. That is the opposite of evidence-based politics and it should be scorned for the malignant sociopathy it enables and propagates. Worse still, its the sort of shameless, history-denying points-scoring crap that keeps the endless two-party system in the UK going. Coalition government? What coalition government? All I see are a pack of Tory cunts and neoliberal, populist slags. Split these scum however you want because I don't see a choice between the lesser of two evils as any choice at all. A plague on BOTH your houses.  

And an especially rich, florid 'Fuck You' to you, Sunny.

on the use of the term "technocrat" as an epithet

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've seen this many times from people I respect and admire (eg)and I want to complain about it to the internets. This is where I do stuff like that so if you don't like it fuck off. 

Lets see what the word means:

"Technocracy is a form of government where technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields."

- Wikipedia

Hmmmmm, those nefarious technical experts, hey? I bet they mean those evil people like medical doctors, engineers, scientists and other degenerate sociopaths. Because they're great examples of 'technical experts' who exert broad control of decision making in their respective areas of policy. Right?

I hope you've noticed my sarcastic tone. 

The problem is that people who generally deploy the term as a pejorative do so in reference to the kinds of people who claim to be technical experts in their field. I'm talking about political researchers, sociologists, economists and other pseudoscientists whose work is about as scientifically robust as Sarah Palin and often just as ideologically driven. These people are not technocrats. They're cunts.

The concept of a technocracy is entirely acceptable to most rational people in the context of the fields I have mentioned. You wouldn't want Gillian McKeith in charge of nutritional health at the British Medical Association or Lord Monckton in charge of energy policy, would you? You'd much rather that those roles were carried out by people oozing with demonstrable technical expertise and insight into the subject.

So, people of the internets, when you next wish to disparage the crimes against reason and science being committed by some insane, dribbling ideologue in Westminster or The Beehive, please don't demean the work of yours truly (yes, I count myself as a technocrat) by calling them by that otherwise eminent and respectable term. 

a note on language

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I get really annoyed by having to frequently use different terminology to describe the same phenomenon. If you follow my ravings for more than a day or two you'll notice that I often throw around terms like plutocracy, corporatocracy, pseudo-democracy, etc. etc. When I use these terms I'm very aware that they suggest an inconsistency in my analysis and I just wanted to throw this post out to explain why I do so. The reason is to identify the precise dysfunction underlying whatever subject I'm ranting about at the time. I think its useful to put these terms out there so that people can think about them and, if they wish, to explore further what they mean. As far as consistency goes the precise term is somewhat irrelevant. The depth of  the dysfunction that afflicts modern Western society is sufficient to contain a plethora of malignancies that are exhibited in different ways, be it Liam Fox's use of parliamentary office space to accomodate the operation of the sham 'charity' and arch-neocon lobby group Atlantic Bridge or the transparent attempts by the coalition government to push privatisation against public opinion and any conceivable national interest. Each term is appropriate to the specific phenomena to which I apply them but they all imply some sort of fundamental dysfunction. You can use a specific term to accurately describe the sociopathy that is being exhibited or you can use a generic term for the entire phenomenon.

As an aside, "sociopathy" is another favourite of mine. I use it as an umbrella-term for the entire, sordid, shit-storm of dysfunction that is endemic throughout modern Western society.  Wikipedia fails to provide a relevant definition, providing only psycho-babble that equates the term with psychopathy. According to the word's etymological roots, however, "sociopathy" is a pathology of society. I.E. It is some intrinsic aspect of society that is diseased. The intrinsic component of this definition is important because it is far too easy to subconsciously externalise behaviour and actions which are sociopathic. To categorise them as being alien to society, something new and different which isn't part of 'our society'. However, pretty much every sociopathy is not at all new but merely a development of some earlier human dysfunction that modernity has provided with a new way to manifest itself. Its really easy to draw historical parallels between serdom and modern wage-slavery, for example. Other examples are even more obvious: the resort to nationalism and jingo to exhort citizens to accept and embrace their own oppression is a beautiful one and a fundamental component of Tory ideology. The common theme running through all of these sociopathies is that they are human failings. They arise from humanity collectively misplacing trust or being insufficiently focused upon (sometimes purposefully distracted from) the workings of its own society to perceive the dysfunction lurking there. 

