Watch this interview with Jim Devine (soon to be ex) MP. Most English people will see a spectacularly incompetent man who's been caught with his fingers in the till, wriggling on the hook. Most Scottish people, it seems, will see a working-class Scot being bullied by a middle-class Englishman.

This is why Scotland still prefers Gordon Brown to David Cameron. They would rather see one of their own, no matter how useless, than one of the hated other tribe of Britain in the top job. Until Scots demand higher standards of their MPs than accepting whining "the shop-steward made me do it" when caught, the sooner Scotland will cease to be a second-world hell-hole.

is up over at Charles Crawford's place. As he mentions, the hosts (of which I am one) have been...

...bellowing primaevally among themselves about what and how the Roundup should round up. Only one death so far…

Which is a shame, for the host we've lost is the one who has done the most work in nominating and sparking discussion. For my part, I try to give the round-up a narrative, rather than make it a boring list of posts. The aim, as I see it, is to drive people to the links rather and stating that you don't agree with them does that as effectively as saying that you do. Inclusion is the watchword - you have to include all nominated posts*, but you don't have to be impartial about that which you include. I have offended people in the past, and that is not my aim.

Needless to say Charles doesn't offend anyone this time, as befits a diplomat.

I was remiss at not linking last week's, so here it is, at Suz' Blog.

The other thing this process needs if it is not to become tedious link-whoring, is that all the hosts (and I am remiss in this regard too. Mea Maxima Culpa), and those who enjoy reading the roundup is to NOMINATE - not huge lists, but one or two a week from lots of different people. Especially if you come across a new blog. You're allowed ONE self-nomination a week - use it! The hosts will add a few of their own selections to impart their voice onto the roundup, otherwise the same people writing at the same blogs get the links each week, and it gets incestuous.

It's Trixy next week, so give her something to work with by nominating a couple of posts, and the best of your own, by emailing the link to Britblog [at] gmail [dot] com. Let's keep the weekly carnival something worth reading!

*Abuse of this rule will not be tolerated.

Unity gets it spot on with a defence of "the Judges" in our common Law system. Now if we could just get our politicians to stop muddying the water with a new law a day, then the judges can get on with dispensing justice and interpreting that law.

So Apparently, if Andy Coulson, the Tories #3 gets his way, the first Queen's speech under the Tories will contain no Legislation (apart from possibly a great repeal bill). This indicates to me the Tories ARE going to be different, very different to the Government which has showered the country with legislative diarrhoea for nearly 13 years, Giving rights where none are needed (under common Law, you have a right to do anything you like that isn't prescribed - no positive right to breast feed in public is needed, for example) Perhaps they understand the principles of common law and are not, as Unity puts it

"ignorant, mouth-breathing moron[s] who knows nothing of this country’s history and even less about its legal and judicial system"

Perhaps they are on to something. Perhaps Unity will thus describe his fellow LibCon blogger Don Paskini and tell him

"just this once I want you to listen up, numb-nuts"

Or Perhaps not.

In a shock Development, Shyster, Swindle & Pratt, lawyers acting for Chris Mullin and Alan Plater sued minor British blogger, A Very British Dude for trademark infringement, arguing that people searching for mr. Mullin's 1982 Novel or Mr Plater's screenplay first aired on Channel 4 in 1988, both titled 'A Very British Coup', might be confused by this Blog's title.

They further argued that they sought to limit the use of the phrase "A Very British..." to only those instances referring to the book or screenplay, unless prior permission is granted in writing (apply to Shyster, Swindle & Pratt). They made further allegations concerning content, suggesting that the blog's title was itself subversive, noting the Pseudonymous author's military experience and dislike of the present Government.

"whilst I am not suggesting that mr. Jackart is planning a military coup against the Labour Government, it cannot be ruled out. Can you be too careful in times such as these?"

he added. Peter Mandelson was seen leaving the building shortly before the press conference.

Naturally I am referring messers Shyster, Swindle & Pratt to the answer given to the plaintiff in the case of Arkell vs. Pressdram.

As is Tory Politico in a similar case. I wish him luck.

I've seen some pathetic stuff from Sunny Hundal, over at Liberal Conspiracy in my time, but this is the most egregious. He's trying to ask us to believe there's something wrong with Eric Pickles asking the broad church of the Tory inclined blogosphere to do some work countering Labour's lies.

For the Record Mr Pickles rejected a daily memo or a Coordinated line for Tory bloggers to take, suggesting (rightly) that we're too bloody-minded to take it on board anyway, and he praised the independence we showed. "Conservatives", he said, "do not want to control everything. We'll leave that to the socialists".

Instead someone fed us booze, and the survivors were forced to listen to me sing. My rendition of Mr Big's 'To be with you' was emphatically not some plan to torture the blue blogs into compliance, however it must have seemed.

This is how it should have sounded.

Personally, I don't think it will be. But via a comment in a Political Betting thread, I come across a Blog called The Tap.

Does anyone know whether this is a tinfoil hat wearing, socially inaquate conspiracy theorist who bashes away at a keyboard in his underwear at his parents' house where he still lives, between extended masturbation sessions to 'StarTrek the Next Generation'. Or is it a beautiful piece of satire?

He's been added to the reader pending a decision.

I'm often asked why I'm voting Tory. Those to the right of me cannot believe I haven't seen through spam Cam, and those to the left think I'm merely tribal.

Here is my reasoning. The Tories are the shit that stinks least. And by some margin.

