Bounce

In my last post I suggested that Gordon Brown was hoping to gain popularity in the wake of the success of the British Olympic team. I'd now like to point out that the BBC political correspondent Ben Wright has come to the same conclusion, though several days later. I should sue.

I want to mention that on Saturday I bought a slow cooker. It cost £20. I've been turning over the possibility of purchasing such a device for some time, ever since I saw Nigella Lawson do lamb shanks in one in fact. The problem is, we don't have any more cupboard space for a slow cooker you see. Anyway. I saw it in Tesco for £20, and threw caution to the wind. Bought a couple of shoulder shanks while I was at it. The result was the most amazing, melt in the mouth, fall off the bone, lamb shanks in red wine stock that you can possibly imagine. The picture doesn't do it justice, really, trust me on this.



We went to the seaside today. It's a really easy drive down to Bournemouth, so we went. Sister in law Mei was supposed to arrive today, but she's been delayed, so we have some free time on our hands. It wasn't the best weather, but we had fun. And the boy enjoyed splashing around in the surf.

Home Office Loses Memory

There was no one on the train this morning. I think everyone took Friday off because Monday is a holiday. I on the other hand took all next week off, and the following week. We were planning on a trip up north, but it's looking less probable now since my sister in law is not well and looking like she is not going to arrive until 29th

Gary Glitter update - He's landed in London and been told to sign the sex offenders' register for the second time in his life. I've been thinking about this. The guy hasn't been charged or convicted in Britain. Where does the legal requirement for him to sign the sex offenders' register come from? Actually he was convicted in Britain on child porn charges 10 years ago, but that isn't why he has been told to sign the register this time.

He's now apparently looking for a place to live in the west country. That's slightly worrying because I live on the edge of the west country and my mother lives deep deep in the west country. Apparently he has a son called Paul Gadd who lives in a remote village in Devon, but he has disowned his father and now denies being related to him.

Gordon Brown has heralded the success of British athletes at the Olympics. See, what did I tell you, he's trying to convert Olympic success into a poll bounce. It's not going to happen, watch the numbers. We now have 18 gold medals, still in third place, two ahead of the peskie Russians. Better than that, we have a total of 42 medals which means we've reached our target and passed it in fact.

The Home Office seems to have lost a memory stick containing confidential data concerning 130,000 criminals. It's beginning to look like carelessness now isn't it. The opposition parties have been shouting abuse at them. How that vile Smith cow keeps her job is beyond me.

Peskie Russians

I wrote this yesterday, saved it on my laptop, and then left the laptop at work, so it never got posted - doh!

My mother tell me that my maternal grandmother would have been 100 years old today. So, if you're watching me from somewhere Grandma, happy birthday. We have a chiming clock that belonged to Grandma in our dining room. It was presented to her in 1941 by her employers when she got married. It chimes every quarter hour, but we turn the chimes off so that it doesn't wake the boy up during the night. Sometimes however the chimes turn themselves on. I think it's Grandma making her presence felt.

I can't believe that, as the Beijing Olympics draw to a close, Britain is sill in third place in the medal table with 17 Gold medals. That's three more than those peskie Russians in fourth place. With a grand total of 39 medals, we need just another two to reach our target of 41, and I think I'm right in saying we are guaranteed a bronze at least in one of the boxing competitions. The cynical side of me, which is by far the biggest side I might add, had been anticipating a stream of hilarious excuses and red faces as the games closed. I'm almost disappointed that we did so well.

I think Gordon Brown is expecting a poll bounce as a result of Britain's Olympic performance. My guess is that it won't happen. An Ispo/Mori poll conducted over the weekend gives the Conservatives a 48% share of the vote, 24 points ahead of the government. That is a landslide. It's also worth noting that Tories tend to do better in elections than polls suggest because Tory voters tend to be more concerned with privacy issues and decline to take part in polls. That poll did take place before it was obvious how well Britain was doing at the Olympics. It will be interesting to see what the next poll reveals.

Gary Glitter managed to avoid flying to London in the end last night, but he was kicked out of Bangkok eventually and managed to board a flight to Hong Kong. He even managed to book a hotel and arrange an escort off the plane apparently. But the Hong Kong authorities banjaxed his plans before he landed and he was refused entry. Apparently 19 Asian countries have now refused him entry in fact. I'd like to know which countries they are. I guess it's just about all of them. There are two positive elements to this story; firstly of course we don't have Gary Glitter in this country, and Secondly, that vile woman in the Home Office, Jaqui Smith, has been publicly embarrassed by the whole chaotic affair because she clearly can't control her paedophiles.

