Alan Johnson – Dribbling trot mentalist drinks fullsome from poisoned chalice

It has long been mooted that the Home Office is something of a poisoned chalice, and the last twelve years have done nothing to dispel this impression with a succession of frothing at the mouth nutters being broken upon it’s wheel.

Latest corpse on the pile is due to be the career of current Home Sec Alan Johnson. The interview linked below appears to be – so far – the only TV face time on the issue that Johnson has given, even News24 are rolling the Sky footage, and according to Krishnan Guru-Murthy of C4 news fame

krishgm : Home Office still refusing to come on C4 News about drugs policy, for third day in a row.

It’s quite easy to see why. In the Adam Boulton interview AJ shows his true colours, incandescently angry dribbling trot mentalist without a clue.

Dribbling Trot Mentalist

Dribbling Trot Mentalist

I can think of better ways to destroy your political credibility than losing your rag like that on a Sunday morning interview, but not many.

Yesterday Charlotte Gore opined

I did think the reason Gordon gave Alan the Home Secretary job was to basically destroy his popularity forever.1:28 PM Oct 31st from Tweetie

In which case, job done.

Johnson does neither himself or his office (or indeed his party) any favours by acting like this, he clearly isn’t handling this well at all, and as the day continues I imagine he will continue to be made to look petty and stupid.

And there was once a rumour that this man would try and knock Gordon off the top spot ? Dream on, Alan.

Advertisements

Manufactured Outrage II – The Revenge of BBCQT

Splice up your main brace, batten your hatches and prepare for the fail whale, someone let twitter know ! Fresh outrage is being manufactured. Clearly not satisfied with mass media consumption orgy caused by the appearance of BNP Leader Nick Griffin MEP on Question Time, the MSM are trying to drum up some more profitable hysteria with headlines like this one in the Times

BBC chief – BNP will get annual Question Time slot

And even this one from the BBC itself.

BNP ‘on Question Time annually’

Note well those ‘quotation’ marks around the BBC headline, because in fact what ‘BBC Chief’ Mark Thompson actually said was more like this

Asked how often the BNP might appear on Question Time, he said: “I would say that we’re talking about, in the case of a party which… if it continued to receive that level of support, appearances (would) probably be no more than once a year and could be less.”

No more than once a year and could be less. That’s quite a far cry from the headlines, isn’t it ?

Policy vs Personality – b0rken memes from Borg HQ

The Labour party’s unfortunate tendency towards a borg like level of central control over it’s members is rarely far below the surface, and never is it more visible than when they’re getting a kicking for something.

Since they’re currently getting the kicking of a lifetime, it is unsurprising – though profoundly irritating – that the comrades talking to the newsies are all very much – and very obviously – singing from the same hymn sheet.

I’m sure the press wranglers are very pleased with their ability to keep everyone ‘on message’ at all times, but like all centralist systems this one has some fatal flaws.

I hope to return to this subject at length, but for now let us pick just the two most fatal, the two that I suspect are about to contribute to Brown’s discomfort. I’d say his demise, but his rhetoric today continues to be very much of the “from my cold dead hands” variety, so who knows.

The centralist method of media wrangling encourages the individual borg drones party members to suppress any creative or critical impulse that they may have, which leads to two very large systemic vulnerabilities.

First : Since individuals are not free to construct their own argument for supporting the party line, the media, the opposition, the bloggers and the public are left with a very narrow range of attack vectors. Rather than having to pick apart 300+ individual arguments, the number of bullshit packets to be refuted is reduced to the dozen or so dictated from borg HQ. Once these have been knocked down – and it doesn’t usually take long, the likes of McBride might seem very clever to the mongs in Westminster, to themselves and to the running dog lackeys lobby journalists, but to the rest of us they look like febrile children – the drones are left looking extraordinarily foolish on TV, parroting the same discredited lies and spin like the automatons they are while interviewers look on incredulously.

Second : Slavish adherence to the party line means that if the 12 year olds who are apparently in charge of the Labour Borg’s press strategy come up with a meme that is actively harmful to the collective it will propagate outwards through every available mouthpiece and media channel without anything to stop it.

The Drones aren’t thinking about what they’re saying, they’re just saying what they’re told. If they were thinking about it, it’s unlikely that that the leading pro Brown meme since Saturday afternoon would have been allowed out.

If you didn’t spot it, it was simply that “any leadership contest should be about policy, not personality”. Clearly whatever smug git thought this up thought they were on to a winner. Not so though, which is why, I suspect, we haven’t heard it much since Sunday lunch. Borg HQ must have realised their mistake and pulled it from today’s hymn sheet.

