Mr E sums up my political beliefs quite beautifully...

"bloggertarians" combine what most people would regard as typically right-of-centre positions on economic and political issues – lower taxes, smaller state, less government regulation and interference, drop bombs on uncooperative foreigners, you know the drill – with social views which are more ‘progressive’ - broadly, that your orifices are yours to use as you will, whether that means putting coke up one or cock up another, and it’s almost never any of the government’s business which goes where.

Go read the whole thing if you haven't already. It really is quite glorious stuff.

Welcome back Bob Piper... For anyone who's not aware, Bob is regarded as one of the best Labour bloggers, and as such he's a pretty good barometer of the party's soul, in all its incoherent, chippy glory. He's right though. There's no doubt that Nu Labour is motivated entirely by the winning and keeping of power, and in doing so they've been forced to abandon their principles. All that's left to the Jack and Deirdre Sparts of the constituencies is a vague belief that being "Labour" as a better moral position than being a "Tory". Beyond that they have no agenda (though I like the idea that everything nu Labour does is motivated by a desire for revenge). Councillor Bob agrees that a One-Party state is in the target

As the Labour Party creeps further to the centre right ground it could pose a serious threat to the continued existence of the Conservative Party. As we have welcomed on board the Digby Joneses, the Quentin Davies's, kissed the hand of the blessed Margaret and invited on board assorted rag bags of disaffected but ambitious Tories who have seen the possibility of terminal decline, we need to reflect on where this leaves the overall political balance.

Great! It's attracting the unprincipled, the power-hungry and the greedy to the Labour party, which is all it's got since it abandoned principle. Good riddance... you're welcome to the cunts.

Should the current Brown 'bounce' turn out not to be a blip but a genuine shift in the public mood towards Labour,

fat chance, it's the combined new leader honeymoon plus the normal conference lift. People are given Gordo the benefit of the doubt, but still hate nu Labour

the possibility of a fourth shattering defeat for the Tories in the Spring could spell disaster for them. Cameron would almost certainly be expected to fall on his sword, and if not he would likely feel the stiletto in the back. They would almost certainly revert to an old right leader like David Davis,

Blah Blah Right wing Blah

which would cost them the rump of disaffected Lib Dems who may have been briefly attracted to Cameron.

So the movement between Labour and the Lib-Dems is negligable is it, fuck wit? Look, you may imagine that nasty old right wing Tories are hated by everyone who doesn't chase small furry animals for fun, but their instincts are closer to that of the country than your's Bob. That the Labour party has had to wear conservative clothes (they don't fit very well) for a decade is evidence of this. Eventually the electorate will see through Labour sophistry so it is unlikely that the Tories will be going

into a serious tailspin.... and who knows the consequences of that.

A one-party state. But then that's what you always wanted, commie and it ain't going to happen.

But where then for Labour? Having spent a year under Brown (and a decade under Blair) courting the Tories, do they effectively become 'the natural party of government'? Do they become the New Conservative Party?

No they try to become the new Conservative party, but are held back by socialist idiots like you.

Will they ditch the trade unions and the remaining socialists who clung on through the best part of three decades in the self-deluded hope that one day their party would address those fundamental issues of poverty, equity and wealth redistribution?

I certainly hope so. What do you think? It's not as if they need the mone... Oh hang on....

It is a real possibility. You hear phrases now from New Labour members that would have attracted looks of disgust and even more violent reactions in days gone by if they had been uttered by Conservatives.

which just goes to show what an unprincipled bunch of utter shitehawks the labour party now is, but they will keep on sucking the Unions for cash as long as they can get away with it.

Surely the concept of 'left' must include some sort of definition that contains those principles of wealth redistribution and equality of outcome, something that you might define as 'radical'?

Equality of outcome = tyranny. But then you admit you want a one-party state.

These days whenever you mention these things in the Labour Party you are accused of 'wanting to take us back to the winter of discontent' (often by people who weren't out of the womb or the cradle in 1978). It is a nonsense, of course, because Callaghan, Healey, Jenkins and co. weren't actually on the left

No.... the winter of Discontent had nothing whatsoever to do with socialism. Not me Guv. Look the other way.

and there are few of us hankering after that sort of leadership.... although.... in the current context.... who knows? At least in those days you could slip a wafer of paper between the political elites.

So there we have it - the great question: either the Tories are unreconstructed baby-eaters or we're the same as Nu labour? Which is it?

We've got head-bangers on the right making the same call. It's ridiculous. Now I make no apologies for the political class - if they said what they thought rather than what they think we would like to hear, we wouldn't be having this sterile discussion. I suspect that the Goblin King's real position is for higher taxation, regulation and redistribution than even he dare admit. Indeed his actions over the last decade point to a very left-wing view. Likewise, Cameron would love to be able to offer tax-cuts, and is on record as saying so. I suspect his policies will be a bit more "right wing" and libertarian than his stated position. Both are engaging in sophistry.

Nevertheless The Conservative party is the change the country needs. Yes, I would like them to be a bit more explicit in their promises than the mealy-mouthed "sharing the proceeds", but their commitment (alone amongst the major parties) to a referendum on the Constitution reform treaty, a commitment to scrap ID cards, the hunting ban, scrap by the mile road pricing and lower taxes when he can all suggest he's the chap to vote for. Because he isn't proposing a radical shrinking of the state, DK and other libertarians say he's a "statist" just like labour. I think that's a pathetic, childish viewpoint, that's only worth debating because it is so widely held. Many old Tories hate him for his social liberalism and think that Grammar schools are the solution to the country's problems. Those Tories have nothing in common with me, a libertarian. I am aware that Cameron's a conservative and unlikely to be anywhere near as radical as I would like, but he's the only show in town.

This isn't a problem with David Cameron. It's the problem of a party and the UK right in general which is unwilling to make the compromises and do the work necessary to achieve power. We've become habituated to opposition and the freedom it brings. I am absolutely convinced that David Cameron is a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Tory who will govern as such, and will be streets ahead of the evil grasping socialist slug who currently occupies No.10.

