Film Review: Warm Bodies

So. There's actually a second romzomcom out.

Or is it zomromcom? I can never remember. For those of you who felt Shaun of the Dead deserved to create a whole new genre, Warm Bodies is out to continue the trend.

Set in an post-apocalyptic zombie future we follow our self-aware zombie, R, as he goes about his day to day non-existence. Today's flavour of zombie is a bit more savvy than many other films, as we see that zombies parody everyday actions that they used to do, and are even capable of some independent thought. Zombies that give up entirely however morph and become a 'boney,' a shrivelled skeleton creature that only exists to kill and eat. Our zombies here consume brains because not only are they delicious (duh) but in doing so they gain the memories of the victim, briefly reminding them what was like to be alive. As a raiding party containing Julie and her boyfriend Perry loot the remains of a pharmacy store beyond the range of the protected wall of their settlement, a pack of zombies led by R and his 'best friend,' M, attack. As R sees Julie, he pauses, and seems to be drawn to her somehow... until Perry makes the inexcusable error of missing a headshot five feet away, on an unaware target, from an elevated position... with a weapon that appears to be able to do at lest semi-automatic fire.

Look, I'm saying I could of made that shot. And I'm a British man who's never held a gun. And if not? It held more than one freakin' bullet in the round. 

Well, you ain't surviving a zombie apocalypse with such shit aim son, so R beats Perry to death and eats his brains, as Perry decidedly deserved. In doing so, R absorbs enough of Perry's memories to make that attraction strong enough that he rescues Julie, hiding her away in his den of a old 747.

From here we see the relationship between R and Julie slowly develop, which each step leading R to feel more and more human. However, Julie has to return home, but R's condition seems to be spreading to the other zombies, which starts a conflict between the corpses and the boneys... and also the humans, who are kinda legitimately worried with the mother of all zombie gatherings on their doorstop. So R has to find a way to get the girl, convince a gung-ho nutter not to kill him on principle, avert an all out war between boneys, corpses and humans, and do it all with barely any ability to speak and with the dexterity of a, ah, zombie. Simples!

Personally, I'm just happy to have a male protagonist who's gormless express is actually intended... and not because he hated the source material

Admittedly, whilst I acknowledge Shaun of the Dead for starting this genre, it's pretty much due to Twilight's success this got made. Like vampire, but with zombies! Only this film isn't trying to push an abstinence Mary-Sue agenda, instead realising it has a funny concept here it'd like to play with. And in fairness, it is a nice twist on the regular zombie formula with zombie with a bit of computing power between the ears existing alongside the more mindless versions. A lot of the funny moments are R's insights and self awareness, likes his resignation that the traditional zombie shuffle walk doesn't get you where you want to be any time quickly.

Honestly, it could of done with a lot more of these moments, as this film is kinda a slow build. A lot of the time is spent building on the budding relationship between R and Julie, feeling more 'romantic' than 'comedy' with it's soundtrack and pacing but it comes off very sweet so I'll give it a pass there. Otherwise the comedy comes from M's brilliant contrasting behaviour to zombie's norms, R's battles with zombie-impaired dexterity and becoming more like a human, and latecomer Nora's quips. One of the biggest laughs from the audience was R realizing he was not only cold, but that being cold sucks. In fact I really enjoyed watching the subtle changes in R's makeup as he slowly became more human-like, with his eye shadow lightening and his dark veins fading.

It had a lot of soundtrack to go through, though it would drop the ball here and there. Zombies attempting a badass walk to Rock You Like A Hurricane? Yes. Very yes. Cuts out way too soon.

There are bits to nit-pick, as there always is. At the end of the film, with the boneys massing to attack the zombies that had left, the humans are fearing a giant push on their settlement. Makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that instead of fighting them behind a nice, sturdy wall in a strong defensive position, they go out on attack. Where they split up. Into small groups. Against an enemy that can see in the dark. That moves really fucking fast when they want to. That can only be killed by a direct hit to a small, rapidly moving part of their body.

Clearly, their leader, Julie's dad, was called 'Colonel' in a honourary sense 'cos there is no way he was in the actual military before the apocalypse.

Also, what was with his doubt that R couldn't change and was still an unfeeling zombie? Dude, the fact that he's standing right in front of you, chilling out, not currently engaged in gnawing on the nearest person's head... that's surely a giveaway, right? The whole, 'not currently actively engaged in feasting on the living in contrast to every other zombie ever' thing? Doesn't register? Colonel my arse. You found a box of army surplus medals and pinned them on you before anyone suspected a thing.

