How the Labour Party Lost My Vote

I've always been a bit of an old lefty. I figure the world is a better place to live in when the the minimum standard of living is a bit higher than a cardboard box and a blind eye turned. So imagine my disgust when I saw the latest bit of direct marketing by the Labour Party.

"Lib Dem Leader: Thatcher was right!" declares the headline. Although it doesn't actually stoop to telling us why he thought that, or what about. Don't you love a lack of context? But wait! They've helpfully expanded this with an alleged newpaper headline - "My admiriation for Thatcher; by Clegg". Even more lack of context. It could have been admiration for her hair, or standing up to critics, or even suceeding in a mans world.

"But which newspaper is this from?" you ask, so you can have an informed opinion. Why, the Daily Mail of course. *head-desk*

If you trust this gutter rag to report fairly, and accurately, then I have a bridge you might like to buy.

The soon-to-be-recyling then goes on to say how the Lib Dems are more in line with the old Tories, than the new Conservative party is. I suppose that's because the new Conservatives are too busy trying to emulate the New Labour party policy of "Say what will get most votes from Middle England" rather than having some firm ideals or values?

After I'd torn the leaflet up I dicovered a wonderful nugget of scare-mongery on the back - "Only Labour can beat the Tories," it claims. "A vote for the Lib Dems or any other party wll let the Tories win!" If a party is reduced to advocating tactical voting, I think they've already lost.

I still can't forgive the Conservatives for snatching school milk, the miners strikes, and the Poll Tax, but if the opposition has sunk to this level (remember when the Consevatives created the New Labour - New Danger posters?) then we have nothing left to lose.

Personally I will be voting for the party I want to win*, not the one I hate less.

*=Certainly not the Conservatives or one of those single policy parties like UKIP or the BNP either!

Blue Rage!

Something that annoyed me the last two Christmases, and has now started to annoy me again is blue Christmas lights.

Seems fairly harmless enough. Just one of many colours of lights that people use for the large light displays on the front of their house, right?

WRONG!

There are two real problems with these blue lights, particularly when they are the only colour of light being used.

1) Emergency services
For some reason, these blue lights are the same blue as used by ambulances, police cars and fire engines. And if the house has any sort of obstruction outside streetlamps, trees or telegraph poles) the flicker of blue is just enough to add an extra thing to worry about when driving conditions are bad. Am I speeding? Do my lights work? Will I have to brake/swerve suddenly? etc...

2) My eyes!
The blue they have chosen also hurts my eyes. Its so far along the spectrum its bordering on UV and the frequency of light makes my eyes twitch. Grrr!

So in short, either dump these lights, or mix them with other colours to save my poor nerves and eyeballs!

Attention span of a gnat

Its not new, but I've been thinking about this for a while.

Whilst channel flicking I happened to catch Russell Brand's Ponderland. Everyone's always raving about Russell, so I thought I'd give it a look.

I don't know about his other work, but Ponderland tonight consisted solely of clips from old television programmes interspersed by comedy. Well, I say "comedy", but it just seemed to be variations of "Look! Didn't people say/do funny things in the old days? Isn't that hilarious in and of itself".

He's not the only culprit. I've seen a number of clip shows where old fashioned clothes/mannerisms/attitudes are pointed at and laughed at. No actual jokes. Just laughing at how things were different.

I suppose if you have no concept of history, just seeing something different to what is popular today, is a source of never-ending hilarity. But anybody with a shred of historical knowledge, or even just somebody who was there, will just think, "Yes. That's what it was like. Do you actually have a point to make?"

I don't mind playful pastiche. I don't mind jokes at the expense of the past. Even cruel satire at the expense of old-fashioned attitudes can be funny if handled right. But just pointing at something old, and laughing because it is different, just shows how ignorant you are.

On the other hand, all these "isn't the past funny" shows will make excellent material for future shows...

"Look at this clip of a 21st century presenter mocking the past. Aren't his clothes funny? And listen to his dated catchphrases. Hilarious!"

Internet "Cafés"

I’ve got a whole hive of bees in my bonnet right now (mainly work or people taking diabolical liberties), but one of the tiny niggling things is so-called Internet Cafes.

In my town there have been a host of tiny shop fronts opening up that contain a server, a few PCs and some furniture. They offer Internet access by the hour and proudly proclaim their status as Internet Cafes.

What annoys me is that the owners (mostly band-wagoneers woefully out of date) seem to think that a service that provides Internet access is a “café”, when what most of us will realise is that the original Internet cafes were actually cafes that also provided Internet access. The café part of the name refers to the serving of coffee, tea and light snacks.

I want to go into these little places and ask for a full English breakfast, or a croissant and a latte.

I might take a camera to record the look of confusion on their face.

Nicky Hambleton-NO!

I watched 10 Years Younger yesterday. They had a guy on who was only 35 but looked like a cross between John Peel and Worzel Gummidge. However, when they finished with him I though he looked older, and I had a few issues with their techniques and opinions.

With the scraggy beard and long hair the guest looked like he was late forties. People confirmed this when they asked the public to speculate on his age. However, when they finished with him he was clean-shaven with messy hair, and had the biggest crow’s feet you ever saw – even bigger than Michele Collins. With his “Kaiser Chiefs” look, the crows feet and contact lenses (I’ll get on to that in a minute) he looked like Cliff Richards – actually 60/70 but trying to dress like his grandkids. And yet the public said he looked late 20s. Were they blind, stupid or bribed? And I wonder how he will manage his job as a rock DJ looking like an indie kid?

My second big hate was that they removed his glasses. As a glasses-wearer I hate it when makeover shows remove the glasses. Are they saying glasses make you look old? Ugly? Poor? With designer frames, rimless and half rimmed glasses available, this is a very lazy method of changing your look and totally undermines the confidence of a huge section of the population.

And then we have hair. I have long hair. I like it because the public and vapid style mags think short hair is “cool” and tell us men over 18 should not grow their hair. What can I say? I’m a rebel. However the “top stylist” on the show decided it had to come off, as they have done with every long-haired bloke who has submitted himself to a makeover show since the history of television. I say that if you are a “top stylist” and cannot find a suitable style or cut to make long hair work on a man, you are a mere barber fit for shaving and short back and sides. If all you can do is copy Heat and Vogue, shame on you, you pander!