On David Laws

There's something faintly tragic about the resignation of David Laws. It has that inevitable air to it - he must have known that the controversy about his expenses would go public at some point after he moved to a senior government position, but the fact that it has come so early in the history of the coalition and after what has been a meteoric rise for and a pretty strong performance from Laws since the General Election makes it somehow worse than had it broken in 6 to 12 months time.

And the feeling of tragedy is further enhanced by the reasoning behind his alleged expenses fiddle. He wanted to keep his private life private, and I'd imagine I'm not alone in empathising with that. In fact, I think that our political class would be much improved if it didn't attract the sort of people who were happy to have every aspect of their lives paraded through the papers.

Furthermore, the sums claimed by Laws that appear to have fallen foul of the rules are nothing compared to the vast sums claimed by other MPs - including the ever odious Ed Balls and the obsequious little turd John Bercow. Yet those two - and others - get to strut around with relative impunity, whereas Laws gets less than a month in his job. If there was justice, others would have had their careers ended before Laws.

Yet we shouldn't overlook the fact that David Laws took taxpayer money and used it for his own benefit. And let's be clear on this point - it was for his benefit, even if (as has been claimed) it was for his personal profit. I have a lot of sympathy for someone who wants to keep their private life private; but much of that sympathy evaporates when the expect the taxpayer to fund them as they do so.

It may not be particularly fair that Laws falls while others escape retribution, but that doesn't change the fact that I think Laws was right to resign, and also that he had to go. And if Laws deserves any sort of credit, it is for the fact that he went quickly, without any of the desperate and unseemly clinging to power that was so typical of ministers during the Nu Labour years.

Ashes to Ashes: The Finale

Wrapping up a TV series is a difficult thing to do - particularly when you have a central mystery at the heart of your show, and many of your fans will have already formed their own theories about what is going on. You have to tread a fine line between keeping those fans happy and also offering them something new, as well as keeping everything credible enough for the casual viewer. This was the challenge facing the final episode of Ashes to Ashes - and it also needed to do justice not just to the world of Alex Drake, but also lay to rest Life On Mars and give a respectable end to a character who has become a veritable TV icon - Gene Hunt.

And did the series finale of Ashes to Ashes manage not only to do all of the above, but also manage to do it well? The only possible answer, as far as I am concerned, is "hell, yeah!"

Oh, and there will be spoilers. A lot of them. If you haven't seen the finale, I'd go away and watch it now before you read on.

Overall, I'd say that the finale succeeded far better than I thought it could. I'd always found the ending to Life On Mars to be a little bit jarring - Sam struggles for 15.5 episodes to get home, then manages it, only to find it a bit boring so he jumps off a roof. It didn't quite ring true to the character of Sam. Plus, the beginning of Ashes to Ashes - and in particular, the debut episode - struggled to really work. The stories felt like an over-the-top parody of Life On Mars, and Alex Drake's additional knowledge of the world in which she found herself meant that she struggled (by her own admission in the last episode) to take her situation seriously. And if your protagonist can't take your premise seriously, then you're going to have to work extra hard to get your viewer to take it seriously as well.

But Ashes to Ashes got much better as it went along, giving back stories and therefore a certain gravitas to the more minor characters, and weaving in subtle hints (such as Shaz's anger over who left a screwdriver on her desk in an early episode of Series Three) of what was to come. In the end, the final episode felt like a convincing denouement for the series. More than that, it felt like the authors had always had this ending in mind. As a result, they had the time to make that episode absolutely convincing, when it could have just been exposition to round everything off. Or even just plain bollocks.

There were several very spooky moments in the final episode. Keats trying to tempt Chris, Shaz and Ray into the lift was one of them - particularly when they heard the muffled screams from below. The scenes where the trio also saw their own deaths on video worked very well - in particular, Ray's death managed to be brutal, unsettling, and oddly moving all at the same time. But for me, the spookiest moment was in the rundown old house in the countryside, dirty and still decked out with Union Jacks from the Coronation, where Gene Hunt remembered his own death*, and felt his world crashing in on him.

The episode was poignant too. Perhaps the most moving scenes were given to Alex and Gene. Alex's realisation that she had died was a heart-breaking moment, particularly as she knew that this meant that she would never see her daughter again. It was also a brave move by the programme makers - rather than giving us a cop-out ending and having Drake recovering from a bullet to the brain, they showed that her struggle across three seasons was ultimately pointless. She had to bow to the inevitable. And Gene's refusal to let her stay, even though they had clearly fallen in love, compounded the heartache of their final moments together. Gene was left alone as his colleagues all moved into the bright light of the pub.

But fortunately the series managed to give an emotional departure to Gene's team, but didn't end on a sad note. The final moments, with Gene realising that he had a new detective who'd just arrived in limbo from the future, was a knowing nod to how the series began and hinting that there would always be new cases, and new foils, for the Gene Genie to deal with.

And there were other nods to the past for fans to clock. There was the faint reflection of Sam Tyler in the glass door to Hunt's office at one point. I also liked Keats' jibe about the world of Ashes to Ashes not being how the police actually work; it was a nod to those who've criticised the heavily fictionalised police procedures of the show, but at the same time it was the producers blowing a raspberry at those critics and saying "well, of course it wasn't realistic. It was never meant to be. This isn't reality, stupid." But for me, the most effective nod to the past was the reappearance of the Railway Arms, complete with St Peter Nelson. Nelson had always seemed to know more that he would admit to in Life On Mars - something that was never fully explored. So the fact that he was the one welcoming people from limbo into the afterlife was a nice touch that enhanced Nelson's character. In fact, it makes me want to go and watch Life On Mars again with the knowledge of who Nelson actually is, and see how his responses to Sam fit in with the revelation that he stands at the doorway to the next world.

And despite all this going on, the team still managed to solve a crime in their own inimitable, and completely over the top way. However, this time there was one casualty - Gene's beloved Quattro. Although, judging by the brochure on his desk at the very end, he was able to move on from the sad demise of his car.

Of course, nothing's perfect, and this final episode had its flaws. I could have done with out the hints at heaven and hell - rather like the references to God at the end of Battlestar Galactica, it was a touch of religiosity that did not, for me, add to the story. Still, I suppose I should count myself lucky that these were only hints, rather than explicit references, to life after death. And if there is a heaven - and I end up having to go there - then I hope it is like the one in Ashes to Ashes. All eternity in a pub - I could cope with that...

The other flaw was the character of Keats. He'd been a pretty good foe for Gene Hunt across this season, but in the final episode, the character just became too much. He seemed to appear everywhere, acting more as an irritant than an adversary - particularly in the scene where he was driving Alex and Gene back to London. Furthermore, his increasingly insane behaviour was probably meant to be threatening, but ended up looking pathetic. Yep, I get that he was meant to be the Devil. But if the Devil is a fat-faced man with bad hair who can be defeated just by pushing him away, then the Devil is really over-hyped.

All in all, though, this was a fine end to a great series. And it probably has a message for anyone about to embark on a high-concept series like Life On Mars or Ashes to Ashes - work out where you're going with your series before you start. In fact, I'd almost be inclined to advise such writers to have their final episode in mind before they sat down to write episode one. That way, the overall story can feel like a calculated progression to a planned, satisfying conclusion. That way, it can be as good, and as rewarding, as the end of Ashes to Ashes (and, at the same time, the real end to Life On Mars.)

*I'd clocked that the ghost haunting Alex throughout the season was Gene Hunt, and that he was probably similar to Alex and Sam. I know, I know, get me. This would probably be more impressive, though, had I clocked that everyone else in the series was dead, and it was all set in limbo. Unfortunately, my imagination didn't quite go that far.

Doctor Who: Cold Blood

I once read that writing the first episode of a Doctor Who story was easy - it was rounding off the whole story effectively that created problems. Basically, the first installment is about creating mystery and fear, while the follow-up(s) have to credibly resolve all the strands and plot points created by the first episode. Anyone who's seen the Doctor Who story The Space Museum knows just how badly this can go, and how a great first episode can be destroyed by the episodes that follow.

My big fear for Cold Blood was that it would struggle to positively enhance The Hungry Earth. Because, with the benefit of hindsight, The Hungry Earth was a very slight episode - big on atmosphere but lacking in plot and effective use of the Silurians in their long-awaited return. Which leaves a lot for Cold Blood to achieve. Wrapping up the story, tying up the plot strands from the first episode, making the whole adventure stand out from the crowd, and realising the potential that the Siluarians have shown since 1970. That's a tall order even for the best of writers...