Look at this idiocy to which a fair percentage of the parliamentary Labour party has put its name. I cannot vote for these illiterate, posturing bufoons, or anyone associated with this feeble document. Leave aside a track record of bankrupting countries, Labour are awful and ghastly on a level which transends philosophy. You could summon the best wordsmiths in the English speaking world and force them to describe the sheer horror of a Labour government, under pain of death, and they would still fail to describe fully my contempt for this bunch of Wankers. I'd commit suicide before I voted Labour.

The Liberal Democrats are loyal to their country, The United States of Europe, not my country, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And they support PR, which is stupid and self-serving. And in any case they're a bunch of sandal-wearing cunts without the guts to admit they're Socialist. I wouldn't trust them to run a public lavatory without eating the deposits, let alone a country.

Which leaves the Tories.


If we're going to continue with the fecal metaphor (and it's my blog, so I will), the Labour party are diarrhoea after a particularly savage dose of Gastroenteritis: a type 7, but with blood and intestinal lining included as your bowels prolapse. The Liberal Democrats are a loose stool like you've had a vindaloo the night before - a 5-6 at best. Not actually life-threatening, but not pleasant, and impossible to pick up.

The Tories are a firm floater which barely needs a wipe. You've tucked the FT under your arm on the way to trap 2, but you've only read the headline by the time you've finished. And you're clean after one wipe. They're not a thing of beauty, but you wouldn't be ashamed to leave it floating for the next occupant of the bog to admire, especially as there are probably one or two still-edible peanuts which can be picked out, like Michael Gove's education policy, or the one about directly elected police chiefs.

Tories. Shit, but much, much better than the alternatives.

Politicians lie, they dissemble, they distort the truth. They change the meaning of words, put two mutually incompatible ideas into one paragraph. They simplify concepts to the point of absurdity. It is what they do. Which is why I waste very little time going through the economic and logical absurdities in a politician's speech. Why pretend to be surprised by the idiocies you know are going to appear?

What we observers of politics forget is that Politicians are not speaking to us political wonks. Nor are they talking to people who are actually sitting there listening him bump his gums. They are at best talking to journalists, trying to get a quote or soundbite into the press or, even better, on the 9 o'clock news. In reality they're talking in code to their supporters, and in soundbites to the outside world. Thus the philosophical incoherence in a politician's speech is irrelevant. What most people call 'Straight talking' I call Sophism. What most people call 'fairness' I call 'being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve', and so on, but to call a politician on these things is to forget that these events have their own language. It may look like English, but it isn't. It is always possible to look at a politicians speech, and fisk it. There will always be inferences made on spurious grounds, because a political speech cannot fully make an argument because there isn't time. Instead it is the intellectual equivalent of impressionism - seeking to give the truth without being specific on details.

Of course, I could be too generous to politicians here. In avoiding details, they are seeking to maintain wiggle room, should events conspire against them but I think most politicians who make it to the top are motivated by a desire to make the world a better place, and seek to do so honestly. The language of the political-media construct however prevents comprehension. The language is written by one's opponents. Let's take a famous example.

There is no such thing as society.

Now if you're on the left, you think that Margaret Thatcher in 1987 was talking about deliberately atomising society. You think this was the intellectual justification for the '80s 'ME!' society, when of course she was talking about the exact opposite - blaming excess state interference for the very atomisation of society which her political opponents sought to pin on her. "Society" became code for "the state", a political construct in the media-political hive mind which existed during a period - late 80's to the present which saw the almost complete centralisation of power in the hands of the British state, and the neutering of all levels of democracy below parliament.

There is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state.

David Cameron, 21 years later is forced to detoxify the word "society" in the eyes of his supporters, and counter the charge that Tories are vicious individualists, seeking to use the poor as fertiliser on multi-national GM uber farms. The Tory view of society has always been the Burkean "little platoons" which mediate between the state and the individual. This might be church, company, charity, clubs, societies and associations. It's taken 21 years for a Tory to find a soundbite which might actually express accurately what Margaret Thatcher wanted to say to Woman's Own in 1987. Which is why Politicians choose their words so very carefully. One slip up, and you've moved the vocabulary of the Politcal-media complex against you. Can we really expect them to tell the truth, in english, under those circumstances?

In truth, and especially at inflection points in political discourse, 1979, 1997, 2010 the opponent's caricatures are likely to be more accurate than the image parties want to present themselves. Margaret Thatcher was derided as "Attila the hen" by the labour party - and as a hard, uncaring woman, who wanted to take milk from children. This hinted at the radical agenda better than the St Fancis of Assisi quote with which she entered office. In 1997, "Labour's tax bombshell" and "New Labour, New Danger" accurately present the message that Labour will Tax and Spend, bankrupting the country even though that nice Mr Blair is in charge. Which turned out to be, more or less, the truth.

At present, Labour are schizophrenically trying to portray David Cameron as a vicious Thatcherite, intent on making 'Savage Cuts' in public services whilst mixing the blood of the workers with champagne in a bizarre Bullingdon club ritual, whilst also asserting that he's a slick salesman with no substance. He can't be both, and I suspect the Labour caricature of the Tories' radical agenda is more accurate than the equivocating and centrist rhetoric with which Cameron so infuriates the political right. Which is why I am optimistic that, whatever bollocks appears in political speeches talking about harmony, The Tories in office will be more resolute and radical than they would want you to think.

I certainly hope so.