Inconvenient Kids Tell the Eco-Fascists Where They Can Stick It

My heroes of the week are Kouros (7) and Roxanna (6) from Blackheath, photographed protesting outside the Climate Camp on their doorstep in the summer.

Climatekids

Their proud father tells me the trustafarian crusties inside the wire thought the placards were jolly sweet  till they read what they actually said.

Related posts:

  1. Why I’m cancelling my kids’ subscription to The Beano
  2. Build-a-bear: the sinister green plot to turn our kids into eco-fascist Manchurian candidates
  3. The Arizona shootings were like Kwanzaa come early for America’s liberal fascists
  4. I’d rather stick my hand in a bag of amphetamine-injected rattlesnakes than put my trust in tonight’s BBC Panorama documentary on ‘Global Warming’

Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ Climate Change Ad: Most Pernicious Waste of Taxpayers’ Money Ever?

The government has spent £6 million on a hard-hitting commercial warning children of the perils of failing to check under their beds and in their cupboards before they go to sleep.

The advert – “Watch Out – Or The Bogeyman Will Get You!” – has been rushed out by Ed Miliband’s Department of Ignorance And Fear Promotion (formerly Dept of Energy and Climate Change)  in response to  “worrying” statistics showing that 52 per cent of children think the Bogeyman “will never ever crawl from underneath my bed and get me, no not even if I don’t check”, with another 32 per cent saying “Well I suppose I ought to have a quick look, just in case” while another 15 per cent do not know. Just one per cent agree with the government’s statement: “Yes I believe that the Bogeyman exists and that he represents a greater threat to my future than even Al Qaeda, Gordon Brown’s mismanagement of the economy or racist language on Strictly Come Dancing.”

It shows a father reading a bedtime story to a cute little blonde girl, carefully selected because it is thought white middle class households will be most susceptible to this kind of guff. The bedtime story shows pets drowning and nice, middle class neighbourhoods like the little girl lives in being swamped by rising sea levels caused by Anthropogenor – a terrifying, black, fanged beast wearing a giant badge saying “Man Made CO2″, in order to illustrate that white middle class people very much like the girl’s father are largely responsible for this devastation because of their overuse of patio heaters and internet porn sites.

“Daddy, is it twue what some of my fwends at school say that the Bogeyman doesn’t exist so it’s OK not to check under my bed at night?” asks little girl.

At which point, the father snaps the book shut and slaps the little girl hard across the face.

“They LIE bitch!” he says. “The Bogeyman is REAL.”

Since its first broadcast on primetime television on Friday the Government has received numerous complaints from viewers protesting that the advert is brutal, wantonly misleading and, especially in the midst of a recession, the most spectacular waste of taxpayers money.

A spokesman for the Department of Ignorance and Fear Promotion admitted: “Yes we appreciate the evidence for the existence of the Bogeyman is thin and getting thinner by the day. But what you have to understand is that a lot of us here have invested a great deal of life and credibility in promoting the belief that the Bogeyman DOES exist and IS a problem. We simply can’t pull a U-turn like the BBC did last week on “Global Warming”. It would be too damned embarrassing.”

Related posts:

  1. Millionaire Chris Huhne finds new ways to waste your money
  2. Why the BBC cannot be trusted on ‘Climate Change’: the full story
  3. Our island story
  4. Great news: the people responsible for Amazongate, Glaciergate, and Africagate trousered £3 million of your tax money

 

How Pathetically Useless of Cambridge Union to Ban Michael Savage

I’ve long had a soft spot for Cambridge, the charming, picturesque fenland university for people not quite ambitious enough to get into Oxford. But I don’t think its Union debating society has done the place any favours by cancelling at the last minute its invitation to the US talk show host Michael Savage.

Savage was due to speak – via videophone – against the motion “This House Believes Political Correctness is Sane and Necessary” on October 15. The reason he had to do it by videophone, of course, is that he is officially banned from entering Britain.