Stop Press - The Gary Glitter world tour looks like it will draw to a close in Britain tomorrow. Thai authorities have said that Glitter has agreed to leave Bangkok for London.

I just had an ironic moment with my credit card issuer. I called their freephone number this morning and a robot told me to speak my credit card number into the phone. I was in a crowded office, so I decided to put the phone down and call from my mobile somewhere less public. So I did. And of course it's not a free call then. So I spoke to the robot again and the robot promised to put me through to a real person, which makes me wonder why the hell I had to recite the damn number, but there you are. Then the real person gave me a five minute lecture on ID fraud!

I've had a bit of an epiphany actually. The twerp on the phone spent ages telling me that fraudsters obtain personal information about people from from the electoral role, finding envelopes in waste bins with names and addresses on, stolen laptops etc. Then they use that information to pretend they are someone else, gain access to bank accounts and take out loans in false names. The answer is very simple, anonymous banking. There is no need for the bank to know anything about who owns the account. All they need to do is give each customer an account number and a passowrd. As long as you keep these two pieces of information secret, it's entirely secure. Personal information like names and addresses would be utterly useless to fraudsters.

Kingscross or Bangkok

So, Gary Glitter has been let out of prison and been deported from Vietnam. He was due to fly back to London but only got as far as Bangkok airport where he faked a heart attack and refused to board his connecting flight. He's a showman isn't he. Why on earth would anyone fake a heart attack at Bangkok airport? If you want to miss a flight there, all you have to do is go to the information desk and ask someone where your departure gate is. In my experience you'll receive a set of incomprehensible instructions that just send you deep into the labyrinth and eject you at some random point about 1o miles from where you need to be.

And why does he want to stay in Bangkok airport anyway? I've been there loads of times and it's not somewhere I'd chose to sleep. In fact, given the choice between spending a night at Bangkok airport or the men's lavatory at Kingscross Station, I think Kingscross would just have the edge. I'd say you're equally likely to meet a man in a dress at either location, but in Kingscross you're likely to realise it sooner. Maybe that is the kind of thing he's looking for. He's going to end up in Britain anyway. Thailand has made him persona non grata already, and no one else is going to take him after this publicity.

I embarrassed myself twice today already. I managed to walk all the way to the station before realising that my fly was half undone, and then in the office I unexpected ly farted so loudly that everyone in the office turned round and looked. I thought it was going to be one of those quiet ones that you can blame on someone else, but no, it turned out to be the sort that sounds like an angry jazz trombone. I hate when that happens! At least it didn't smell.

It's my wedding anniversary today. We exchanged cards in bed this morning. And later, at lunchtime, I discovered a further card in my lunchbox. It was homemade with a picture of the dragon on teh front. The back promised another two cards close by. I found another one in my briefcase and another in the pocket of my jacket. We're too old for this sort of thing really. Anyway, it's been four years now and I still don't have any regrets.

15000

Today I am exactly 15,000 days old. A milestone if ever there was one. As a special treat, the boy decided to wake me at 6.30 am by repeatedly shouting "Good Morning" until I went to his room.

Tomorrow is my wedding anniversary. I need to do something.

Team GB continues to do incredibly well at the Beijing Olympics. As I write this I see a 16th gold medal has been won. Only the US and China have more. Altogether we have 33 medals now, and that target of 41 is looking more and more achievable. Apparently this is our best performance in over a century.

Abby's comment on socialism is bouncing around in my head, "Not everyone in Europe is a socialist". The British certainly don't consider themselves to be socialists. But looking from the other side of the Atlantic, what does Abby see? She sees us paying a huge amount of tax and receiving state healthcare, education, a state run public transport system. How does that compare to the socialist republic of China for instance? They don't have a state run healthcare system, or a proper state run education system. They also have low taxes and the fastest growing economy in the world.

*Blink*

And Europe as an organisation; how does the EU score on the socialist meter? Huge, undemocratic centralised governmental body that redistributes wealth from the richer countries like Britain, to the poorer ones, like Ireland. That actually sounds almost communist, or Robin Hood, depending on which side of the fence you sit. I use Ireland as an example because they received billions in EU grants and then trashed the Lisbon Treaty earlier this year. I could have chosen other examples.

