Doctor Who speculation

As a Doctor Who fan, you get used to stuff like this:

Matt Smith is reportedly planning to quit his role as Doctor Who to launch a full-blown Hollywood career.

Yup. Just as David Tennant was going to quit and hand the role over to John Simm (the Master, for fuck's sake) circa 2007/8. There is always going to be endless speculation about when a Doctor will go.

And you know what? At some point, Smith will go. As soon as he took over from Tennant, the one certainty we had was that he would leave the role at some point. It could be next year, it could be in ten years time. But he will leave.

The genius of Doctor Who, of course, is that the show not only anticipates the change of lead actors, but not actually relishes it. Smith will leave, and he will transform into someone else when he does. It will be dramatic and sad and brilliant, and it is going to happen. It is just question of when.

So when you read that Smith is about to leave, take it with a pinch of salt and don't worry. Even if he is on the way out at the end of the next season, there'll be a new Doctor on the way...

Ian Huntley's suing the prison system. I'll leave the cries of outrage to others - I mean, I'd rather the state wasn't in danger of having to pay thousands to the murderer of two young girls, but I suppose justice has to be fair to everyone. Even the monsters.

But the fact that he wants to get £20,000 bothers me, if only because I cannot for the life of me figure out what he wants the money for. I mean, he's in prison. He's going to be in prison until the day he dies, most likely. Just what is planning to spend the money on? It's not like he can go on a weekend break to Paris, is it?

Perhaps he just needs something to amuse himself; a distraction to take his mind off his circumstances. I dare say life in a maximum security prison where the other inmates seem determined to hurt you in unpleasant ways isn't that much fun. But then again, it's not supposed to be fun, is it?

Possibly one of the most awesome pictures in the world:

Assuming, of course, that you are a total geek like me...

On Barry Goldwater

Goldwater is one of those curious political figures. Despite the fact that he was, at least in terms of his bid for President, an abject failure, he is fondly remembered by many - including lots of Libertarians. In fact, you often see a picture of him on Libertarian websites - often between pictures of Ayn Rand and F. A. Hayek. In some respects, he's like an American equivalent of Michael Foot. Obviously, their political views were completely different, but they both are painted as passionate ideologues and noble losers.

I have to be honest here - I think that Goldwater's 1964 campaign for President was an unmitigated disaster. He was so bad in it that he handed a landslide victory to LBJ - who then went forward to dramatically increase the size of the US state. Don't believe me when I say he fucked it up? Take a look at this:

I think the correct term is a landslide - and it wasn't in Goldwater's favour. I guess that's one of the reasons why he is still viewed with rose-tinted glasses: he never had to make any of the compromises that all Presidents have to make. It is far easier to be ideologically consistent when you don't have to actually exercise political power.

Of course, that campaign gave us the oft-quoted slogan that is perhaps best defines Barry Goldwater:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Like many famous pieces of rhetoric, it is a striking, memorable and, unfortunately, largely bollocks. Extremism is always a vice - it involves turning your mind off to alternative viewpoints, shutting down debates and believing zealously in the "truth" of your own position. In fact, I'd argue that extremism leads to the defacement of liberty. Likewise, moderation is the way justice works - the entire justice system is designed to limit emotion and extremism. Moderation is arguably vital to justice.

But it is a political slogan, and designed to provoke emotions rather than stand up to detailed analysis. Unfortunately, it also fails as an effective political slogan. Think about the context - it was the height of the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis and the murder of a US President were all recent history. Many voters would also have lived through the results of the extremists of the 1930's - in other words, World War Two. It was naive at best to make a statement like that - and it created a big stick with which LBJ could beat Goldwater. In fact, the notorious Daisy commercial can be traced back to that statement:

As a Presidential candidate, Goldwater failed. And in doing so, I don't think that he really revealed himself to be a champion of freedom.

But despite all this, I still think that Goldwater was, in his own way, a champion of liberty if only because he was so consistent about his views. Look at his later career - he stood against the increasing Christian domination of the Republican party. He believed abortion was a personal choice, not something that the government should legislate for or against. Likewise, he didn't care about homosexuals serving in the military - and he certainly didn't back the often homophonic stance of many Republicans. And this statement is still pertinent today:

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Read those words, and think about Bush Junior. Or the moronic Sarah Palin. People who mistake being a Christian fundamentalist with being a champion of liberty. Goldwater understood that religion and politics need to be kept separate, and that some matters truly are about personal responsibility and personal choice. Forget his wibblings about extremism and liberty, and focus instead on his coherent and necessary resistance against the religious right in the US. His stance and his words are essential if you want to understand why the zealots who seem to be running the Republican party at the moment are not friends of liberty, but rather the exact opposite.

John Prescott on the Iraq War:

The intelligence on Iraq's weapons threat was not "very substantial", former deputy prime minister Lord Prescott has said.

If there's one thing that Prezza would know about, it is not very substantial intelligence - given he himself is thicker than pigshit. And he goes on to prove it yet again, since he casts doubt in the evidence that took us into Iraq at the same time as saying he would do it again. The witless fucking moron.

