Top 5 Events of the Year

Last "Of the Year". Promise.

So, Top 5 events of the year:

5. Gordon Brown saves the world. We've seldom had such a good insight into how Gordon Brown thinks, but his audacious claim to have saved the world just shows this man's arrogance - and how detached he is from reality.

4. Boris Johnson becomes Mayor of London as the Labour party faces electoral wipeout. I'm no fan of the Tories, but it was wonderful to see the once mighty Nu Labour machine get royally fucked at the polls.

3. David Davis resigns. On a point of principle. And on one of the most important issues facing the UK. I doff my (completely imaginary) hat in his direction. Once again.

2. Obama is elected President of the United States of America. Many events are called historical by hyperactive journalists; few actually are. This would be a great example of an event that genuinely deserves to be called historical.

1. Lehman Brothers goes out of business. It was at this point that the credit crunch really bit, and the global economy went down the toilet. I think you can trace so many moments - like McCain's campaign for President falling apart, the UK government part nationalising banks, Gordon Brown's baffling resurgence in the polls - back to this one event.

Anyway, that's enough "Of the year" posts. So I'll take this opporunity to wish everyone a very Happy New Year, as I am heading off to enjoy a couple of light ales to see in that new year.

Quantum of Solace

So, watched Quantum of Solace last night. Yes, I know it has been out for *like* forever, but some of us have been busy.

And it was good, y'know. Enjoyed it. Glad I went to see it. And that is pretty much all I have to say about it. It was hardly and era-defining, genre challenging addition to the series, but was far from being amongst the worst of the series (Diamonds Are Forever and A View to a Kill stand up and take your bow). It was well worth watching.

I'm not going to add to the debate about whether Craig is a good Bond or not, or whether the series has moved in the right direction. What I will observe is this - if you want your Bond films to reflect the source material (the books of Ian Fleming) then Craig, and Timmy Dalton, are for you. If you want to watch more fantastical, cliched yet entertaining nonsense then go take a look at The Spy Who Loved Me or Moonraker. But let's not tear apart individual Bond films; with so many of them now out there, you can really say there is something for everyone. 

Blogs of the Year (and the ones to watch)

The blogs I've enjoyed reading most this year:

5. Guido Fawkes: A great source of controversy and gossip, even if the homophobia and racism of some of the comments sometimes leaves me feeling a little sick.

4. Iain Dale: The polite version of Guido. Yes, the relentless promotion of the Tories and of Dale himself is more than a little wearing, but get past that and there are some interesting and thoughtful posts.

3. Mr Eugenides: Intelligent swear blogging by a baby. And the home, albeit briefly, for my good friend and blogging cohort The Moai.

2. LPUK blog: The blog of a party that will hopefully become more visible next year and also be in a position to contest elections. The different voices posting on this blog make it a refreshing and varied read. Plus, it is the blog of the party I'm a member of so it is going to get a plug here.

1. The Devil's Kitchen: Sometimes too much, sometimes wrong, sometimes just too much but always worth a read. Not so much a blog as a force of nature.

And the blogs I think I'll be starting to read a lot more next year:

5. Question That: Well argued and generally intelligent Libertarianism.

4. Nation of Shopkeepers: As above. Although just a tad more angry.

3. Letters From A Tory: I like the letter format, and there is a refreshing breadth of topic covered off on this blog.

2. I am Livid: Mr Angry has a real turn of phrase, and with his relentless yet entertaining cynicism he's rapidbly becoming one of my (what some would call) daily reads.

1. The Daily Mail Tendency: Because, I swear to God, we're going to do something with this next year. It is a great idea, being held back by the indolence of the two contributors. With that in mind, if you would like to contribute to the The Daily Mail Tendency, then drop me a line. The only criteria is you have to believe that The Daily Mail is a cancerous wart on the face of British society. My e-mail address is thenamelesst[at]yahoo[dot]co[dot]uk.

That's it for today, folks. Happy reading!

The Immoral Nu Labour

Ignore the questions around the seperation of Church and State and instead just savour the Anglican bishops who have gone on the attack and given Nu Labour a mauling:

"The government isn't telling people to stop overextending themselves, but instead is urging us to spend more... That is morally suspect and morally feeble. It is unfair and irresponisble of the government to put pressure on the public to spend in order to revive the economy."

So there we have it - Nu Labour being described by Bishops as morally suspect and feeble. What makes this even sweeter is the is a government once run by a man who has converted to Catholicism, and is currently being headed up by the son of a Scottish Church Minister. 

But it is not just in the area of morality where the Nu Labour project is both suspect and feeble. In fact, their moral failings come from a failure of ideology. Nu Labour does not, and never has, believed in anything. It is a mix of half-baked policies and dull truisms brought together to form an anodyne, electorally neutral manifesto, devoid of principle, ideological coherence and in desperate need of a moral compass. Nu Labour is immoral not because it tells people to spend when they can't spend, but rather because the whole project is fundamentally amoral. It isn't about right or wrong, but simply the pursuit of power at all costs. The reason why Nu Labour is urging people to spend right now is not down to morality, but rather a desperate (and most probably in vain) hope that such spending will reinvigorate the economy and push people towards voting for them again whenever the next election happens.

And before anyone gets all excited from the Tory camp, let me point out that the Tories are not any different. They too are a PR exercise in search of an idea. Just look at their response to the financial crisis - they are saying nothing. They are offering nothing. They are muted by their own hand, crippled by the over-riding fear that saying anything at all might have them pegged as the nasty party again, and therefore consigned to electoral oblivion once more. They lack an ideological spine, they lack a moral base. Their whole ethos is built around a desire for electoral success. Questions of right and wrong are completely secondary to that concern.

The Libertarian ideology has something to say within this debate, and offers a clear moral choice. By removing the state from people's lives to a large extent, we allow them to make the moral choice for themselves on so many different levels. The government should not tell the population to spend; equally, it should not be arrogant enough to tell them not to spend. Rather, the government should let people make their own choice, and take responsibility for themselves. People may get it right, or they may get it wrong. But at least they have made the choice themselves. 

Bands of the Year

Actually, I haven't bought enough music this year to do an albums of the year category, so instead a list of the bands I have been listening to most this year. All are worth a listen, so if you haven't done so already, go do so:

5. The Arcade Fire

4. Manic Street Preachers

3. Creedence Clearwater Revival

2. The Who

1. British Sea Power

Yep, not all of them are new - in fact, some of them are pretty old. Just goes to show that I have a great taste in music/am defiantly unfashionable (delete as appropriate).