Please, for pity's sake, the Tories and allies must focus their Guns on Labour rather than their own feet during the conference. There's an enemy who must be beaten.

I'm on 18 Doughty street tonight from 7:00. I will be making that call for unity during the conference, then I'm going to watch the rugby It's going to be a long evening.

This arrived in my inbox recently. A financial addition to Chuck Norris facts...

• Chuck Norris doesn't target inflation. He roundhouse-kicks it until it begs for mercy
• Chuck Norris doesn't supply collateral, only collateral damage.
• The tears of Chuck Norris would supply enough liquidity to solve the credit crisis. Too bad he never cries.
• When the yield on a Chuck Norris bond goes up, the price also rises.
• Chuck Norris trades on fear and greed simultaneously.
• Alan Greenspan calls Chuck Norris "The Maestro.''
• Chuck Norris has already banked his dividend payment from Northern Rock Plc.
• Chuck Norris funds at Libor flat.
• Chuck Norris Asset Management made 50 percent on its subprime mortgage-backed bond fund last month
• Chuck Norris's curves never invert.
• There is no market regulator. Just a list of securities Chuck Norris allows to be traded.
• Chuck Norris doesn't buy gold to hedge against inflation. Gold buys Chuck Norris to hedge against inflation.
• Chuck Norris charges the Bank of England a penalty rate for borrowing. And guarantees its deposits.
• Chuck Norris is the pilot Ben Bernanke calls when he wants to shower the economy with dollar bills. Sometimes, Chuck refuses to fly.
• Chuck Norris gets ALL of his funding from the asset-backed commercial paper market.
• Chuck Norris doesn't mark-to-market. The market marks to Chuck Norris
• Chuck Norris can still get a 125 percent negative amortization mortgage on a $2 million condo without providing proof of earnings.
• Chuck Norris subprime collateralized debt obligations still trade at 100 percent of face value.
• Chuck Norris has a trade surplus with China.

I've been tagged by the Devil to reveal my earliest political memory.

There are several. There's sitting in my grandfather's sitting room, watching the BBC news reports in 1982 about the sinking of the Belgrano (I was 5) and remarking "If we're fighting them, why can't we sink their boat?" Then there's loving spitting image's pre election special in 1983 and being absolutely delighted about the result, having been allowed to stay up (I was 6, probably till about 10...) to see it, as the folks had been knocking on doors for Michael Morris, now Lord Naseby in Northampton North. Actually as I write this, I remember being sent down a path to ask whetherI can "count on your vote next thursday?" (remember I was six) and being really miffed that he asked me about Conservative economic policy. Jolly unfair, still the only economic argument that a socialist is ever likely to win is against a small child.

I tag Swing Voter, Keatonmask, Matthew Sinclair, Terry Kelly (tee hee) and across the pond, Momentary Academic

And since the railways have been renationalised (yes they fucking have) here is one from the trains that keatonmask kindly brought to my attention. A 2-year taxpayer funded consultation exercise concluded that the solution to train overcrowding was... wait for it... more, bigger trains at peak time.

I mean, there is a huge list of clichés I could use: It's not rocket science, doesn't take the brains of an Archbishop, etc... but really. Honestly, does it really take a 2-year consultancy process to work that out?

How about asking a passer-by.

"Sir, how do you think we could reduce overcrowding on the trains?"

"Let me see. I haven't really thought about it. I suppose you could put more trains on at peak times. Or you could make peak trains longer. Or both?"

"Good idea! Thank you, sir. "

You get the same answers but without the 300-page report and £1,000,000 bill. Still, it's only the taxpayers money you're wasting, so who gives a shit eh?

As a person capable of walking and breathing simultaneously, I am not taken in by politicians rhetoric, but it appears that most of the electorate are, if conference poll bounces are to be believed. Brown's speech was a tissue of triangulating bollocks - I do not believe for a minute his new found patriotism. Socialism is a subversive creed. Saying "Britain" does not make you believe it.

The conference bounce enjoyed by the Goblin king is not permanent, but it is big enough to overshadow the upcoming Conservative conference. This means the BBC will focus on the "Tory split" story, rather than giving uncritical air time to the speeches. It couldn't be any better for the PM. If we are forced to endure the final five years of Gordon Browns project to create a socialist society in which everyone is state-dependant, then it is the fault of every head-banging blogger, letter writer, Tory MP and activist who claimed that Cameron was "selling out the Conservative party" and looked for every act that wasn't in the 1982 manifesto to scream "betrayal".

Cameron is to blame too. Lauding Polly Toynbee and Suggesting that he was the "Heir to Blair" were acts calculated to upset the grass roots. It may have been mere political triangulation, but it failed miserably in its primary task, and divorced him totally from opinion formers on the right. Now, like the Cavalryman in Aesop's Fable who neglected his horse, the Conservative party is in no shape to take him into battle, having been abused and neglected. It is split, between the hopefuls who think they can see through the triangulation, and the Conservatives (most of the Tory blogosphere) who can't or won't. There is no enthusiasm for the Cameron project any more - he squandered his honeymoon, and now that policies are coming thick and fast, no-one believes him any more. Promises of tax-cuts are ignored, immigration is dismissed as a "Dog-whistle", the open goal of the health-service is missed with Southgate-like incompetence and the festering sore that is defence is not mentioned at all.

If you hate the prime-minister and know him to be a mealy-mouthed, lying, dishonest control freak, who's slowly ruining the country, you must recover your discipline. You must realise that Cameron, for all his faults is the only game in town. Five more years of Brown and the country will be an unemployed, sclerotic, European-style socialist client-state, unable to compete its way out of a wet paper bag, let alone with China and India.