Five Days that Didn't Change Britain

Nope, didn't watch it. Mainly because I watched it pretty much live on various news channels when it was actually happening. It was dull then: therefore, definitely not worth reliving now.

But what also bothers me is the title - these weren't five days that changed Britain. They were five days that changed the figures at the head of Britain's government. And the change is not as radical as so many seem to want to suggest. We've had Tory led governments before. We've had coalitions before. And Labour has been booted out of office before.

Furthermore, why would the inauguration of the ConDems really change Britain? Sure, their leaders are far less awkward, maladjusted and downright weird than Prime Minister Brown was, but being less dysfunctional than your predecessor doesn't mean you represent a radical change from what has gone before. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats adhere to the same fundamental assumptions about the limits of political action as the then outgoing Labour government. It's a bit like finding out that your brain cancer has gone but you've been diagnosed with heart disease - basically, you're still fucked, just in a slightly different way.

It ties in beautifully with the ConDem assertion that we have a new politics in this country to claim that the negotiations to form the coalition were "five days that changed Britain". Unfortunately, it doesn't really connect with the reality of the situation. Then again, the title of "Five Days That Maintained The Political Status Quo in Britain" is far less punchy, and also far less likely to attract the sort of viewer who is desperate for the next installment of Eastenders...

The Pope's Visit and the Real World

Liberal Conspiracy are asking a strident question:

Why is the government protecting the Pope from arrest?

The phrase "Awwwww, bless" springs to mind. But there's more:

The Pope’s proposed visit to the UK in September is costing the UK taxpayers as much as £12m for the four-day tour (not including the policing and security costs). How a man who claims to be the right-hand man of God could possibly need security is beyond me.

I'm not surprised it is beyond Adam Wilcox, the author of this remarkably naive article, since he seems to have no basic idea about the real world. I can think of at least one good reason why the Popey Pope needs security.

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC were planning to bring a private prosecution in relation to the Pope’s alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

However, it seems the UK Government didn’t want the embarrassment of having the Pope arrested on our shores, so the new Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has moved to prevent the possibility of an arrest warrant being issued against the Pope during his state visit in September.

Yeah, um, it would be kind of embarrassing to have the fucking Pope arrested on his arrival in the UK. Particularly since he is the head of Church with a global reach and millions, if not billions, of worshippers following him (including people in this country). It would be the sort of awkward moment that most governments would wish to avoid. For diplomatic reasons, if nothing else.

Wilcox goes on to say:

The arrest of the Pope is morally the right thing to do, as this man is responsible for the systemic covering up of a worldwide network of child rape. But in summary, UK law is being changed so that a delusional, homophobic man who shelters rapists and sadists is not held to account when he visits the UK.

Well, I'm pretty sure that when this Pope's legacy is considered, it is going to focus on the whole child rape cover-ups and he's not going to go down as the best Pope we've ever had. But I also think that there is, at best, limited direct evidence to suggest that he should be arrested on arrival in the UK. And given said arrest would provoke a major diplomatic incident, I can kind of see why the government is reluctant to let any proposed arrest actually take place.

I want to make my own position quite clear here - I'd love to see that cunt Ratzinger wrestled to the ground Vic Mackey style and carted off to the local police station to be charged. I would whoop and holler as I watched it live on my TV. I'd love to see him imprisoned, and would hope that such an event would help to stigmatise and partially dismantle the utterly repugnant cult of which he remains the head. Unfortunately...

Unfortunately I live in the real world. Where the government is always going to put political and diplomatic goals ahead of what could be construed as moral ones. Sure, I would love there to be an actual ethical foreign policy. But as soon as any politician opens their big fat gobs and promises one, I know they're lying.

I'd like to see the Pope arrested. And Tony Blair. And George W Bush. Maybe Bill Clinton as well. Putin for sure. And let's throw Berlusconi into the mix for good measure. But given Duch - one of the genuine monsters of the last century - has only just been found guilty despite the fact that most of his crimes were committed before I was born, I'm not going to hold my breath over the conviction - or even the arrest - of any of the arseholes mentioned here.

Not shit, Sherlock

I have an issue with the premise of Sherlock. I like the idea of Sherlock Holmes - although I am by no means as obsessed by the detective fiction of Conan Doyle as other people I know are - but for me Holmes should always be based in the Victorian era. Unlike other icons - James Bond, for example - he doesn't transfer well in my mind from era to era.

Fortunately, the programme managed this transfer quite well. Partly because - for all the talk of mobiles, the internet and the current war in Afghanistan - this was about as detached from the current world as it possibly could be without setting in the Victorian era. In its heightened and highly stylised depiction of modern London, the show really bought into the idea that Holmes always borders on the highly unlikely.