And, let's be honest, Chibnall did OK. His resolution of what he'd set up was alright. It was visually very strong, with a couple of interesting ideas. But it was also incredibly bland. I mean, the whole thing didn't so much feel like a cop-out as a perfunctory run-through of science fiction cliches. You had the evil alien general, the nice alien old scientist, and the wise old leader. And the way it was all resolved was pretty uninspiring. The nice old leader decides to put his people back into hibernation. Sure, it is a way of avoiding the slaughter than has ended previous Silurian (or should we be saying Homo Reptilia now?) stories. But I couldn't help but feel how lucky the Doctor and the humans were. They got a Gandhi-esque figure as leader, rather than the Silurian equivalent of George W Bush. Which is just as well, really, or things could have turned out much worse for the Doctor's posse.

But the whole thing a little like it was going through the motions in places. It wasn't a bad resolution to the story, but it certainly wasn't the epic, intelligent adventure that the Silurians deserved.

Then... then we had the ending. Oh, and - spoilers ahead.

It's a shame that Rory's fate couldn't have been woven in to the story a little more effectively - like Adric's death at the end of Earthshock. But once Rory had been shot, the episode was completely transformed. Mainly because not only did Rory die, but Amy was forced to forget about him by the energy emerging from the crack in the universe. Heartbreaking scenes of a desolated Amy gave way to a poignant scene where she was waving at herself now alone on the hillside. The Doctor is left carrying another secret - that Amy was once in love, and waiting to get married. It is a bold and brilliant moment: much better than simply dropping Rory off as Amy and the Doctor go off for a little bit more pre-Wedding adventuring.

And then... to up the ante even more, we saw what the Doctor pulled from the crack in the universe. An audacious escalation of the story arc.

Tim, a character in Spaced, used to occasionally say "skip to the end" when he was bored of a story. And looking back on it, I reckon that's how I feel about Cold Blood. An OK episode that will probably be most remembered for its great ending.

The Daily Mail Tendency: The Former Sutcliffe Residence

The Daily Mail smells a new serial killer; The Daily Mail gets a hard-on and reckons it has a new salacious story to milk. You can read their story, if you are so inclined, here. Of course, they are not alone in treating this story in shrill, unpleasant manner - that is pretty much the tabloid way. But where The Daily Mail makes a new benchmark for crassness is with the publication of this map:

Can you see what is wrong with the above picture? Can you clock which caption shouldn't be there? Yep, it's the one showing Peter Sutcliffe's home.

Firstly, that isn't Sutcliffe's home, and it hasn't been since last century. As far as I am aware, Sutcliffe is currently resident here. He hasn't lived in that area of Bradford for nearly three decades. So why highlight it as Peter Sutcliffe's home? Well, it is a way of making an already tragic and troubling story even more tragic and troubling. It is a way of upping the hysteria.

Of course, you can make the case that the positioning of Sutcliffe's former house is relevant - after all, it is very close to the place where Stephen Griffiths was arrested, and no doubt some will argue that there are further similarities between Griffiths' murders and those of Sutcliffe. Just as there will be links between Griffiths' crimes and those of many other prostitute killers. However, the location and similarities still don't excuse pointing to Sutcliffe's house on a map of the area. It is creating undue and undeserved attention on the community. It is compounding the attention being given to a city already trying to cope with another bout of serial murder within its boundaries. It may even put the current residents of Sutcliffe's old house and his old street at risk.

The Daily Mail - and other tabloid rags - can speculate away about this new killer, and make any number of spurious comparisons to other murderers. But to point to a specific location that has not housed a serial killer for thirty years is crass, stupid and irresponsible even for The Daily Hate.

Remaking The Prisoner

Regular readers will know that I am not the world’s biggest fan of the remake as a concept. Either something is being remade because it was really good/influential, and as a result the remake struggles to live up to what went before, or it is being remade because the makers can’t think of anything else to do. And so they end up trying to polish a turd. Which, let’s be honest, never goes tremendously well.

There was something inevitable about a remake of The Prisoner. The original was, well, influential – people remember it, but if you actually sit down and watch it, the quality is variable. In fact, the show moved from intriguing to largely unwatchable over the course of 17 episodes. But people still talk about it, and remember it fondly. So there is a natural, ready-made audience for it.

I gave the remake a go. It is recognisably the same series, but with a couple of flaws. First of all, all of the character of the original setting is lost. Instead, it is set in a desert which is a pretty boring setting once the initial novelty wears off. And that happens within the first five minutes. But in a sense the boredom of the desert is perfect for this version of The Prisoner, because it is boring. It is really, really boring. It is so boring that I would happily sit in a dark room in silence rather than watch another episode of it. At least the silence of the dark room would be more interesting that the The Prisoner.

For all of its glaring problems, at least the original version of The Prisoner was never boring. It was often poorly acted nonsense, with no sense of plot, but at least it was diverting. The same cannot be said for the remake. It is beyond dull. The new Number 6 lacks anything even approaching charisma. The original Number 6 had no end of ways to demonstrate his rage at being imprisoned – scowling, gurning, shouting, stomping, being rude and laughing in a way that was simultaneously derisive and slightly constipated. The new Number 6 just appears a bit put out by his imprisonment, and if there was something good on the TV he’d probably just forget about it. Furthermore, Ian McKellen – as Number 2 – is a bit, well, number two. He’s phoning in his performance, clearly hoping that the shoot ends sooner rather than later so he can get back to real acting work. And as for the other people in the show, well, I can’t remember them. They were instantly forgettable.

Part of the problem, I suppose, is that The Prisoner was novel in the 1960s. Nowadays, there is no shortage of high concept shows being aired on TV. And a lot of these are built around an enigma – of putting interesting characters in crazy scenarios surrounded by mystery. I mean, that’s the basic premise of Life On Mars and Ashes to Ashes. However, those two shows realise that it is not enough to just create a mysterious scenario – you need to have interesting characters and great plots as well. That’s where the remake of The Prisoner falls own, and why it falls down so badly – it is a concept in search of a plot, characters, and also in search of something to make you want to watch week after week.

Of course, I only watched two and a half episodes (I fell asleep watching the third episode) so it is possible that the series suddenly got a lot better. But I doubt it somehow. Remaking a show that ended up just going through the motions is never going to work if you go through the motions from the first minute of episode one. There is a scope for a re-imagining of The Prisoner that takes the premise of the show and does something interesting with it – much as the remake of Battlestar Galactica did with its unpromising source material. Unfortunately, this version took the premise of the show and made it really dull.

They really shouldn’t have bothered.

Weller and Foxton - The Eton Rifles

In a way, I hope that this doesn't lead to a reunion of the Jam, if only because reunions almost always look like old men trying to relive the glory of their youth while making a quick buck out of it. That said, there is something faintly awesome about Foxton and Weller performing a Jam classic live on stage after decades of barely being on speaking terms...

Those *Painful* Spending Cuts

I've not commented on the spending cuts announced earlier this week, partly because they felt so inevitable - a bit like the warm weather giving away to the rain. And let's be honest, those cuts were inevitable - and if you don't realise that, then you probably need to go away and find a website more suited to your level of intellect. Like the CBeebies one.

But the response to these cuts seems to have been dull and predictable - with Labour (who, lest we forget, were also committed to making spending cuts) MPs and members treating the cuts as a cross between the plague and limited nuclear warfare. Everyone else seems to be at odds to point out how painful these cuts are.

Yes, these cuts may well be painful, particularly if you are affected by them. However, they are also inevitable and necessary - which seems to be a message that is muted at best, and not even being communicated at all at worst. Let's examine one of these cuts in detail - a reduction on the spending for university places*:

And extra university places and schools services in England are to be cut - Labour had promised an extra 20,000 university places but this has been cut to 10,000.

First things first, it sounds like what is being cut here is extra places - so places on top of the university places already in existence. Which means that there will still be a net increase in the number of people going to university. Making this a cut in additional spending, rather than an overall reduction in spending. I don't know, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like this isn't as scary as it first might sounds.

But even if the number of university places is being reduced then this may well prove not to be such a problem. One of the most stupid things that Nu Labour did was to set an arbitrary level of what percentage of people at a certain age should be attending university - 50%, if memory serves (and it does). It was predicated on two largely false assumptions - that 50% of people are capable of attending university, and that 50% of people will actually find their lives and their career prospects enhanced by attending university. And, of course, this all came out at exactly the time when student loans were introduced. So what we've ended up with is a large number of people attending university to study esoteric topics with remarkably little connection to the real world and saddling themselves with massive debt in the process. Whereas they might have been better served getting a vocational qualification or work experience - which would also eliminate the debt angle.

