"I never said most of the things I said"- Yogi Berra

 

To Trump or not to Trump? Typical British rant on Republicans... 
 

Studying American politics, I should start participating in the field, as in writing blogs. But if I have learnt anything in the subject, it is that their politics are very bipartisan. If I were to put a liberal Democrat (not to be confused with the yellow dodos in the UK) and a tea party Republican in the same room and let them out after half hour, you'd be left with the Republican, as he already shot the Democrat half hour ago. But my point is that putting anything about US politics on the magical internet is a bit like serving yourself to a pack of elephants and donkeys on a silver platter with a Communist flag on my arse. So, here's to another day I hopefully survive.

It's hard talking about the Republican presidential candidacy without the Lord Trump, soon to be the anti-Christ in the UK. Now don't get me wrong, this blog isn't going to be a rant against Trump, it's against everyone. But you know you've gone too far when even the Republican party say you've gone too far. Proposing to ban Muslims from entering your country is borderline Hitler's early policies on Jews, which again, from a Republican is bad. But this is Trump's tactics, the old phrase being that there is no such thing as "bad publicity". I think the last time I used that phrase was when Call of Duty were promoting their new "fish AI", providing quite a good metaphor for Trump right there in the fact that he's all mouth and no trousers. Or all fish and no "blub blub".

"Back in my day we just got given an orange for Christmas"

The significance of the Trump is nothing in the scale of things, but he won't, and probably now can't win the Republican candidacy. Starting a new country after British tyrannical rule, the Founding Fathers were a bit complacent when it came to parties and their elections, than again this came from the same people that can't even have a tea party without a war. That's why it's needlessly complicated, but in conclusion it's an indirect form of voting in the US-of-A as voters vote for a delegate, which in turn (are expected to, but not compulsory to) vote on their behalf for that candidate at that party's National Convention. The problem for Sir Elephant Trumpet is that his national endorsement is low, and whilst some polls are big on the big man, the momentum he has to sustain in such a diverse contest might lead him to realise he's bitten off more than he can chew, which for him would be an achievement.

And that's what narrows the Republican presidential candidates down to 2 in my books. Trump & Carson have the same tactic and problem, they're relying on controversy to gain votes *slip Hitler quip here*. Jeb Bush is relying on his name and his fundraising, so that's two things American's don't want to see in the White House, a Bush with too much money. Rand Paul needs to shut his mouth from filibustering more than Chris Christie shuts bridges. So that leaves Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, which for me is like deciphering what's better, syphilis or TB? Nah, they're just too similar, although I did see that Cruz had a "National Prayer team". I don't know what that is, you're guess is as good as mine, but mine might be them praying for those killed by unnecessary gun violence in the USA. There you go America, that's what I think, no if you excuse me I don't think I have enough iron bars on my windows to protect me from those radicalised ISIS members in Birmingham.

Jordan Ifield (Merry Christmas by the way)

Honesty is never seen sitting astride the fence- Lemuel K. Washburn

 

Syria- Bombs away, if you like it or not

 

You know me, I never like sitting on the fence and I never usually post more than once a week. But considering I took a break last week, and Syria is dominating the political news like Boris Johnson tackled a Japanese schoolboy to the ground, again, I thought adding my hat into the ring wouldn't be too much of an issue. And like my last post I find it hard to be funny, how is war funny? Unless you're Blackadder and are eating rat droppings for dinner. But this time I can actually laugh at someone: the entire Houses of Parliament.

 

If there was something inevitable yesterday, it was going to be that Syria air strikes were going to be voted through. I can imagine Daving Cameron lying in bed last night and thinking to himself: now I can resign and wait for Chilcot to write another enquiry into the deaths of innocent civilians, and ironically reveal it on Cameron's deathbed. You would have thought that would give away my opinion on these airstrikes, but my mind is actually more confused than John Lewis were when they realised their Christmas advert just got out done by a cat with accident tendencies (credit: Sainsbury's).

 

Here's what the solutions are in my head of fog:
*tory puppet glove: Bomb Syria!- and all the innocent civilians will of course love you for that won't they...
*tory puppet glove: But what about all the terrorists?- maybe you should find a way to kill them without killing the rest of the Middle East in the process, because you're currently proposing that it will be so bombed and black in ruin that God would eat the area as toast for breakfast.