Politicians of the Year

Some suprises, maybe:

5. Vladimir Putin: If only for his audacity. And for reminding the world that faintly sinister looking baldies shouldn't be underestimated.

4. Gordon Brown: no, really. Probably fifty percent of the posts on this blog have been slating that cunt in some way, so I have to acknowledge that he is a key source of inspiration for me. And in fairness to the evil git, he's managed to pull off one of the most remarkable political comebacks in history despite shafting the economy over the past decade.

3. David Davis: For reminding me that politicians can have principles, and why I voted for him as Tory leader rather than that feckless youth currently heading up the Conservative party.

2. Boris Johnson: Yes, he's been a bit of a wet fart with totalitarian instincts since being elected, but he scores points for actually being a Tory who can win an election and for finally ridding London of that outrageous piss midget Ken Livingstone.

1. Barack Obama: For obvious reasons. Seriously, like him or loath him, you have to concede the guy has achieved a massive amount. This time last year, he was an outside bet for Democratic nominee for President. Next month, he will be sworn in as Bush's replacement. Fair play to the guy.

Films of the Year

Amazingly, two of them are Spanish horror movies. Can't say I'd ever seen a Spanish horror movie prior to this year. Unless you count Tesis as a horror.

5. The Orphanage

4. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

3. Rec

2. The Darjeeling Limited

1. The Dark Knight

In fairness, it has been an excellent year for films and it was a struggle to come up with just five options for that list. If you haven't seen the films in the list, I'd really urge you to.

...Of the Year

All the main media outlets are doing it, which means there's a bandwagon. And I'm sure as hell going to jump on it. So, over the five days, you're going to get my top five lists of things over the course of the year. I may post about other stuff, but frankly it is Christmas, and I can't be bothered to spend too much time blogging, so you may have to make do with these lists. Or, y'know, spend less time on t'interweb.

Normal blogging (whatever the ruddy fuck that is on this blog) will resume in the New Year.

The Next Doctor

Well, I hope everyone had a very Merry Christmas Day. I certainly did - numerous treats, enhanced by what has now become a tradition - the Christmas Day episode of Doctor Who.

And I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed The Next Doctor. A good blend of adventure and emotion, it was perfect Christmas Day entertainment. It did not pause for a second, and the episode built to a sterling climax - it may yet become one of the iconic images of the series - The Doctor fighting the Cyber King in a hot air balloon over the streets of Victoria London. In terms of ambition, scope and imagination, it has to be said that Doctor Who shits on previous Christmas Day staples. Like Only Fools and Horses.

Particular highpoints for me were the Cybershades, the "Bravo, sir!" shouted by the Londoners up to the Doctor, and the Doctor grudgingly agreeing to having a Christmas lunch. And there were some weak points to the episode; the Next Doctor wasn't a Doctor at all, and as a result it felt a little like a cop out (but I suspect it always was going to). And the Cybermen were underused, probably owing to the sheer number of elements in the story. But these are minor gripes, and overall I am just pleased that my favourite TV show is being shown, on prime time, on Christmas Day. And is bloody brilliant at the same time. 

Banning booze... from being by the cheese!

The Drinkers Alliance are doing a survey - go take a look, sign-up etc etc.

What did amuse me, though, was this quote from an e-mail about their survey:

Virtually all of the respondents thought that the Government's idea to make people queue up twice - buying alcohol at a special supermarket checkout - was flawed and our community has overwhelmingly rejected the politicians arguments that wine can't be sold next to cheese!

That's right, the people taking the survey have the good sense to realise that not selling booze next to cheese is not going to make a blind bit of fucking difference to the drinking habits of the nation. The only staggering thing is that the politicians who run this country thought it might. I'd say it makes despair of them, but the truth is, I despaired of them a long time ago.

Still, I'm off to the supermarket now to pick up some final supplies for Christmas. And I'd like the government to rest assured that any alcohol I buy will be a result of me wanting to buy alcohol. Not because it is located next to the cheese. And as a heads up, a special checkout queue wouldn't make do anything other than to piss me off just a little bit more.

Bears shit in the woods, just as the Pope talks shit

In this season of goodwill, some see it as customary to put differences to one side and embrace those people who, perhaps for the rest of the year, you have some differences with. For others, such as the Pope, it is the time to slag off anyone who does not live in a way he deems suitable:

In his address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration, he described behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work" and said that the Roman Catholic Church had a duty to "protect man from the destruction of himself".

And:

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official described homosexuality as "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound".

So sayeth a celibate man in a dress who lives in a palace a loooonnng way from the real world.

The irony is, of course, that Benedict's words - and the stance of the Catholic church as a whole - shows that it isn't homosexuality that is a deviation, an irregularity or a wound. Rather, it is the archaic, intolerant and out-moded Catholic church that matches that description perfectly.

Observation of the Day

There were a lot of Christmas parties in Central London last night. At least judging by the amount of chunder liberally splashed on the pavements this morning.

Quote of the Day

From The Times:

Nolan has taken great care to, within the constraints of our believing an impossibly toned and trained billionaire fighting crime in a fetish ninja suit, create a credible superhero.

A very accurate description of Batman, methinks.*

*Generally speaking I think people who say methinks should be shot, so I won't be using that term again.

The Tories' Failed 2008

This should have been the year of the Tories. When they finally threw of the shackles of unpopularity that has so damned them since circa 1992, and became the likely party to form the next government. Cameron should be the indisputable Prime Minister in waiting, and the Tories should be acting with the confidence we last saw from the Labour Opposition from 1995 onwards.

And for a lot of the year, it looked as if this might happen. For the first part of the year, the polls showed Brown was about as popular as Mr Bean - if Mr Bean was a sex offender. And Labour behaved just as you might expect from a bloated, rudderless party sailing towards the rocky shores of electoral oblivion. They turned on each other like a pack of cannibals who have been fasting for a while but have just remembered how great eating each other can be.

On the flipside, Cameron stayed popular in the polls, and grudgingly liked by the people. Even his sickening holiday snaps were lapped up by the press - if only because they were less ghastly than those from Brown. But it was then - around about the time of everyone's summer holidays, that it all started to fall apart for the Tories again.

The sudden return to infighting did not help. The Shadow Chancellor did not need the Labour party to call for his resignation - there seemed to be enough people in his own party who were willing to do that. And when you think that his crime was just simply holidaying aboard a yacht and not taking a dubious donation... Lord, the Tory rank and file need to realise that socialising with the stupidly rich is not going to be the exception for this Tory leadership team, but rather the norm.