I'm not saying that certain types of people shouldn't attend university, or that the experience isn't worth the expenditure. What I am saying is that a cut in the number of extra university places created in order to chase an arbitrary and stupid Nu Labour target is not that great a sacrifice. What the Con-Dem's need to do is make this case, and explain to the people not only that the cut is happening, but why it is happening. And just to sweeten the deal for them, they could also throw in a little explanation of what it is Nu Labour's fault that the cut is being made.

At the end of the day, all of these cuts had to happen. If you earn £1,000 a month and spend the money on essentials, and then spend another £500 a month that you don't have on going out and getting wasted, then at some point you're going to hit crisis point and you're going to have to cut back on the money you spend partying. It may be a painful sacrifice, but it is also a necessary and inevitable one. All that is happening on the national level is this process - cutting back after overspending.

Because - and make no mistake about this - Nu Labour have spent money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. And now it is down to others to clean up the mess they left behind. If we as a nation should learn anything from these "painful" cuts, then it is that the government cannot overspend indefinitely any more than individual can. And consequently, we should never, ever fall for something like the Nu Labour confidence trick again. All that talk about the black hole in Nu Labour's spending plans was 100% correct and right now, as jobs, spending and schemes are all consumed by that black hole, it may be too late to heed the warning this time, but it can stand as a warning for the future.

*And before anyone belly-aches that I don't understand the implications of cutting the spending on universities, let me assure you that I do and that it is actively impacting negatively on my life right here, right now. On a personal level, I want the government to throw as much money as possible at Universities, so some of it gets to me. On a national level, I can see that the government needs to make cuts, and than some academic funding can (and possibly should) be trimmed. I guess it's called perspective.

Share the Wealth, Share the Nominations

There is something really rather pathetic about contenders in an election begging their rivals for help, but that's exactly what is happening in the Labour leadership contest. Here is a video containing the risible Diane Abbott complaining about Miliband Senior getting lots of nominations (which is the point, surely, at this stage of the election), and here you can see the begging e-mail from McDonnell to the other candidates - clearly, he's realised that the best way for him to get on the ballot papers is if someone else does it for him.

Maybe they're right; maybe the Labour party does need to have a broad selection of candidates to choose from. But I can't help but think that if McDonnell and Abbott (and possibly Burnham and Balls) can't get the support from their fellow MPs to get on the ballot paper, then that sends out a message about their credibility. And I also reckon that relying on the goodwill of your rivals to get you on the ballot paper maybe placing too much faith in their philanthropy. The Milibands are in this to win it - they're even prepared to run against their siblings. I can't see either one of them helping out a floundering rival.

And even if they did, what would be the point in that? If Abbott/McDonnell can't even get the support from their peers, how the hell are they going to get the support of the party members? And in the highly unlikely event that either one of them gets on the ballot paper and wins, what sort of a leader are they likely to be? After all, they can't turn to Cameron and Clegg at the next election and say "look, you're both going to get more votes than us, so how about we share those votes in order to make things fairer, eh?"

It is typical of the complete lack of reality of the Labour left that they are seriously proposing this. More than anything now, the Labour party needs someone who can win an election. Not someone who needs fucking charity just to get them on the ballot paper.

Protest in Parliament Square - Why It Matters

Depressingly, police moved in this morning to deal with the Democracy Village on Parliament Square. Many people will welcome this, hiding behind the "oh, well, it was an illegal protest" line. Although judging by the comments at Dale's place - and Iain's clear delight at anything that makes life difficult for the protestors - this isn't so much about the protest, more that the dirty hippies in Parliament Square were ruining the view for everyone. Which is both pathetic and very short-sighted.

At the heart of this issue is the nature of protest in this country. If the protest on Parliament Square was illegal, then the law is an ass. And the law needs to be changed.

Yeah, the Square is very pretty and a tourist attraction. And yeah, a camp on the nice green bit in the middle of the Square is far from attractive. But the whole point of Parliament is that it is meant to be the heart of a thriving democracy - not a desiccated museum in a quiet part of town. And part of democracy means that people have a right to protest - so why not in front of the building where our MPs make our laws?

And there's more to it than just that. Our MPs, and in particular the senior ones, exist in a security bubble - one that does everything within its power to keep them from the ordinary people that they are supposed to represent. You want to know what was so great about the protest on Parliament Square? It was a constant reminder to those in power that there are people who feel passionately enough about what is happening in and to our country to stand up and shout about it. To move onto Parliament Square and protest about it. So of course MPs don't want protests within a mile of Parliament. Out of sight, out of mind.

This is the point - if you believe that people have a right to protest, then you have to support that right even if the protest isn't that photogenic and isn't in a location that is ideal for you. You should also want to change the law if it restricts the right to protest at the very heart of democracy in this country. So this is the litmus test - if you actually believe in the right to protest, and therefore in freedom, you should want to see this protest in Parliament Square go on until the people running it decide to stop it. If you don't agree, then that's fine - but you're no friend of freedom, and you may as well sod off and join the social conservatives like Dale, or the Nu Labourites with their intrinsic distrust of the people.

It appears that my local MP is a fucking idiot. Of course, the first tell-tale sign was the fact that he is a Labour MP. But now, just to make it absolutely clear to everyone, he's shown the level of his idiocy by backing Ed Balls for leader.

Chris Leslie. Cretin.

The Authoritarian Iain Dale

Iain Dale has gone all authoritarian on us, demanding that something is done about those Parliament Square protestors in an open letter to BoJo. Let's see what he has to say:

I'm sure that like me, you cherish our right to protest. But like me you also believe people should obey the law. And also like me, you will no doubt believe that those who have the power to enforce the law should do so.

Tomorrow, the State Opening of Parliament takes place. It will be a magnet for the many tourists who visit the Capital. They will line the route to watch the Queen as she proceeds from Buckingham Palace through Parliament Square.

And what faces her when she gets to Parliament Square? A mini hippy camp. Over the last few years a few tents have been allowed to go up on the edge of Parliament Square. But in recent weeks the whole of the grass of Parliament Square has been taken over by people who don't seem to be there to protest about anything in particular. They even drape the statue of Winston Churchill with their banners.

Right, where to begin... where to begin? I dislike so much about these three paragraphs that I genuinely don't know where to start with this. So let's just start with a random thing; let's start with the pointless royalism. I don't give a fuck what the Queen has to see in her journey from one palace to another. And as someone who used to live in Westminster, allow me to say that I found the tourists far more of a hassle than I ever did the protestors.

And the term "mini hippy camp" sounds like Nixon in his prime. If people are camping outside the Houses of Parliament, then it is always going to look like a campsite. I mean, what does Dale want? People to build houses there? Of course not! He just wants the filthy protestors sent away, so Queenie doesn't have to see the riff-raff on her way to open up the all-new Con-Dem parliament.

The whole Square is an embarrassment to our city and our nation.

Don't be bloody silly. You might find it embarrassing, but you don't have the right to speak on behalf of the city and/or the nation. Personally, I find it a point of pride for this nation that people still want to protest, but that is only my opinion. Like Dale, I don't have the right to speak for everyone in the country. I just don't pretend that I do.

What I don't understand is why you and the Metropolitan Police have done nothing to enforce the law. If you or I launched a one man protest in Parliament Sqaure or Whitehall we'd be swiftly moved on under anti terrorism laws. Why is the law different for these people who now inhabit the Square? I don't happen to agree with the anti terrorism laws, but there are other byelaws which are being blatantly transgressed too. You know that and so do I.

But all this is predicated on the assumption that those laws are just and right. That simply isn't the case. The anti-terrorism laws are not just, they are not right. The laws restricting protest around the Houses of Parliament are an egregious restriction of our right to protest, and a crude attempt on the part of the Nu Labour to remove those dirty hippy protestors from their eyesight when they arrive and leave work. And guess what? Now Nu Labour has been replaced, one of the top bloggers of the dominant party in the Commons now wants to restrict protest around Parliament. Is that the warm, pungent aroma of naked hypocrisy I smell in the air? Maybe not, maybe Dale's always wanted to restrict protest in Parliament Square. But I can't help but feel that the message is that it's alright to protest under Labour, but when Dale's party is in power, then you need to move along.

This is a great example of where we need to change the law. Rather than accept the law unquestioningly for the sake of the Queen and some tourists.