 

*1/2 split/decapitated labour puppet glove: Don't bomb Syria! Negotiate with them to find peace!- I agree with half of that at the least, that's probably the best praise I've ever given to anyone on this blog.  But peace? Okay, I'd like to see Jeremy Corbyn try and negotiate a peace treaty with ISIS (yes Cameron, I said it again!) who make a living out of beheading and throat cutting. Plane's boarding for Syria in 15 minutes Mr Corbyn, still want to jump aboard?

 

*SNP: We'll follow Labour into anything to show a "point", and go against air strikes. Oh and while we're at it...- IF YOU MENTION INDEPENDENCE AGAIN I'M GOING TO LOSE IT. Nah, I'm probably giving less credit to the SNP than they deserve, but their "goody-two shoes" politics is starting to wear thin. They don't want air strikes because they want to stop all the wars in the world, we all want that. But sometimes you have to bite the bullet and actually understand the other argument rather than just say "IT'S WRONG!" and sit back down again thinking you're the next William Wallace.

 

Whilst this is a broad exaggeration of what happened, there was no viable alternative. I've heard the argument to give arms and financial support to the Kurd's and Free Syrian Army. But in a perhaps extremist view, al-Qaeda was founded by Arab volunteers fighting against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980's. And I'm pretty sure we don't want that again, even if it is only a possibility. Finally there is a full scale invasion, which is about as preposterous as it gets, I don't even think Tony Blair would vote for such a thing if he was still an MP. Chilcot will have to work overtime, which is something not even I can imagine. As the messiah Ian Hislop said a couple of weeks ago, all he needs to write in his enquiry is thus: BLAIR IS GUILTY.

 

Jordan Ifield (for once I don't have an opinion on something, might ask that for Christmas . No, not Christmas bombings!)

"More than just an end to war, we want an end to the beginnings of all wars"- Franklin D. Rossevelt

 

An end to all wars... Again

I don't like using the above title, apart from it's obvious impossibility, but the way in which some perceive it to be realistic. After the Paris attacks just over two weeks ago, the knee jerk reaction was hardly going to be subtle, but I don't think we need another Iraq. No one needs another Iraq. Especially Tony Blair. I've had many debates on this issue, and not for the first time, I was the odd one out. I don't know what the hell we should do. Black tar stuck on mud is clearer, as I wander into the dark asking every now and then: "When's the debate happening?"

On such a sensitive subject war should surely be a "free vote", which judging by Corbyn and Cameron's response, will actually happen. But as always, this never tells the full story, a bit like being given a promise by the Tories, you never know what's actually going to happen. To my mind at least, the vote will only result in more bombings in Syria, in the same way the world keeps turning. Another reaction to an event. Never preventing. I hear arguments on peace, bombings, funding the Kurds etc... But history has show cased all these examples before. And these all contribute to ISIS. Yes Mr Cameron, I did use the term ISIS with no "so-called", give me a five year prison sentence now, but only if your colleague Mrs. May gets one too for trying to find out what I look up on the internet at three o'clock in the morning.

 

All this talk of a two day talk is driving my nut in, quite literally. Alex Salmond is like sandpaper to my ears and when I heard about him unveiling a portrait of himself rather than attend a meeting about military action in Syria, I was genuinely pleased. This isn't to do with the Scottish Independence Referendum, it's about the fact that he doesn't take anything Syriaously (credit to Harry Freeman). When he was First Minister he sounded more like an SNP puppet more than an individual, dictating that Scottish independence is the only way forward in a world full of British tyrannical rule, much like innocent school children have to put up with loose Scottish kilts showing them something I can't describe without a court order. But now that common sense has prevailed, the same problems occurred, Salmond still trumpets the independence flag, calling another referendum over more pressing issues e.g. Syria. He told the press he attended a separate meeting and briefing from security officials and joint chiefs about the situation in Syria, but then again who hasn't, he might as well have watched FOX News and got the same picture.

 

Thankfully however, the final decision is unlikely to come down to the SNP, or any talking fish (Salmond and Sturgeon) people for that matter. But it will come down to everyone in the House of Commons, which I'm not exactly hopeful for, it's a bit like wishing for Santa to be real: you know all you're child life that he is, until the left wing white bearded man losses his red coat and dons a top hat with a blue pair of scissors.