However, the real problem the Tories have at the moment is they are fundamentally failing to act as the opposition. And they are failing to do anything. Sure, their scope for action is limited, but at the moment the population as a whole is seeing Gordon Brown doing *something*, whilst the Tories occasionally mumble disapprovingly in their general direction. The Tories should be angry. They should be strident. They should proactively be offering an alternative to the Nu Labour spending spree currently happening in this country. They need to, you know, oppose - as opposed to meekly sitting and watch Gordon Brown and his team of evil flying monkeys drag this country further into the shit.

The Tories need to be showing they have teeth. They need to be talking about tax cuts, they need to be talking about spending cuts - not tax cuts at some point in the future if they are properly costed and not talking about cuts in the growth of government. This is not the time to be a consensus politician. Blair got away with in in 1997 because the economy was doing ok. Now, it really isn't. And the party who offers an alternative to the (largely shitty) status quo will be the one who wins the next election - even if their ideas are (like Labour's) free form bollocks. And that is what we are seeing right not.

I'm not excited by the prospect of a Tory victory right now, but I'm pretty depressed at the idea of another five years of Gordon Brown's "policies". But the Tories have many fervent supporters throughout the country, and they want their party to be in power after the votes have been counted after the next election. And the Tory slide in the polls shows there is only one way this is going to happen. If the Tories start fighting. If they start being the opposition.

Cameron's Conservatives appear to be so terrified of being perceived as the nasty party that they don't want to take the fight to Brown. This is, of course, nonsense. They need to be careful of being perceived as the nasty party towards the British public - but at this point, there is everything to be lost and nothing to be gained by the Tories continuing to mutely accept what the government is doing. As crude as it sounds, they need to be chanting at Brown "you're shit, and you know you." In fact, literally doing that in the House of Commons would be a step forward for the Tories. They'd be more like Her Majesty's Opposition. Rather than looking like a gaggle of disapproving, worried youths.

1,000

This, Ladies, Gents and undecideds, is the 1,000th post on this blog. In order to celebrate this landmark, I was going to write a long, detailed post about the changes in my political beliefs over the years and explain exactly why I feel most at home as a Libertarian. Then I realised that would take far too long, and would require more thought than I really want to put into any post on a Sunday morning.

So instead, to celebrate the 1,000th rant/ramble on this blog, I give you three things that you probably haven't seen, but should, before you die:

Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives: No, really. An awesome film. An eighties slasher movie with a sense of humour. Yes it is mindless, violent and silly. But it is at least self-aware and does not take itself too seriously. As a result, you have a resolutely tongue in cheek horror movie that is far more entertaining that the navel gazing Scream series, and far more watchable than other slasher movies of the time.

Doctor Who: Ghost Light: Popular opinion would have you believe that Doctor Who went off the boil in the eighties, and that Sylvester McCoy is the worst of Doctors. Popular opinion would tell that Tony Blair was a good idea, in not just 1997, but also 2001 and 2005. So we can ignore popular opinion... Doctor Who became very good again under McCoy, and Ghost Light is a great example of that. A gothic science-fiction story set in the Victorian era and dealing with themes such as evolution and empire, it really should be required viewing for anyone who thinks that the period between Tom Baker relinquishing the role and RTD becoming producer was just a waste of time for the show.

Threads: Be warned, this is not for the faint-hearted. Some of the images within this film are very, very difficult to shake off. But if you want an intelligent, thought-provoking and challenging idea of what a nuclear war would actually be like, then this is it. Gripping from start to finish, it is a terrifying glimpse of what the aftermath of World War Three would actually be like, away from the Hollywood glossy version of post-apocalyptic.

Anyway, that's enough of this sort of thing. Roll on the next 1,000 posts; of arbitrary observations, impotent swearing at politicians and occasional cheer leading for the Libertarian Party. Personally, I can't wait.

That "Can-do Attitude"

Gordon Brown on his plans for the next year:

"Britain can and must be a beacon of hope and opportunity for the future. With our fighting spirit and our can-do attitude, I am confident that we can meet all the challenges ahead."

Lordy. I suppose we should be pleased that the Prime Minister stopped just short of invoking the spirit of Dunkirk, but judging by the language, it was a struggle. Gordon Brown attempting a motivational pep talk. Yes, it is as hideous as it sounds.

But it is this notion of having a can-do attitude that worries me, particularly when it is coming from Brown's mouth. Since the economy finally disappeared around the U-bend in the mighty toilet bowl of life, we've seen Brown really adopting a can-do attitude. To qualify: Brown can do whatever the hell he wants, with our money, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. And to be honest with you, I am not sure that is a good thing on any level.

Let's look at where this can-do attitude has got us. The government now owns - using our money - substantial stakes in a number of failed or failing financial institutions. It is looking to regulate more, and punish entrepreneurs in the banking sector. The government has crippled the financial sector in not just this country, but also in Iceland. And the housing market continues the sort of descent that one normally associates with a suicidal person jumping off the top of a tall building. To top it all, the taxation policy of this government is alarmingly all over the place, and has not been costed. At all. In any way.

Frankly, the country cannot afford any more of Gordon Brown's can-do attitude. He and his badger faced joke of a Chancellor have spent money like it is going out of fashion, and what to they have to show for it? The economy is still as falling apart quicker than a leper with eczema.

I'd find it far more comforting if Gordon Brown actually pledged to do nothing for the first few months of next year. Sure, if he elected to just leave the economy alone, then things might not get any better. However the repeated, hideously costly, government interventions haven't helped either, and have just created a crippling debt that this nation will have to pay off in the future. Frankly, Brown doing more things should be a hideous fear for everyone within this country. What he has done so far hasn't stopped the pain of this recession, and is going to create one of the worst economic hangovers ever in the future.

Gordon Brown on some GMTV presenter who has just quit:

"Congratulations on the support that you've won throughout the country."

Too many comments, too little time. All I will say is that Brown manages to come across as mealy mouthed and anal even when offering congratulations to someone who hopefully does not give the first fuck for him or his opinions. I really do wonder why that man bothers.

I'd love for Brown to send me a letter of congratulations - if only so I could defecate in the envelope and mark it "return to sender."

Happy Anniversary, Calamity Clegg

BBC News:

"The Lib Dems are offering a "sense of hope and direction" for people suffering in the current economic climate, Nick Clegg has said."

Really? The Lib Dems are offering a sense of hope and direction? Since when? And why wasn't I informed?

Of course, this is all hyperbole designed to get Clegg some positive press after a year in the job of leading Britains failed - sorry, third - party. It may be a surprise to some that Clegg has been in his job for a year. It may be a surprise to others to realise that Clegg is the leader of the Lib Dems, rather than the increasingly ridiculous Vince Cable. Because, let's face it, Clegg is a shit leader for a political party. No two ways about it - he is just fucking crap.