I'm all for a quiet life and am well aware that the people now residing (and that's the right word) in Parliament Square would not go quietly. But a line has to be drawn, and you should draw it now.

I'm not surprised that Dale doesn't care about the forced removal of protestors from Parliament Square provoking protests - after all, his entire post is about restricting protest at the supposed heart of British democracy.

Like most people I am am (sic) embarassed whenever I pass the site, and yet I should feel proud of a Square that is home to the Houses of Parliament, the Supreme Court, Westminster Abbey together with many historical statues.

Once again, Dale feels he can talk on behalf of "most people". Where's the evidence that most people feel that way when they walk past the site? And even if they do, does that makes the protest wrong?

The site outside of Parliament is not just about pretty buildings and pretty statues. It has also come to represent protest, and protest is a vital, essential part of British democracy. It might be unsightly, unseemly, but fuck it. To have a political voice someone doesn't have to be wearing a suit and working in Parliament. Those damned "hippies" in the square are participating in democracy, even if Dale sees them as an eyesore.

Please do something about it. The time for action is long overdue

The time for action is long overdue. We should all be in Parliament Square, demanding our right to protest in front of the so-called "Mother of all Parliaments". We should be protesting for this new government to overturn all the draconian policies of the last administration, and reinstating our right to make our voices heard in arguably the most political space in the whole country. Dale's pathetic post is an example of someone hiding behind the law not because the law is right, or good, but because the law happens to back up his deeply conservative, even reactionary, concerns for the aesthetics of the Queen's view as she comes to Parliament.

In the very first line, Dale states that he cherishes the right to protest. Unfortunately, his letter suggests that he actually cherishes the right of people to protest within the law - which means they have to protest out of his eyeline when he strolls through Parliament Square. I write a lot on this blog about how the Tories at heart are deeply socially conservative, and this is a great example of that. The right to protest is less important to Dale than the right to have your views of those nice old buildings around Parliament unimpeded by those dirty hippies.

Nick Griffin Quits

Nick Griffin, the curiously ineffective and utterly repellent leader of the BNP, is going to stand down. In 2013. Fuck me, that makes the Labour leadership contest look positively urgent in its timescale. You wonder what Griffin is thinking about, announcing his departure years before it is actually due to happen.

Still, in a sense, the BNP is losing its most effective weapon. Because while Nick Griffin maybe a smug, boorish dickhead, he stands out from most of those in his party in that he isn't a shaven-headed cunt and he is capable of stringing a sentence together (even if it isn't often a coherent sentence). I can't help wondering who will replace him. Richard Barnbrook is the obvious choice, but, as Tory Troll's work points out, he's hardly hitting Griffin's criterion for a leader who is "a serious contender for power". Still, the BNP's got some time to work out who this "serious contender for power" is going to be. About three years, in fact.

But is this the icing on the cake - the prime cut of grade-A bullshit from Nick Griffin that cracks me up:

"It will be time to make way for a younger person who does not have any baggage which can be used against the party"

Yeah, without any baggage... except being not only a member of an ignorant, vile and deeply racist party but being passionate enough to run for the leadership. Yeah, your replacement won't have any baggage at all.

"Left-Wing" Labourism: An Infantile Disorder*

I reckon some left-wing members of the Labour party are probably rubbing their hands with glee - for the first time since 1994, there are actually some left-wingers in the party proactively vying for leadership. After nearly 16 years of the left-wing camp of the Labour party being in the wilderness (that's longer than the Tories spent in opposition, fact fans) there could actually be a left-wing Labour leader. Crazy yet exciting times, if you're one of those people who still believes in socialism despite everything that has happened to utterly discredit that particular ideology.

Of course, the idea that we are about to see a left-winger as Labour leader is rather undermined when you see which left-wingers are running. John "I Can't Even Get On the Ballot Paper" McDonnell and Diane "I'm Prejudiced Against Finnish Nurses" Abbot hardly represent a modern version of Nye fucking Bevan, do they now? The best bet for one of those actually winning is if the vote for the third-rate neo-Blairites is evenly split between Miliband/Miliband/Balls/Burnham - something which seems unlikely, since both McDonnell and Abbot in the contest might also split the left-wing result, and at least two of those four will probably back out and support one of the other candidates before we get to September. As things stand, there's more chance of Gordon Brown being the new Labour leader than there is of the left-wing contenders. And Brown isn't even running.

But actually it isn't just the candidates that is going massively undermine the left-wing in this election. It is also the fact that the left-wing, historically, have been both an embuggerance and an embarrassment to the Labour party. Probably the high-point for left-wing Labour was when they had a passionate, articulate and eloquent spokesperson in the form of the aforementioned Nye Bevan. And you know what? Bevan ended up resigning as a Minister, and never hitting the top spot. The Labour party favoured the far more moderate Hugh Gaitskell. And when Tony Benn became the figurehead of the Labourite left, he never managed to achieve any meaningful level of power, and when he became too influential, he helped force the Gang of Four out of the Labour party, and thus started the process that led, earlier this month, to the political successors of the Gang of Four going into coalition with the Tories.

The only time a representative of the Labour left actually led the party is when Michael Foot became the worst Labour leader in living memory (barring, arguably, Gordon Brown), and led to the first Thatcherite landslide. From that point on, the Labour party realised that their left-wing was something to be expelled or ignored if the party ever wanted to form a government again.

It is true, historically speaking, that the Labour party is a movement of the left. But parties evolve and change. The Labour party has found a formula that allowed it to win two landslides and one very comfortable election victory in a row - and that involved turning its back both on socialism and on being left-wing in any meaningful sense of the word. It involved running to the centre ground which is where the most credible candidates for the Labour leadership now sit. The generation of Labour MPs who feared deselection by the lefties in their local constituencies has been replaced by a generation of Labour MPs who associate political power and political influence with the Blairite consensus - with the middle ground. The Unions may be to the left of Blair, but they also associate the left-wing of the Labour party with the sort of defeats that led to Thatcher's administrations - those administrations that led to the hobbling of the unions. They'd rather have a moderate yet tamed Labour leader who could be Prime Minister than a left-wing one who will lead the party to electoral oblivion. The time of the left-wing - their dubious heyday - is over.

The next Labour leader will probably be a Miliband, and he will be instinctively focussed on the centre ground. Which makes sense, in electoral terms. A full-on left-wing leader could see the Labour party in opposition for another generation. Labour's short-to-medium term future is trying to regain the centre ground. It certainly isn't in selecting a quaint, yet completely out-of-time, leader like McDonnell or Abbot.

*Yep, I'm paraphrasing Lenin. So sue me. And anyway, he wouldn't have rated McDonnell or Abbot either - albeit for very different reasons.

Kinnock and the Electoral X Factor

Neil Kinnock has announced who he's backing in the Labour leadership contest - it is Ed of the Milibands. Apparently Miliband Minor...

"...has got the X-Factor, especially where the X is the sign you put on the voting slip at election time"

Ooo, get Kinnock and his painfully crass attempts to appear with it by using a contemporary cultural references. Bet he's well up to speed with popular music and everything.

But the irony of Neil "We're alright!" Kinnock - who led his party to two humbling defeats at the polls - advising his party on who has for the electoral X-Factor is almost too much to cope with. Kinnock should stick to his area of expertise (whatever that might be) - advising the party he helped to keep out of office for nearly a decade on electability is not credible, even for a second.

Doctor Who: The Hungry Earth

I love the Silurians - I think they show the considerable potential of what a Doctor Who monster can be if the writer tries to make it more than just a Dalek/Cybermen rip-off. Sure, the realisation of the Silurians often left a lot to be desired. In their initial outing, their solid faces meant that the actors playing them had to emphasis their points and show emotion by jerking their heads around. This had the unfortunate effect of making the Silurians, with their strangled, indignant voices, look like an ugly old man having a spasm. And in their second outing, they'd let themselves go a bit. The Silurians became portly. Furthermore, they'd all had a red light grafted onto their forehead that flashed when they spoke - like they were aping Davros or something. And their voices had gone from strangled and indignant to robotic and constipated. If you ever wondered what a Cyberman would sound like if it tried to speak while having a dump (and heaven knows why you would), then watch Warriors of the Deep.