*Blink*

All of which leads me to ponder on just how socialist we in Britain really are. As a non socialist nation we resist Europe with every fibre of our collective soul, and have done so ever since Europe stopped trying to be a common market and started trying to be a government. The British (Labour/socialist) Government, which clearly does not share a soul with the nation as a whole, is desperately pro-Europe. I know what you're thinking; the right-wing Tory party was broadly pro-Europe if you go back 10 or more years. Mrs Thatch certainly was. It's true, I can't deny that and I wouldn't try to, but in those days Europe still showed signs of becoming the trading power that it was supposed to be. And I might add, there was Tory Euro Scepticism even then. I remember Norman Tebbit standing up and telling us that Europe was heading in completely the wrong direction and that we should be concentrating on bringing down trade barriers and nothing else. Dear Old Norman, great product, appalling marketing. Everyone hated him, but he was always, always right, a bit like Rush Limbaugh.

I'd like to think that although the current government is hardcore socialist, thinly disguised in a Blairite tutu, the country as a whole is basically anti socialist. We're just terribly British and too polite to wave banners in the street and shout. Changes lie ahead for Britain. I think the anti socialist nation is fed up with the government tax and spend philosophy. There will be another by election very shortly in Scotland, in Labour's homeland. If they lose the seat, and they might well do, things will begin to change sooner rather than later. There will be louder calls for Brown to go, and there will be deafening calls for a general election which the government just can't win.

Doing Well

Seems that the British are doing supremely well in the Olympic medal race. As I write this I see we are in 4th place behind Australia, US, and China. I guess we are on target for our 41 medals after winning 25 in the first week. It is nice to see us doing well I suppose. I'm not a sport addict though. The boy seems to like watching sport on tv, which I find somehow disturbing. He particularly likes motor racing.

The emergency services were called to a house fire in Swindon on Friday. Not a great story as it stands, but it turns out that the building was being used as a cannabis farm and the fire was caused by dodgy wiring driving the hydroponics system. It would appear that most of the building was destroyed and the police confiscated 300 plants. Good, let's hope that pushes up the price of pot on the streets and gets the scum bag farmers thrown in jail. More likely they'll just be given a police caution and a government grant to start a brothel or something, but I live in hope.

I was most flattered by Mr Punk's comment that I should be writing a Newspaper column. Believe me Mr P, if someone paid me for writing a weekly column I'd be doing it, hell I'd do it free if I liked the paper. Talking of which, I don't like the Guardian much, nasty pinko commy subversives, but I do like the Charlie Brooker column. You should read that.

A guy called Philip Thompson has been jailed for his part in running an on line paedophile ring. It would appear that the guy was raided by police, and over 240,000 images were found in his possession. He has been described as the organisation's "librarian". He wasn't being paid for the job. It was his hobby apparently. He was also convicted of "causing children under 13 to engage in sexual activity". It's an odd case. The guy was seemingly part of the distribution network for the organisation, and that has to be a hugely risky role. He has been described as extremely intelligent however. Doesn't sound very bright to me. The strangest part is the fact that this guy lived with his mother and was at first glance entirely respectable. Odd, very odd.

Actually, if you read the Telegraph version of the same story, the guy doesn't appear to be a big wheel in the organisation at all. He was simply a forum moderator. As moderator he was able to filter out the images and videos that were illegal and keep them for himself. He would later use them to trade for more images. He was a simple porn collector and trader. I can't see why the BBC report suggests he is a techie either. Any clown can moderate a forum and swipe pictures posted by other users.

The environment minister, Phil Woolas (no I've never heard of him either), has challenged Ponce Charles to back up his claims that GM crops are going to cause an environmental disaster of catastrophic proportions. Can't wait to see how HRH is going to reply. My hunch is that he will point vaguely into the distance and claim that anyone who can't see it happening before their very eyes is a fool. Either that or the challenge will be met with an eerie silence.

Mixed Bag

I started to write something yesterday, but it just turned into an angry rant about scumbag pot-heads smoking in the street and celebrities that don't get charged when found in possession. I have no idea why the Rausings got away with a police caution. She was caught in possession of crack cocaine, and they found more illegal drugs in their home. How much more evidence do you need to prosecute? They even admitted it. What kind of example is that to my son? See, look I'm off on one again.

Deep breaths - in, and out, in, and out.

Team GB has been told to win 41 medals at Beijing. So far they have 8. Taiwan have 2, but they aren't allowed to call themselves Taiwan, or use their own flag because the Chinese won't let them. They are "Chinese Taipei" when competing in the Olympics. Being told to win 41 medals sounds rather like something from cold war Russia if you ask me. How long do the games go on for? Seems like they have a long way to go to get 41.

China is in trouble yet again this morning over the opening ceremony. Last week it emerged that the beautiful 6 year old who sang at the ceremony was miming because the actual 6 year old singer simply wasn't cute enough. This week it emerged that the parade of ethnic minorities were not ethnic minorities at all, but all Han Chinese dressed in traditional costumes of minority cultures.