Alright, fine, there's little niggles and inconsistencies, and it isn't a laugh a minute like Airplane! (though in truth, nothing is ever getting to close to that accolade.) But Warm Bodies is surprisingly sweet, with a very touching ending. Whilst it swung more towards romance than comedy, you know what? A healthy does of zombies makes it very palatable to me. Give the trailer a watch. Whilst the trailer may showcase quite a few of the best lines if it seems like something you can dig, go for it. It'll be a romantic comedy that both women and overcompensating men can enjoy.

Wait, did I just sum up a review with, 'Eh, watch the trailer, it'll be all you need to make a decision'? Jesus, I am the worst reviewer ever.

Ugh. Even in death I can't escape shitty media.

Whilst I'm here I'll talk a bit about when I do reviews, what you should expect to see from me. I'm not really interested in doing big, blockbuster stuff, as I sincerely doubt I'll add anything to the mix. I will be instead try to focus on the littler, small scale stuff, such as Rise of the Guardians as I did before. The biggest thing I've done is Pratchett's Dodger, and that's only due to I was gushing about the book and if I didn't write it down I was in serious danger of getting lamped from a passing stranger as I unloaded my love for the book on them.

Bye Mr. Pope, and please don't stay in touch

So the Pope retired. That's a thing now.

Please don't devour a child on the way out.

See, this is something that the Catholic church should be pushing more. 'What, you think we're old and steeped in archaic irrelevant tradition and viewpoints? Nuh-uh! Our Pope just broke six hundred years of tradition baby, he's radical to the max! What a rebel!'

So, with the Pope retired, I've seen him be inundated with glowing farewells. And. Well. Something just doesn't sit right to me. Just a small, niggling detail. A tiny one, really, barely worth mentioning, but hear me out.

Isn't he complicit in a mass cover up of child abuse? Since, like, for ages?

Anyone?

Look, I get so far as typing the letters 'pope co' into Google and it auto-completes with the phrase 'pope covering up child abuse' and there's tonnes of stuff there. And the internet doesn't lie. All the time. Only around the high eighty percent mark. Secret Vatican edicts (which weren't that secret, come to think of it) and instructs of hush shit up, done before Mr. Pope became Mr. Pope. For once, I'm not going to link storm here, as there's really too much to go on and quite frankly all that formatting gives me a headache. I will say that I love this guy who denounces the original journalism that proclaimed this policy, in that it wasn't really a secret anyway. Not debating the facts of the document or policy, just that isn't wasn't a big of secret as it was made out to be and seriously man, way to get irritable over the wrong point. That's like – and if I may invoke Godwin's Law here – looking at a signed order from Hitler to execute Jews and claiming that clearly someone with such poor handwriting was an evil man. (Aside, I demand some props for invoking Godwin's Law on Mr. Pope without mentioning his youth activities.) I... look, all I'm saying, if I was retiring after having a severely questionable involvement in hiding child rapists, I'd be damn sure I wouldn't find the only time this was mentioned in the press the occasional reference solely using the word 'controversy.' Among so many others, Ann Widdencombe, a Tory MP who I'd usually have some time for (mostly due to good will engendered when she appeared on Doctor Who) presented a glowing tribute to his reign that left me feeling a little alone as no one seemed to care, about, you know, mass child rape.

It wasn't like he'd died, and it's kinda not cool to bring this shit up whilst the body's still warm. He's retiring. We can still criticize, surely?

Maybe he retired because as without his role model, Jimmy Saville, it just didn't seem worth it. Or perhaps it was somewhat similar one of the many headaches David Cameron has to deal with. Recently, one Welsh Tory MP claimed that gay couples couldn't provide a 'safe and warm environment' for children, and I swear I heard ol' Davy's head hitting his desk from all the way over here. You can just imagine the bellowing, 'For fuck's sake people, I am trying to present an image that we are not all colossal bastards, could you leave this shit alone for like five fucking minutes? Five minutes? No talking? No, fuck it, not one of you gets to talk to people ever again! Unless it's Boris. That idiot got himself stuck up a zipline for forty minutes and that somehow only made that foppy-haired fool more electable. Lucky cretin.' In the same vein, Mr. Pope might've been yelling 'Five minutes! Could you fuckers go five fucking minutes without fucking a child? I am up to the back teeth with shifting you buggers around! I am too old for this shit. In fact, I am too old for the shit! I quit!'

One of the things that really compounds things for me is twofold; firstly, yeah, there's some people involved in this that should be in prison. Like, right now. Now. How did these things happen and the first reaction from the higher ups wasn't, 'Yeah, that priest should be in prison. Like. Right now,' and instead it was felt that protecting the institution was more important than a child? Or is that me being naïve? The second thing is the method of silencing, Excommunication. Or, to paraphrase; you shut the fuck up or you will automatically go to hell. Auto-damnation seems to me should have been reserved for the priest, but, clearly I'm not clergy material and thus not suitable to question this.