Yeah, they only appeared twice in the classic series. But they had a much bigger impact than that on fandom. Partly because they were such an interesting concept. Rather an alien species trying to invade the earth, they were the original owners of this planet who see humanity as invaders, or usurpers. Furthermore, their use of disease and nuclear power/weapons made them stand out from other monsters, who more often than not resort to mass invasion to overcome the earth. Doctor Who and the Silurians is a genuine classic - a surprisingly gritty tale, given the star is dressed like an Edwardian dandy and the enemies look like old men who've overdosed on botox and got some sort of head twitching condition. Warriors of the Deep was less convincing, partly because it was full of new romantics dressed in shiny boiler suits and partly because of the unstoppable dinosaur that was actually, to all intents an purposes, a pantomime horse. But even that had the decency to be a tense story without a happy ending. The Silurians, and the adventures containing them, were an example of Doctor Who stretching its format.

Which is why they should fit in perfectly with this season of Doctor Who which has, barring Victory of the Daleks, seen the show raising its game in every conceivable way. I looked forward to The Hungry Earth with one reservation, and one reservation alone. The writer.

Chris Chibnall has experience of writing not just Doctor Who stories, but also Torchwood. Unfortunately, his Torchwood adventures were fast-paced stories that not only failed to stand up to close analysis, but to any analysis - however superficial - whatsoever. And his previous Doctor Who story, Series 3's 42, was in the same vein - fast moving and gimmicky, but in desperate need of a truly convincing plot. Don't get me wrong, Chibnall's not a bad writer. But in order for him to do well at reinventing the Silurians for a new century, he would have to write against type and in a more thoughtful way that he has shown thus far. If anything, I'd rather have seen him writing the cheerful yet empty Victory of the Daleks, while Gatiss got the story about the monsters under the ground resurfacing to claim their planet.

So how was it? What to make of Silurians 2010?

Well, the episode was Chibnall trying to do a Moffatt. And you know what? He wasn't too bad at it. The scene where Amy was abducted was moving, the moment where the Doctor realised someone was drilling up was pure Moffatt twist (but nowhere near as effective) and the scenes revolving around the seize of the church were very effective. All in all, this was a diverting episode where Chibnall raised his game.

But... the problem is that this is meant to be a Silurian story. It is meant to be about a non-human species with a legitimate claim on planet Earth. The Silurians here could have been any monster. The Weeping Angels. The Cybermen. Pretty much any enemy you could mention. Sure, there was a rousing speech from the Doctor about why those non-humans should be respected rather than just fought, but we didn't see why. We were just told. The Silurians themselves were represented by a fanatic, and someone preparing to cut Amy's (who was criminally underused by the way) chest open. The casual viewer is probably struggling to understand the Doctor's faith in and commitment to the Silurians.

Sure, Chibnall offered little moments for the fans - like "there will be no battle here today" -but in his presentation of the Silurians, he seems to have missed a trick. They were presented purely as a threat, rather than someone the audience could sympathise with. Maybe that will change in the second episode - I certainly hope so. But the very fact that the episode cliffhanger was the revelation that there is a whole civilisation under the ground merely emphasised the Silurian as Monster of the Week motif.

This story can either go two ways now. It could turn into a base under seige story, where those left in the church slowly get closer and closer to fulfilling the Silurian's prophecy and committing murder. Or it could be a rehash of the previous Silurian stories - and, while we're on the subject, The Sea Devils - and instead have the Doctor trying and failing to broker a peace deal with the original rulers of earth. I hope it is the former - based on the trailer after the episode, I fear it will be the latter.

But in one sense - in one crucial sense - Chibnall's episode worked. Because I genuinely cannot wait to find out what happens in Cold Blood.

Alcohol Price Control

Well, that didn't take long, did it? The Con-Dems have only be on power for a couple of weeks, and already they've happened upon the dubious charms of bansturbation:

The UK's coalition government has pledged to ban the sale of alcohol below cost price in an effort to cut binge drinking in England and Wales.

The plan is likely to ban retailers from running loss leader promotions on lager, wine and alcopops.

Just for old time's sake, let's rehearse the reasons why this policy is both wrong and pointless. It won't stop binge drinking - that will continue, but people will just have to spend a little more on getting arseholed. It is an impingement on the freedom of business during a feeble recovery from a deep recession. Laws already exist that allow for the refusal to sell/serve alcohol to those who are drunk, and laws already exist that can deal with the anti-social behavior of those who are wasted. We should enforce those laws, rather than creating a new, illiberal rule to punish everyone in society who might want to buy alcohol at a cheap price. I don't think there is anything liberal, democratic or even particularly conservative about this policy - other than the fact that the Con-Dem coalition has jumped on it with unseemly haste.

And it is that unseemly that bothers me. This is blatantly the sort of policy designed to make the tabloids happy. It is Daily Mail friendly politics - the sort of thing that Nu Labour would propose when there was a dip in their approval ratings on when they wanted to get a decent write-up from the right-wing press. It is, in short, the sort of desperate policy that a government should only consider as a short-term way of getting a positive headline. It's the sort of thing that governments normally only consider when their popularity is on the wane.

So it is very worrying that the Con-Dem's have chosen to do this so early. I'd far rather they did what was absolute essential - the rolling back of the intrusive and bloated British state after 13 years of profligate Labour misrule - rather than chasing good press from largely bad newspapers. Get a grip, ladies and gents - you are in government to replace Nu Labour, not to adopt and ape their idiotic PR-obsessed policies.

Diane Abott, Leadership Contender

Diane Abbott, summed up in three easy steps:

The left-winger said all the other candidates were "policy wonks" and "men in their 40s who played football together".

Ms Abbott insisted: "That's too narrow a section of the party. We risk losing touch with women. We risk losing touch with where our supporters are.

"The other candidates would make good leaders of the Labour Party but they all look the same. We cannot be offering a slate of candidates who all look the same. The party is much more diverse than that."

So the reason why Abbot is running is not because she thinks that she is the best person of the job, but because the other contenders "all look the same" and she represents diversity. Hmmm...

But rest assured, it isn't the only reason. No, Abbott is flying the flag for socialists as well as women and ethnic minorites:

Cambridge graduate Ms Abbott, 57, who became Britain's first black woman MP in 1987, said she was running to make sure there was a "voice of the left" in the contest

Do we really need a voice of the left running? I can't ever remember a voice of the left saying anything worth hearing. Still, I guess I'm biased. Based on the fact that I find socialism abhorrent.

She rejected suggestions she had been damaged by sending her son to a fee-paying school.

Brilliant! Well done Diane. Do you want some champagne with your socialism?

So, let's sum up Abbott, shall we? She's running not because of she believes herself to be the most capable candidate, but because of her gender and her ethnicity. And she's a socialist, of course, but like so many other people of that inclination, she doesn't let her beliefs impact on her actions.

Hard to imagine that there could be a candidate out there who could make Balls or Burnham look like credible contenders, but you know what? I think Abbott might just have managed it.

Balls talks Balls. Again.

It is fantastic - absolutely fantastic - that Ed Balls is in the Labour leadership race, because he now has to say stuff and show just how peculiar his worldview is. And his article in The Mirror shows just how strange one of the people who would be Labour leader truly is.

'David Cameron standing grinning outside No 10 is something I never wanted to see.

'And then on Monday, I watched George Osborne on TV struggling to contain his glee as he announced that the Tories, now backed by the Liberal Democrats, were going to cut £6billion from public services this year and put the school-building programme on hold.

That was a sight I never wanted to see either.

Firstly, I don't think either one of them were grinning, but maybe it is down to interpretation. Secondly, one of the key reasons why people won is because of Labourites like you, Balls, and your hideous ex-boss. If you didn't want to see Cameron as PM and Osborne as Chancellor, maybe you should have been a bit less of tit.

And weren't Labour committed to making spending cuts as well?

But it has happened. And we have to understand why.

People hate Labour more than the Tories now. It isn't that difficult to understand. People hate you more than the Tories, so fewer people voted for you than for the Tories. I mean, I could draw a diagram, but this basic, rudimentary politics should be easy enough to grasp.

I am very proud of what Labour achieved in government. Labour's legacy is every child who is sitting in a brand new school... Every pensioner who is not afraid to stick the heating on in the winter thanks to the winter fuel payment... Our new hospitals, our Sure Start children's centres, tax credits, the national minimum wage.

After 13 years in power with massive majorities, that is a piss-poor legacy.

So this is my first pledge to Mirror readers - I will fight with every ounce of my spirit and every one of my MP colleagues in Parliament to make sure that this legacy is not destroyed by David Cameron and his new best friend, Nick Clegg.

Love it - "new best friend". Clegg's choice still hurting you, Balls?

But we in the Labour party have also got to face some hard facts.

Too many people - ordinary, hard working people who want to get on in life and get a better deal for their families - thought that they couldn't support us this time.