There is apparently a 10 mile tailback on the M25 because some clown dressed as Batman is swinging about on a bridge. It's a Fathers for Justice protest of course. As I've said before, these people are very good at grabbing headlines, and when they don't cause public disruption, I'm quite happy for them to protest if it makes them happy. But for all their inventiveness, I have no idea what their demands are. They need to work on their PR. Just getting coverage doesn't do anything.

Stupid story of the week:

Apparently an Australian scientist says we should eat kangaroo instead of beef because, wait for it, kangaroos don't fart so much and therefore produce less greenhouse gases. Dr Wilson claims that kangaroo digestive systems are different to those of cows. It's all down to micro organisms in the gut he says.

I think he's talking bollocks, and here's why; all herbivores are part of a short term carbon cycle. The grass grows and absorbs greenhouse gasses as it does so. The cow eats the grass, it gets broken down in the animals' gut, and the greenhouse gases are released again. Or, if the cow doesn't eat the grass, the grass dies, rots on the ground, and the greenhouse gases are released anyway.

I don't believe that the kangaroo digestive system is any different, but I'm not a biologist and therefore not qualified to pontificate here. I will say that I find it hard to believe that the kangaroo is somehow storing the gases trapped in the grass, therefore if they are not expelled from the kangaroo as gas, they must be expelled in the kangaroo crap, which will then break down as before and release the greenhouse gases.

The only way I can see kangaroos being better for the environment is if Dr Wilson can somehow prove to us that the kangaroos somehow convert the trapped greenhouse gases in the grass into CO2 instead of methane, and then prove that the methane is more damaging than CO2. I'm skeptical.

There is much arguing currently going on about the insidious DNA database, which now contains DNA fingerprints of almost 40,000 children never convicted of anything. There are many more DNA fingerprints of innocent adults of course.

Last month a government funded study concluded that people never convicted of a crime should be removed from the database and recommended that the database be managed by an independent body. This week ministers from opposition parties are putting pressure on the government to remove non convicted people from the database. And the Home Office is coming up with some classic responses: (Quotes from BBC report)

"The Home Office argues that the database has revolutionised the way the police protect the public and is a key instrument in the fight against violent crime, burglaries and rape."

- Yes, no one is arguing that, we want to know why you need the DNA profiles of innocent people!

"It says that in a 12-month period between 2006 and 2007, DNA evidence was used in police investigations into 644 rapes, 222 other sexual offences, 1,900 violent crimes and more than 8,500 domestic burglaries."

- Yes, and how many DNA profiles from innocent people were useful in those cases?

"A Home Office spokeswoman said the government had no plans to introduce a universal database."

- Well that is reassuring, but we still want to know why you are retaining DNA profiles of innocent people.

"Inclusion on the DNA database does not signify a criminal record and there is no personal cost or material disadvantage to the individual simply by being on it."

- See, now you're answering a question we didn't want the answer to. We asked why you wanted the DNA of innocent people, and you're effectively telling us being on the database doesn't cost you anythng or make you a criminal. We never suggested that it does cost us anything or make us criminals, though now you come to mention it, there is a tangible cost associated with running this database isn't there, funded by taxpayers? So, the more innocent people you put on the database, the more it costs us, right?

Valley of Paradise

Monday: And so begins another week in the valley of paradise.

There was a lakeside picnic scheduled for Saturday lunchtime. It was a goodbye party for friend Dave and his family. They fly to Canada forever this coming weekend. But the event had to be moved to friend Dave's house due to the fact that the weather was simply not going to let it happen. Sad, but we still had a great time. He's had a new kitchen built. It's most wonderful. But he'll be on the other side of the world and will never enjoy it. The house is sold. The tickets are bought.

We had a small catastrophe yesterday (Sunday). We lost Thomas the Tank Engine and Gordon the Big Engine some time during our weekly shopping. Something you have to remember as a parent is that children tend to leave things on shelves in shops, even things that they love very much and cost a fortune to replace. Gordon the Big Engine is only small but costs £15. We didn't realise the engines were missing until early evening, and by then the shops were shut, thanks to the "Keep Sunday Special" Nazis. So I rang round the shops this morning to see if anyone had handed them in. I know it sounds silly, but my little boy was heartbroken. Luckily, Homebase have them, so I'll be driving round there tonight with the boy to go and get them.

So I would like to take this opportunity to thank Homebase and recommend that everyone go there to buy stuff.