My guess is that the Prime minister knows that such big bounces in the polls are temporary, and will wait until after the Tory conference before deciding whether he should go to the country. He is, for all his bluster, a coward and may not go even then. Nevertheless, Only a truly barnstorming conference can get the Cameron project back on the rails. Not impossible, but nearly so. He needs to lose all the "change" bollocks. He needs to say "job done" and rally the faithful. He needs to realise that the public will not trust a party which doesn't trust itself. I therefore urge all Loyal Tories to rally to the Leader and fight the Labour party, rather than each other. I urge Cameron to reach out to the party he leads.

I (still) have some (fast-fading) hope.

I'm at Number 45, up 20 from last year in the list of Conservative blogs. Hooray! Above luminaries like WebCameron and several MPs.

Today the top 50 Conservative blogs in the UK. Tomorrow: The World... Mwah hahahhhahhhahhhhahhhh.

Here's the list in full:

1 2 Iain Dale’s Diary
2 5 Dizzy Thinks
3 NEW Guido Fawkes
4 1 ConservativeHome
5 14 Croydonian
6 8 Archbishop Cranmer
7 3 Burning our Money
8 NEW Devil's Kitchen
9 NEW Tim Worstall
10 7 James Cleverly
11 23 Mr Eugenides
12 NEW Waendel Journal
13 NEW Nadine Dorries MP
14 NEW Adam Smith Institute
15 NEW Donal Blaney
16 64 Prague Tory
17 11 Tory Radio
18 4 Boris Johnson
19 9 Ellee Seymour
20 56 Caroline Hunt
21 NEW Daily Referendum
22 NEW EU Referendum
23 NEW Sinclair's Musings
24 NEW An Englishman's Castle
25 52 Theo Spark
26 NEW John Redwood MP
27 NEW Daniel Hannan MEP
28 36 UK Daily Pundit
29 58 Freedom & Whiskey
30 NEW Mike Rouse
31 NEW Roger Helmer MEP
32 NEW Islington Newmania
33 NEW City Unslicker
34 NEW Matt Wardman
35 48 Man in a Shed
36 18 Dodgeblogium
37 NEW Nourishing Obscurity
38 NEW Samizdata
39 NEW Taxpayers' Alliance
40 50 Martine Martin's Lebwog
41 NEW Daily Propaganda
42 NEW Musings of a Reactionary Snob
43 22 Bel is Thinking
44 NEW Prodicus
45 65 A Very British Dude
46 NEW WebCameron
47 NEW Priti Patel
48 NEW Richard Spring MP
49 28 A Tangled Web
50 NEW Edland 51 NEW Nation of Shopkeepers 52 NEW Not Proud of Britain 53 NEW The Bristow Blog 54 79 Thunder Dragon 55 NEW Glyn Davies 56 NEW Little Man in a Toque 57 NEW Globalisation Institute 58 NEW Britain & America 59 NEW Last Ditch 60 31 Gavin Ayling 61 NEW Vicky Ford 62 NEW Birmingham University CF 63 27 Ed Vaizey MP 64 NEW Is there more to life than shoes? 65 72 Conservative Party Reptile 66 41 A Conservative's Blog 67 57 Last Boy Scout 68 NEW Tory Reform Group 69 NEW Ghost of the Hitch 70 NEW John Moorcraft 71 NEW Blognor Regis 72 NEW England Expects 73 NEW Rachel Joyce 74 NEW PJC Journal 75 NEW David Gold 76 37 Tim Roll Pickering 77 46 Remittance Man 78 NEW Tapestry Talks 79 NEW Platform 10 80 89 Curly's Corner Shop 81 24 Road to EU Serfdom 82 13 West Brom Blog 83 NEW David Jones MP 84 NEW Istanbul Tory 85 NEW Neue Arbeit Macht Frei 86 NEW Pub Philosopher 87 17 Trevor Ivory 88 NEW Brussels Journal 89 NEW The Crossed Pond 90 NEW Not a Sheep Maybe a Goat 91 NEW YBF Activists 92 38 Contra Tory 93 NEW Scottish Tory Boy 94 NEW Hunter & Shooter 95 49 Civitas 96 NEW Cross of St George 97 NEW Nicolas Webb 98 NEW Martin Kelly 99 NEW Cornerstone 100 71 Laban Tall

There are a number of posts which laud the Blogosphere's triumph over a, rich, fat and no doubt smelly Mafiosi from obscuristan, central Asia. I've covered this briefly here and here.

Tim Ireland at bloggerheads is still down (couldn't happen to a nicer chap) and even the politicos Boris and Bob have yet to get theirs up an running again. Sure, Craig Murray's allegations about the Rapist Thief Gangster Legitimate Businessman Usmanov are now all over the internet, though his site is not available. But we have no real MSM traction and there's no parliamentary or public call to change the libel laws. Therefore Schillings can go on threatening web hosts who will still capitulate by taking down offending sites. Until this situation changes, face it - we're a bunch of spotty herberts congratulating each other for saying boo to the bully from the safety of the crowd.

We haven't won nor have we demonstrated the "power" (pah!) of the Blogosphere. Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet.

If you were in any doubt that we're governed by social inadequates, whose policies and agenda are set by the desire for revenge for their being bullied at school, this gem from Ed "Balls"

"When was 16 or 17, I would have a small glass of wine at lunch on a Sunday or a shandy or a Babycham at Christmas,"

should dispel it. Journalists should however focus on his hypocrisy: His marriage is clearly a sham. Yvette Cooper, Ed's Beard.

(tip of the hat to Mr E and Iain for the quote...)

I have little to add to the excellent posts elsewhere (listed in a comprehensive post by Mr E here) on the Tim Ireland/Craig Murray/Alisher Usmanov scandal, except to say that I will be displaying this banner by unity prominently, at least until something else pisses me off.

A court confirmed that baring breasts for business is an indecent act. But topless women who cleaned car windscreens in exchange for “donations” evidently enjoyed generous charity.

And... I'm not making this up he's called Professor Gary Slapper.