They thought we had lost our way and, frankly, lost touch.

Wonder what gave them that idea? The fact that Labour replaced the Prime Minister without consulting the people at all? Or that the Prime Minister refused to come out of his cocoon until he absolutely had to, and then he avoided or insulted any member of the public who happened to disagree with him? Yeah, I'd say that the people felt Labour had lost touch with them. Mainly because the Labour party didn't appear to give the first fuck about what the people thought or said.

Knocking on doors in my constituency in Yorkshire was hard-going.

Poor dear... campaigning is tough. Mind you, you'd best get used to it. You're running for Labour leader in a campaign that will last until September. And you've got a tough job campaigning in your constituency to make sure that you don't lose your seat over the course of the next Parliament.

On immigration, people thought we didn't understand their anxieties.

On tax and benefits, they didn't always think that we were on the side of people who wanted to work.

On tuition fees and student loans, they asked why we were making it harder for their teenage children to go to university.

Yep. You treated immigration as a taboo topic that could not be discussed under any circumstances. Your tax system shat on those who went to work, while those who didn't led relatively comfortable lies. And you raised the expectation that most kids would be able to go to university while making it incredibly expensive to do so. Yeah, can't think why people were feeling alienated.

I want Labour to win again, for the sake of millions of children, working people and pensioners in our country.

That's why I am standing to be leader.

Balls, my boy, you standing for leader is probably a rock solid way of making sure that Labour doesn't win, but don't let that little fact bother you.

To win again we need to win people back, we must speak the language of ordinary people and not the language of politicians.

Yep.

We must win people's trust and not seem like we take their support for granted.

Yep.

And we need to show why we are in politics and whose side we are on.

You sort of have shown why you are in politics and whose side you are on - you're in politics to expand the power of the state, and you're on the side of politicians. Frankly, that's one of the reasons why people fucking hate you.

All the opportunities my family and I have had in life were only made possible by the achievements of the Labour party in government.

Really, are you sure about that?

My grandfather, a lorry driver, died from cancer soon after the war, when my father, the youngest of three boys, was only 10.

My father, from a widowed family in a w o r k i n g -c l a s s community in Norwich, was able to stay on at school at 16 and get a scholarship to university.

All the opportunities that he and we have been able to enjoy were only made possible because of the welfare state the Labour Government created in 1945, reflecting our core belief that opportunity should be available for all, not just for the privileged few.

Now, I could have sworn that Balls went to a fee-paying school. And to Oxford and Harvard. Oh looky, I'm right. And far be from me to suggest that the *Right* *Honourable* Ed Balls is mistaken, but I'd argue that those priviliged institutions might have played a small part in the success story that is Ed Balls (stop laughing at the back!)

And the reason I am Labour is because I want these same chances for every one of my constituents and every family in our country.

Shame Labour didn't fucking well do something about it when it was in power then.

Because whether your son or daughter gets extra one-to-one tuition in school if they fall behind should not depend on whether you can afford to pay for it. That is the Tory way.

Don't have kids, don't care. If I did, then I'd wonder why the state school wasn't doing more to stop them falling behind, though.

As much as I'd like to think so, I don't believe the Tory-Lib Dem coalition will necessarily fall apart in a matter of weeks.

You shouldn't want it to either. If there is another election within weeks, your bankrupt - both financially and morally - party will not be able to fight that campaign and will face absolute wipe out.

The Tories think they are born to rule - and they're already trying to rig Parliament to make it harder to remove them.

As opposed to Gordon Brown, who left Downing Street gracefully the morning after his defeat in a General Election rather than desperately and pathetically clinging to power for another few days. Oh, wait...

And the Lib Dems have sold whatever principles they had to get their hands on ministerial positions.

Yep, he's still bitter that the Liberal Democrats chose to go into a stable coalition with the most popular party after the election rather than propping up the failed administration of a man who could be used to define the word "loser".

So we must be both a responsible Opposition and a strong and effective fighting force in Parliament.

Because if we do not speak up for working people when their public services are threatened and their children's futures are put at risk, then no one will.

So we must stand together and stand up to the Tories and the Lib Dems.

That is the basis of what being in Opposition is about, yes. Well done for working that out so quickly! Here, have a gold star. It's not from the state, though, so I don't know whether you can accept it.

I believe Labour's secret weapon will be our ability and willingness to listen.

Oh my, oh my... that is priceless. Labour's going to listen. Oh, please stop. My sides might actually split. I've not heard anything so ridiculous since... well, the last time I read something by Balls. But if he's going to listen, maybe he should listen to this - Balls, we fucking hate you, fuck off. And take your party with you on your way out.

In my constituency, the Tories threw the kitchen sink at their campaign and spent a fortune of Lord Ashcroft's money.

We hit back in the best way possible - with hard work and some hard listening.

And still nearly lost. Maybe you were trying to listen but you didn't quite hear what was being said.

We organised public meetings on the economy, crime and immigration, and took the BNP headon.

This is the way to build a new coalition of our own.

No, that's basic politics. The way to build a new coalition comes when you stop be arrogant titwits and actually do something that people like, or say something that people agree with. As it stands - and you probably should have picked up on this, Eddy my boy - no-one wants to go into a coalition with you. They'd rather join hands with the Tories.

Throughout the debate about the Labour leadership, I have argued for a proper contest, not a coronation.

As opposed to three years ago, where you helped to arrange the coronation of the man who buried the Labour party. In fairness, maybe Balls has taken something from his mistake. I suspect, though, part of him realises that if this was a coronation, he wouldn't be the one being crowned.

A battle about ideas not a beauty contest.

You'd lose the beauty contest, Balls. Even with the group of pug ugly people currently vying to replace that very antithesis of beauty. Or Gordon Brown, as you probably call him. Extensive plastic surgery is the only way you'd ever stand a chance of competing effectively in a beauty contest.

Labour must win again. It is going to be a hard slog.

There are no quick fixes or easy solutions.

But it has to start with listening to you, the people.'

But we don't want to talk to you anymore, Ed. You had thirteen years to hear our voices, and do something about it. And you didn't. You closed off your ears and your minds, and did whatever you fucking wanted to with not a thought about what we actually wanted. It's too late to listen now, Balls. You should have tried that before the election. And then maybe, just maybe, you wouldn't have to watch the Tories basking in their new found power.

Winston Smith Wins

Congratulations to Winston Smith (no, not him) who has won the Orwell Prize for his blogging. I have to say that his blog is one that I don't always agree with, but it is a compelling insight into a world that is often reported and debated, but seldom from the first-hand perspective and front-line experience of Smith. Plus, his blog is generally very well-written, which might seem to be unimportant, but given the sheer number of blogs out there that seem to be written by people with no grasp of the English language whatsoever, the importance of good writing should never be underestimated.

Expenses Whining

Via Guido, some examples of the whining of some MPs about the new expenses system. My own personal favourite:

We just have to accept this because the public is not with us. It will take something really horrendous, such as a woman MP being stabbed on the streets of London because she is not entitled to take a taxi home late at night, before people wake up and realise how unfair this is.

Let's break this down, and try to count the number of ways in which this is wrong:

1. The public is against you, because some MPs took the system and used it as a means to shit all over the taxpayer, and then make sure the taxpayer's face was rubbed in it. Duck houses, second mortgages, moats, cleaners, flipping. The public is not just not with you, it is against you. And the best way to overcome that would be to quit bellyaching and get on with the job of running this country.
2. A female MP being stabbed would be pretty horrific, but no more so than anyone else being stabbed on the streets of London. And the fact that it happens to ordinary people should be a clue what MPs need to focus on - not the fact that they too have to walk home through potentially dangerous areas, but rather making those areas safer for everyone. And not just in London - how about in the country as a whole?
3. There is nothing to stop an MP taking a taxi home late at night - I know lots of people, both male and female, who do so regularly because it makes them feel safer. MPs will now have to do what everyone else has to do, and pay for those taxis themselves. That's hardly a big ask, now, is it? For MPs to live as they people they purport to represent do?
4. The system isn't unfair, any more than life itself is unfair. People aren't going to wake up and realise that this is unfair because, basically, it isn't unfair. It really isn't unfair for MPs to have to stop milking the expenses system - and therefore the British taxpayer - to fund a lifestyle beyond the means of the vast majority of people in this country.

So, four different ways in which a brief paragraph is wrong. But I'd like to add a final one. It is the misplaced arrogance in the statement - and the others in the article - that is perhaps the biggest problem that MPs have if they are serious about bettering the public perception of them. They need to realise that becoming an MP is not entering a position of privilege at the expense of others, but rather earning the privilege to serve those people who elected them.