The problem with all these big words and my precise definitions is that they might alienate your average reader. Basically, they're radical jargon. The purpose of this post is to admit this and to confess to the crime of using jargon. It is a crime against communication and if there's one thing that radicals need it is to be understood. However, is it necessary to use such particular terminology in order to convince people of the truth of your arguments? Its entirely possible that such terminology might alienate people who are looking for a simple 'hit' of insight, such as Twitter might provide. Insight isn't necessarily compactable into 140 chrs but precise use of language is one way of facilitating it. Sometimes its not only helpful but essential to be precise in your use of terminology.

plutocracy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth.

The US and the UK, being fundamentally similar in their social- and power-structures are both plutocracies, as revealed here.

trollgasm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm trolling this guy's post on the alleged absence of lefty alternatives to neoliberalism. I'm really quite proud of my work.

I rule.

LOLgasm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This Venn diagram is pretty much the most concise summation of the challenges faced by Western society that I've yet encountered:

from the horse's mouth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is the most blatant exhibition of corporate sociopathy I have ever seen.

I have transcribed the words of the participants so as to really hammer home the message to anyone who might develop temporary deafness when confronted by the brutal truth of this man's words.

Trader: [The euro?] is gonna crash and its gonna fall pretty hard. Because markets are ruled right now by fear. Investors, the big money, the smart money. I'm talking about the big funds, the hedge funds, the institutions. They don't buy this plan. They basically know the market is toast. They know the stock market is finished. The euro, as far as they're concerned, is finished. They're moving their money away to safer assets, like treasury bonds, 30 yr bonds and the US dollar. So its not going to work.

Presenter: We keep hearing that whatever the politicians are suggesting, and admittedly its all been rather woolly so far, isn't right. Can you pin down exactly what would keep investors happy and make them feel more confident.

Trader: That's a tough one. Personally, it doesn't matter. You see I'm a trader. I don’t really care about that kind of stuff. If I see an opportunity to make money, I go with that. So, for most traders its not about...we don't really care that much how they're going to fix the economy, how they're going to fix the whole situation. Our job is to make money from it. And, personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for 3 yrs. I have a confession, which is: I go to bed every night, I dream of another recession. I dream of another moment like this. Why? Because, people don’t seem to maybe remember, the 30s depression, the depression in the 1930s wasn't just about a market crash. There were some people who were prepared to make money from that crash. And I think anybody can do that. It isn't just for some people in the elite. Anybody can actually make money . . . its an opportunity. When the market crashes… When the euro and the big stock markets crash, if you know what to do, if you have the right plan set up, you can make a lot of money from this. For example, Hedging strategies is one, then investing in bonds, treasury bonds, that sort of stuff.

Presenter: If you could see the people around me, people's jaws have collectively dropped at what you've just said. We appreciate your candour but it doesn't help the rest of us. or the rest of the eurozone.

Trader: I would say this. Listen. I would say this to everyone who's watching this: This economic crisis is like a cancer. If you just wait and wait, thinking this is going to go away, just like a cancer its going to grow and its gonna be too late. What I would to say to everybody is: Get prepared. Its not the time right now to . . wishful thinking, that the government is gonna sort things out. The government doesn't rule the world. Goldman Sachs rules the world. Goldman Sachs does not care about this rescue package, neither does the big funds. So, actually ... I would actually tell people, I want to help people. People can make money from this, its not just traders. What they need to do is learn how to make money from a downward market. The first thing people should do is to protect their assets. Protect what they have, because in less than 12 months, my prediction is that millions of people's savings are going to vanish. And this is just the beginning. So, I would say: be prepared and act now. The biggest risk people can take right now is not acting.

This is it, people. If you ever had any doubts about whether the people and institutions this appalling character refers to are actually benign wealth-creators or unabashed, sociopathic parasites, there's your answer. They. Don't. Care. About. Us.

Its time they were stopped: Nationalise the banks. Move to quash speculation. Close the tax loopholes.



Addition:

Looks like John B is right in the comments. This guy isn't a trader. He's not even authorised by the FSA. In his own words, he's "an attention seeker". 