And hey, guess what? If I didn't just want to focus on child rape, Mr. Pope has been at the forefront for many over shitty policies that exist only to promote human suffering. Let's look at this case.You may remember it from my brief discussion over abortion, but let's look at the bullet points:

• Stepfather rapes 11 year old girl, in an attempted triple combo of rape, incest and pedophilia
• 11 year old gets pregnant from rape
• Doctors determine that girl cannot bring the twins to term as she'd and the twins would die, (also the rape and incest thing) recommends abortion
• Has abortion to save her life
• Catholic church leadership loses it's shit and sends everybody but the stepfather to hell

Oh, and it may just be that wasn't some local cleric going off the rails; a senior Vatican official was totally cool how things went down. So. In their eyes, three dead children was the best result? What is this I don't even what. And don't go on that Mr. Pope wasn't involved in that. You wear the big silly hat, you take responsibility.

Does not one person up high in the church take one look at these sorts of things an go, 'Sweet Jesus, are we doing nothing but increasing the amount of misery on this planet?' Look, I was going to discuss further horrible policies, but quite frankly, I am super depressed. I have a tiny comfort that I've read some conflicting reports, that the above story may have some wiggle room, but it's not like incidents of this measure of misery are isolated. Most Catholics are wonderful people to be sure, but they are being severely mis-served by their church, who's attitude of arse-covering and backwards has let some serious horrors be perpetrated. Hell, we're not even surprised at this shit anymore. Also, next time, big church, how about picking someone that doesn't look like an Indiana Jones villain? Please.

Yeah. I feel all sad now. I had a point to make, but all I feel is a hollowness where my joy used to reside. I wonder if there ever was a way to say all what I wanted to say in an actual amusing way, in song?

God bless you, Tim Minchin.

I hold them accountable, and find them wanting

Politics has always fascinated me. Where people draw the line and say no further, and where they don't see lines that others do. It's probably why I'm such a bore to be around. In many ways I'm grateful to be British and have our peculiar oddities in law, because when I look at American politics a lot of the lines on the sand seemed to be based merely off what the other side was promoting. It comes across as pathetically petty. Of course, in contrast, I get a House of Commons that is unwatchable because it's such uncomfortable viewing watching grown men jeer and mock and shriek like children at one another, so it's all swings and roundabouts. (If you are wondering that I only added that last phrase to mess with any Americans that wandered into this lonely corner of the internet, I admit nothing.) I mention this today as we've recently passed the first reading of an amendment to our law that would enable marriage to be equal on grounds of gender.

Watch out people. We're going to let our gays marry. Le horror.

What strikes me as particularly interesting is the differences of mentality of the sides of debate. One the one hand we have a very passionate bunch of people, who are very robust in denouncing this change as debilitating the term and act of marriage, with zeal that is only ramped up when religion is brought into it. On the other side, the mentality seems to be more... like a shrug, really. I've yet to see people as passionate as the 'no' side. For clarity's sake, I'm not saying their aren't people who feel very strongly in approval of gay marriage, their definitely are, but I've yet to see someone match the rate of manic zeal the 'no' side trots out.

For me, if you burst into my place of work, grasped me roughly by the shoulders and demanded my opinion on equal marriage rights, I would (after politely removing your hands from my shoulders) shrug and say, 'Sure. Why not?' And that's it. It doesn't take anything away from me. I am aware that marriage is a whole host of legal rights, and, well, a section of law-abiding society is denied access to it currently, which is unfair, so that should be corrected. My passion for it is to see an injustice corrected. I am aware of the counter arguments. I have decided that they are all irrelevant. No, it won't take anything away from current married couples. No, it won't lead to animal marriages in the same vein that letting women have the vote hasn't led us to dogs having the vote. No, teachers aren't going to be forced to teach that being gay is the best thing ever and all the cool kids are doing it, and let's face it, we already have gay couples who've been taking their kids to school for a while now, those kids have already got the gist that some couple don't strictly come in the 'Mum + Dad' category. No, marriage is not an untouchable bastion, we used to forcibly marry off women all the time in treaty negotiations and that changed, oh, hey, also remember when the law changed so it was recognized that a married women could be raped by her husband when before that was impossible? Anyone? So this also, can change. There are probably more arguments against, but honestly, not one has ever come close to sounding convincing and I don't have the patience to continue.

Do you want to know a secret? Once, I found a single argument against equal marriage that I felt sorta held weight. Wanna know what it was? Say a kid has two dads. One is called 'daddy.' So. What is the other one called? WHAT DO YOU CALL THE SECOND BLOKE?

Then I read a sweet G2 article where a couple said that he was 'daddy,' and his partner was 'papa.'

At this point, I threw up my hands, and declared the debate over. Equal marriage. No counter arguments worth having. Done.

It's a curious thing. For some people, this is a Big Bad Thing worth getting very incensed over, whilst a lot of the opposing side it's a big deal in that it's a wrong to be fixed, but not one they're going to go red in the face at. It might just be because in this country most of us are for equal marriage rights, so the pro side aren't massively emotional as there's not a bitter fight to be fought. They're going to win, it just takes time, why work yourself up about something a few die-hards can gripe and scream about but not prevent? Of course, this could all just be me projecting, but seriously, I have read the counter-arguments. They bore me. As said, I have deemed them irreverent. So have many others. Move over already, and if it really bothers you, don't marry a person of the same gender and you'll be fine.

Besides, it seems like they're missing an important point. I mean, let's be honest everyone...

Um. What was I doing again?

...those women. Are hawt. Regardless of internal or external sexual organs. Look, Natelie Portman was in the Star Wars prequels and I still find her unintelligible-speech hot. That's sufficient hotness to overcome nerd rage, it's more than hot enough to make a fellow woman go 'Daaaaaaaayum.'

Also she studied like, four languages, went to Harvard, has had scientific papers published and - shut up me shut up me - oh hey Christina was YoSaffBridge in Firefly which was one of the best sci-fi - shut up shut up shut up.

Anyway. Lesbianism doesn't squick out men so much nowadays, (many the complete opposite) so in the interest of being completely and utterly honest with ourselves...

What's the phrase? 'No homo?'

I am a straight male. Boobs are like the best thing, evar. And as a straight straighterty straighterson male... that is one pretty man.

I said it.

Unff. One pretty man.

Of course, if I was being really honest with you, I'd say that personally...

In my defense; Google search has his name immediately followed by 'shirtless.' Just sayin'

I find him prettier. Unff.

Ahem. Anyway. Back to the original point. I'm for equal marriage, but I'm not massively emotional on the subject bar the fact it would be nice, to, you know, start treating people equally and everything, which not doing so is not cool.

However my emotional feelings on the people – not the sides – are very different. Because I am tempered in feeling for my side, it doesn't mean I can't get a real mad on what the other side is pushing. Sure, you can be on the other side of a debate on me. But in this case, by attempting to needlessly block equality to a group of people that already take more than their far share of shite from society? By entrenching yourself with a side that I have not found one single goddamn argument to hold any bloody weight? Just how, just how fucking privileged are you? Why, in that case, that makes you, your right honourable selves, some complete and massive pricks.

And hey, I was thinking to myself, 'Wow. Those are some class A douchebags there. Voting against it. Isn't it a pity that we've heard all the nonsense arguments, yet they won't retreat. Man, I wish I could, in some way, hold them accountable for their actions. Why, I wish I knew who voted against it, so I could look at their names, and always remember to treat them with utter contempt and be sure I, or anyone else, never ever elect them to office again.'

And then I got an idea. A terrible, wonderful, idea. I have a blog. Obviously. Duh. Some of you must agree with me, unless you're here to be angry at my world views or because you take a perverse sexual thrill in spelling and grammatical errors. And some of those who agree with me may just reside in my county. So. What's stopping me from, say, going to www.publicwhip.org.uk and publishing a list of all those who voted against (and abstained) so that we could hold those that hold some pretty detestable views accountable for their shit?

Name	Constituency	Party	Vote
Adam Afriyie	Windsor	Con	no
Peter Aldous	Waveney	Con	no
David Amess	Southend West	Con	no
James Arbuthnot	North East Hampshire	Con	no
Richard Bacon	South Norfolk	Con	no
Steven Baker	Wycombe	Con	no
Tony Baldry	Banbury	Con	no
Guto Bebb	Aberconwy	Con	no
Henry Bellingham	North West Norfolk	Con	no
Paul Beresford	Mole Valley	Con	no
Andrew Bingham	High Peak	Con	no
Bob Blackman	Harrow East	Con	no
Peter Bone	Wellingborough	Con	tellno
Graham Brady	Altrincham and Sale West	Con	no
Julian Brazier	Canterbury	Con	no
Andrew Bridgen	North West Leicestershire	Con	no
Steve Brine	Winchester	Con	no
Fiona Bruce	Congleton	Con	no
Robert Buckland	South Swindon	Con	no
Simon Burns	Chelmsford	Con	no
David Burrowes	Enfield, Southgate	Con	no
Alun Cairns	Vale of Glamorgan	Con	no
Douglas Carswell	Clacton	Con	no
William Cash	Stone	Con	no
Rehman Chishti	Gillingham and Rainham	Con	no
Christopher Chope	Christchurch	Con	no
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown	The Cotswolds	Con	no
Therese Coffey	Suffolk Coastal	Con	tellno
Geoffrey Cox	Torridge and West Devon	Con	no
Stephen Crabb	Preseli Pembrokeshire	Con	no
David Davies	Monmouth	Con	no
Glyn Davies	Montgomeryshire	Con	no
Philip Davies	Shipley	Con	no
David Davis	Haltemprice and Howden	Con	no
Nick de Bois	Enfield North	Con	no
Caroline Dinenage	Gosport	Con	no
Nadine Dorries	Mid Bedfordshire	Con	no
Richard Drax	South Dorset	Con	no
Charlie Elphicke	Dover	Con	no
Jonathan Evans	Cardiff North	Con	no
David Evennett	Bexleyheath and Crayford	Con	no
Michael Fallon	Sevenoaks	Con	no
Liam Fox	North Somerset	Con	no
Mark Francois	Rayleigh and Wickford	Con	no
George Freeman	Mid Norfolk	Con	no
Roger Gale	North Thanet	Con	no
Edward Garnier	Harborough	Con	no
Mark Garnier	Wyre Forest	Con	no
Cheryl Gillan	Chesham and Amersham	Con	no
John Glen	Salisbury	Con	no
Robert Goodwill	Scarborough and Whitby	Con	no
James Gray	North Wiltshire	Con	no
Andrew Griffiths	Burton	Con	no
Robert Halfon	Harlow	Con	no
Simon Hart	Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire	Con	no
Alan Haselhurst	Saffron Walden	Con	no
John Hayes	South Holland and The Deepings	Con	no
Oliver Heald	North East Hertfordshire	Con	no
Gordon Henderson	Sittingbourne and Sheppey	Con	no
Philip Hollobone	Kettering	Con	no
Adam Holloway	Gravesham	Con	no
Gerald Howarth	Aldershot	Con	no
Stewart Jackson	Peterborough	Con	no
Gareth Johnson	Dartford	Con	no
David Jones	Clwyd West	Con	no
Marcus Jones	Nuneaton	Con	no
Greg Knight	East Yorkshire	Con	no
Kwasi Kwarteng	Spelthorne	Con	no
Mark Lancaster	Milton Keynes North	Con	no
Pauline Latham	Mid Derbyshire	Con	no
Jeremy Lefroy	Stafford	Con	no
Edward Leigh	Gainsborough	Con	no
Julian Lewis	New Forest East	Con	no
David Lidington	Aylesbury	Con	no
Peter Lilley	Hitchin and Harpenden	Con	no
Jack Lopresti	Filton and Bradley Stoke	Con	no
Jonathan Lord	Woking	Con	no
Tim Loughton	East Worthing and Shoreham	Con	no
Karen Lumley	Redditch	Con	no
Anne Main	St Albans	Con	no
Paul Maynard	Blackpool North and Cleveleys	Con	no
Karl McCartney	Lincoln	Con	no
Anne McIntosh	Thirsk and Malton	Con	no
Stephen McPartland	Stevenage	Con	no
Esther McVey	Wirral West	Con	no
Stephen Metcalfe	South Basildon and East Thurrock	Con	no
Nicky Morgan	Loughborough	Con	no
Anne-Marie Morris	Newton Abbot	Con	no
David Morris	Morecambe and Lunesdale	Con	no
James Morris	Halesowen and Rowley Regis	Con	no
Bob Neill	Bromley and Chislehurst	Con	no
Caroline Nokes	Romsey and Southampton North	Con	no
David Nuttall	Bury North	Con	no
Stephen O'Brien	Eddisbury	Con	no
Matthew Offord	Hendon	Con	no
James Paice	South East Cambridgeshire	Con	no
Neil Parish	Tiverton and Honiton	Con	no
Priti Patel	Witham	Con	no
Owen Paterson	North Shropshire	Con	no
Mark Pawsey	Rugby	Con	no
Michael Penning	Hemel Hempstead	Con	no
Mark Pritchard	The Wrekin	Con	no
John Randall	Uxbridge and South Ruislip	Con	no
John Redwood	Wokingham	Con	no
Jacob Rees-Mogg	North East Somerset	Con	no
Simon Reevell	Dewsbury	Con	no
Malcolm Rifkind	Kensington	Con	no
Andrew Robathan	South Leicestershire	Con	no
Laurence Robertson	Tewkesbury	Con	no
Andrew Rosindell	Romford	Con	no
David Ruffley	Bury St Edmunds	Con	no
David Rutley	Macclesfield	Con	no
Andrew Selous	South West Bedfordshire	Con	no
Alec Shelbrooke	Elmet and Rothwell	Con	no
Richard Shepherd	Aldridge-Brownhills	Con	no
Henry Smith	Crawley	Con	no
John Stanley	Tonbridge and Malling	Con	no
John Stevenson	Carlisle	Con	no
Bob Stewart	Beckenham	Con	no
Mel Stride	Central Devon	Con	no
Julian Sturdy	York Outer	Con	no
Robert Syms	Poole	Con	no
Peter Tapsell	Louth and Horncastle	Con	no
David Tredinnick	Bosworth	Con	no
Andrew Turner	Isle of Wight	Con	no
Shailesh Vara	North West Cambridgeshire	Con	no
Martin Vickers	Cleethorpes	Con	no
Ben Wallace	Wyre and Preston North	Con	no
Robert Walter	North Dorset	Con	no
James Wharton	Stockton South	Con	no
Heather Wheeler	South Derbyshire	Con	no
Craig Whittaker	Calder Valley	Con	no
John Whittingdale	Maldon	Con	no
Bill Wiggin	North Herefordshire	Con	no
Gavin Williamson	South Staffordshire	Con	no
Jeremy Wright	Kenilworth and Southam	Con	no
Angie Bray	Ealing Central and Acton	Con	both
Andrea Leadsom	South Northamptonshire	Con	both
Phillip Lee	Bracknell	Con	both
Charlotte Leslie	Bristol North West	Con	both
Rob Wilson	Reading East	Con	both
Harriett Baldwin	West Worcestershire	Con	absent
Stephen Barclay	North East Cambridgeshire	Con	absent
Jake Berry	Rossendale and Darwen	Con	absent
Brian Binley	Northampton South	Con	absent
Nicola Blackwood	Oxford West and Abingdon	Con	absent
Jonathan Djanogly	Huntingdon	Con	absent
Jackie Doyle-Price	Thurrock	Con	absent
Philip Dunne	Ludlow	Con	absent
Tobias Ellwood	Bournemouth East	Con	absent
George Eustice	Camborne and Redruth	Con	absent
Graham Evans	Weaver Vale	Con	absent
Nigel Evans	Ribble Valley	Con	absent
Richard Fuller	Bedford	Con	absent
Dominic Grieve	Beaconsfield	Con	absent
Philip Hammond	Runnymede and Weybridge	Con	absent
Rebecca Harris	Castle Point	Con	absent
Mark Hoban	Fareham	Con	absent
Nick Hurd	Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner	Con	absent
Chris Kelly	Dudley South	Con	absent
Eleanor Laing	Epping Forest	Con	absent
Ian Liddell-Grainger	Bridgwater and West Somerset	Con	absent
Patrick Mercer	Newark	Con	absent
Anne Milton	Guildford	Con	absent
Sheryll Murray	South East Cornwall	Con	absent
Jesse Norman	Hereford and South Herefordshire	Con	absent
Claire Perry	Devizes	Con	absent
Stephen Phillips	Sleaford and North Hykeham	Con	absent
Mark Prisk	Hertford and Stortford	Con	absent
Lee Scott	Ilford North	Con	absent
Mark Spencer	Sherwood	Con	absent
Gary Streeter	South West Devon	Con	absent
Graham Stuart	Beverley and Holderness	Con	absent
Edward Timpson	Crewe and Nantwich	Con	absent
Andrew Tyrie	Chichester	Con	absent
Paul Uppal	Wolverhampton South West	Con	absent
Nadhim Zahawi	Stratford-on-Avon	Con	absent
Gregory Campbell	East Londonderry	DUP	no
Nigel Dodds	Belfast North	DUP	no
Jeffrey M Donaldson	Lagan Valley	DUP	no
William McCrea	South Antrim	DUP	no
Ian Paisley Jnr	North Antrim	DUP	no
Jim Shannon	Strangford	DUP	no
David Simpson	Upper Bann	DUP	no
Sammy Wilson	East Antrim	DUP	no
Lady Hermon	North Down	Ind	no
Joe Benton	Bootle	Lab	no
Ronnie Campbell	Blyth Valley	Lab	no
Tom Clarke	Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill	Lab	no
Rosie Cooper	West Lancashire	Lab	no
David Crausby	Bolton North East	Lab	no
Tony Cunningham	Workington	Lab	no
Jim Dobbin	Heywood and Middleton	Lab	no
Brian H Donohoe	Central Ayrshire	Lab	no
Robert Flello	Stoke-on-Trent South	Lab	no
Mary Glindon	North Tyneside	Lab	no
Paul Goggins	Wythenshawe and Sale East	Lab	no
Dai Havard	Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney	Lab	no
Michael McCann	East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow	Lab	no
Jim McGovern	Dundee West	Lab	no
Iain McKenzie	Inverclyde	Lab	no
George Mudie	Leeds East	Lab	no
Paul Murphy	Torfaen	Lab	no
Stephen Pound	Ealing North	Lab	no
Frank Roy	Motherwell and Wishaw	Lab	no
Jim Sheridan	Paisley and Renfrewshire North	Lab	no
Derek Twigg	Halton	Lab	no
Mike Wood	Batley and Spen	Lab	no
Anne Begg	Aberdeen South	Lab	absent
Gordon Brown	Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath	Lab	absent
Alex Cunningham	Stockton North	Lab	absent
Bill Esterson	Sefton Central	Lab	absent
Pat Glass	North West Durham	Lab	absent
Roger Godsiff	Birmingham, Hall Green	Lab	absent
David Heyes	Ashton-under-Lyne	Lab	absent
Jimmy Hood	Lanark and Hamilton East	Lab	absent
Lindsay Hoyle	Chorley	Lab	absent
Khalid Mahmood	Birmingham, Perry Barr	Lab	absent
Michael Meacher	Oldham West and Royton	Lab	absent
Ian Mearns	Gateshead	Lab	absent
Dawn Primarolo	Bristol South	Lab	absent
Yasmin Qureshi	Bolton South East	Lab	absent
Virendra Sharma	Ealing, Southall	Lab	absent
Gavin Shuker	Luton South	Lab	absent
Stephen Timms	East Ham	Lab	absent
Shaun Woodward	St Helens South and Whiston	Lab	absent
Alan Beith	Berwick-upon-Tweed	LDem	no
Gordon Birtwistle	Burnley	LDem	no
John Pugh	Southport	LDem	no
Sarah Teather	Brent Central	LDem	no
Norman Baker	Lewes	LDem	absent
Martin Horwood	Cheltenham	LDem	absent
Charles Kennedy	Ross, Skye and Lochaber	LDem	absent
Greg Mulholland	Leeds North West	LDem	absent
John Thurso	Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross	LDem	absent
David Ward	Bradford East	LDem	absent
Jennifer Willott	Cardiff Central	LDem	absent
Alasdair McDonnell	Belfast South	SDLP	absent
Margaret Ritchie	South Down	SDLP	absent
Pat Doherty	West Tyrone	SF	absent
Michelle Gildernew	Fermanagh and South Tyrone	SF	absent
Paul Maskey	Belfast West	SF	absent
Conor Murphy	Newry and Armagh	SF	absent
Stewart Hosie	Dundee East	SNP	absent
Angus MacNeil	Na h-Eileanan an Iar	SNP	absent
Angus Robertson	Moray	SNP	absent
Michael Weir	Angus	SNP	absent
Eilidh Whiteford	Banff and Buchan	SNP	absent
Pete Wishart	Perth and North Perthshire	SNP	absent
John Bercow	Buckingham	Speaker	absent