 

Jordan Ifield (War, what is it good for? Thatcher? Oh...)  

 

   

Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success- Henry Ford

 

Can we all just get along now? Not on the British Press' watch...

 

The quote above from the little known Nazi sympathizer does highlight key problems in not just politics, but war. Yes, Jeremy Corbyn is at it again. After the unfortunate events last Friday in Paris, the world stood in solidarity over Facebook in mourning those who had lost their lives and our determination to bring the full force of the law to those who were responsible. Well, we all did, it brought the world to it's knees (and crying about why other terrorist attacks aren't publicized enough) with perhaps the most touching moment coming from the England vs France game only 2 days ago, players from both sides respecting the minutes silence and paying their respects. However Labour in this scenario would be the sort of person to say "Which side am I on?"

Hello? I would like to apply for the Scottish Labour
leader. No I'm not Nicola Sturgeon.

Perhaps I'm a bit late posting the blog on this subject, but that just explains how confused the Labour party are in their direction of foreign policy, and defence, and the economy etc.... I'm almost certain there could be two parties at this stage, I can imagine Corbyn just packing his bags saying "Screw this" and going up north to Scotland with his tweed jacket fitting in quite well. However the world isn't perfect, which means it's good news for Labour who are the least perfect. This is surprising as well, as Corbyn did everything he needed to after the Paris, say that it was an atrocious act of war, sympathise with France and the victims, then condemn the terrorists. Dust your hands off, shut the door, and say something controversial about defence policy. Wait, what? I can see why Corbyn has offered an alternative, but then I can also see why the "shoot to kill" policy exists, as I don't want to be on the receiving end of a terrorist attack, now if you don't mind I'm off to go and start bombing the monkeys out everyone for no discernible reason. If the Paris attacks were repeated in London, the first thing I would try to do is save those in danger, and if the terrorists are holding them hostage then I don't think your pink fluffy handcuffs are going to help.

Maybe I'm exaggerating, but then again when has Corbyn not exaggerated? Many people have told me that they like Corbyn because he talks straight, not beating round the bush as it were. So him directly saying he supported the "shoot to kill" policy and then  backtracking is straight talking? Well I'm even putting that in emphasis, I quote Corbyn : "of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris" so by not referring it to "shoot to kill" policy he must be beating round the bush. So he's a normal politician after all, another human being with flaws, perhaps more than others mind you.

But at least other politicians held their stuff together, or more specifically their party. Even Ed Miliband could achieve that, and I figure he can just about cook an egg, as his face has gone past the stage of having egg on it, it's now a fully fledge omelette. And you know you're in trouble when your own Chair of home affairs is asking you what the hell you're talking about, some Labour MP's even said the PM did a better job than him, which I'm sure will mean that 1) David Cameron is confident on winning a vote on airstrikes in Syria and 2) those Labour MP's might not want to say hello to Corbyn's little friend: Nicola Sturgeon.

Jordan Ifield (yes, Henry Ford was a Nazi sympathizer, dam those American capitalists)

It's weird: The leader of the Conservative Party in England is two years younger than me, and I still don't feel like a responsible adult- Jarvis Cocker

Conserv... (Title cut to save money)

In life the same two things are guaranteed: taxes and death. But if you're living under the Tories, you can certainly add cuts to the mix. Apparently Mr. Osborne has secured 4 government departments cut 30% of their spending over the next 4 years, which is just enough to cover the cost of child protection insurance David Cameron buys to make sure he gets money back if he leaves his kids in a pub again. But I guess the Tories aren't that stupid, admitting that "boom and bust" is still a problem, but then again this is from the same man that got humiliated by a lot of old pensioners with walking sticks over tax credits. So what's the catch? 

The same catch the Tories have had since day one. Iain Duncan Smith may have infamously cheered at the idea of a "living wage", which couldn't be more inappropriate named if you had slapped the name "free money" on the policy, but this time he'll be crying into a pool of his own tears. Like a true politician, he's standing his ground in his department and shouting "You shall not pass", well, that's what I hope anyway. Universal credits isn't even offered by half of job centres in the UK at the time of writing, and the Tories are wanting to cut it further to save welfare, about as familiar to the Tories as riots on Trafalgar Square.