I saw someone on Twitter musing whether he was, in fact, a member of activist group The Yes Men. At the time I thought, 'nah'. In fact, he is a hoaxer, just not a very good one. Which is a real shame. The reason I got so excited about this video was that its rare for the public facade of financiers to crack, for them to admit to the fundamentally sociopathic nature of what they do. This lie is so robustly defended by the media and the government that it is currently pervasive. Most of the population aren't aware that one of the biggest industries in this country is fundamentally hostile to the state and to the 'poor' (meaning anyone on less than £200,000). General dissatisfaction with "bankers" resulting from the fuckyounomic implosion threatened to bring this truth to light but, despite the valient efforts of activists and campaigning journalists, it remains obscured by a general air of approval emanating from the media and the government that is all it takes these days to conceal enormous crimes. I'm talking the astonishing public herd mentality that "if no-one's acting against it, it must be fine". For example, read the business page of any newspaper and marvel at the absence of critical, joined-up thinking.

NB: Please don't refer to the Vicker's Report as if it is evidence of the government "doing something", its a pathetic fig-leaf-gesture to reform. 

on being a scientist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is absolutely my favourite quote from The Guide:

"I'm a scientist and I know what constitutes proof. But the reason I call myself by my childhood name is to remind myself that a scientist must also be absolutely like a child. If he sees a thing, he must say that he sees it, whether it was what he though he was going to see or not. See first, think later, then test. But always see first. Otherwise you will only see what you were expecting. Most scientists forget that. ... So the other reason I call myself Wonko The Sane is so that people will think I'm a fool. That allows me to say what I see when I see it. You can't possibly be a scientist if you mind people thinking you're a fool."

-- Wonko The Sane

malware, what malware?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One of the feeds in my blogroll appears to have been a source of malware, according to Google. Apologies to anyone getting scary messages or who has actually suffered from this phenomenon. Do let me know of anything untoward as I am in touch with admin at the alleged offending site. Send your electronic mail to punkscience at gmail, innit.

Wird.


Addition: I should, of course, have stated explicitly that I have removed the offending site from my blogroll & requested a review from Google.

hard lessons in a global society

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One of the most obvious results of US exceptionalism and unilateralism has been the collapse of global cooperation as forums such as the UN are no longer seen to represent the weaker, developing countries but to be vehicles for legitamising US policy. The consequences of this permeate far and wide throughout global society and one of the saddest aspects of this is described in this article by MJ Robbins, who blogs for the Guardian as The Lay Scientist. 

The following paragraph struck me as highly pertinent in the wake of my recent post on human sustainable development and my point in the comments that cultural influences that promote fecundity as a desirable trait are, alongside US exceptionalism, one of the most malignantly sociopathic influences upon our species. 

"In a male-dominated culture with a strong tradition of polygamy (in the Islamic north at least), where children are seen as gifts from God, the power of men is measured by the size of their families, and different political, ethnic and religious groups compete to be the most populous, fertility is an especially sensitive issue."

Whilst America continues upon its historical course of imperial conquest, subjugation and exploitation there is little hope that genuinely benevolent campaigning organisations can make much impact in their attempts to confront and reform such appallingly destructive and regressive cultures. Oh, and they're not going to make much progress in Nigeria either. LOL

happiness

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You may not believe this but I have a particularly pessimistic, misanthropic view of human civilisation. I'm an avowed technophile, however, and if there's one aspect of humanity that is certain to bring a smile to my face its awesome gadgets being used awesomely. So here's a couple of examples that I've just discovered on a blog called genomicon. Its a pretty cool place if you're into tech and gadgets. 

cosmetic changes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, its a colour change. In a move that reeks of desperate work-avoidance behaviour I am embracing meaningless, superficial changes to try and make my blog feel more lively. Has it worked?

the crisis of capitalism via RSA Animate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

snigger

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Via Chris Coltrane.

I wonder if Rupert Read also supports the murder of democracy protesters?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seeing as Rupert was so keen on the absurd concept of Western "humanitarian intervention" in Libya I wonder if he is also a strident supporter of the brutalisation and murder of pro-democracy protesters. That was the bargaining chip given up by Hillary Clinton in return for the Arab League's blessing of the Libya escapade. 

brief Fisk on Tory Lord electoral propaganda

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My target is this Torygraph article on Lords reform containing the following para:

"One senior Conservative source in the Lords said of the draft [Lords reform] Bill: “This is fantasy land. It’s a joke. How can you have PR for the country rejected in the AV referendum and then bring in PR for the Lords. The whole thing is utterly ridiculous.”"

Firstly, PR wasn't even an option in the AV referendum. This is certainly one of the reasons why the Yes vote was so low.

Secondly, the referendum vote wasn't a democratic rejection of anything.

The only thing that's ridiculous here is UK "democracy".