This is one of the first times in the previous year that he was actually made the news. He seems to think that silence is a virtue, and that the last thing he wants to do is raise the profile of the party that he leads. The Lib Dems can claim they are offering hope and direction as much as they like; their leader seems pathologically incapable of communicating that message in any way.

The sole selling points of Nick Clegg are that he is not old and he is not a drunk. Perhaps the Lib Dems, when choosing their next leader, should consider someone who is actively good, rather than just someone who isn't immediately, and obviously, embarrassing.

Libertarianism and Being Positive

One of the challenges of being a Libertarian is dealing with the frankly incorrect and often ignorant views about this ideology. There are too many objections, too many misinterpretations, to deal with in just one blog post. Frankly, it would take an epic volume to fully dispense with the myriad of objections that Libertarians encounter, and I sense that even if that volume was written, Libertarians would still face objections that begin “yeah but…”

But I want to deal with two objections that pretty much sum up the crucial arguments people make against the Libertarian cause because they also illustrate some crucial points about why I personally am a Libertarian – and one of the crucial problems encountered when people are advocating the Libertarian cause.

First up, we have a comment left at DK’s place about how people present and thus how some people perceive the Libertarian Party of the UK:

Some Libertarians present the party as a shallow "drink and do drugs wherever you like party" with no policy other than wishful thinking.

Well, Libertarians do tend to argue for freedom around drink and drugs. Frankly, I do not think it is any business of the state to legislate on what their citizens put into their bodies and how they live their lives. But it isn’t just about drink and drugs – there are far more fundamental points to be addressed here. It is down to the fundamental Libertarian idea that you own yourself – no-one else should have a claim to your body or the way you live your life. On top of that, there is the question of personal responsibility. As an adult, you should take responsibility about how you live your life and whatever successes and failures you have in your life. By legislating on how much you can drink, and about what substances you can put into your body, the state is removing your right to live your life as an adult. I don’t see a great deal of difference between opposing the state deciding how much of your income you can spend through taxation and the government deciding how much you can spend on getting pissed or stoned. Yes, drink and drug use is more frowned upon in polite society, but the issue is a deeper one – it is a question of personal freedom and personal responsibility.

The other objection the Libertarianism is summed up in this old post from Never Trust A Hippy:

Other examples are, of course, or friends the bloggertarians. Raise a question - any question - and the answer is always 'sack public employees' / 'school vouchers' / 'government can't work' etc. The thick shitheads.

Substitute Libertarian for Bloggertarian, and you have the way many people on the left view the Libertarian ideology. Except, of course, they are spinning what Libertarians actually want to make the ideology as a whole appear negative and attacking.

It is true that a lot of Libertarian proposals involve reduction. And cutting. And, yes, sacking. The whole credos is around reducing cutting government waste, and reducing government power. Part of that realistically means that some people will lose their jobs – but only if they are carrying out a job for the government that does not need to be done. So yes, you could argue that the policies of any Libertarian policies are negative because they involve attacking the status quo and changing the way things are at the moment.

Yet there is a reason why Libertarians want to cut, to reduce, to limit. And it is for very positive reasons. They want to reduce government waste to increase the amount of your money that you have to spend. They want to reduce government power and influence within society to increase the amount of freedom you have to live your life. And, yes, their policies will lead to some government workers losing their livelihoods – but guess what, that will increase the money in your back pocket as well. The means could be perceived by some (and generally by those who believe that state intervention is pretty much the answer to everything) as negative. The end results are extremely positive.

Part of making the case for Libertarianism will inevitably involve the advocates selling their ideas in the most positive way possible. We shouldn’t talk about reducing government waste, we should talk about increasing the net incomes of the taxpayers. We should talk about limiting the government, we should talk about liberating the people in this country. The reality is that so much of modern politics is about getting the right sort of sales pitch. It is very easy for the statist enemies of the Libertarians to argue that it is a negative creed; it is the fault of Libertarians if this deliberate misinterpretation is allowed to stand.

The Libertarian ideology is one of the most optimistic, enabling and life-affirming ideologies you could possibly come across. It aspires to give you more personal responsibility. It will give you more freedom and more of a right to live your life the way you want to live your life. Ignore the spin, ignore the jibes of the statists and of the left-wing. They want to tell you how to live your life; we Libertarians want to let you get on with living your life with minimal interference from anyone else.

Che: Neither big, nor clever, nor cool.

So we have it. Another political biopic. This time of Che Guevara. Now, I’m in no hurry to go see this motion picture, so I’m talking from a point of relative ignorance here. It could be a great film – the sort of intelligent political film-making that we saw with Downfall. Failing that, it could be half-decent – like Oliver Stone’s incredibly biased yet still oddly watchable Nixon. Or it could be a big old bag of bollocks. Like I say, haven’t seen it, so don’t know. What it will have to work hard to do, though, is avoid the sort of meaningless Che worshipping that so many people seem to do across the world.

Still, no doubt the filmmakers have a sense of perspective around their chosen subject. Oh, wait, no they don’t. Producer and leading man Del Toro seems to have very clear ideas on Che:

"I hear of this guy and he's got a cool name. Che Guevara!" Del Toro as good as swoons when he says it. And the appeal does seem as simple as that - groovy name, groovy man, groovy politics… “So I went to a library and I was looking at books, and I came across a picture by René Burri of Che, smiling, in fatigues, I thought, 'Dammit, this guy is cool-looking!'"

I cannot describe how irritating I find this sort of thing. Seriously, it makes me want to punch strangers in the face and unleash some sort of disease into the general population that can directly attack those with the moron gene. This worshipping of a totalitarian ideologue and vicious warmonger shows just how dumb some people can be. Since when has Communism been groovy? What is groovy about it? The Stalinist purges? The killing field of Cambodia? And what sort of fresh bullshit is it to support Che because he was cool-looking? Fuck that. With bells on. He was also a mass-murderer, and some who fought for would-be authoritarian dictators. Deep down, Che is no different from Stalin. Or Pol Pot. Or Kim Jong-Il. Same ideology, same willingness to suppress freedom and murder people for the realisation of a deeply flawed system of political beliefs.

