I see the R Brand and R Webb thing is still going on.
It's like a pantomime argument between a couple of Dames who are swinging their Louis Vuitton's at each other in a grandly verbose fashion.
I fully expect that from under some powdered wigs some archaic cussing will commence very soon.
For those who may have missed it here's an update.
Brand thinks that the political system is just two cheeks of the one arse, and voting for a big hairy bottom is rather silly when we should be reaching for a smooth and pert alternative.
Meanwhile Webb can see his point, but thinks that we should just wax the hairy arse and encourage some squats to give it a more palatable appearance.
Now I lean towards the smooth and pert alternative, but I am not unaware of the major flaw in Brands argument.
That major flaw being that no government is going to entertain addressing a system that allows them so much freedom to exploit while garnering power and wealth from doing so.
They may tinker about the edges to substantiate the illusion that what we have is a democracy, and what we want does matter, but they wont give that up without a fight.
So the dream of an alternative reached through peaceful non participation in the political process is all well and good when discussed on the television, or within the pages of the New Statesman, but take it into the real world and the jackboots will quietly be slipped on.
Lets not pretend that anyone in power is going to capitulate in the face of the proletariat asking them nicely to fuck off.
Then we have Webb looking for change from within the system.
For an intelligent man I am surprised that he can realistically consider that participation in voting can bring a seismic change to how we are governed.
At the most wealth redistribution could be considered, but only as a measure to quell the rumblings of dissent from the populace.
A very tiny percentage shift in the majorities favour will shut them up would be the approach taken, and then quite probably accepted by many as an 'I'm all right Jack' alternative to dealing with the bigger issues at hand.
The lyric from The Who 'Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss' seems increasingly apt.
The alternative options available to us both shelter under the same corporate are licking umbrella after all.
So, and it is difficult to say this, it looks like if we really do want a change then it will come floating in on the back of a river of blood.
Historically the reluctance of those in power to relinquish control always leads down the same path.
No quarter is given, but instead needs to be taken.
I'm not promoting violence in stating this, but simply highlighting what has come before, and in a rather blunt style asking what has changed.
As a side issue to all of this, and regardless of the views expressed by both men, I have found myself with a bit of a problem about the whole celebrity political bitch slapping that is going on.
My problem is about the credence given to the views expressed.
While I am comfortable with their input, and I am happy that so many are open to jumping into the fray and contributing their thoughts, it rather saddens me that if the same points were raised by an unemployed single parent living in a bed sit then no one would have given much of a toss about their considered opinions.
The reality of celebrity endorsement for an idea, ethos, or whatever, and the lust to jump on their bandwagon is quite a sad reflection of our society.
While they have every right to express their opinions and views, and equally the right to push for a change, I am still left wondering why their words are allowed to carry so much weight.
Neither of the men here are claiming they have any more right to push an idealogical viewpoint than Mr and Mrs Joe Bloggs and we need to keep that in mind, but we are most definitely providing them with a platform that we wouldn't extend to others.
Maybe when that changes it will open a door that can lead us to a more palatable future for all.