Over at LibertarianUK

The headline is a shameless attempt to boost my gay readership. This post does (alas, if you're female or gay) contain no nudie pictures of English rugger-buggers. Nor does it contain an analysis of the Team's performance against Samoa. (I was playing and missed the first half but thought what I saw was an improvement). It does contain something camp though, and that is the new England shirt.

Just what the hell were the designers thinking with that poofy swirly nonsense? You're kitting out a rugby team, one famed for dour, grinding, unimaginitive rugby, not a womens' synchronised ribbon dance team. Perhaps the RFU was trying to get previously underrepresented demographics (homosexuals for example) interested in the Union game. I don't think a camp strip will do that, and it will piss curmudgeonly bastards like me right off.

An England shirt should be predominantly white, with a red rose. Small details, in red are acceptable (the mesh panels on last RWC strip for example). Ideally though, it should be white. Plain white. English rugby players should look like this --->

Via DK, Unity makes a call for Bloggers, should they ever find themselves on the Jury in a Libel Trial to find for the defendant. I'm in...

Go read the posts here and here. UK libel laws suck and I will be writing to which ever unfortunate MP wins the private member's bill ballot along the lines unity suggests.

But surely the free marketeer, DK missed a trick. Surely we should also boycott fasthosts, and any business that cravenly surrenders to legal threats? As the horned one knows, I am an almost total technobiff, who still thinks using the strikethrough html tag is pretty neat, so no doubt they will be able to tell me why this will not work.

Update: OK so that's that question answered (comments 1&2) I've another one: So I've put nearly 3 years into this Blog ("and so little to show for it" - go on... say it...). I've called a lot of people nasty names. Where is AVBD hosted and How can I back the damn thing up, should blogger get sued?

Much as I like Trixy, her constant banging on about perceived "Hypocrisy" of Tory MEPs for being at once Eurosceptic and in favour of remaining in the EU is beginning to wear thin. FFS, give the real federasts in the Labour party and the Lib Dems a hard time before excoriating people who agree with a lot of what you say, just differ in what to do about it.

In her recent post, she hammers a number of Tory MEPs for supporting enlargement, suggesting that David Davis' call for more resources to go to police forces overstretched by recent immigrants from accession countries is at odds with supporting continued membership of an enlarged EU.

My view and the view of a lot of people in the Tory party is enlargement is the only reason I am in favour of remaining in the whole rotten edifice of the EU. The fact is that after selling the people of Eastern Europe out at Yalta, we in Britain have a chance to help bring Poles, Czechs and others back where they belong - the west and the European family of nations after 70 years of communist tyranny. They are allies - unenthusiastic about the ever deeper union and more keen on a mere trade block. Like us, in fact - and there are a lot of them - with their votes in EU institutions, there remains hope for reform of the EU.

So I agree with the Tory MEPs' comments you quoted. And I agree with David Davis too, and it doesn't require doublethink. Perhaps the places to which these people are moving, like Cambridge need more resources to cope with extra demands on the police and NHS. More people were sure to come than the 13,000 suggested by the "government". It does not follow that supporting enlargement is hypocritical because a lot more than that arrived. Nor does it count as hypocrisy to lament the government's failure to plan for what you rightly suggest was an anticipated influx.

The Poles and people from the Baltic states who have arrived since enlargement are here to work, which makes them more attractive than the 15% of the Native British population which chooses not to. They'll be assimilated within a generation, if not before should they choose to stay here. 700,000 young, taxpaying Europeans. They're fine - any problems they cause are problems of success. Many of the worst problems are caused by immigration from outside the EU - but then as this isn't an EU issue, UKIP will be ignored on the subject.

The daily-mail'tastic tone of your sophilistic rant, Trixy is fuel to the fire of the idea that you're at heart a racist party. I know you're running for votes against the BNP is East London and elsewhere, but in your position of influence, you should not be helping Farage drag the party towards its stated libertarian position? Your rhetoric leads me to suspect that UKIP's libertarian manifesto is as much window dressing as Cameron's Greenery or Broon's dalliance with St Margaret of Thatcher. Which is why I have nothing to do with UKIP.

Riiiiiiiiiight....

I always thought pickled politics' Sunny Hundal was a pinko loon, but only someone at the extreme left hand end of politics (and probably bell-curve) could think that Auntie was too right-wing.

These lefties really foam at the mouth when anyone suggests that perhaps Climate change isn't the impending total disaster which will bring forth the four horsemen of the apocalypse. You know, sunny perhaps climate change is not at the root cause of everything bad in the world. I don't deny climate change is happening, but I do deny it is the root cause of every natural disaster, and I doubt man is entirely to blame for recent warming (note the use of "entirely"). Because let's face it. Shit happened back in the day too, didn't it and grapes grew in Nova Scotia (vineland) during the Mediaeval warm period. All biased BBC did was point out that the BBC shouldn't be funding political campaigns.

Because for many of us "right-wing" bloggers, the climate is being used by the left as an excuse to tax naughty, naughty rich people and persuade them to like it. Many of us do not disagree with the scientists, just the political analysis which flows from it. It may be that we need to reduce carbon emissions. It does not follow that higher tax on 4x4's are the right means to that end.

In fact much of the really bummer stuff that the environment does unto people in the third world is more likely to be due to widespread deforestation than Anthropogenic climate change - especially flooding, desertification and landslides. There's no need to preach the gospel of scientific consensus on the need to punish the aviation industry quite so fervently. To do so ain't scientific - you need an open mind you see, Sunny. It's not just greenhouse gasses. It's solar, its feedbacks and so on. The science is nuanced - the economics of how to achieve ends is even more so. You're a dick-head for trying to close of debate on what is still an open question: "How do we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?" You and I, Sunny are likely to come up with very different answers.

One other thing. You describe yourself on the "Liberal" left. You aren't liberal. You're a closed-minded authoritarian lefty who thinks he's right-on because you only hang out with equally statist, unthinking consensus-minded pinkos who all agree that being rich or Conservative means you eat babies. You think that any opinons which don't fit into your limited frame of reference are automatically "wrong" and held by "right-wing" people who can all be lumped into one mass and considered evil - your refusal to discriminate between the Daily-Mail and Libertarian viewpoints is a case in point. Just because you can simultaneously accept the valid points made by the People's Front of Judea and the Judean Peoples's Front (Official) doesn't make you open minded. You need to accept that of the Romans too.