Skeletor's Tribute to Brown

Skeletor has entered the Labour leadership race, and has paid tribute to Gordon Brown:

"As a seven-foot pile of bright blue muscles and a fleshless face, I also know what it's like to be regarded as a bit weird.

"But I do know that unlike Gordon I can connect with ordinary working class people, because - if you really think about it - they're pure evil too."

Actually, I think Skeletor would be a good Labour leadership candidate. He's much more charismatic than both of the Milibands and Andy Burham put together, and he's far less evil that Ed Balls. Plus, more people have heard of him than of Diane Abbott...

Labour's Tory Hatred

The ever-entertaining* Charlie Brooker has written a revealing article about his feelings – or, more properly, his hatred of – the Tories. It all dates back to fear of Tory led nuclear war in the eighties and the behaviour of Thatcher administration:

As if plotting to destroy the world wasn't bad enough, the Conservatives went on to preside over the most wilfully obnoxious and polarising decade imaginable: braying yuppies at one extreme, penniless strikers at the other. The Tories weren't just nasty – they seemed to actively enjoy being nasty. And there was no getting rid of them, even when Thatcher got the boot. Consequently, an entire generation grew up regarding the Tory government as something like rain, or wasps, or stomach flu: an unavoidable, undying source of dismay.

Of course, this is largely nonsense – an unthinking reproduction of the ideologically driven and largely false left-wing slurs that built the Tories into some sort of evil nemesis for anything or anyone moderate in the UK. The Tories were far from perfect – as their failure to combat, and occasional moments of relishing, this crude caricature of them shows. But they weren’t the sort of monstrous, greedy political thugs as many people – such as Brooker – seem to have grown up believing them to be. That’s one of the reasons why they were able to win landslide election victories in the 1980s: many people in the country genuinely liked the Tories and (whisper it) even liked Thatcher.

Despite the fact that the eighties, Thatcherism and the Tory government of the 1990s are all over, this caricature has even informed much of the case against the Tories since they lost power in 1997 – hence the ongoing depictions of Tory leaders with Thatcher’s hairdo – and despite the fact that far from being a Thatcherite in disguise, David Cameron appears to be one of the most moderate and middle-of-the-road Tory leaders in living memory. Much of the Cameron political project has been to reverse this perception of the Tories – to the extent where the Liberal Democrats are prepared to do what appeared to be, for so long, utterly unthinkable: to go into coalition with the party of Thatcher.

Which is something that the self-confessed Tory hater Brooker acknowledges:

But instead we've got this . . . coalition thing. This disorientating mash-up. Cameron and Clegg engaging in public foreplay. A sour Tory cookie with chunks of Lib Dem chocolate. Even the prospect of George Osborne as chancellor seems less chilling in the knowledge that Vince Cable can pop his head round the door from time to time, if only to pull disapproving faces. If the Tories had won more seats, or slogged on as a minority government, at least we'd have a clear set of hate figures we could start despising immediately. Instead, we've got the Nazis forming an alliance with the Smurfs.

We couldn't even hate the Tories for looking smug on the steps of Downing Street – partly because Downing Street doesn't have steps, but mainly because the result forced a helping of humble pie down their necks, which they swallowed with infuriating good grace. Cameron appears to be making a sincere attempt to permanently drag his party toward more moderate ground, which is a crushing blow for those of us who were expecting outright malevolence from day one.

Of course, Brooker’s article is simply a means by which he can cast his acerbic wit across a bit of current affairs. But actually, there is something far more important within his article than might first be appreciated. Because Brooker is talking about what is a typical Labourite mindset, where the Tories become the evil, awful enemy and Labour the only possible way of defeating that terrible foe. It is this mindset that allows Labournistas to forgive the unforgivable – for example, to embrace the party of the Iraq War because it is better than the party that supported Pinochet 25 years ago. And it is this mindset that creates incredulity that the Liberal Democrats would ever go into government with the Tories rather than Labour, even though the Liberal Democrat leadership is far closely, ideologically and instinctively, to the Tory leader. And it is this mindset that leaves Labour clinging to the keys of Number 10 Downing Street, even after they’ve comprehensively lost a General Election. They are entitled to anything that might keep them in power, according to this stupid mindset, because they are not the Tories.

Whether the Tories have really changed or not is almost irrelevant – the Labour party needs to change, and lose this mindset of irrational fear and hatred of the Tories. It is not 1997 anymore, and if the last election has any sort of a lesson for them, then it is this – it is no longer enough just not being the Tories to win an election. The Labour party needs to start showing why it is better than the Tory party. Only then will they find a voice again; only then will they start to recover. And it is only then that they will be able to escape the 1980's - something that is pretty essential, given we are now in 2010.

*NB – ever entertaining does not mean always right…

The Death of Music

The Daily Mash on the re-release of the always execrable Three Lions:

Tom Logan, from Reading University, said: "Popular music has been dealt many potentially fatal blows over the years - Buddy Holly's death, the break-up of The Beatles, 'H' leaving Steps.

"But the bestial union of a lumpen, terrace dirge, shouted by some of the most unforgivable celebrities a vindictive gene pool could create, is like standing over a stricken, rabid animal with an automatic pistol and then sending it straight to hell."

As always, the article is worth reading in full...

Mailmaker

Enjoy!

Next Labour

David Miliband:

"The Blair-Brown era is over. New Labour is not new any more. New Labour did fantastic things for the country but what counts is next Labour."

"Next Labour"? Jesus. Just go the whole hog and call in "The Labour Party: The Next Generation"... Pathetic. If all you've got is creating a new description based on a discredited term for a hated party, then it is probably time to give up and go home.

Ed Balls talks Balls.

So, Ed Balls has written an article for The Independent that, for all the world, seems to be trying to present a human side to the least human minister in the last government. But, it being scribed by one of the most arrogant of ministers from the last government, it can't help but be a little bit OTT and a little bit bellicose. Let's take a look at some highlights:

The last 10 days have turned things upside down. We lost the election – but no other party won decisively. Many good MPs and candidates failed to win their seats – but we had some great results, especially in local government. We talked to the Liberal Democrats, thinking they were a progressive party – and then they jumped into bed with the Tories.

My God, what a brilliant start. Brilliant, that is, in showing what a tit Balls is. Firstly, the world has only been turned upside down if you happen to be a politican. For everyone else, the government has changed and with it, brought some changes for the better. But the world hasn't been turned upside down. Mostly, things are going on now in exactly the same way they did before Labour lost power.

And the "no-one won the election" line is now both old and utterly discredited. Because not just one but two parties won the election - y'know, the two parties that have now gone on to form a government. Labour did badly. It did really badly. And the only reason why it saw a slight upturn at the local elections was because of how badly it had done the previous year, when Labour was nearly wiped out at a local level.

And the comment about the Liberal Democrats is hilarious - the very definition of someone bitter because they didn't get chosen. Fuck off, Balls. The Liberal Democrats choose to go into government (rather than bed) with the party that beat you at the election - the party that won the most votes and the most seats. To most people who are tribalist Labourite wankers, that was the sensible thing for them to do.

This leadership contest is a great opportunity for Labour. Ironically, the Liberals Democrats, by putting power before principle, have re-energised and united our party. Membership is surging. My local party in Morley and Outwood decided that the right response was to hold a street stall on Saturday and go out canvassing this Sunday.

My God, I cannot believe we have a Brownite wanker complaining about someone else putting power before principle. Pot and kettle time, Mr Balls!

And I'm sure that the reason why your local Labour party had a stall on Saturday and canvassed on Sunday had nothing to do with your identification as a potential leadership candidate, or the fact that you nearly lost your seat at the last election. No, I'm sure it was because "membership is surging".

The fact is that we lost almost 100 seats. And a leadership election in which we talk to ourselves in party meetings and seminars and then tell the country what we have decided is the route to stagnation and further defeat.

Finally, an admission that you lost, and lost badly. And it seems ironic that one of the things Balls says would be electoral disaster in the future is precisely what happened in order to make Gordon Brown leader. Perhaps Balls is learning from his mistakes... But I'm pretty sure that he won't admit to his role in the mistakes that buried the Labour party at the last election.

And it's a tough message. I heard it myself in Morley and Outwood, where in the face of a Lord Ashcroft-funded Tory onslaught we had to fight even harder for every vote and talk to tens of thousands of people.

