Bending the rules

I have a self-imposed asbo against talking about politics, or news in general, on this blog. Firstly because it's what everybody else does with their blogs all the time and I want to be a bit more original than that. And secondly, because I think the world would be a much better place if everyone kept their political leanings to themselves. Imagine all the arguments and conflicts we could avoid that way!

But despite that, I feel obliged to say something vaguely political in nature tonight. So, for the avoidance of doubt before we start, I'm a Lib Dem. The upcoming leadership contest is therefore a subject of some interest to me, not that I think it'll make a great difference to the party or the world in general whoever wins, but ignoring my usual scepticism, there's one guy who'd be the obvious choice of winner, if not for one insuperable difficulty - his name.

Now I'm the last person to judge someone because of their name (or if not quite the last, I did do it just five minutes ago when I saw a post on a message board by someone called Supreme Convoy, and automatically assumed he'd be a great guy), but Sir Menzies Campbell. No, it just doesn't work for a leader of a political party in the 21st century. The name just screams "old, posh bloke, eccentric upper-class Englishman who dabbles in politics in his spare time". That's not the kind of image we need as a leader. With the alternatives being yuppie prat Tony Blair and carbon-copy-of-Yuppie-prat-Tony-Blair David Cameron, what the Lib Dems need is a man-of-the-people kind of leader - the kind of guy who gives the impression of being more or less like real people (something Blair and Cameron are totally lacking). Sir Menzies could maybe do that, if he wasn't called Sir Menzies. But change his name to John Smith and he'd be a future PM.

Incidentally, apologies to Tom Holt for stealing his last-person joke in the previous paragraph immediately after saying I want to be original in the paragraph before. I'm a hypocrite. Maybe I should become a politician.

Anyway, enough of this. I've made up my mind about New York, and I'm definitely going. Woohoo! Now I just have to decide how much time to spend over there. How long does it take to see New York, anyway? Is it a case of looking at the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building and then going home, or are there hidden delights? Actually, I'm the world's worst tourist - whenever I go to exotic cities I spend most of my time in bookshops. I just get bored with museums and breathtaking natural wonders too quickly - I can always watch them on telly if I ever feel so inclined, and not have to get up out of my chair...