If you think that the BBC is biased, set up a Lefty "Biased BBC". See if you get any traction let alone 2,000,000 hits. You won't of course, because you are deeply, pathetically wrong.

My latest performance on upfront can be seen here

Enjoy!

This is not a story about the Proclaimers - no oil paintings those Caledoian Crooners, but about the latest financial panic. Money certainly brings out the worst in people.

I do have an opinion on Northern Rock, and associated stories, but if you want them in more detail, then I suggest you watch "Up Front" on 18 Doughty Street tonight at 7, where I will no doubt be asked for my thoughts.

As expected, the weekend news was dominated by queues outside branches of Northern Rock, and the unspeakably vulgar and strikingly ugly couple who were all over the TV going on about how they refused to leave their local branch until they were allowed to withdraw their £1m. The police were called, following Basil Fawlty Christopher Howard's sit in protest. I got the impression they enjoyed telling the whole UK that they had a big one squirrelled away. Nasty, Nasty.

By the way, for what it's worth, I agree with Mr Eyebrows. For Depositors, there is nothing to worry about, the Old Lady is effectively guaranteeing the deposits. For shareholders, the prospects are bleaker. Still, at some point today or tomorrow, NRK shares might be worth a punt. The trouble is, only hindsight will tell you when that point is reached.

There was an England game this weekend, and I did intend to blog during it, but it was so depressing I drank whisky instead - oblivion was preferable to coming up with reasoned commentary. The Boks were good, but not that good. England were simply horribly, shockingly abysmal, but better than the 50 points I had guessed.

Ireland too were truly shit against Georgia, even more embarrassing than England. It should be noted that Georgia have made rugby their national game, and scored a try against the mighty England team of four years ago. They are no mugs. The lone Ray of hope for a Brit however came from a blistering second half from the Boyos. Australia really missed Stirling Mortlock: The Wallabys looked a bit directionless after he went off, something other sides will not miss.

France made great strides and looked like a quality unit this time - demolishing Namibia, who gave Ireland a fright a few days earlier. Les Bleus tend to improve through the tournament, and always have at least one glorious display in them.

So for what it's worth here's my predictions:

• Group A: South Africa and England
• Group B: Australia and Wales
• Group C: New Zealand and Scotland (Italy have an outside chance)
• Group D: France and Argentina (Unless Ireland really pull their socks up)

• QF1: Australia will beat England (and it will be humiliating)
• QF2: New Zealand will beat Argentina (by a Cricket score)
• QF3: South Africa will beat Wales (close)
• QF4: France will beat Scotland (comfortably)

• Semi-final 1: South Africa to beat Australia (this will be the game of the tournament, unless the following happens:)
• Semi-Final 2: France to beat New Zealand (on the basis that someone always gets their World Cup ruined by the French)

Whatever the result of Semi-Final 2, I think (and hope) that South Africa have the beating of the All-Blacks, and certainly the French. Betting on England, I'm afraid is a total waste of money. The odds are too poor to make it worth betting on the All-blacks, so the Boks get my punt. France are certainly worth an outsiders chance. You heard it here first.

Update. Here's a training video aimed at the level of a total beginner, like the 30 chaps of the England squad.

England: Better than I expected.

I bought The Uncommon Reader by Alan Bennett for my trip up to God's County yesterday.

I loved it, though it is short - barely lasting the GNER journey north, it is a masterpiece of quietly subversive humour. His affectionate portrayal of Brenda is superb, and peripheral characters are toyed with - notably St. Tony of Blair.

It is a paean to books and the redemptive power of literature, and like everything he writes, he does so with a warmth and humour expressed quite beautifully. Alan Bennett: National treasure.

With rhetoric at the TUC headbangers ball

There are jobs available today for in total 30 million men and women for the first time in our history. If we make the right decisions, we can advance even further and faster to full employment than ever before, with a British job on offer for every British worker.

with which Sir Oswold Mosely would have been delighted. So the question goes begging, is this a lurch to the right? Lets have a look at someone who's been accusing the Tories of just that, in ever shrill tones. What does Polly have to say?

...cutting [Immigrant] numbers by demanding they speak English, has real resonance with those who see how the migrant workforce has undercut pay rates that should have risen in the recent boom....

so she approves, naturally. Because only those Nasty, Nasty Tories can be racist. Humbug is apparently not to be avoided on the left, nor is playing the race card, by accusing your opponents of Racism the moment they mention Immigration, whilst transparently taking up a far more hardline position yourself. All for the benefit of the media gallery, which with one or two notable exceptions, laps it up uncritically.

Libertarianism is the political theory which states that the individual is the owner of his life, and that he should be allowed to seek his best interest in so far as they do not interfere with the rights of others. Underpinning this are property rights and rules governing acceptable behaviour, which distinguish the Libertarian (or more specifically the consequentialist Libertarian) from the anarchist. Libertarians accept that man must to a limited degree, be governed. The question is therefore how.

Democracy is clearly the best system yet devised, but it is prone to the illiberal baying of the mob. Checks and balances must be put in place to counteract the tendency to majoritarian tyranny. That is why there is often a revising chamber in bimarcal systems whose members have longer terms or even life tenure. In addition, many countries have constitutional courts, which check that law is compatible with the constitution.

There is no reason why the hereditary principle needs to lead to poor governance - indeed it could be argued that as people outside the democratic process, like Lords (appointed or hereditary) Kings and Queens are ideally placed to oversee lawmaking in a dispassionate way. Currently the Queen has no real political power and that is as it should be, however she retains the ability to refuse assent. I.e. she has power of veto. It is an unused nuclear option but there, should a demagogue ever gain the keys to number 10, she could refuse assent to an enabling law. Then again, she might not, but she'd do a better job than politicians, who have rarely voted for less power!