Oh, here we fucking go again. Ashcroft. Change the fucking record, Balls, because no-one is listening. People don't care about Ashcroft, and if they do, they care about him much less than the care about the fucking disaster that the Labour party was for this country. So shut up about Ashcroft, and move on.

And it goes without saying that if we see this contest through the prism and outdated labels of Blairites v Brownites, new Labour v old, it will be a disaster for us. Let's not keep trying to define ourselves against ourselves and our past.

Sure, ignore the past. Pretend it didn't happen. Because there's nothing to be learned from the fact that the Blairites won every election they fought, whereas the Brownites lost badly the only contest they fought. I wonder why Balls might want us not to think in those terms? Could it possibly be because he is associated with the Bad Days of Brown, and therefore might be tainted by the failures of the immediate past? Just a thought...

I have not rushed to a decision on whether to stand in this contest. Partly because I felt it my duty to talk to my party first. Partly because, like many MPs and party members, I wanted to let the events of the last few weeks sink in and did not think we should be rushed.

Yeah, God forbid you should hurry the decision of who should be leader of the opposition. Take your time, pal. After all, coalitions are historically incredibly stable, so there's no risk whatsoever of you having to fight another General Election very soon. Oh, wait...

If we stay united, then we can build on the strength our party undoubtedly has, expose this deeply flawed and unprincipled Tory-Liberal collaboration, and win back a Labour majority. I will play my full part to make that happen.

Ok, so the coalition is "deeply flawed and unprincipled", but I can't help but repeat that this sounds incredibly bitter, like the boy at the school disco who didn't get chosen by the pretty girl and is now deeply resentful about it. The fact is, Balls, the people and then the Lib Dems rejected you because of who you are, and how badly you did when in power. You were an arrogant, controlling and utterly repellent government. You were rejected by one and all because of that.

And you were at the heart of that government, Balls. You were a henchman in the Brown regime that destroyed a once invincible election winning machine. You, Brown, McBride - you sum up everything that people despise about the Brown era, and why you were rejected at the polls. People don't like you, Ed. And if you really want to play your part in making that happen, then you should not only not stand for the leadership, but you should shut your stupid fucking face for the foreseeable future and let the less repellent Labourites try to rebuild the party you did so much to destroy.

But as someone who viscerally hates Labour now, I hope you stand for the leadership. I hope you stand and fucking win. Because that way, your godawful party can be buried once and for all.

The Gordon Brown Song

A cheap shot? For sure. But still grand...

Doctor Who: Amy's Choice

I love Doctor Who when it starts getting weird. Don't get me wrong, there's a place for Doctor Who that involves the Daleks or Cybermen blasting the hell out of everything, or when it just tries to scare you witless. But more often the not, the weird Doctor Who stories - those that mess with time and/or reality - and even the nature of the show - are the most memorable and the most interesting. And Amy's Choice was one of those stories.

Oh, and as a result, there will be spoilers ahead. In fact, you can't talk about the climax of this story without giving something away. So if you haven't watched it, go do so...

The story neatly darts between two different versions of reality - one where the Doctor visits (accidentally) a pregnant Amy and a pony-tailed Rory five years after he left them, and the other a far more convincing reality on board the TARDIS. Deadly threats happen in both realities - killer old people, more than reminiscent of the threat faced by Father Ted in the episode Night of the Nearly Dead in one reality, and a decidedly chilly demise in the other reality. But the real threat isn't either of those in those realities. The real threat is the Dream Lord.

I won't give everything away, but just as the episode seems to be about to cop out with the "and it was all a dream" ending, it reveals who the Dream Lord is. And let's just say that the darkness we saw in The Waters of Mars is very much in evidence here too. It's a breathtaking twist for the story, and makes you look at the whole episode in a different light. I was thinking that the Dream Lord might be the Celestial Toymaker in disguise. Blimey was I wrong!

And aside from all the thrills of a fast-paced episode that involves a spooky nemesis and some genuinely eerie moments in the frozen TARDIS, this story still has the decency to have a strong emotional content. Initially, it appears to be about Rory's jealousy of the Doctor, and how he just wants a quiet life with Amy. But then it turns itself on its head, and makes this story about Amy and... well, her choice. And the choice she makes, combined with the identity of the Dream Lord, leads to numerous unspoken but genuinely eye-opening implications for the Doctor and Amy.

Given this looked like a mid-season episode with a limited budget, the story managed to be so much more than it might otherwise have been. It was world's apart from the episode that preceded it - that was about what Doctor Who is. This is about all that Doctor Who can be.

Perhaps most surprising? Well, it was written by Simon Nye, most famous for Men Behaving Badly. Of course, there is a precedent for comedy writers becoming great writers for Doctor Who, but it is truly a sign that Nye is a great writer that he has managed to produce such a strong episode of a TV series that is deeply idiosyncratic and has overcome many a writer in the past. Let's hope this isn't Nye's last, and therefore only, contribution to the show.

Libertarians and the Con-Dem alliance

Clegg's really found a voice, hasn't he?

We will oversee the radical dispersal of power away from Westminster and Whitehall to councils, communities and homes across the nation. So that, wherever possible, people make the call over the decisions that affect their lives. And, crucially, the relentless incursions of the state into the lives of individuals that has characterised the last 13 years ends here. From rolling back excessive surveillance, to ending the criminalisation of innocent people, we will restore and protect our hard-won civil liberties.

I call that agenda liberalism. Others may have other names for it, but whatever terms you prefer, this is our best guarantee of a fair society. That is the case I have argued my whole political life. Yes, as the coalition moves ahead there will be bumps and scrapes along the way; there has already been significant compromise from both sides and there will of course need to be more. And, no, we do not yet have all of the answers to the inevitable questions that lie ahead. While we will be open about our differences, we also know that our strength – the strength now needed to deliver the change needed in Britain – depends on being the sum of our parts. And from our different traditions we can pursue one simple, shared aim: this will be the government that re-empowers the British people.

Which sounds wonderful, really. All that's missing is the "how" - how is the Con-Dem Coalition going to achieve those wonderful aims? Because, given the parties involved in the alliance governing this country, we could be forgiven for being a little cynical about whether their government will actually follow through with Clegg's splendid rhetoric.

See, the Liberal Democrats are generally quite strong on civil liberties, but when it comes to economics and taxation, spurious talk of "fairness" seems to overcome any tendency towards actual economic freedom. Witness the Mansion Tax. And their anti-banker rhetoric (that Clegg hints at in his article). And while the Tories might be better when it comes to economics, they remain deeply socially conservative. They are the party of tax breaks to stigmatise those who aren't married and spawning, they are the party of the idiotic voluntary national service scheme. Oh, and they are the party of Philippa Stroud. You can be free in Tory Britain, as long as you resemble and agree with the views of the blue rinse brigade who provide much of that party's core support.

Sure, the Con-Dem coalition have made a good start in some of their actions, but these are not so much a ringing endorsement of the new governing alliance as an indication of just how far the last Labour government got at shitting all over civil liberties in this country. The first actions of the coalition are not bold steps towards freedom, but rather dragging us back to normality after the draconian actions of the utterly illiberal Labour party. But moving forward, the best we can probably hope for is that each party balances the illiberal tendencies of the other.

For Libertarians everywhere in this country, there's no real reason to think that this coalition will be genuinely committed to freedom, and every reason to suspect that they might not be. Despite the truculent, triumphalist assertions of some, there is no reason for Libertarians to suddenly rush and embrace either the Tories or the Liberal Democrats. Neither of those parties remains fundamentally Libertarian (or even that Liberal). Being better than the Labour party does not make either entity actually committed to freedom. Any true Libertarian in the United Kingdom can raise a glass to toast the demise of Labour and, with it, the end of godawful ideas such as the ID card scheme. But they should also know that the best the Con-Dem coalition can offer is a step in the right direction - it certainly isn't the end game in the battle to roll back the state in this country. At best, this coalition will less awful that Labour - nothing more.

Ed v. David

Brilliant:

Ed Miliband will stand for the Labour leadership, the BBC has learned... Ed said he had thought long and hard about standing against his older sibling, while David earlier insisted "brotherly love will survive".

There we have it - thus far, the best, most ambitious people that the Labour party has to offer as a potential leader are two of the least credible siblings since the Chuckle Brothers.

Perhaps, rather than having a debate, they could have an arm-wrestle. Or maybe a race. I don't know what they'll decide on, but those cheeky wee scamps had better be nice to each other, or Mother Miliband will come and smack the backs of their legs!