The contention is that since none of the (as yet mythical) contenders for leadership have any new or different policies, then there isn’t any point having a contest because none of them have anything new to offer. Can you see the hole yet ?

This argument falls down in at least two ways that I can think of. Firstly, whose policy is it ? Surely it’s the party’s policy, not Gordon’s ? Claiming that all the policy is his will only inflame the back bench borg who are (rather late) starting to get sniffy about being no more than lobby fodder now that they aren’t going to be getting all those lovely expenses.

Secondly, if it’s the policy that’s so important, and it’s the personality that’s dragging you down, keep the policy and get a new personality.

It’s an argument that is weak even by the standards of the pro Brown arse wash that has been dripped all over the media in the last few days. It is also very dangerous for team Brown, so easily is it corrupted into an argument against the status quo.

Either borg HQ did this on purpose, having been compromised by someone hostile to Brown, or they are panicking and spewing crap out into their drones. Either way it illustrates the foolhardiness of trying to exercise an iron grip from the centre. A lesson unlikely to be learned by the borg, of course, since they evidently believe themselves to be infallible.

It will be interesting to see if this argument turns up being used against the pro Browners later on when the counts are in and the extent of the damage is evident.

Climate change vs Nuclear War

Ambush Predator rightly mocks what the Telegraph describe as “The world’s leading scientists” for their rather hysterical claims that climate change is as much of a threat to humanity as nuclear war.

According to the group of scientists, Nobel laureates all

“It is comparable in magnitude [to nuclear warfare]. With business as usual we will have another five or six degrees Celsius [9 to 10.8F] – that could not sustain civilisation as we know it, which is quite comparable to a nuclear shoot-out. It would mean 80 metres rise in sea level – London, Paris and Copenhagen would disappear. This could not sustain nine billion people [the predicted population of the world.]”

As Ambush Predator asks

Is that all?

No giant marshmallow man? No radioactive monster lizard? No hot hail?

Pah! Some disaster movie…

So we loose a few cities, we can’t sustain so large a population as we’d like and it’s a bit warmer and that’s really about it. There is routinely a five or six degree Celsius temperature difference between where I’m sitting now and Devon. During the summer, Barcelona is usually around ten degrees Celsius hotter.

And while an 80 metre rise in sea level sounds quite bad, should one chose to believe such a figure, it certainly doesn’t match the sort of ‘long night, nuclear winter, all higher life forms scythed from the biosphere, nothing left but dust and cockroaches, etc.’ kind of Armageddon scenario that I grew up having nightmares about.

Perhaps I am just more cynical than Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent and author of this bum gravy, but since there seemed to be such a large disparity between what I was being told now, and what I remembered having been told before, I took ten seconds out of my busy schedule and undertook the minimum possible amount of research available to a 21st Century human with an internet connection. Yes, I googled it.

And well well, what do you say, looky there at the first link. A wikipedia article about nuclear winter.

Now I’m not one to blindly trust wikipedia articles, but a look through the sources for this article reveals it to be largely based on the paper “Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences” by Alan Robock, Luke Oman and Georgiy L Stenchikov. A 2007 study of the climatic effects of a nuclear war which is rather adequately summarised by the article.

For a conflict involving one third of the world’s nuclear arsenal

A global average surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4°C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5°C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land … Cooling of more than –20°C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions.

So, no agriculture for at least a decade. At all. None. Most of the surface of the earth at or below freezing. And that’s just the climate, without taking into account the additional destruction to life and infrastructure that would accompany a nuclear conflagration of such proportions.

So in point of fact it isn’t really even comparable, by any sane person, to the scenario outlined in the article for worst case climate change. A large scale nuclear dust up would, in all likelihood kill us all and most of the other warm blooded species on the planet.

You’d like to think that such a supposedly elite bunch of ‘scientists’ would have bothered to check the facts before issuing such utter tripe as a press release, but apparently if you’re a climate scientist, this isn’t necessary.

Either that or the bastards are happy to knowingly participate in a deceitful propaganda campaign that suits their agenda.

Either way, is it possible to have someone’s Nobel taken off them ?

Members of the St James’s Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium you are charlatans.

And Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, you are a complete waste of oxygen. It took me one google search to discredit this story but you have regurgitated it in it’s entirety without bothering to check a single fact, you stupid pointless bitch.

UPDATE : Bishop Hill catches The Times out in similar cut’n’paste climate journalism here.

%d bloggers like this: