Ray Winstone: "This country isn't going to the dogs. It's gone to the dogs."

Ray Winstone says he can't stand the thought of living in the UK anymore. I expect quite a few high profile wealthy Brits to leave over the next 12 months because Alistair Darling has pretty much got his eye on their pockets. Is he forcing out the rich so the Conservatives have no Private industry with which to rebuild the country after the next election? A cynical man would say maybe. While I could argue with all of Ray Winstone's points [raised here] there wouldn't be much point would there? It's easy to look at your situation and say "I am in the persecuted class" but under this government, who isn't in the persecuted class? Apart from civil servants and members of the Labour Party? I've never known morale to be this low in Britain, never. Who is happy right now? I actually asked this yesterday. Who is happy? It's not just the economy either, it's everything. We're trapped, we're going around in circles, every day it seems our life gets smaller, I'm not depressed, but I can see why some people would be.

Happy December everybody! Woop!

Next up...happy posts!

The line is drawn

So after about 11 years of confusion a line has finally been drawn. It turns out that the recession has made Labour transmorph into...get this...Labour! I know right? I couldn't believe it either! They bought some banks and taxed the rich! They played the fence on most major issues over the last 11 years while they implemented totally socialist policy locally and in the civil service. Now, when they had to go left or right they went all the way left. Could they have gone more left with it? I don't think so. I guess they could have included the word "Union" somewhere in the budget but beyond that...It's now Britain's choice, more than ever it is Britain's choice, it's Left Vs. Right, for the first time in about 20 years, Cameron can't sit in the centre anymore. He's been edging away from it the last few months anyway but now they've got a George Osbourne finding his voice (I weedy little fruit of a voice but a voice nonetheless) and a back bench starting to make names for themselves it's going to be an interesting 2009.

Politricks: Boris takes the win

On Question Time last night, Jacqui Smith (Home Secretary) tried to play party politics with the resignation of Sir Ian Blair. Her claim was that Boris Johnson should not have requested his resignation and that he made Sir Ian Blair's position untenable. What's amazing is that Jacqui Smith could claim this as a negative move by Boris Johnson, as the panel watched on smirking, Jacqui claimed that she had no choice but to accept his resignation in some sort stance of defiance against the London Mayor who believes that if he's to be held accountable for London's crime rate then he should have a role in deciding who his Metropolitan Police Chief is. Now let's get this straight, the all powerful Mayor of London roll was invented by this government and for anybody within it to dismiss Boris' claim out of pocket is stupid and hypocritical (this is Gordon Brown's government I know but still). I believe that if we're going to have an all powerful mayor (I personally did not, but now we have one) then he should be held accountable for our City's crime, at the moment he can not be. How do we make him accountable? That's something for the politicians to decide. Should we vote for our Met Chief? Or does the fact that we voted for Boris count enough that we trust him to make that decision? Should we have mayoral campaigns with potential Met Chief's attached to the ticket? That could get confusing. But the main point here, is that Boris said he had no faith in Sir Ian Blair and the majority of Londoners agreed. His ineptitude travels further back than his disgraceful handling of the shooting in Stockwell. Boris said he'd do everything in his power to remove Sir Ian Blair from his position and he did it. London voted for that policy, why does Jacqui Smith think she can laud this move over the Conservatives as some kind of moral victory? It makes no sense. I am personally delighted that Sir Ian Blair is no longer in charge of the Metropolitan Police. I punched the air when I heard the news. Genuinely.

I awake to the news that Peter Mandelson is back in the cabinet. Do I need to comment? There was a conversation on 5Live last night, before there was even a hint that Mandelson may be brought back and the consensus was that "The only way Gordon Brown could truly mess up a reshuffle that small would be if he appointed Satan or worse still Peter Mandelson". Completely said in jest, I actually laughed. The announcement this morning made me laugh a lot harder. Don't Gordon and Peter hate each other? Doesn't Britain absolutely despise Peter? Is Gordon so desperate for high profile Cabinet members that he'd actually swallow the poison marked "Tony Blair" to achieve it? His arsenal has now extended to Jacqui Smith (dead woman walking), Hazel Blears (politics machine, I think she could be the next Labour leader, she can not be phased), Alistair Darling (the best lightning rod in history, he just stands there absorbing Gordon's legacy), David Milliband (a worthless excuse for a human being by all accounts) and now Peter Mandelson. What good is he? Will he take hits for Gordon? Expect him and Mr Milliband to meet regularly over the next few months.

Gordon feels awkward

Alistair Darling says he's not giving up any more money for schools, the NHS or Transport until the economy stabilises. If house prices have anything to do with it, that could be two years at least. Vince Cable (Liberal Democrats) says "Ministers must not simply lop off the easiest bits of their spending commitments. Instead, the government needs to be very clear in setting its priorities for spending. This should include taking an axe to public sector bureaucracy, in particular the highly paid managers who occupy lucrative positions in quango land." But that's the government's power base! They've spent 11 years creating public sector positions for middle class voters. If Brown and Darling turn around and tell them they're out, well then they've got no hope of winning the next election. What a conundrum.

A BBC study suggests that 18% of 16-17 year olds are "Doing nothing", that's not fair I mean, they're keeping busy.