It's only day 4 and I'm bored with the Olympics.

Tuesday:

Homebase were true to their word and we recovered Thomas and Gordon last night. The boy was overjoyed. I've told him to be more careful in future. I'm doubting it will make any difference, but who knows.

Do you remember a couple of days ago I mentioned that there had been an announcement that the government were considering allowing home buyers to defer stamp duty. I said that deferring the tax would not solve the problem of a stagnant housing market, they have to axe it completely (temporarily or otherwise) to get things moving. Well, it seems that the government refused to rule out any change in stamp duty, one way or the other. The result; they've frozen the housing market completely as people wait to hear what the hell is going to happen. So, on this issue the government didn't even manage to be ineffectual. Just when you thought they couldn't get any more inept.



Wednesday:

Dear Prince Charles

Remind me again, what was your degree? Was it Biology, climatology, Meteorology? No wait, I remember, it was a shitty third in Art History from Edinburgh wasn't it? And they designed the course specifically for you if I remember correctly, because you weren't bloody smart enough to compete with students on conventional courses!

Well here's a wild idea; why not piss off back to uni and get yourself a proper degree in some relevant subject, and then come back and start spouting bollocks about environmental disasters due to GM crops!

And another thing; why not renounce your claim to the throne and stand for election if you want to get involved in politics.

Yours sincerely etc.

In case you don't know what that was about, click here.

Another Note

So, is there any chance that Ponce Charles will turn down the crown and let it go straight to William? I'd say there is very little chance. Charles has been desperate to become king all his life. He'd love his mother to move over and give him a chance to play, but that simply won't happen. He's going to have to wait until the old lady keels over. I think the only thing that could possibly persuade him to stand aside would be pressure from parliament. But yes, there have been stories rumbling on for years about what will happen when the time comes.

Edward VIII abdicated after he was pressured by parliament to do so. They went to him and asked him to stand down because they felt that his relationship with a divorced American woman was a constitutional crisis waiting to happen. He agreed to abdicate, though one has to ask what would have happened if he had refused. I don't think he had been crowned or anointed when he abdicated.

Things have changed now. Charles is not only married to a divorced, untitled woman, he's a divorcee himself. That wouldn't be enough for parliament to pressure him today. He is however rather unpopular and he has an additional obstacle; will the public accept his wife as queen? Legally speaking she will become queen automatically when Charles takes the throne. Legally speaking she is in fact the Princess of Wales now, but she never uses the title, and she would likely be publicly hung out to dry if she tried. I think it will be many years before the public replace the memory of Diana of Wales, with Camilla of Wales.

There are other issues. One of the most interesting I think is down to religion. The queen quite literally justifies her place as head of state by claiming that she has been chosen by God. This is why she can't abdicate. She is reportedly a very committed Christian. Charles appears to be less committed. He is on record as saying that when he becomes king he will not take the traditional title of "Defender of the Faith", but will instead take on a new title of "Defender of Faiths". This is not as subtle as it would at first seem. Charles is suggesting that he will defend all faiths, whilst also taking on the role of head of the Anglican Church. It would appear to me to be very difficult to defend the faith of the Wiccans, the scientologists, the Hindus, and the Muslims, whilst remaining the Anglican Big Cheese. This coupled with the fact that Britain is about as atheist as any country in the world now, some people put the figure at 40%, and the fact that we are indeed a truly multi-faith community, would suggest to me that people would start to question his right to be there.

One other thing that could throw a spanner in the works is all down to DNA. Sooner or later it will emerge that someone in line to the throne is not who they claim to be. There have already been calls for Prince Harry to submit to a DNA test because he looks strikingly like a certain James Hewitt. Hewitt had an affair with Harry's mother Diana, though it was always denied that Diana knew Hewitt at the time of Harry's conception. Interestingly however, since Diana's death at least one photo of Hewitt and Diana together before Harry's birth has emerged. Hewitt, who is clearly not very bright and a bit of a cad, has also said things which appear to be at odds with the official line. Going back further, it's been suggested that the queen herself has had two affairs and that her husband may not be the father of all her children. The Duke of Edinburgh (Queen's husband) has been linked with quite a number of young ladies, including his wife's own cousin Alexandra. Going back even further, A.N. Wilson's book "The Victorians" suggests that Queen Victoria almost certainly wasn't her father's daughter.

Of course, the royal family have never and will never agree to paternity tests, but how long can they avoid leaving a trace of DNA somewhere to be tested? A used glass, a discarded cigarette end, a drop of blood, sooner or later some tabloid will obtain something, test it, and there will be a scandal. What bothers me is how we stand legally if say the queen turns out to be an impostor. All those things she's signed as head of state, all those bills she passed, all those times she has opened parliament, were they legal?

