Crash Bang Wallace
Libertarian political blog from Mark Wallace; political opinion, breaking news and exclusivesAndrew Neil launches a cheese?
Posted on February 13, 2011We’ve all become accustomed to celebrities extending their personal brand into unexpected markets, but did anyone anticipate the Daily Politics’ Andrew Neil launching a cheese? When I stumbled across this in a shop I couldn’t be certain from the brand name that it was definitely one of his enterprises, but once it turned out to be “matured in wine” – well, that clinched it:
I gather Private Eye may have a photo demonstrating his personal involvement with the “jugs”, too…
The divine right of Devine
Posted on February 10, 2011The jury have just announced that Jim Devine is the latest politician to be found guilty of false accounting in his MPs’ expenses. Even before they had made up their minds about his criminal behaviour, though, it was clear that at bare minimum he was guilty of being a massive, massive hypocrite.
BBC Scotland’s Tim Reid, who has been livetweeting the trial, reported that Devine’s defence QC came out with this appeal to the jury yesterday:
Even by the often pompous standards of Westminster, that’s a laughable claim.
This Jim Devine who claimed yesterday he wanted “no special treatment” for having been an MP was the same Jim Devine who wasted public money and court time over the last year by first bringing a case and then an appeal to argue that he could not be prosecuted at all on the grounds of Parliamentary Privilege.
He was demanding special treatment for MPs to the absurd degree that they should be above the criminal law and untouchable even by the courts. That dodge didn’t work for Charles I when he pleaded the “divine right of kings”, and I’m delighted that it hasn’t worked for the divine right of Devine, either.
Sluggish Peers threaten the future of direct democracy
Posted on January 13, 2011The AV referendum is incredibly important for British democracy – not so much because of the actual question on the table but because the way it runs will heavily influence the future of direct democracy in this country.
I, like many others, want to see a lot more referenda in Britain. We deserve votes on the EU, on any constitutional changes and on local tax rises, to name but a few. Ideally citizens should be able to initiate a referendum on any issue of their choosing via a right of initiative.
The chance of that happening rests largely, though unofficially, on the AV referendum. If it becomes a farce with a tiny turnout, then there is a risk that it will discredit the idea of asking the people about anything – the defenders of the Westminster elite will crow at any and every opportunity that people just aren’t bothered.
But if the AV vote does turn out to be an absurd waste of time, it will not be because the people aren’t interested in being consulted on things.
For a start, AV is in itself a boring and obscure system which is a peculiar choice of referendum topic. That puts this referendum at a disadvantage in terms of turnout.
To counteract that, campaigners and politicians have a serious responsibility. The Yes and No camps must run active, interesting and exciting campaigns to ensure that people are exercised about the topic (difficult as that may be). I think they have both got off to a pretty good start on that front.
The real weak link in the chain at the minute is in Parliament. The BBC today reports that Labour Peers are blocking the Bill to such an extent that it may not go through in time to actually hold the referendum on the planned date of May 5th.
If they persist in their delaying tactics and the date does have to be moved, it would be a disgraceful disservice to democracy. Allowing campaigns to get up and running only to delay the vote will turn this referendum into a farce and further confuse and alienate the public.
I don’t like AV, so I don’t think it would be a missed opportunity on that front, but if this harms the prospect of future referenda on things that actually do matter, there should be hell to pay.
How did John Humphrys get a free ad in The Archers?
Posted on December 28, 2010Ok, I’m coming out – I’m a fan of The Archers. Yes, the hurly burly of local scandal in rural Borsetshire conunes my Sunday mornings on a regular basis. To be honest, getting that off my chest makes me feel a while lot better.
One of the reasons I like it is that it’s a corner of the BBC which never makes me angry – unlike, say, Question Time which I’ve had to stop watching for the safety of my television screen.
But now it seems even The Archers is not a neutral zone. Last night’s episode had the characters discussing a local society dinner – which was a cue for a massive plug for John Humphrys’ lucrative after-dinner speaking service.
“Ooh, he’ll have a lot of interesting things to say,” one of them even waxed.
Isn’t against the BBC rules to advertise products or services? Or does that not count when giving a free editorial plug to one of their own staff?
David Lammy, the Higher Education Mastermind
Posted on December 07, 2010David Lammy MP seems to be of the opinion that he knows better than Oxbridge Dons who they should admit to University. Worse, the very fact that they disagree with him apparently means that they are institutionally racist, rather than simply better informed.
Who is this man in possession of such infinite wisdom that he is able to out-think some of the sharpest minds in Britain? For a short introduction, I’d recommend his appearance on Celebrity Mastermind, in which – among other things – he said that Henry VII was the son of Henry VIII. As they say on Twitter, DoubleFacePalm.
It gets particularly good at 4 minutes 20 seconds, on the general knowledge section…
The Giggle Loop and Jeremy…erm…Hunt
Posted on December 06, 2010Laughing on the radio is like laughing in church – you know you shouldn’t give in to the giggles, but that only makes it worse. Jim Naughtie had a brilliant one this morning, inadvertently turning Jeremy Hunt’s surname into a bad, bad word that makes David Cameron’s Twitter comment pale by comparison:
Perhaps the best thing about it was Naughtie’s desperate attempts to resist the giggles after dropping his bomb, before claiming it was a “coughing fit. Fans of the BBC’s old sitcom Coupling will know that this is known as the Giggle Loop.
My favourite attack of the Radio 4 Giggle Loop was suffered by Charlotte Green, when the bizarre sound of the oldest recording of a human voice clashed with a very sombre obituary:
Woman marries herself: Chris Morris comedy comes true again
Posted on November 10, 2010Both Dizzy Thinks and I have previously noted that reality is coming ever closer to the comedy visions of Chris Morris. There’s yet another example of this in the news today.
Compare this item, from the BBC’s correspondent in Taipei:
to this sketch from Morris’s dark and brilliant series Jam:
Odd, no?
Hello, Good Evening and Remain Indoors!
Posted on November 05, 2010Credit to those BBC staff who are mucking in and knuckling down to keep the service running despite the NUJ’s militancy today. All in all they’re doing a good job – even the BBC’s Head of News, Helen Boaden, is apparently reading bulletins on Radio 4.
However, when the Today Programme was replaced by “Wading birds of the Wash” this morning I couldn’t help but be reminded of this post-apocalyptic vision of the future from Mitchell and Webb…
Animal Rights “Activists” or “Terrorists”?
Posted on October 26, 2010The BBC does generally try hard to be balanced – but their leanings often leak through onto the screen regardless, due the the impossibility of any human truly leaving their bias at the door. There’s a great example in the media at the moment, reporting the jailing of five members of the odious group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC).
Nicole Vosper, Sarah Whitehead, Thomas Harris, Nicola Tapping and Jason Mullan have been sentenced to up to six years in jail for a sustained international campaign against people and businesses involved in animal testing at Huntingdon Life Sciences. They attacked houses, destroyed property, posted blood and semen purporting to be infected with HIV to people and sent hoax bombs to their offices and homes. This is par for the course as far as SHAC are concerned – they’ve been ruining people’s lives for several years now.
I can think of a good word to describe them: terrorists. They sought to force people to change their way of life by inspiring terror.
Strangely, the BBC doesn’t use that term – they are “animal rights activists”. If an Islamist or White Supremacist group did this they would rightly be given their proper name – not “religious activists” or “racial activists”. So why do SHAC not get the same treatment – does terror in the name of fluffy bunnies get you off the hook?