Home secretary Jacqui Smith issued her fatwa against Michael Savage in the summer as one of the Labour government’s more risibly desperate measures to try to distract public attention from its awfulness. Her thinking went on the following lines: “Hey, I know. I’ll make a long list of the scariest, most murderous terrorists in the world, officially declare them banned from Britain then, at no more public cost than it took to issue the press release, I will be hailed as the Home Secretary who made Britain Safe.”

Then some bright spark noticed that the list included rather too many members of the Religion of Peace (TM). So Jacqui Smith – that brilliant intellect who declared that Islamist terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow in 2007 were “if anything anti-Islamic” – felt compelled to throw in a few non-Muslims too. Very handily Michael Savage – the popular US shock jock about whom no one in Britain had heard up until this point – was white, right-wing and Jewish. Bingo! The man was banned.

And now Cambridge Union has given the poor fellow another kick in the teeth by cancelling his only UK appearance. The Union is blaming technical and legal reasons:

“We have reconsulted with our counsel, and been informed that there are numerous legal issues with Dr Savage speaking here and so because of all of the technical, financial and legal problems involved, we have come to the reluctant conclusion that the event cannot proceed.”

Savage suspects that dark forces are at play and the British government leant on the Union.

“What did the socialist Brown regime fear I might say during the debate?” Savage asked. “What are they hiding from the general public that would have been exposed? Why do they wish to hide what they did to an innocent broadcaster?”

From my experience of the Cambridge Union, I’d say cock-up is far, far more likely than conspiracy. “Legal” reasons sounds like student-speak for “We got nervous about the potential controversy and protests by leftie agitators and chickened out…”

UPDATE:  just had a nice, polite email from the Union’s president elect saying the most pressing reason was financial.

We proposed to Dr Savage that he speak by videophone (/Skype), but his team demanded higher spec equipment than we were able to provide and were not willing to negotiate or contribute to the costs.

The £5000 plus that this event would have cost us – following their demands – was not an expense we could justify.

I believe this bit (though I’ve yet to be convinced by the legal part). Cambridge Union is not awash with cash and is very dependent on its members’ subscriptions. I don’t blame Americans for not knowing this – most British people wouldn’t either. There’s a common assumption that if it’s Oxbridge it must have money to burn. But 19 to 22 year olds – even clever ones – are skint. Especially now Oxbridge is so discriminatory you haven’t a prayer of getting a place these days if you were privately educated.

UPDATE 7pm GMT

Just had an email from Michael Savage’s producer, rebutting the Union’s rebuttal:

The communication you received from the Cambridge Union is inaccurate. To begin with, we were never quoted a cost of 5000₤ to us. The price they quoted to us was 3500₤, in a setup that they proposed to include 2 manned cameras, a sound engineer, a video production manager on site within the Union Chamber, a Polycom unit linked to two manned auxiliary cameras and microphones for the outgoing signal from the Chamber, two 50” plasma screen to display the incoming signal and a 17” monitor placed on Dr Savage’s seat in the Chamber. We did not feel that this elaborate a setup was necessary and were working with the Union to assemble a scheme which would be higher quality and have a more reliable connection than Skype, but be more affordable to them than what they proposed. We were then told that the event was cancelled. It is clear to me that these obstacles could have been overcome if there was a real desire to have the debate.

Moreover, the Cambridge Union cited ‘numerous legal issues’ that were never brought to our attention prior to the cancellation. What did they fear? In view of their having invited Dr. Savage in the first place, and having had ample opportunity to investigate the legal ramifications of this decision in advance, I believe it is fair to raise the question of whether they were pressured by any outside source to cancel the debate.

When I put this to the Union’s president-elect Jonathan Laurence, he said “No outside pressure was put on us. It was a very difficult decision to make”. But when I pressed him to explain what on earth these legal ramifications were he said he couldn’t comment further because of the chaos of Fresher’s week.