Make no mistake about this – Che was an unpleasant individual. Even some of those on the left argue that he is far from an icon, and actually is a repulsive, unpleasant totalitarian. He was responsible for the executions of political opponents. He helped create the Castro dictatorship in Cuba that – a regime, once you get past the fashionable anti-Americanism of Fidel, has an absolutely reprehensible record when it comes to human rights. Sure, Che is a key historical figure; once you get past the fact that he was more photogenic that other leading communists, it should be pretty plain to see that his historical legacy is largely, if not overwhelmingly, negative.

Che Guervara isn’t cool; he was a mass-murdering enemy of freedom everywhere. And whilst I support the rights of anyone – from pretentious film stars through to pseudo-fashionable youths wearing their Che T-shirts – to believe anything they like about Guevara, I also support my right to call them ignorant morons for their beliefs.

Iceland on the warpath

Gordon Brown is now so unpopular that Iceland is thinking about suing the UK. It can only be a matter of time before someone declares war on us, citing the crass policies and the interpersonal ineptitude of our incumbent Prime Minister as a reason for the attack.

Still, it can be one of Gordon's claims to fame - not only did he break the UK economy but he also managed to break the Icelandic economy.

Shoes Away!

Go watch the footage of the dude throwing his shoes at George W Bush. It is worth seeing in its own right, as it is a great piece of political commentary and an canny review of the eight years of President Bush Junior. But watch it carefully. Watch for the look on Dubya’s face as the shoes sail over his head. Do you see it? Just for a moment, it is there – partially hidden by the blur of the camera movement. But it is there. The smirk. The smirk that so many people have come to know and despise over the past eight years.

See, if someone threw a shoe at me, I wouldn’t smirk. In fact – even if the shoes missed me – I’d be pissed off. I’d probably be using some rather brutal language to express my disgust at their behaviour. But then again, I think I have a very different mindset to George W Bush. That said, I reckon this is what he was thinking as he smirked:

“Hurr, hurr, throwing shoes. Hurr, hurr. Good prank, dude. Gonna do that to Cheney. He’ll love it. Hurr Hurr.”

I just don’t believe that Dubya will take the time to work out why someone elected to throw their shoes at him. It just won’t occur to him that there may have been a reason why someone did this to him. That maybe they might actually have a valid reason for doing this. That maybe Dubya could have learned something about what he has done over the past eight years, and the dreadful impact that some of his actions have had on others.

I don’t doubt for one second that Bush sees life in black and white – a simple, ongoing battle between two clearly defined areas: right and wrong. The Christian, pseudo-democratic beliefs of Dubya and his ilk are RIGHT. And everyone else is WRONG. This insanely simplistic view of the world is bad enough; what really has consigned the Bush administration into being classed as one of the worst in history is his fundamental lack of curiosity. And his inability to change his mind, or look beyond his own (extremely limited) worldview.

It is this inability to change even his most basic beliefs that has so damaged both America and the world. If he had stopped for just one moment to think about why people protest and argue against his actions, then maybe he would have called a halt to some of the disastrous schemes that have so come to define his presidency. Even now, if he stopped to think about why a journalist threw shoes at his face, he could have a positive impact on the world. But we all know he won’t do that. Instead, his measured response to this most idiosyncratic of protests is the same what I’d imagine his response is to every protest – a smirk and a stupid quip.

Which is why Bush will enter the history books as less of a Jed Bartlett and more a presidential version of Beavis and Butthead. He’ll probably go into retirement believing that he is a great President who fought on the side of good. I’d say the vast majority of the rest of the world has more sympathy with the views of the shoe throwing journo rather than with Bush.

Paul McCartney

There’s something about Paul McCartney that winds me up. It isn’t his songs. Yes, he wrote The Frog Chorus. But great musicians are allowed some lapses in taste and judgement. And having written songs like Live and Let Die, Hey Jude, The Long and Winding Road and Maybe I’m Amazed more than makes up for a dodgy moment in the 1980’s – which, less face it, is when most artists chose to leave taste to one side. Paul McCartney is a great song writer – you won’t find me arguing that.

What does bother me slightly is the way he constantly tries to make himself into a more revolutionary figure than he actually is. This article is a great example of this tendency. Paul McCartney – the author of Eleanor Rigby, Lady Madonna and Yesterday, is claiming that he was the one who made the Beatles political. This may be true – it would certainly be difficult to disprove. But everyone knows that, regardless of who made the Beatles political, it was John Lennon who was the true counter-culture icon in the Beatles.

And it doesn’t stop there. I read an article recently in The Guardian’s Guide that was basically about how avant-garde Sir Paul is. Except, the article showed Paul McCartney was not avant-garde, but was close to those who are. Like John Lennon. And the DJ who turned one of tracks into a dance anthem. And his wife when she was taking random photos. Paul McCartney comes across as someone who is desperate to be cool, and in doing so just shows how desperate he is to be seen in the same light as John Lennon.

Ultimately, Paul should let his back catalogue shut up and do the talking. He is a great song writer – better, I’d argue, than Lennon. But his puerile attempts to position himself as some sort of avant-garde icon and political revolutionary is just not going to work.

Gordon Brown... Superman?!?

So, if the leaders of the two main parties were to be superheros, which ones would they be?

Harriet Harman has a suggestion:

Commons leader Harriet Harman responded to Tory MPs in the Commons she would "rather have Superman as our leader than their leader who is The Joker".

Gordon Brown as Superman... well, no, to be honest with you. The Moai and I discussed this at length in the pub last night, and decided that if Gordon Brown was going to be a superhero, then it would have be Batman. Think about it - they are both dark, brooding, angry, dysfunctional, anti-social people who throw around large amounts of money and, on occasion, come across as borderline psychotic.

And as for Cameron being the Joker... the Joker is a charismatic, unpredictable madman who acts as a true nemesis to Batman. The dull, predictable Cameron is probably not going to be the Joker because - alas - he is proving himself to be anything other than a nemesis for Gordon's Batman. If he was going to be a superhero, then The Moai reckoned he would be Iron Man - a feckless, indolent millionaire put in a position of power by his piles of cash. Whereas I would say Cameron is more like the Penguin; portly, posh and a little ridiculous.

As an aside, I would say this sort of debate is perfect for the pub. Whether or not our politicians should be debating this sort of thing in the Commons is open to question; what with the economy disappearing down the shitter and with our troops dying abroad, I'd argue that there are more pressing concerns in front of the Commons. But then again, I hold the political class in so low esteem that comparing themselves to superheros is just as good as them trying to legislate...

UPDATE:

The Moai has some more suggestions: "Peter Mandelson – Two-Face? The Green Goblin? Someone utterly amoral, definitely." And we're agreed that Clegg would be Superman - reasonably good looking, conventional, utterly, utterly dull and a bit of a boy scout. And "Miliband is geeky, annoying, vacuous and worryingly close to Brown. So he’s Robin."