Absolutely bloody nothing, it turns out. Ctrl+F and see if your representative turns up, because mine bloody well did. Deep joy. 

I took all names from the Public Whip, original link here: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2013-02-05&number=151&display=allpossible

If I placed someone's name in error, please let me know and I'll edit it as soon as possible.

*it turns out we have tellers and can vote both or something? I... whatever. The Public Whip does explain, and I like politics, but even I can have my brain shut down in self-defense from reading political jargon.

New post up tonight or tomorrow

Just an FYI - I have an article written and ready to go. However, as I am using some stuff from the fantastic www.publicwhip.org.uk site, I thought it polite to ask them first. If they would rather I didn't, that is fine, and I'll just have a direct link to the relevant part.

Regardless, the post will be up tomorrow, meeting my weekly self-imposed deadline.

One of these days I will narrow it down to a day of the week, I swear.

Grumpy Valentines Day grump grump

The last dregs of the Christmas tinsel has been cleared away, the New Year Sales signs have retreated into the back... so it's time for the next round of festivities, Valentines day. Every time it swings around, I have the same thoughts running through my head.

Firstly, I am highly aware that it's no more than a cynical cheap ploy by card manufacturers to pull in some cash in the period between Christmas and Easter. I know I am capable of telling my wonderful girlfriend that I love her whenever I want (usually after breaking something of hers by accident), and can throw elaborate demonstrations of my love whenever I feel like (usually by actually tidying up some of my mess that I leave liberally in my passing), and we're both adults, and so can buy chocolate and alcohol whenever we damn well please. I'm not past the magic, there was no magic to begin with.

But... the whispering voices suggest. Isn't it nice to buy flowers, to buy chocolates, to buy cards and make a big deal of the woman I love?

Er, yes, it is, but the reason I haven't bought flowers recently is because it's fucking winter and I haven't seen any nice deals, we still have chocolate left over from Christmas...

Just do the fucking holiday already, the whispers snap.