Hmm. I think my sympathies are back with Michael Savage.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: sack ‘no longer credible’ Michael Mann from IPCC urges climatologist
  2. Climate Change: an emetic fallacy
  3. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann
  4. Michael Mann as innocent as OJ – possibly more so – finds internal Penn State investigation

She’s a Fox, She Can Sing, She Can Draw (-ish): What’s Not to Like about Carla Bruni?

When I mentioned  a few months ago that if held at gunpoint and tied up to a bed I really could think of worse fates than being forced to have sex with Carla Bruni, my wife was utterly appalled. “She’s not pretty. Her eyes are too close together,” my wife said. “Only a man could possibly think Carla Bruni was pretty.”

Having seen her new website, I mind the idea of Carla forcing her toned, bronzed, pneumatic yet tender and yielding body on me even less. I especially like the doodles of all the famous people she gets to meet now that she has hitched herself to some well-connected French bloke whose name eludes me.

Sarah Brown – the soon-to-be-ex-prime-minister’s wife – complained on a Tweet that Carla Bruni’s Sarah Brown wasn’t at all realistic. But I think we can all agree, it’s a total ruddy Leonardo compared to Carla’s  Bob Geldof. When I saw her Bob – which I only knew was Bob because there’s a pop up thing on her site that tells you so – I was reminded a bit of a crappy pavement portraitist I saw the other day. You know the type: they advertise their skills using fabulously awful pictures they’ve done of famous people. But just in case you can’t recognise these people – which you can’t because the likenesses are crap – they’ve added helpful clues. The Queen will have a big crown on her head and a corgi at her feet; Arsene Wenger will have an Arsenal sign in the background; Lewis Hamilton will be standing by a racing car (with Lewis Hamilton written on the side) in case you mistake the picture for Jenson Button.

Anyway, I think it’s charming. Charmant, even.

Carla, never you mind what my wife says about your close-together eyes. I still think you’re a fox.

Related posts:

  1. Professor Hal Lewis is not an irrelevant, senile, old fool
  2. Why we still heart Sarah Palin
  3. Sarah Palin is a kingmaker, not the next US president
  4. Lady Macbeth sticks it to Berlusconi

 

If Class IS a Problem for David Cameron He Has Only Himself to Blame

As a blogger you get pretty used to reading the odd piece of utter bilge below your posts. But rarely have been quite so nauseated and shocked as I was by some of the comments yesterday on the piece I wrote about my Oxford days with my old mucker Dave Cameron.

After twelve years of Blair and Brown Britain is, I think we can all agree, in the most terrible mess. Our economy is in ruins thanks in good part to an outrageous spree of deficit spending by an irredeemably socialist Chancellor. The tax burden has risen (largely by stealth). Our freedoms have been circumscribed by ever-more-intrusive bureaucracy and legislation, governing everything from how we are allowed to illuminate homes and dispose of our rubbish to the way we arrange our childcare. Health and safety regulations have made harmless, traditional past times like the village fete or the school trip a nightmare of red tape, form filling, overcautiousness and needless expense. Dotted all over Britain are ghettoes – sorry “communities” – a worrying percentage of whose members believe it is their holy duty to destroy us from within, sometimes metaphorically and sometimes literally.

I could go on, but that’s enough for the moment. What leaves me truly gobsmacked is this: that after twelve years of utterly disastrous mismanagement by a ruling caste made up of socialists, liberals, progressives, grievance-mongers, rabble-rousers – all of them on the left, none of them exactly motivated by a desire to make life easier for the silver-spoonfed and privately-educated – there are still pillocks out there so stupid as to believe that the problems of Britain are essentially to do with the facts that people like David Cameron and Boris Johnson went to Eton and Oxford, that some people have more money than others, that some people have bigger houses than other people, and that it’s all jolly unfair.