Gordon Brown: Crass and breathtaking

Moments to savour: Peer Steinbruck on Brown's response to the financial crisis:

Mr Steinbruck questioned why Britain was "tossing around billions" and closely following the high public spending model put forward by 20th Century economist John Maynard Keynes.

"The switch from decades of supply-side politics all the way to a crass Keynesianism is breathtaking," he said.

Two great words to sum up Gordon Brown and his policies - crass and breathtaking.

Of course, Brown's ministers have come to his defence, with that hideous Brownite cheerleader/troll Ed Balls in particular arguing that the comments are about German internal politics rather than what it is right to do. I'm not so sure about that; I rather think that - whatever the internal politics of Germany - Steinbruck has a point.

And it will be a point that hopefully more and more people start to understand, especially in this country. Rather than working an economic miracle, Brown is actually pushing the UK towards an economic catastrophe. He is propping up businesses and banks that have failed, at the same time as slashing at taxes randomly whilst raising others. This is the equivalent of an economic epileptic fit. And there is still no word on how this is all going to be paid for.

Yet, we actually know how it will be paid for. Taxes will go up, for everyone, at some point. It is the only way that Brown's abject insanity can be paid for. And that will further depress the economy, as people will have less money to spend. When the dust settles, and when Brown is eventually turfed from power, it may be too late - the UK will be saddled with a debt that cripples the economy and saddles future generations with a staggeringly awful tax burden.

Steinbruck is right, and his comments throw Brown's already dubious claims to be leading the world through this financial crisis into further disrepute. But the crucial point is the first one - Steinbruck is correct in his analysis, and the policies being pursued by Gordon Brown don't make sense.

Broadcasting Death

A programme about assisted suicide - and a predictable howl of outrage from those who oppose assisted suicide and lack the empathy to understand why others might want to take their own life. The Guardian has some gems:

Dr Peter Saunders, a director of the Care Not Killing alliance, branded the film "macabre death voyeurism". He said: "This is taking us a little further down the slippery slope. It seems there is a macabre fascination in this death tourism.

"It's creating the impression that there is a huge demand for this. There isn't. There are only a very few people going over to use this service but an inordinate amount of media coverage. It's all part of a calculated campaign to get the issue back before parliament."

"Death tourism" is a wonderfully misleading phrase. I can just imagine the scene - "Darling, shall we go to Spain this year?" "No, my love, let's head off to Switzerland so I can kill myself". Saunders' language completely denigrates the impossibly difficult decision those who take their own lives have to make. As does the phrase "a huge demand for this." This isn't a commodity, this isn't buying a car or a new pair of pants. This is about people having to make the awful choice as to whether their quality of life moving forward actually warrants continuing to live. Of course there isn't a high fucking demand for this. It is a service for those who have no other choice.

And maybe this is part of a campaign to get the issue back in front of Parliament. But the whole point of Parliament is to debate issues that affect the citizens of this country. And if Saunders is so convinced by his argument, he should have no problem in defending his views in the House of Commons.

Moving onto our second complainer:

Dominica Roberts, of the Pro-Life Alliance, said the programme sent out the message that some people's lives are "worthless", adding: "It is both sad and dangerous to show this kind of thing on the television."

I don't think this is sending out a message that some people's lives are worthless. Rather, I think it shows that sometimes life is not worth living. Take this comment from the documentary's subject:

Before his death, Mr Ewert said: "I'd like to continue. "The thing is that I really can't. When you are completely paralysed, can't talk, can't walk, can't move your eyes, how do you let someone know that you are suffering?"

So yes, it is sad that Mr Ewert felt he had to die; but I'd argue that it is also understandable. But I don't think this is dangerous. What is Roberts expecting? A sudden surge of people heading to Switzerland to commit suicide because it suddenly becomes cool?

But I suppose a lot of the problem is down to the fact that this is being shown on TV. In order to deal with that I'll refer you to this comment:

The veteran documentary maker Roger Graef, who has made more than 80 films, said: ""If someone has allowed the filming to happen I don't see a problem with that. We don't have to watch it. We know it's a film about euthanasia. I think it informs the debate."

Quite. This film adds to the debate around this heartbreaking subject, and both sides of the argument need to be made and understood. And if you don't want to watch it, then turn off the TV.

The Lib Dems Have a New Leader!!

In Wales, anyway:

Kirsty Williams said she had "broken the mould" after being elected Wales' first female party leader in the Welsh Liberal Democrat leadership contest.

The Brecon and Radnorshire AM will replace Mike German after beating Cardiff Central AM Jenny Randerson.

Congratulations to Ms Williams. And in fairness, I have learnt something this morning. That there actually is a Welsh Liberal Democrat party, and that they are big enough to need a leader. Still, this is a historic victory, as Kirsty Williams seems at pains to point out:

"As a party we have broken the mould today by electing a woman," she said.

Which is no mean feat, until you consider the fact that Ms Williams was running against another woman. Really, the Liberal Democrats had to elect a woman as the leader of their Welsh Party. Or alternatively, not vote for anyone to be leader at all.*

Still, I'm being pointlessly cynical because I just think that the Liberal Democrats are a big fat waste of time - doubly so when we are talking about a minor party in a devolved government with limited power. So I wish Ms Williams the very best in her new role. And would encourage her not to follow the lead of Nick Clegg. Otherwise, we'll never hear from her ever again.

*Which, ironically, is what the English Lib Dems have done with their last two choices for their leader.

Hain: It isn't just me, y'know

So, Peter Hain isn't going to be prosecuted over the donations scandal that cost him his place in the Cabinet. So, technically speaking, he is innocent. And let's not get lost in the semantics of this - yes, the police could not find sufficient evidence to charge him, but in the UK that means he is innocent.

Of course, his campaign still failed to declare thousands of pounds worth of donations, so he still fucked up in a massive way. And his defence - that other MPs have been just as careless, if not more so, really does not stand up to close scrutiny. His campaign broke the rules, just as other campaigns have broken the rules. All this means is that Peter Hain is a particularly conspicous turd in a shower of incompetent, rule dodging shits.

On Comment Is Free, Hain argues that MPs should be wary of calling for each other to resign and/or be investigated over dubious donations:

And those MPs who have been too ready to call for police involvement need to understand that any momentary political advantage they might so achieve over opponents actually undermines politics itself.