This is not rosy-eyed wishful thinking. Countries in Europe which still have Kings and Queens tend to be the ones with the longest liberal traditions of good governance: the UK, The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. They have old institutions precisely because they have not had revolutions. In many less stable countries, Spain for example, Monarchs have been a positive influence. King Juan Carlos intervened to introduce democracy. In times of crisis, Kings have provided better rallying points for Governments in exile than more controversial political figures - compare King Haakon VII (an elected monarch) and De Gaulle

Monarchy is an abuse of a number of libertarian principles - Clearly the Queen cannot be said to be the owner of her life, nor can her Children, especially the Prince of Wales. The Royal Family is a victim of the system of Monarchy, not its beneficiary but there is no reason to suppose that the people of the country suffer in any way for not being able to choose their symbolic head of state.

Then there is the personality of the current incumbent of the position. A better and more selfless example of service to the country cannot be found. I would rather have her as a guarantor of my rights, overseeing and guiding the lawmaking process than than an unaccountable and changeable document, or heaven forbid, the EU, which will inevitably be deeply flawed.

I am also a conservative, for the same reason I am a libertarian. I believe the state to be in most instances incompetent, therefore constitutional inaction is usually preferable. Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Monarch does a good job as figurehead and without many of the disadvantages of more partisan political figures - especially in her ceremonial roles as head of the Armed forces and fount of honour. Any replacement of the Institution of monarchy would require a written constitution, which in the current political climate would resemble not so much the admirable document which underpins the USA, as a leftist wish-list of positive rights, which would render any future libertarian government totally impotent.

I am a Libertarian. I am a Monarchist. Are these two beliefs compatible? No, in theory, but Yes in practice. Constitutional Monarchy - better than all alternatives.

Via Timmy. This is a quite brilliant summation of what a Tory government should do in office.

Leave people alone for a moment. See what they come up with. Then leave that alone as well.

Go read the whole thing. Potlatch. Another addition to the blogroll.

I don't really have much to add to DK's invective about proposals to scrap the coat of Arms from the British Passport, except I don't think he used the word "cunt" enough. I am not a citizen of Europe, nor am I English for that matter. I am British: a proud and Loyal subject of her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, and her heirs and successors, whatever it says on my passport. I would, however like my passport to reflect my identity.

So whether or not the Queen is to be airbrushed from the passport, if we're on the subject, let's talk about the last time the EU got its grubby paws on our documents. Remember the Old Blue ... the passport that looked like it should have been stamped

Purpose of Visit: IMPERIALISM.

The magnificent, hard-backed document that could in extremis be used as a weapon or small shelter. It is the "harmonisation" of this document in 1988 which makes me think of all petty-minded bureaucrats who, in a desire for organisational conformity, strip all tradition and idiosyncrasies out of nations, and in doing so remove colour and joy - the glorious variety of being human. This attitude is exemplified by Nu-Labours disastrous, half backed, un-thought-out modernisation of the British constitution and anything else they can get their wrecking-ball onto. A process which in practice simply removed all checks and balances on executive power, and destroyed a great many old institutions which worked - however idiosyncratically. The only bit of parliament still checking the Government is the only bit which has no democratic element at all, and that, the House of Lords, is firmly in the iconoclast's cross-hairs.

The eurocrats and their quisling myrmidons in Zanu-Labour hate the self confidence with which the inscription on the frontispiece is written:

Her Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires - in the Name of Her Majesty - all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary...

...otherwise we'll send a fucking gunboat. And next to that, Article 20 just doesn't cut the mustard.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an ancient monarchy. We love the Queen. Every Tuesday, that odious turd, the current resident of one of the nations better appointed terrace houses, which is more than he deserves, has to bang his tabs in to the monarch, make his obediences and report

"this is what I have done with your country this week Ma'am".

It helps keep our top politicos humble. The Queen is the final guarantor of our liberty, and her Prime-Minister knows it. Rather her than the power-grubbing, snout in the trough, corrupt eurocrats of the Brussels regulation factory. Heaven forbid that Britain should ever have a mere politician as a figurehead when we can have someone who's family tree contains Odin and Alfred the Great, especially a politico from fucking Luxembourg or France or some such other pissant excuse for a nation.

No the European Union can fuck off when they mess with something as fundamental to identity as the passport. I object sharply to ever being described as a citizen, let alone of Europe.

I'll tell you what, you snivelling eurotrash illiberal sneaking bastards. Give her Majesty's subjects a choice. The Blue one that says "I'M BRITISH" or the Maroon one which says "I'M EUROPEAN". But it's like giving the people a choice on whether the Constitutional Reform treaty is ratified, which ain't going to happen either, and for the same reason: We'd tell you to stick your passport, and your treaty up your arse without lube and fuck-off and die while you're about it. We don't like you, never have, and you know it.

Given the choice between an identity, British, which has been the friend of liberty for a millennium, or one which has an opinion on how straight bananas should be, they will chose the former. Anyone who doesn't is a cunt.

Update: Read EU Referendum on the real story, which is about the slow, steady EU takeover of our consular services. I still prefer the Old Blue, and whatever Richard North says, the addition of Article 20, which may or may not replace "Her Britannic majesty's" etc... is a little more than a "silly euro myth".

Pity my poor girlfriend, who is due to endure almost non-stop rugby (a game she has at best a patchy understanding of) from now until the final on the 20th October. This weekend she sat through no fewer than 6 matches including one live, starring the dude at second row. She only started to complain during Scotland-Portugal on Sunday evening. Diplomacy forbade me requesting to turn over to Ireland-Namibia, which kicked off at 7, which would have interrupted our viewing of "The Good Shepard" even more than her constant plot-related questions. Chaps, Never watch a spy movie with a chick. She won't understand it and you'll get annoyed when half way through she asks of a key protagonist "him, in the hat... which side is he on then?"