Get real, you unutterable tossers! Normally I’m quite good with words and insults, but in this instance I find it all but impossible to express how much I despise you for your ignorance, your refusal to see the glaring evidence before you, your chippy repellance, your stale, cliched view of the world, your bitterness, your wrongness and puke-making fatuousness. Go to North Korea, you twonks! Enjoy what it is to be classless and free!

Now the Cameroon analysis of this situation would go something like this: “Aha, so you finally get the problem. Against all reason, there really are still lots of people out there whose analysis of Britain’s problems is rooted in class resentment. Therefore, we can never be as boldly ideological as some of us might like to be. We must catch the monkey softly softly, for example, by adopting fiscally brain-dead policies like sticking to Labour’s 50p upper rate tax band, not because it will bring more money into the Exchequer’s coffers but because it will appeal to the mob’s desire to see rich people suffer.”

Naturally, I disagree. I don’t believe that surrender-monkey nonsense about politics being the “art of the possible.” Anything is possible, but first you have to make your case. The best thing about Conservatism – the reason I’m a conservative – is that the facts of life are Conservative. It’s really not that difficult to argue the conservative position because its also the best position, the one that most accords with reality and human nature. Conservatism is the philosophy of “It’s not where you’re from; it’s where you’re at.” In other words, it doesn’t matter whether you were born in a stately home or the lowest ghetto: a conservative believes as far as is reasonably possible that EVERYONE should be afforded equal opportunities.

But equality of opportunity – note – NOT equality of outcome.

There. I’ve solved the problem of Conservatism and class in one par. Why couldn’t those spineless Cameroons?

By the way, don’t forget to laugh at me being ridiculed in When Boris Met Dave on TV tonight. I really recommend these outtakes too. Especially the ones with me in:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/when-boris-met-dave/articles/exclusive-video-clips

Related posts:

  1. David Cameron at Oxford University: the truth
  2. Maybe we’d be better off if David Cameron had gone to Harrow
  3. An open letter from my old mate David Cameron to the people of Britain
  4. David Cameron skippers Morning Cloud, conducts LSO, etc

 

I have Just Seen the Conservatives’ Future. Unfortunately, It’s in New Zealand

So it’s just as we thought: the Conservatives are a bunch of timid, Blairite statists who aren’t going to drag us out of Europe and are going to spend the next 5 years treading water.

But just imagine, for a moment, a Tory party conference in an alternative universe in which they’d made some of the following commitments:

  • Massive tax cuts to boost economic growth.
  • Sweeping health care reform – cutting back on bureaucracy, encouraging private health care, improving value in the system.
  • A coalition with the Libertarian party committing the government to free markets, individual freedom and a minimal welfare state.
  • A keynote speech from the party leader saying: “There’s a limit to what governments can do.”

Well if you lived in New Zealand you wouldn’t need to imagine because they’ve got it already in the form of John Key and his centre-right National party. (Hat Tip: Tom Blanton)

Seriously, if you were jealous enough of the Kiwis already – what with their Lord Of The Rings scenery, their kakapo parrots, and their Cloudy Bay sauvignon blanc – then I really don’t recommend you read this article on John  Key in the National Review Online by Lydia Bevege. It will make you want to up sticks and emigrate IMMEDIATELY.

Here’s a taste:

Delivering his first budget in May, Key continued to distinguish his economic policies from those being adopted in Washington, London, and Canberra. He imposed a cap on government spending set at half the average spending level over the past five years, reining in government growth to 2 percent per year. Key’s “line-by-line” review of federal spending identified and cut back $2 billion worth of non-essential programs. His conservative budget pushed the New Zealand dollar higher and prompted the ratings agency Standard & Poor to increase New Zealand’s foreign-currency rating from negative to stable.

Who do we want? John Key. When do we want him? Now!