This is, of course, horse shit. It isn't politicians calling for police involvement that undermines politics, but rather the fact that the police need to be called in at all. It is the politicians breaking the laws and the rules that creates all the problems. And it is that arrogance, that fetid stench of corruption, that is so undermining politics in this country. Hain's defence - that he should never have been investigated, that others are doing it as well - reeks of the self-pity of a kid who was caught with his hand in the sweetie jar. One of the reasons why there is such contempt for politicians in this country is because they all seem to be at it, and it is only one or two of them who are actually exposed and face any sort of penalty.

Knowing Your Right From Your Left... And Not Caring

One of the phrases I see from time to time - sometimes linked to my own ramblings - that irritates me is "right-wing Libertarian." Now, I am a Libertarian - if you haven't picked that up from by blogging pseudonym then you really need to engage those little grey cells. But I wouldn't define myself as right-wing.

Sure, I have some right-wing views. I am very much in favour of capitalism, and believe that government intervention into the economy should be minimised as much as possible. The current state of the UK economy - where the government has spent billions on a rescue package and on nationalising banks and has achieved nothing more than the exacerbation of this crisis - merely increases my faith in the self-regulation of most markets. Likewise, the rhetoric of personal responsibility means far more to me than the endless talk of community and state actions. I do believe that it is down to the individuals within society to make the best of themselves in any way in which they see fit, rather than relying on the state to create some sort of equality of outcome.

However, I also have some very left wing views. I believe that people should be as free as possible within their private lives, and am against any discrimination or state interventions based on gender, race, or sexual orientation. Protecting and increasing our civil liberties should be a political priority as far as I am concerned, and I am instinctively against social conservatism.

Which is why none of the main parties in this country can actually represent my views effectively. The Tories may offer more economic freedom and may wish to control the markets less, but time and time again they fall back on the mindless reactionary rhetoric that appeals to the readers of The Daily Mail. Likewise, the Labour party are generally more pro-social progress; however, they believe the economy is best controlled by the state to a large extent, and are increasingly also trying to regulate other areas of the lives of their citizens - including such mindless activities as trying to control how much alcohol in this country actually drink.

The reason why Libertarians are so often dubbed right-wing is because of the parties that first adopted some Libertarian ideals - the Republicans in the US under Ronald Reagan, and the Tories in the UK under Margaret Thatcher - are traditionally seen as right-wing. Yet neither of those politicians, and neither of those political parties, actually offered what I would define as a Libertarian agenda. Reagan began the drift of the Republicans towards Christian fundamentalism, whilst Thatcher was very much a narrow-minded social conservative. Reagan and Thatcher were looking for a way of justifying their (admittedly needed) economic reforms ideologically. But don't mistake the so-called New Right with being Libertarian.

All the main parties in this country, be they right-wing, left-wing or centrist all look to increase state control in one area or another. And that is why I don't define myself as left-wing or right-wing. In fact, I would claim that being a Libertarian defies conventional ideological analysis - at least if you are going to use the traditional dividing lines of left-wing versus right-wing.

Because ultimately, the right/left divide doesn't mean anything. It all comes down to choosing which areas you want to cede authority and choice to the state. If you want proof, then look at the extremes of both the right-wing and left-wing ideologies. The right-wing extreme is the nightmare of Nazism, whilst the left-wing extreme can be seen in the likes of Stalin and Pol Pot. And, sure, the rhetoric of those abhorrent regimes was completely different - with the Nazi's talking of racial purity and striving for the fatherland whilst Stalin's regime was all about the push to progress, whatever the human cost. But when your remove the rhetoric you have exactly the same thing - the subjugation of the individual and the dominance of the state. The extremes of the right and of the left are not total opposites - rather, they are identical in terms of the way they function and the horrific costs on those who live in those states.

So I am not right-wing; nor am I left-wing. Rather, I favour an ideology that calls for control of the state rather than state control. Traditional left-wing and right-wing parties cannot offer that, since they all favour state control in different ways. So for the record, I am neither left-wing or right-wing. I appreciate it may be difficult for some to grasp that, in a society where all political views tend to be tagged as left-wing or right-wing. However, these categories are actually irrelevant. The real conflict is between those who would increase the power of the state in some way, and those who would control and reduce the influence of the state. The former have dominated the political agenda in the UK and in the West for too long. Now we need to leave behind the simplistic talk of right and left, and start thinking about just how much we want the state to be involved in our lives.

2009

Earlier this week Iain Dale asked who would be the (political) faces of 2009. My guess is it will pretty much be the same faces we have seen throughout 2008, at least in this country. Brown will continue as Prime Minister, ducking any chances for an early election owing to his fear and loathing of actually putting himself to an electoral test. The Labour party has, for reasons that defy understanding, to keep him on as party leader and I can't see that changing either over 2009. Cameron will continue as Tory leader, going up again in the polls and looking more than ever like a Prime Minister in waiting. And Nick Clegg will continue leading the Liberal Democrats - if you can call what he does as leading. 2008 was a year of big change in the US. And I think 2010 will be a year of change in the UK. But 2009 will be more of the same except - owing to the dying economy - even worse that this year.

Which is, just, *smashing*.

Not my fault, guv'nor

There is a well known technique in the world of business - the blame-shower. Something goes wrong, and then the person in charge takes the time (often in a meeting) to pretty much blame everyone else for what has happened and in doing so abdicates all responsibility not just for the problem, but for just about everything else. In the known world. Ever.

And a great example of this is the behaviour of the Speaker of the House of Commons yesterday:

"The Speaker singled out the police for criticism as he sought to explain why they were allowed to raid Mr Green’s Commons office. Mr Martin said that he did not “personally authorise” the search although he admitted that he had been told in advance.

"He told angry MPs that the police advised Jill Pay, the Serjeant at Arms, on Wednesday that they were on the verge of arresting an MP but did not disclose his identity. She told him of the imminent arrest but not the full details. “I was not told that the police did not have a warrant. I regret that a consent form was . . . signed by the Serjeant at Arms without consulting the Clerk of the House,” he said."

It is funny what the Speaker did not know. He did not know there was no warrant. He did not know who the MP was. But let's compare this to what he did know - that the police were going to arrest an MP, and search his office. So, for me, two big questions immediately suggest themselves for the Speaker to have asked in this case. Firstly, "who are they going to arrest?" and then "do they have a warrant?" The failure to ask these questions really does reek of basic incompetence. But fair play, though; it was all the fault of the police anyway. Perhaps what the Commons should do is install some sort of person who can check what the action the police are taking against MPs. Like, say, the Speaker.

Oh.