Let's start at the beginning. There are no circumstances under which I would ever support an Argentinian football team. This is nothing to do with history, just that Argentinian footballers appear to be even more cuntular than their odious brethren elsewhere. Their Rugby players are made of sterner stuff: I have a long standing soft-spot for the Pumas. The sheer physical courage of the Pumas when their backs were against the wall, and France were throwing everything they had against a thin, baby-blue line, was truly inspiring. Some people were surprised at the result. I wasn't. The French have a lousy record against the Argentinians, who have beaten les bleus in 4 out of the last 5 meetings. It's not just Argentinian guts: there is also the issue of which French team turns up to play. The one which can't really be bothered and would rather be starring in gay porn; or the one which is capable of demolishing the all-Blacks.

France Argentina summed up what is glorious about the game of Rugby. Sheer guts, commitment and courage (with the luck of the bounce too) can defeat flair and power, both of which can be found in ample supply in the French side. Inspiration though can be found outside the international arena: The chap who played scrum-half for my opponents on Saturday afternoon had one arm and one leg* yet still managed to play 80 minutes of rugby. Which goes to show disability is a state of mind, and makes me despise the lazy plebs rotting on benefits claiming "depression" or "bad back" even more.

Rugby is a game where anything can happen. There remains a faint, foolish glimmer of hope for England, but my money is on the Boks, but only because I cannot bring myself to bet on the arrogant cheats in Black, however good they may be. France, if yesterday's performance is anything to go by may not qualify for the knockout stages. Yes! there's still all to play for!

*yes. They stuffed us.

Lest it be thought that I toe the party line, I think Dave's Citizen's national service is a rubbish idea. Not because it is necessarily a rubbish idea a priori, but because the state will make it rubbish, because the only bit of the state that works is the Military.

Now the Army, back in the day with wars to fight in Kenya, Malaya, Cyprus, Borneo, Aden, Egypt, Palestine and Northern Ireland needed the men. They had the wherewithal and the characters to knock chavs into shape. They had the moral authority to do so most NCOs had seen war service, and with a quarter of a million men in the Green Machine, there were spare chaps to keep an eye on the scrotes.

But the Army today is less than half the size and is consequently too busy fighting wars to nursemaid Britain's self indulgent and flabby youth. Who's going to run this shower of shit then?

Bueller?... Bueller?...

Fucking social workers, that's who. And they will fuck it up - because, let's face it, they're the ones who've failed the feral scrotes that the daily hate is on its high horse about. They're the ones in loco parentis when the benefits culture allows parents to totally abrogate their responsibilities. And they're shit at teaching chavs values because the only value a social worker knows about is the kind of rights that come with a cheque from the tax payer.

I can't see the chavs learning citizenship on a welsh mountainside from the same people who've failed to teach it to them over their entire lives.

No Dave. Back to the drawing board I'm afraid.

Cho Seung Hui was apparently "deeply disturbed" according to Robin Kowalski. The descent into self-parody quickens when she reveals that It appears that the 23-year-old's actions and intentions fell into "a pattern of previous school and college shootings" and Cho's actions "bore strong similarities with other killings".

In that loners (it isn't very often popular people with lots of friends is it, now?) ran around an killed lots of people, in a college, using guns, which they acquired over time. Which, it goes without saying, is a pretty good indicator that you're "deeply disturbed".

I wonder how much Kowalski was paid for these insights.

Have you ever fancied yourself as a Youth Support Project Manager in London paying £18-21 per hour (£34,000-40,300 per year*)? Here's the job description:

a leading central London borough is looking for a Youth Support Project Manager to join their expanding team. This is a fantastic opportunity for somebody with previous experience of working within youth and the community.

The purpose of the role is:

- To work with the Head of Service and Service Managers to develop a fully integrated service structure that links Connexions, Youth and the Youth Offending work

- To support the Youth Offending and Youth & Connexions Service to design effective strategic and operational structures

- Develop good models of involving young people in the decision-making processes in terms of the new service structure.

- Co-ordinate and organise events/seminars/workshops to promote the new structure to interested parties.

If you feel a bit under qualified for that, you could apply for a role as Tennant Involvement officer in Yorkshire where daily duties would be

providing support to the tenants in the area and implenting [sic] tenant involvement strategy. You will be targeting outreach groups.

You will be expected to liaise with relevant agencies and meet with individuals where from you will be making reccommendations [sic] and strategic ideas.

You will be working very closely with the housing management staff.

Ideally you will have excellent communication skills and have the ability to communicate at all levels i.e with the housing management team and with the public.

You will be expected to have experience in organising meetings and conduct meetings along with having experience in implementing involvement strategy

Clear? Didn't think so. Basically you get £28-35,000 for organising meetings with tenants. Easy when someone else is paying eh? Cutting these sorts of non-jobs out of the public sector would still be described as a "cut" rather than a "Saving" because socialists measure the inputs of a system as a proxy for virtue in the country rather than measuring outputs as a measure of efficiency with other peoples' money. The entire annual tax bill from two median families is going on these two oxygen thieves, should the posts be filled. The entire income tax bill of at least half a dozen full-time minimum wage workers will go on the recruitment consultant's fees alone.

That's why the state is approaching 50% of our economy. Cost control has been abandoned almost entirely, in Gordon's bloated client state, which is replete with producer interest and a lazy, time-serving mentality. That is why in the public services we, the tax-payers get so little bang for so much buck.

*(8 hour day, 5 days a week for 48 weeks a year)

There's a new blogger, just popped up commenting on here, taking me to task for not explaining why Unity was wrong. He's a Fabian, but calls himself "swing voter". He seems to have sound ideas as to what's wrong with the left, but hates reactionary Toryism. He uses the same blog template as that fuck-wit Kelly, but seems otherwise reasonable.

Perhaps he can be the litmus test of the Cameron project? Anyway I shall be popping over to see what else has has to say. I suggest you do the same.

Socialists. (Well actually only one is, and we argue for fun - my licensed fool if you will).