Related posts:

  1. ‘Budget for growth’? Wot budget for growth?
  2. Do the Conservatives think we’re all paedophiles too?
  3. Churchill’s conservatives are, ‘like, total Nazis’, says Dr Goebbels
  4. Reason no 12867 why not to vote Tory: the NHS

A little light Islamist propaganda to liven up your Sunday

October 4th, 2009

I’ve just been supervising my nine-year old daughter’s home work for the week. She attends a Church of England Primary School. Here is the text she was set:

“Abdul left his friend’s house. He had had a fun afternoon. He took the route home. He was whistling softly. He scuffed his feet in the dry leaves. He pretended to dribble a football up the pitch. He passed a derelict church.”

Is it just me or is there something seriously wrong with the subliminal messages being sent out here?

6 Responses to “A little light Islamist propaganda to liven up your Sunday”

  1. Galatian says:October 5, 2009 at 8:44 amIt’s not just you, James. Utterly typical. Why couldn’t the authors have ticked the diversity and equality boxes by a passage like this (which is also representative of today’s Britain):He [Abdul] passed a vibrant, modern church – with a congregation numbered in the thousands – of largely trimly-dressed Afro-Caribbean worshippers. He felt a check in his spirit as he contrasted his own aimless meanderings with the overflow of joyous harmony from the choir …
  2. Archie Wedderspoon says:October 5, 2009 at 8:58 amI’m a Catholic Scot, so my response may not be typical. Yes, the sub-liminal message is quite wrong, and shows that the Church of England is more interested in appeasing its enemies than in being the national church.
  3. JJ says:October 5, 2009 at 9:37 amSubliminal for the children but bloody obvious to adults.But nil desperandum, educational standards have never been higher (or so the story goes). This is perfectly true if you see education as a means of indoctrination of the young as opposed to errrrrr actually educating them.
  4. Galatian says:October 5, 2009 at 12:15 pmJJ: do not despair! Youngsters I meet see through this dross and roll their eyes: global warming (which features on just about every syllabus out there – science, English, maths, RE, etc., etc), healthy eating, the rubbishing of British history, the diversity-compliant naming of participants in exam questions: “Bobby, Zeinab, Ndabaningi and Chan are investigating the effect of temperature on the rate of a chemical reaction”.
  5. Paul Weston says:October 5, 2009 at 3:07 pmJamesThere is a website called “Britkid” which has been set up along National Curriculum guidelines:http://www.britkid.org/It is quite a long-winded site, but well worth an hour or so following it’s many links.

    It promotes the usual stuff – White kids are racist violent scum, all others milk and honey.

  6. Galatian says:October 6, 2009 at 9:13 amPaul, Thanks for that – who writes this sh*t? Just read the stuff about the church and compare it with the mosque. At the church the talk is of something for the older generation, numbers dwindling, etc; nothing whatsoever about the Christian faith.

‘Killing parakeets is racist’ – and other green lunacies – James Delingpole

October 4, 2009

Parakeets may be a foreign pest which only settled in Britain in 1969 but shooting them just because they’re a “nasty alien” is “racist” – a form of “eco-xenophobia.” So claims the director of the Environmental Change Research Unit at Sheffield Hallam University.

“Is it because I is green?”

Earlier this week, the director of another eco-body – the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research – grabbed the headlines with a similar loopy claim. Britain, said Kevin Anderson, simply isn’t doing enough to combat climate change. What it needs, he argued, is a “planned recession” – with a ban on petrol-driven cars, coal-fired power stations and new airports. Only if Britain reduces its carbon emissions by at least 70 per cent by 2020 can eco-catastrophe be averted.

Gosh I don’t half enjoy news stories like this. They remind us that for all the modern green movement’s claims to sweet reasonableness, scientific integrity, and good, old-fashioned planet-saving commonsense it is in fact stuffed to the gills with activists madder than a giant pantechnicon from Mad Max III with “I’m completely mad” written in ornate golden lettering on the front and on the back “No really I am, madder than you could ever imagine.”