And this is not the first time the Speaker has shown himself to be as much use as a chocolate fireguard. He has been accused of partisanship in the past, and seems to use tax money to fund a lifestyle that would be the envy of a pre-revolutionary French monarch. Like the Major government, he gives off an air of being in office but not in power. The Labour ranks can claim class bias against Gorbals Mick as much as they like - I'd imagine I'm not alone in not giving the first fuck about his social status. What bothers me - and what should bother everyone else - is his inability to do his job.

Harry Truman used to have a sign on his desk when he was President saying "the buck stops here." The Speaker's sign would read "the buck stops anywhere and everywhere other than here". Which really does make me question what the point is of having this man in a position of power in the Commons. And I think it is time ask the Commons the question "can we have a different Speaker please?"

Protesting? Nah, strike!

Some people will protest at the drop of a hat - over wars, over pay cuts, over pay rises that are deemed too low, and so on. Other people will only protest if they really have to. I'd class myself in the latter camp. I don't protest over everything, but when it comes to key issues like ID cards, I will be protesting like there is no tomorrow when the day finally comes when the government tries to make me carry one.

I'd also class our MPs in the latter category. They seem to meekly accept pretty much everything, but now have found a cause that they *may* actually decide to protest. vAnd what is that cause? Why, having parliamentary offices searched, of course:

The House of Commons Speaker is to make a statement over the decision to allow police to search the offices of shadow immigration minister Damian Green. Michael Martin is expected to face a protest unless he grants a full parliamentary debate on the issue.

Isn't it funny how people become more eager to protest when it is their peers who are under threat, and they think they might be next? I'm not saying our MPs are self-serving, of course not... that would be crazy.

What I would say to our elected representatives is that a protest may not be enough. If they really want to make their case, then they should just go on strike. Down tools; just stop working. Striking is the way forward for our MPs. They can protect their rights by simply refusing to work. And MPs not working on any more generally shitty laws, not continuing to nationalise the financial sector, and not pontificating about issues that they have no intention of dealing with, may have a net benefit for the population as well...

Baby P and the limits of the State

So, the professionals involved in the Baby P case have been suspended, no doubt pending a final sacking later. It is pretty much over for this case, barring the sniping about some of those suspended receiving full pay and that indignant howl of rage that will be heard across the UK when the killers of Baby P are freed in a few years time.

As the dust settles and the initial feelings of visceral horror and despair subside, it is useful to look at what this case actually tells us about our beliefs. On the one hand, it confirms that state intervention is not the answer to every problem. Baby P was seen numerous times by various state representatives, but no real attempt was made to save the child. As the BBC reports:

“Baby P died aged 17 months although he was on the child protection register and was seen by professionals 60 times.”

State intervention in this case did not work. The money spent on the specialists employed in by the state appears to have been wasted. It is difficult to dispute those facts. On face value, a Libertarian such as myself could use this example as resounding proof that state intervention does not always work.

Yet, it is also difficult to make the case for not having state intervention in this tragedy. Having limited or no state employees involved in this case would not have saved Baby P – in fact, it would have made him just as likely to meet his sad end as having 60 encounters with the professionals. I believe that the state is only the answer to a limited number of scenarios and cases. Yet not having such an all-invasive state also will not stop bad things from happening. The Libertarian ideology can’t offer any real solutions to this one.

Which is part of the reason why being Libertarian makes so much sense to me. Those who pursue a statist agenda would argue that state intervention – if done correctly – should be able to stop this sort of thing. But it doesn’t. And on some levels the council in the Baby P case followed the rulebook to the letter. Socialism, and to some extent social conservatism, all argue that human nature is basically perfectible – or at least possible to control. That if the state created the right environment then such things would just not happen. Yet the state does intervene, and babies still die.

My view of human nature is ambivalent. I believe humans are capable of great good and great creativity – and I wish more people would be able to realise it. Yet I also know that people are capable of inflicting misery and being evil. And I know that some people will always find a way to overcome the restrictions of the state – and in some cases use the state – to inflict misery and pursue their evil agendas. It doesn’t matter what the state tries to do; there will be those who still commit crimes and hurt others.

The state intervened repeatedly in the Baby P case, and the child still died. The perpetrators of the crime managed to find (incredibly crude) ways of hiding what was going on. And there is no guarantee that further state intervention could have saved the child either, unless we go down the ludicrous route of taking children from their parents at the first possible sign of any abuse – something that could be just as damaging to many children as the apparent abuse.

In the final analysis it comes down to this: the state was unable to stop those adults from being unbearably cruel to that child. Those ideologies that shriek about “doing something” and “preventing it happening again” are being naïve about human nature. People will go on doing evil and cruel things to each – this is as much a part of human nature as generosity and love. The Libertarian ideology, for me, accepts that, and realises that state intervention is never going to change this simple truth.

Smith and Stalinism

Jacqui Smith isn’t a Stalinist. Oh no. You can tell. Because she said so:

Ms Smith told BBC One's Andrew Marr programme: "There have been a lot of charges thrown around here - the idea that, you know, this is Stalinism, this is a police state. In my book, Stalinism and a police state happens when ministers direct and interfere with specific investigations that the police are carrying out.”

And you know what? She’s right. Stalinism is – in part – what happens when ministers get too involved with the actions of the police. However, sadly for Ms Smith’s argument, Stalinism is also what happens when the police arrest people for the crime of being an opposition politician.

I’ll concede that not everything is known about this case as yet and it is more than possible that more will emerge about Mr Green’s actions – it is possible that he did break the law in some way. But as it stands it looks a lot like Mr Green’s sole crime was being in opposition, and acting as opposition MPs have always acted.

If this was a one off, then I would be less worried about it. But the arrest of an opposition MP seems to be completely in keeping with how our government operates. This isn’t an isolated incident; it seems to be part of an ongoing campaign to reduce civil liberties and suppress debate in this country. We live in a country where you can be imprisoned for 28 days without charge, where you can be arrested for wearing a stupid mask on the streets, where protesting outside Parliament generates the sort of police presence that one might associate with a riot. The government has tried to emasculate Parliament, and is currently trying to put us all on a database, like commodities owned and controlled by the state.

So maybe Jacqui Smith didn’t behave in a Stalinist way over this one incident. But for those who love freedom and our civil liberties, Britain in 2008 is a depressing place to be. It isn’t the individual incidents that make me want to put my head in my hands in despair – Mr Green himself is not the best of MPs, and may yet be proved to have committed a crime. Rather, it is the overall impact that this most egregious of governments is having on the freedoms and civil liberties that have existed, in some cases, for centuries. Green’s arrest is a symptom of a disease within British democracy – and it is a disease that should be concerning everyone within this country.