Uneasy

So, after the last entry, Mr Punk wants to know if I'm "uneasy" about the queen. That's an interesting question. I consider myself to be a hardcore republican. I think the head of state should be an elected person that can be removed by the electorate. The current system of monarchy doesn't allow for that. In actual fact, I do rather like the queen. I think she's played a blinder. She has never made speeches that betray her own political views. She's never meddled in politics in any way as far as I can recall. I have something of an issue with the fact that, although she appears to pay some income tax, she is not audited, so we essentially have to trust that she fills in her tax return forms accurately.

The problem I have is with the monarchy system, not the queen herself. While I like and trust the queen to remain fair, honest and impartial, if she does one day join the ranks of the certified barking and start talking to the pigeons in Trafalgar Square, we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. However mad she becomes, She would still be required to perform state duties upon which the constitution relies. There is no mechanism in place to remove or replace the monarch if he or she is unable or unwilling to perform the duties required of the role. Slightly more worrying is the fact that the monarch is considered to be the choice of God and was anointed as Queen in the eyes of God, for life. She cannot abdicate because it would be against God. Some would argue that she cannot be removed for the same reason.

All the above however pales into insignificance in comparison with the problem I have with the heir in waiting. Prince Charles, unlike his mother, is I believe of extremely low intelligence. Although he has had the benefit of the best education the world has to offer, it has apparently failed to provide him with anything other than an ego the size of Belgium. Not only has he spent most of his adult life bitching about the hard time he had at arguably the best school in the world, he doesn't appear to have had an original thought in his life. A huge ego and an empty brain is indeed a bad combination.

Charles, despite his lack of wit, is hugely opinionated. He's views on architecture, the environment, farming, and alternative medicine for instance, are well known. He was also a huge fan of Tony Blair. We know this because he basically can't keep his trap shut. He writes his own speeches and spouts his opinions publicly at the drop of a hat. This in my view is a huge problem, and here's why; the British public are going to get a king with a set of publicly known opinions that will influence the governments over which he presides. The current queen no doubt has opinions, but we don't know what they are. She has been absolutely proper about keeping those opinions to herself. She has had I think eight Prime Ministers come to her requesting that they may be allowed to form a government, and we have no idea which of those she admired, and which she did not. That is how it should be. The queen understands the workings of politics and that she, as an unelected head of state, absolutely cannot get involved on a political level. Charles does not understand this.

Charles has essentially crapped in his own nest. He knows that the problem exists, but by the time he realised it was there, he was unable to turn back the clock and take back his opinions. There is no way he can now be an impartial king. His attempt at damage limitation has been to admit that he has meddled in politics as the Prince of Wales, and to promise he will not do so as King of England. Unfortunately it doesn't solve the problem. As I said, we know his opinions already, and he can't take them back. Promising to stop meddling the day he becomes King really makes no difference.

So there it is, I like the queen. I think the monarchy concept is a disaster waiting to happen, and I think Prince Charles is the disaster.

Here's the deal

I've been asked to explain how the British political system works. I get asked this a lot, so it's worth writing a few paragraphs to explain it I guess, rather than try to reply to notes individually. I'm no expert, and I can't guarantee all this is right, but here's the deal:

The queen is the head of state. She's unelected and unaccountable. There is no method of removing her from power if she goes spacco and starts abusing her position. The royalists will tell you it's no problem because she has no real power, but that is just wrong. She does have real power. All legislation must get royal asscent before it becomes law, and in theory she could just refuse to give it if she decided it was the right thing to do one morning. Additionally, she has other powers that are very real. In the event of a hung parliament for instance, that is a general election in which there is no clear winner, guess who gets to choose the PM, yup, Her Maj.

There are two chambers in the Houses of Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Lords are not elected. They are appointed by the main political parties. Lords cannot be removed by the public, but they do occasionally go off the rails like Lord Jeffrey Archer, who lied in court about his relationship with some exotic ladies of the night at Kingscross station. He went to jail, but he is still a lord. You also get really odd people in the Lords, like Andrew Lloyd Webber the musician, who shouldn't be anywhere near politics if you ask me, but is.

The house of Commons is elected. There are 600ish seats in the commons and each one is occupied by an MP (member of parliament). Each MP represents a particular area (constituency) of the country. Even the PM is an elected MP and represents a specific area. The idea is that everyone can write to their own local MP and take their concerns to parliament. Each MP is either a member of a political party, or an independent, and the party with the most members in the Commons gets to play at being the government. The leader of that party is the PM of course.