That’s how mad they are. Which would be fine if no one took their ramblings seriously. But unfortunately many people do, and quite a few of those people have control over our lives and our purse strings. President Obama, for example. He believes all this “cut carbon emissions or the world will die tomorrow” drivel. As does our future king. As does pretty much every political administration in Europe, save possibly Poland and the Czech Republic. As does your and my local council. As do most of the teachers filling your kids brains with eco-propaganda at school. As indeed, I’m sorry to say, do lots and lots of your friends, and if you were ever to try to put them right over dinner one night they wouldn’t swing round to your point of view you know, they’d think you were evil and uncaring and very possibly in the pay of Big Oil.

Why do so many people think this way? Well, largely, I think because of a meme which has been spread very successfully by the MSM that the “science is settled” and that the real crazies are the ones who don’t believe in AGW. Earlier this week, for example – on the same day that Kevin Anderson was urging us to bomb our economy back to the Dark Ages in order to save the planet – a story broke which drove a coach and horses right through one of the AGW movement’s most sacred cows. (Yes, can’t you just imagine the mess that mixed metaphor crash made?).

This was the claim made by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth – with the help of his scary, dramatically upward-ticking graph – that the last decades of the 20th century were the hottest in modern history. Even hotter, apparently, than the Medieval Warming Period when grape vines grew even in the north of Britain.

As I reported earlier in the week this graph – known as the Hockey Stick, used on two occasions in the IPCC’s reports – has now been debunked beyond all credibility. It’s a complicated story – way too complicated for me, because I got several technical details wrong. If you want chapter and verse try this piece by Andrew Orlowski in The Register, or this by Ross McKitrick – one of the scientific analysts who broke the story – in the National Post. Or, get every last pornographic scientific detail from the Man Who Broke The Hockey Stick , Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit.

McKitrick sums up the problem very well:

“I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.”

Or, if you want it put even more succinctly:  AGW is bunk; the scientific “consensus” a figment of Al Gore’s imagination. The only reason anyone could possibly have for believing otherwise is because of the extraordinarily one-sided way the story is reported in the MSM.

Apart from Canada’s National Post – whose editor Lawrence Solomon has written a splendid editorial arguing that “the global warming scare is all over bar the shouting” – the Hockey Stick story has been given next to no coverage in the mainstream media.

This, it seems to me, is a scandal almost as big as the scientific conspiracy just exposed by Steve McIntyre. Every time a climate fear promoter opens his mouth – be he the Prince of Wales, Al Gore or some nutty prof from the Hadley Centre and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research – he is quoted in the Dead Tree Press as if he were the Delphic Oracle. But when evidence emerges to prove them wrong, it’s as if the story just didn’t exist.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Post-normal science’ is perfect for climate demagogues — it isn’t science at all
  2. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy
  3. ‘Dark Energy’ reminds us: consensus has no place in real science
  4. Killing Ugandans to save the planet

 

‘Liberal satire’ is an oxymoron | James Delingpole

2nd October 2009

In the latest issue of The Atlantic Christopher Hitchens brilliantly articulates something many of us have long suspected: that left-liberals – the modern variety, at any rate – are quite incapable of effective or indeed funny satire.

The Hitch’s immediate target is the libtard comic turned Democrat senator Al Franken:

“Franken very often refers to himself as a “satirist,” which is a piece of hubris that comes to him too glibly and naturally. One wants to say, on hearing or reading such a claim, “Actually, sunshine, we’ll be the judge of that.” Swift famously compared satire to a mirror in which people could see every face but their own: if Franken desires to be considered a connoisseur of the satirical, he might want to paste that line into his hat.”

He also has a go at the grinning, mugging and never knowingly undersmug Jon Stewart of the Daily Show.