Hey hey hey! I respond back, because there ain't no argument like an inner-head argument. I never said I wasn't going to do it, and I never said I was going to resent or do it without anything less than enthusiasm. At which point the whispers get confused, and I have to patiently explain to them that making a point about the shallowness of the festivities doesn't involve refusing to be a part. I can be aware of the cynical invention whilst enjoying it regardless. It's a day to do something a little out the norm to show your love, affection, and gratitude, in a way that is the norm, and that's not just fine, that's wonderful. Like when most of the conversations with your mother occur only around Christmas and Mother's Day; sometimes it's nice to have a societal-backed event to remind you that you should be paying attention to the people that you care about.

It's just that I dislike the fact it took a shady card conglomerate to make it happen.

Also, straight up declaring you don't 'do,' Valentines day? Dick move. Have fun sticking it to the man and being totally alone, chump. Sometimes we do the ritual 'cos regardless of the ritual, not doing it is quite frankly a douche play to everyone else.

Also the cards in question.

Yeah, finally telling my girlfriend I love her was not only a great life event and yadda yadda, it really made card shopping so much easier. Look at Valentines day cards. They go:

Wife Cards--> Finance Cards--> The Woman I Love Cards--> Comedy Girlfriend Cards--> Victims of My Stalking Cards.

However, in the earlier stages of our relationship, this was a wholly unworkable system. I mean clearly, wife and finance cards are out, stalker cards finally out at this point, but due to cowardice the Woman I Love cards are out and I'm down to a Comedy Girlfriend card which really wasn't appropriate any more.

In fact, those Comedy Girlfriend cards seem barely appropriate for anyone, at any stage of a relationship. How many card have you seen with the not-said but implied meaning; 'I sort of care for you as a whole person, but I'm mostly in love with certain parts of you that you let me touch. With my hands AND my willy.'

So I was forced to trudge around shop after shop, to find a card hidden at the back underneath an inexplicable collection of Chinese New Year and Thanksgiving cards, which took the girlfriend subject seriously enough yet not so serious to causally throw around words I was too scared to use. So. First saying 'I love you'; not just a life event but also makes card shopping just that much more convenient.

Admittedly, nowadays it's a bit easier. I mean, for Christmas, I got a Christmas card from my dad which was a 'To My Son and His Partner Card,' which is bloody specific, perhaps hinting at 'To My Idiotic Son Who Should Hurry Up And Marry Her, I Want Grandkids' or maybe 'To My Son and His Room-mate He Claims Is 'Just A Really Close Friend,' But You've Lived With Him For Eight Years, Moved Into A House Together, And We Do See Your Facebook Photos, You Can Come Out The Closet As We Love You And Barry Is A Swell Guy Anyway Who Always Lets Me Beat Him At Golf.' I mean, it did seem kinda unisex in decorations on the front. Which is ever more specific, come to think or it, and good on whoever the company was who made it. Probably not Clintons, not on account of any company based homophobia, more on account of company-based bankruptcy due to people figuring out there were much cheaper options.

It's just that Valentine's Day's everywhere. And it's not like Christmas, where you can get a present and the recipient has no idea what it could be, as the recipient is walking past what they're going to get every time they go food shopping. I mean, flowers, chocolates, they're pretty much standard and I can't think or much else that's penetrated the Valentines day gift market and heh. Penetrated. Penetration and Valentines day do you get... okay back to serious face now. I mean, you pick up a really nice box of chocolates, and as you look down you realise they've slashed the price down to 57p and you know, you just know, if it was got for you, you'd be flattered... and at the back of your mind you'd go 'Wait, didn't I see that box go for 57p? Huh. Cheap-ass. Shows how much they care.' So off you go looking for a obscure box to keep some degree of mystery about how much you spent. I mean, it isn't about the amount you spend. We all know this. You just don't really want to bring attention to the final amount, to have the receiver to only have an approximation, not the exact amount with the change left over from a fiver. So if you're wondering that I'm complaining about the stereotypic gifts for a holiday suddenly dropping in prices rather than the opposite to scalp people, yes I am. I don't want to look like a cheap-ass.

Look, this is not me being a grump I swear, I just... couldn't we get a box? A box of all the Valentines day stuff. We have it in the store, right, and when we want to actively look for gifts, we look in the box. That way, we can find and buy the stuff we want, and as it's not in our eye-line all the damn time we'd not have price subliminally drilled into our skulls.

Hmm. Maybe if I got the day off I'd stop seeing all the cynical background, 'cos I'd be too busy cynically enjoying the day off. Hell, we get the fewest amount of bank holidays in Europe, why not?

Er. Actually, come to think of it, make the 15^th the day off. For, ya know, reasons.

Seems a better idea.