According to their sums, £12 billion is needed from welfare. Why you ask?
*tory puppet glove*:To cover the deficit of course!
Haven't you been promising to cover that since you came in power in 2010 and have constantly missed deadlines?
*tory puppet glove #2*: It was worse under Labour!
Yes but that wasn't Labour's sole fault was it?
*labour puppet glove*: It was only Blair's fault, now we've got a white haired old chap that understands welfare.
*blairite and sun reader puppet glove*: In the same way he "understands" war.

Nutmeg: best to score an open net or kick him in the nuts?

As demonstrated in my well balanced puppet glove argument it's a dead end. Should you favour the party keen on covering the deficit and breaking your welfare in the process, or vice versa? Well without revealing my true colours, here's a brief summary. George Osborne has lost it. And by "it", I don't mean his sanity, that'll be next year. No, I mean his tory leadership campaign. Even loyal Labour fans can't mock his deficit facts, over halving it between 2010-15, even if he did miss the time frame. But now he's lost in the Lords, erupting his mini "constitutional crisis" that no one was falling for, resulting in him having tantrum in his fancy chair. He has the factor of being close friends to his messiah Mr.Cameron, but that didn't stop Michael Gove being pegged down when it came to the time. The same can be said to Mrs. May, who as Home Secretary has a tainted record at best, and the internet privacy debate has only added fuel to the ever growing fire. BoJo is the only one falling away from the limelight, but is doing well because of it. He's the Stalin ghost of today, and he only comes out in the media if he's tackled a Japanese schoolboy to the ground.

Jordan Ifield (I want to see Theresa May's internet history in the Freedom of Information Act before passing her bill through)

"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer."- Frank Zappa

Scottish Labour- The new William Wallace?

Do you want nuclear disarmament? Do you want a working NHS? Are you Scottish? Well if you aren't a member of the SNP by now I can safely call you a miracle. The problem is that statement isn't even hyperbolic, it's true, something Scottish Labour haven't got their heads round. I can remember seeing the General Election results come through and realising that Labour got the same amount of seats in Scotland as the Tories, how badly can Labour do? Appoint another Miliband?!

Apparently Labour have got the message. The Scottish Independence Referendum should have been a big wake up call to the parties saying: HEY, LOOK AT US, WE HAVE YOUR NUKES (among other things). But Labour haven't unified themselves at all, as was demanded, itself it has decided to divide itself as 70% of Scottish Labour voted to scrap Trident, something which the English Labour (or tea drinking toss pots in the eyes of the SNP) don't support. But maybe I'm being too cynical, maybe Martyr Corbyn will save the hippy dream, driving down memory lane in a VW campervan with a strange looking gas coming out the window.

Even to the SNP Corbyn looks good as an alternative, in the same way I hold the Lib Dems as an alternative, by letting you down when you get your hopes up. The main flaw with Corbyn is perhaps not down to him, but his predecessors. Blair's New Labour may have been "new", but it changed the identity of the party beyond recognition in Scotland, why have another right wing party when they already have the Tories ruining their kilts and NHS. But at the time of New Labour there was no alternative, it was vote for Labour, plug your eyes in whilst singing and hope all the nasty Iraq War questions go away, or vote Tory and face a mob outside your front door the next day. Now the SNP are in, and they really are IN now aren't they, Labour are panicking as if Ed Miliband knocked on their door looking for his "EdStone".

So does this vote bear any significance? No, Nicola Sturgeon is still laughing at her large election win, and then crying over how it screwed Labour up so much, meaning she has much chance of changing anything in England as I do writing satirical blogs and making you pant at the length of this long sentence. With no referendum or election coming up in the foreseeable future, I'm afraid this argument will have to be shelved until the EU referendum, promised only until the Chilcot enquiry is finished by reckoning, meaning never. Scottish Labour: the New William Wallace? Yeah, sounds about right. Hung, drawn and quartered with no immediate significance.

Jordan Ifield (If Scottish Labour really wanted to make an impact they should disband)

Scrap Trident you say? I'll do it, if I win beard of the year competition again