I've decided that after reading several examples of "argument" by so-called "left wingers", I think that the best use for such people is as fertilizer.

You can watch my 18 Doughty Street performance here

I seem to have annoyed an illiterate.

Here are some of his recent comments: Here

If I am a traitor for supporting a closer intergratedx Europe. Then Thatcher was too. You are a nationalist extremist. It is only NAZI evil scum who are upset at our EU. They hate non British people. They are bigotted evil scum. I was born in the EU. You are the enemy of our nation. You should fuck off out of Europe go to China.

Here

Murdering bastared this blog is owned by pro murderer bastard shithead. What the fuck is wrong with "persecuting" an evil bullying murderer. You hate the EU but you love a murder Pahtetic shit. The issue is not not deporation it is should a murderer be released that is nothing to do with the EU. You are a A+ ****.

Here

Scotland is cash maker for the UK. The South is given subsidies and it has the HQs. It is the English who get subsidies

I've never interacted with someone this stupid before. (yes even him). Really, anon. Carry on! You are a standing indictment of the British state "education" system.

Here's the sequence of events: (ht to Raedwald) Chap has a flat tyre. Someone thinks he's abandoning the car and calls the police. Old bill, keen to get a nice easy traffic sanction/detection put on the Blues and twos and has a nice high-speed dash to the scene of the crime. Piggy ran over motorist who had the flat tyre, crushing his foot. Cop drives unfortunate motorist to the hospital, where the officer is apparently the model of humble contrition. Piggy later realises that running over a pedestrian might just cost him his licence to drive as fast as he likes, with pretty flashing blue lights on, so he issues a fine for criminal damage to the chap whose foot he's just criminally damaged.

Easier to fine someone else for criminal damage than admit responsibility for an accident. And if you're a copper, you can get away with it. And you wonder why I don't trust the police. But it's not just stories in the daily hate.

Here's my story: In January a chav swung an Iron bar at me because I told him to put the litter he had just dropped on the floor into the bin. He was nicked, because he did so in full view of a PCSO, and I had memorised his number plate. He was eventually cautioned. For dropping litter. When I asked the filth why, they openly blamed the CPS. When I rang the CPS, they informed me that this happens all the time. The police NFA (no further action) the case: as he's been cautioned, there is therefore a sanction detection towards their tractor production target. When the victim rings up asking why the chav is still on the street, rather than getting buggered in the big house where he belongs, blame the inaction on the CPS.

The CPS were never informed of this crime, but are now taking it further. I will keep you updated. Meanwhile I have fired a rocket up the Local DCI, and I'm composing one to the local paper.

The police have become an unaccountable, dishonest law unto themselves. They're obsessed with their pensions and overtime. They're lazy, time serving, petty, arrogant jobsworths.

This will only change when their political masters are elected locally, as Raedwald puts it:

"The shorter the distance between my wallet and plod's pay packet the better; plod must re-learn who employs him and why."

Funnily enough this is Conservative policy.

The Dude has been promoted. I'm on 18 DS' Upfront show at 7pm tonight. (Thanks Gavin)

The weather's nice and the RMT is on strike. What a fucking surprise.

I intend to keep my invective just this side of actionable when talking about the fat thug, Bob Crow and his band of chippy workshy lackwits. But only when on Tory TV. Here I'll say what I think.

If you're a member of a TUC Union, you're a worthless cunt for whom my contempt is absolute. You are the problem with public "services", not the solution. It really is that simple.

So go and Sign my petition.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Boil RMT Leader Bob Crow down for soap, in order that he may be of use to someone.

update: The petition was rejected, because the Language was intemperate, or something.

DK applauds Sir Michael Ancram's statement of Conservative values. Dizzy says Ancram's a dickhead for doing so. They're both right.

The Tory party must rediscover its discipline if it has a hope of regaining power. That means if you're a Tory, frustrated by David Cameron's rhetoric, you must bite your lip. I don't think David Cameron has said anything with which Sir Michael would disagree, apart from calling himself the "Heir to Blair", which was fucking stupid, and the education thing.

I think the destruction of the Grammar schools was an act of vandalism by both parties. That does not mean we should return to separating the sheep from the goats at 11. The best policy for Education is a pure voucher system, and this is what is being edged towards; the trick is to do so without scaring the horses. So grammar school fetishists should shut up. You'll get your way when education is deregulated.

Other than that, Ancram's "alternative manifesto" looks remarkably Cameroonian, the boy Dave did after all deliver a trenchant defence of recognising the institution of Marriage in the tax system on Newsnight. Osbourne has committed himself to the principle of tax-cuts. (Yes, he fucking has) With the BBC spinning the Labour line that the Tories are in disarray having lost their nerve, and lurched to the right, Conservatives must not give the enemy any ammunition, nor must we allow a chink of light to get between us. Like the Glosters, back to back at Alexandria bay we must present a united front to enemies on all sides. You do not win by losing your nerve or letting your comrades down.

So I agree with much of what Ancram says. But his timing for this broadside is Bizarre coming as it does, just as the policy reviews are coming in, and headlines have been favourable. Indeed the Tories have managed to dominate political news over the silly season and for the right reasons too. As a result, the polls are just beginning to show a weakening in the Brown bounce. Ancram and others have thrown all that away by allowing the BBC/Labour axis to point to Tory splits. To be fair, Michael Ancram said much in Praise of Cameron in "still a Conservative", but he must have known how this would be spun. It is not just Ancram, whose article was measured and reasonable. Other Tories have allowed themselves to be used trading personal flattery against your party. That is unforgivable.

If you don't want a referendum on the EU Constitutional Reform treaty, you're an unspeakable bastard. If you even consider voting "yes" should a referendum occur, you're a traitor. But as we have secret ballots in this country (unlike some countries blessed with 21st century socialism), I won't know who you are to string you up from the nearest lamp-post.

If you have a blog, advertise the rally (resources here). It's on the 27th October.