But his wider point is this: liberal satirists rarely do the job satirists are supposed to do because they invariably go for the lazy target. They’ll mock the “Christian right” or “the Moral Majority”, but never dangerous topics like political Islam, or, say, the wilder excesses of black American religious demagogues:

“What you will not find, in any of this output, is anything remotely “satirical” about the pulpit of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or any straight-faced, eyebrow-raising (and studio-audience-thigh-slap-triggering) mention of, say, The New York Times’s routine practice of captioning Al Sharpton as “the civil rights activist.””

What’s more, argues the Hitch, these liberal satirists aren’t even funny. Their humour is aimed at “audiences who laugh not because they find something to be funny, but to confirm that they are—and who can doubt it?—cool enough to “get” the joke.”

Quite. And you could say exactly the same of their British equivalents: Mock The Week; Radio 4’s unfunny The Now Show; or that other veritable Prime Minister of Mirthlessness, The News Quiz, which appears to occupy a parallel universe in which Margaret Thatcher’s evil Conservatives are still in power and can only be defeated by the rapier put downs of Socialist comedian Jeremy Hardy.

Also, compare and contrast the (essentially) right-libertarian-leaning satirical website The Daily Mash with the rival website News Biscuit (or Soggy Biscuit, as some are terming it, after the popular schoolboy and Merchant Navy game) set up by left-liberal comedian John O’Farrell. One’s funny, one isn’t. Go figure.

Related posts:

  1. There are few things quite so emetic as the liberal-left on its high horse
  2. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  3. What Green MP Caroline Lucas should know about Liberal Fascism…
  4. Why the liberal-left isn’t wishing Spiked a Happy 10th Birthday

 

Et Tu, Eddie Izzard?

Does anyone else share my dismay that comedian Eddie Izzard is thinking of standing, not just as an MP, but as a Labour MP?

In the days before Izzard, comedy was aggressively, tediously political: all you had to do in the Alternative [to] Comedy Eighties was say “Thatch” in a sneery Ben Elton voice to get a roar of smug, consensual, right-on approbation from the audience.  Izzard – and his contemporaries – changed all that. They took the politics out and put the humour back in. They made it safe for even evil fascist bastards (as they would no doubt secretly term people like me) to laugh at comedy again.

So why must they all insist on ruining it by outing themselves as card-carrying libtards? Ricky Gervais is a genius, one of the funniest people ever to walk the earth. But how, exactly does it help his reputation for fearless irreverance towards the politically correct pieties of the day when he talks about animal rights – and supports the campaign for guardsmen’s bearskins not to be made of real bear fur?

Peep Show: again, pure comedy genius. As indeed were the first few series of Mitchell and Webb. But now David Mitchell appears on Question Time and has a Observer column in which he finds new ways each week of saying “I think Tories are a bunch of chumps” and suddenly it becomes that little bit harder as a right wing person to laugh at his funny sketches about Nazis because you’re thinking: “If he had his way, he’d have people like me up against the wall and shot.”

I felt similar disappointment a few years ago when I heard Bill Bailey – dear, lovely, warm Bill Bailey with his peace-and-love long hair and his Klingon impersonations and his genial brand of gentle, surreal comedy – talking about fox hunting with such snarling hatred you could have mistaken him for a member of the ALF. (Duh, Bill: fox hunting is the BEST!)

Whatever next? Russell Brand turning up to  support a G20 protest rally? TVs “Mister Angry Geriatriac” Richard (”I don’t believe it”) Wilson revealing himself as a life-long Labour supporter? Baldrick from Blackadder turning out to be a member of Labour’s National Executive? US comedian Bill Maher turning out to a rabid libtard with not a scrap of humour in his entire DNA?

You may laugh, readers. But mark my words, stranger things have happened in the bizarre world of comedy.

Related posts:

  1. Evil, snarling, red-faced Tory toffs want to bring back fox-hunting!
  2. I’m sure Richard Curtis doesn’t really want to kill my children. Well, I say that …
  3. Spectator: Women can’t do comedy
  4. So now we can’t ever enjoy Peep Show again. Thanks, David ‘No but seriously, folks’ Mitchell