A general election, where anyone over 18 and not in jail or mental institute can vote, decides who is elected to the Commons. Each person in the country has a single vote and can vote only for the people contesting the seat in parliament that represents their own area. You can be registered to vote in one area only, and it would usually be where you live.

A government can stay in power for up to 4 years, but the term is not fixed. The PM decides when to call an election. So, after two or three years in power the PM can decide to have an early election if he/she thinks it's a good moment, or can defer the election until the very last moment if they want.

The party in power (government) forms a cabinet of MPs. The roles within cabinet are not fixed, but they don't change much. There is always a PM, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, and there are also ministers for health, education, transport, environment, etc. These cabinet ministers take on the responsibility of their own cabinet post in addition to things that concern their own constituency.

Just about anything can be debated in parliament, and then voted on. Usually each party tells it's members which way to vote, but sometimes each MP is allowed vote however they want. Because the party in power has most seats (and therefore votes), it usually wins the vote. Some controversial debates rumble on for years however, like fox hunting for instance.

When something has been voted on in parliament, it gets passed to the lords and voted on again. If the lords approve it, and they usually do, it goes for royal ascent and becomes law. In the case of fox hunting, the debate was so controversial that it was voted on several times in the commons, changing slightly each time, until a majority of MPs voted to approve it. It was then passed to the Lords who threw it out. This happened so many times that the Blair government invoked an archaic piece of legislation that allowed them to bypass the lords completely. It was called the parliament act and it was an act put in place to prevent the lords from voting on things that they would by biased about. Anyway, the fox hunting bill went to the queen without being approved by the lords and we are now not allowed to hunt with dogs. Thanks for that then Tony.

There are three major political parties; the Labour Party (corrupt scumbags currently in power), the Conservatives (sometimes called Tories, got very sleazy about 10 years ago but recovering now), and the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems formed about 25 years ago when the Liberals and the Social Democrats merged. They are polling about 14% now. They have no hope of winning an election, but they do have a significant number of seats in the Commons and can swing a vote one way or the other. There are other parties, but none that have a hope of forming a government.

There are separate Welsh and Scottish assemblies which have some power, though things like defence and foreign policy are still controlled by London. There is no separate English parliament, which ironically means that Scottish and Welsh MPs can vote on things that affect only the English, but not the other way round. This is a Blair legacy. The labour party relies upon Scottish MPs in particular to drive English and Welsh legislation through.

Currently the PM is Gordon Brown. He was not leader of the Labour party when the last general election took place and consequently is not considered by many to be the people's choice. He took over from Tony Blair about a year ago and has lurched from one crisis to the next almost from day one. There is talk currently of a challenge to Gordon Brown's leadership, and potential successors are creeping out of the woodwork. This has happened because the Labour party are doing very very badly in terms of popularity currently and the PM is getting the blame. To change leaders twice in 18 months would look pretty desperate in the eyes on the public though and there would be pressure for an early election. The next one may not be for at least another 18 months as far as I remember. If there was an early election, Labour would lose, even with a new leader.

Stamp Duty

It's raining, but the train was on time, and so was the bus. shouldn't be complaining.

I've just received a mail from friend Dave. He's going to vanish to Ottawa in just a few short weeks and we are to assemble for a goodbye picnic at a local nature reserve. Sounds fun, as long as it doesn't bucket down with rain of course.

There were four of us in my gang at university, Dave was the oldest. When he goes to Canada, all of us will have gone to work abroad at one time or another. In fact, when he goes, two of us will be in Canada. Dickie worked a year or two in California. I worked five years in Taipei. It's odd isn't it, that all of us thought that foreign countries offered us something that we couldn't get at home.

I know I said I wasn't going to talk politics this week, but I want to mention the latest idiot idea from the Treasury. Word on the Street is they are planning to defer Stamp Duty. Stamp Duty is a really sly tax extracted from people buying a house. It has a sliding scale. Most people have to pay 1% of the value of the house they buy in tax. People buying homes worth over £500,000 must pay 4% of the value of the property. Last year the government managed to steal £6.5 billion this way. It's a lot of money. The housing market is collapsing however and this particular cash cow is going to whither away. During the last recession the Conservative government scrapped Stamp Duty temporarily to help the housing market recover, and it did help. But you notice that the current Labour government appear to be planning to 'defer' payment.

Two things; first, this won't help the housing market because buyers still have to pay the tax, and mortgage lenders know it. Second, and this is the big one, anyone who does take advantage of this still runs the risk of buying a house which subsequently decreases in value plunging them into negative equity. And who wants to owe money to the bank and the treasury at the same time?

