Douglas Alexander has been chosen by Ed Miliband to become his shadow foreign secretary. This raises very serious questions about Brother Ed's ability to build a winning team. He's never actually managed an organisation in real life, and he's making a complete nonsense of the most important aspect of management - recruiting the right people to fill the key roles.
He totally messed up with his appointment of Alan Johnson to be his shadow chancellor - which also makes you wonder how much Ed himself knows about economics. Now that Johnson's resigned he's brought into his senior management team one of the dullest, most right-wing, most conservative, most careerist, most New Labourist little shits he could possibly have found.
The boy Alexander is an appalling choice. He's the ultimate machine politician. He's a revolting little toad of an arselicking, conniving, over-ambitious, political pillock. What's more, his speaking voice, his delivery and his language are so boring he's impossible to even listen to, let alone understand and appreciate.
He has no ideology, no principles, no regard for Labour traditions. He's the classic managerialist. He has no passion for equality and social justice whatsoever. He'll go along with whatever Ed Mili says is current policy, and he'll do whatever he's asked to do in order to keep his nose clean(ish) and further his career in politics.
This whining prat was in charge of DAVID Miliband's leadership campaign. What's that tell us about his effectiveness - he couldn't even get the hot favourite for the leadership to be first past the winning post. Brother David must be cringing in disbelief.
Voting record (from PublicWhip)
How Douglas Alexander voted on key issues since 2001:
* Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
* Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.
* Voted strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
* Voted moderately for replacing Trident.
* Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals.
* Voted strongly for introducing ID cards.
* Voted moderately against greater autonomy for schools.
This man was a bugler in the Boys Brigade, he's the son of a Church of Scotland minister, he was a speechwriter and a researcher for Gordon Brown, he was a solicitor for precisely six months, he supported Blair on the abolition of Clause 4, and he's done fuck all of any real use - ever. He's typical lobby fodder.
Make your own mind up.
PS There's no point anyone saying that Alexander was/is a decent constituency MP. Even if that were the case - so what? There are lots of us who could be hard-working MPs, given half a chance. Those Labour politicians who hold the senior posts in politics ought to be those who have a track record of fighting for the principles of equality, social justice and solidarity which the Labour party was created to fight for. Alexander is a third-rate apparachik and a lickspittle who supports illegal wars, supports a police state, supports nuclear weapons, supported the most right-wing leadership the Labour party has ever had, and hasn't a single radical thought in his head.
People on the political programmes this morning were all talking about politics being a 'rough trade' - as they were discussing the resignations of Coulson and Johnson, the promotion of Balls, the competence of the police, the further questions about Blair being a war criminal, etc.
Presumably the word 'trade' is supposed to differentiate politics from proper professions, for which you need academic qualifications - as distinct from trades such as building, carpentry, plumbing, electrical contracting, etc . . . for which you also need proper qualifications. Plus practical skills, rather than academic theory.
The professions are for the middle classes. Trades are for the working classes.
Working class men and women used to be in Parliament, but not any more. These days you need to be something like the son or daughter of a church minister, preferably with a first class degree in politics, philosophy and economics, or law; preferably from Oxbridge. There are lots of lawyers in Westminster and Washington.
By 'rough', they mean that if you're a politician you become an object for abuse, condemnation, ridicule and hatred. Which is true. I'm happy to give my fair share of abuse, whilst also trying to reasonable, accurate and honest.
If you put yourself up to be a representative for people's needs and aspirations, and you then fail to say or do anything of significance to challenge or change the status quo, and you fail utterly to improve the lives of the poorest sections of society (if you happen to be a Labour politician), then you thoroughly deserve to be despised and verbally roughed up.
People are going crazy with frustration, living in poverty, living with no hope of a decent job, let alone a career or a decent pension, whilst fat cats get ever fatter, thanks to the complacency, indolence and self-serving smugness of unprincipled, visionless bastards like Douglas Alexander. What the hell do they expect?
Ello, Ello, Ello, Goodbye.
Undercover police officers are apparently allowed to have sex with those they're spying on, but they're not allowed to fall in love with anyone they're trying to bang up, so to speak. Sounds about right.
It would look very strange if some needy activist says to her environmentalist-activist 'colleague' - "I'm gagging for a damn good bonk, old mate - let's go back to my place and get jiggy," and he - who's apparently a healthy heterosexual male then turns round and says, "No thanks".
What kind of collegiality and solidarity would that show? That would blow his cover instantly. The 'activist' would immediately realise that she was in the company of of an undercover plod who's under orders not to do normal human things - like having sex.
On the issue of falling in love - well, what can one say? Falling in love is NEVER a good idea. Admittedly it can sometimes take half a lifetime for people to learn NOT to "fall in love" (and just as quickly fall out again) and to realise that the love drug is just as dangerous and as addictive as crack and heroin. This can be a very hard lesson to learn, especially when someone's bloodstream is full of the endorphins produced by great sex with an attractive partner and they feel BRILLIANT!
There's a world of difference between wanting to be with someone whose company and whose sexuality makes you feel fully alive, and mistaking your desire for that person for enduring love.
Loving someone involves a hell of a lot more than desiring someone, wanting to be with someone, feeling good when you're with someone. There are thousands of books and films about people who fall in and out of love. Mills and Boon created an industry out of people's desire for romantic love. People might want it, but that doesn't make it desirable. It can seriously mess up your life. Especially if you're an undercover cop.
There's a brilliant song about crazy love released this week by a young English singer called Adele. She and her band performed it last night on the Alan Carr show. It's a rocking and rolling soulful groove called Rolling in the Deep. Catch it here:
Great pounding rhythms, great voice, great backing vocals.
Very interesting how different her second album (21) sounds compared to her first album (19). Apparently the experience of touring in the USA and listening to soul and blues music had a huge impact on Adele, as she'd not really paid attention to these types of music previously.
The first single (from ("21")is a revenge tune "Rolling in the Deep". Adele described it as a "dark bluesy gospel disco tune." - Wiki
The fact that Adele had a huge hit with Bob Dylan's "Make You Feel My Love" (which was on her first album) also speaks volumes about her excellent taste and musical sensibilities.
Sex Was A Tool
Undercover police cleared 'to have sex with activists'
Promiscuity 'regularly used as tactic', says former officer, contradicting claims from Acpo
Undercover police officers routinely adopted a tactic of "promiscuity" with the blessing of senior commanders, according to a former agent who worked in a secretive unit of the Metropolitan police for four years.
The former undercover policeman claims that sexual relationships with activists were sanctioned for both men and women officers infiltrating anarchist, leftwing and environmental groups.
Sex was a tool to help officers blend in, the officer claimed, and was widely used as a technique to glean intelligence. His comments contradict claims last week from the Association of Chief Police Officers that operatives were absolutely forbidden to sleep with activists.
The one stipulation, according to the officer from the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), a secret unit formed to prevent violent disorder on the streets of London, was that falling in love was considered highly unprofessional because it might compromise an investigation. He said undercover officers, particularly those infiltrating environmental and leftwing groups, viewed having sex with a large number of partners "as part of the job".
"Everybody knew it was a very promiscuous lifestyle," said the former officer, who first revealed his life as an undercover agent to the Observer last year. "You cannot not be promiscuous in those groups. Otherwise you'll stand out straightaway."
Well, of course - we all know these promiscuous activist anarchists are all bonking like bunnies. Especially the women. Mad, bad and dangerous to know. OK to shag though, if you really need to.