I'm not going to continue in case this becomes a rant.

Fruit, Vetetables, and Ancient Passion

This entry is not going to include any politics. I might try and go a whole week without ranting about the government, we'll see how it goes. Today there will be mention of fruit and vegetables however, and ancient passion.

Let's start with the ancient passion. Picture the scene, St Malo, North West France 1982, I was 15 years old and on a school trip. We were there for a week and it was the Spring Equinox, wind, rain, broken sunshine. We were staying in a foul hotel called La Tivoli. And that is where I first noticed her. One month older than me, blonde, very pretty, petite. I can't think why I hadn't noticed her before. We attended all the same classes. Actually that's not quite true, she was one of the art set, and I was a scientist, but we were assigned the same form tutor and she sat behind me in Mr Hooper's English class. Perhaps it was the romantic location. Even a cockroach ridden hotel nestled in the unfashionable district of St Malo is romantic to a hormone doped 15-year-old.

Nothing really happened on the trip itself. We noticed each other, we talked, we may have held hands, I don't remember, but it was the start of a relationship that would last for another year. We split up just before we left school in 1983. It had been a fun year, but these things don't last when you are that age, and we went our separate ways. I went to study electronics at collage, she went to art school. We spoke a few times on the phone, bumped into one another once or twice, but in real terms we lost contact in the summer of 1983. I heard that she went to live in New Zealand with a husband and had a baby. I went to university, bummed about a bit and ended up in Taiwan.

And here's why I'm telling you this; while in Taiwan, I found her on Friends Reunited. I wasn't sure that I wanted to get in touch again. That was about five years ago, and she was something in my past. But I thought about it for a while, and eventually wrote her an email. She seemed pleased that I contacted her and we have exchanged emails maybe once a month since then. Last month she wrote to me to say that she was back in the UK for a while and would I like to meet. I really wasn't sure about it, but I said yes, and on Saturday I met her again, after 25 years, in Starbucks. It was really quite amazing. She hasn't changed much. She's a little more Bohemian and there are one or two lines, but I would have recognised her anywhere. I'm apparently much older, with a deeper voice, and fatter. The years were it seems not so kind to me.

I was going to post pictures from that week in France, and maybe do a then and now comparison, but it wouldn't be fair to post pictures of her without her consent, and finding those St Malo pictures would be a real bugger, but who knows, maybe I'll stumble across them and ask her permission. Anyway, that's how I spent two very pleasant hours on Saturday, and I wanted to record it, because it really was something a little bit special, and I'm glad I did it. The dragon was also glad because she took advantage of the fact that I could look after the boy and she coud go shopping without him.

So here's a piece of advice from your uncle Goblin. If an old friend, someone who really meant something to you, gets in touch, don't be scared, go and meet them. I can't say it wasn't awkward, but I've got so much running round my head now, so many old memories have leaped out of their boxes as a result. I'm sure you'll hear more about this in future entries.



So, on to fruit and vegetables then. Here is a picture of tomatoes ripening on the kitchen windowsill. They are little cherry tomatoes, and we have quite a lot more coming on the bush. I'm telling you that in case you think I'm a rubbish farmer that can only grow very small tomatoes. They are supposed to be that size. It's an Australian variety. I just like the picture. It was taken last night, and I am going to eat some of those very specimens at lunchtime.

OK sweetcorn, do Americans have another name for it? Doesn't matter, I'll call it sweetcorn and everyone will know what I mean. I went to Sainsbury's last week to buy sweetcorn because I like to put it in spaghetti bolognese sauce. They seem to do two own-brand varieties, one with the healthy sticker on the front, alerting us to the absence of added salt and sugar, and one without. On examination of the ingredients list in fact neither seems to contain anything other than sweetcorn and water. So, other than the fact that the one with the sticker is 7p more expensive, what is the difference?



Well, examining the health-wheel thing seems to reveal that there are in fact differences. I can understand small differences if the varieties of corn within the cans are different. What I can't understand is why the health wheel thing thinks that 6.1g of sugar is green (eat as much as you like), while 4.0g of sugar is orange (stop eating when you feel sick). It would suggest to me that the Sainsbury health wheel thing means very little, or at least the colour coding is inconsistent. Incidentally, if you believe the health wheel thing, the one with the healthy sticker has 2 more calories and almost twice as much fat. I'm going to write to Lord Sainsbury about this and see what he says. I'll keep you posted.

Until tomorrow shipmates!