Consequently, this was a romp from beginning to end. It was designed to make Holmes look as cool as possible - no mean feat given, by his own admission, he is a "high-functioning sociopath". It also fleshed out Dr Watson and some of the more minor regular characters. In particular, the world weary Lestrade was wonderfully underplayed. The same cannot be said for Mycroft Holmes - Mark Gatiss seems to relish the opportunity to camp it up as Mycroft - some sort of sinister government employee who also talks about his mother a lot - but his performance jars slightly with the other, more understated characters. Furthermore, the concept of Moriarty was introduced in this episode with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the face. Yep, we get it - this was the pilot episode, and we had to be made to understand from the outset that Mycroft and Moriarty are going to be two of the key recurring characters. However that point could have been made in a much more unobtrusive way.

But this was a fun adventure that brought Holmes and Watson together and laid out what we can expect from the rest of the series. Unfortunately, that throws up a couple of problems as well. Firstly, we get that in the modern world Holmes and Watson could be mistaken for a gay couple. And it's mildly amusing the first time it's mentioned. However, when it keeps on happening it ceases to be a nod to a more tolerant modern world and instead becomes almost a bit crass. It develops a schoolboy tone, as if the production team wants to point and snigger about the misunderstandings relating to Holmes and Watson's relationship.

However, a far bigger problem is the character of Holmes. He is hyper-observant and awkward in his dealings with other people - just as he should be. Unfortunately, his gift for observation is almost exactly the same as that of Fitz. Or the Mentalist. Or Monk. Sure, all these characters owe a debt to Holmes in the first place, but as I watched Sherlock I couldn't help but be reminded of those other detectives. There's nothing novel about Holmes' observation skills anymore. And all this is rather undermined anyway when, at a crucial moment, Holmes seems to miss the point that there are two people in any one taxi - the driver as well as the passenger.

Furthermore, while the wonderfully named Benedict Cumberbatch gives his all to the role of Holmes, I was constantly reminded of another character when I watched this show. Particularly in the moments when Holmes is complaining about the tiny minds of those around him or arrogantly dealing with everyone, even those close to him, he comes across almost exactly like the Eleventh Doctor. Now, I'm a big fan of the Eleventh Doctor, but he isn't Sherlock Holmes. I can't help but think that Gatiss and Moffat - the co-creators of this programme - didn't really spend enough time trying to distinguish their Doctor from their Holmes. And this production ends up being a poor relation to Doctor Who - which is a shame, because it deserves to be so much more.

I'm aware that this post makes it sound like I didn't like the show - and that isn't really true. It was fast-moving, filled with witty dialogue and interesting stylistic flourishes. The story - once you realise that it really isn't going for verisimilitude - is entertaining nonsense that is generally well-performed. No, Sherlock isn't shit - but it also isn't that urgent or unique as TV programmes go. And I doubt when all is said and done that this show has a particularly long life ahead of it. Based on the first episode, it is a novelty - a distraction, a little hobby on the side for Moffat and Gatiss as they work on their day job: the ongoing adventures of Doctor Who.

Anne Milton: You're not obese, you're fat. You chunker.

Oh for the love of Zeus:

Anne Milton told the BBC the term fat was more likely to motivate (overweight NHS patients) into losing weight.

...

Ms Milton, who stressed she was speaking in a personal capacity, said: "If I look in the mirror and think I am obese I think I am less worried [than] if I think I am fat."

In case anyone is wondering, the genius that is Anne Milton is the public health minister.

I don't know what to say, really. Part of me wants to point out that fat people often suffer from low self-esteem, and therefore calling them fat probably won't help. The other part of me wants to point out that if shocking people with the word fat is meant to make people lose weight, then why not step it up a gear and make the insults more insulting? Perhaps when a fat patient visits their GP the doctor could great them with "Oh look, it's Wabba the Hut". Or maybe a quick rendition of "who ate all the pies." Perhaps "Jesus Christ! You must fucking well sweat lard, you chunky cunt!"

Instead I'll just sigh and note that this is the supposed "new politics" - where the problems of the NHS are not going to be solved by radical reform, but rather an semantic shift in the vocabulary of doctors in order to make the visit to their GP of anyone packing a few extra pounds even more miserable than it already is.

"Scoop" of the century from Liberal Conspiracy:

The most senior Libdem MP outside of government, Simon Hughes, has said he would have preferred a deal with Labour instead of the Conservatives.

We have been forwarded an email Simon Hughes sent in reply to a voter, in which he explains why the party went into a deal with Labour.

Fuck a duck! A left wing member of the Liberal Democrats would rather have had his party in a coalition with Labour that the Tories. Whatever next? Are Liberal Conspiracy about to reveal that Gordon Brown hung onto power long after it was clear he'd lost and had to go? Or are they about to say that Cameron was absolutely determined to get into Number 10, even if it meant compromising with the Lib Dems?

I don't know what they're going to publish next, but in these crazy days, let's thank fuck Liberal Conspiracy is here to state the bleeding obvious for us...

Backing Balls

As the Labour leadership contest rolls on with all the speed of a melting asthmatic glacier with a limp, people are making up their minds on who to support. And I've finally decided who would get my vote (if I had one). Yep, as you might have guessed from the title of this post, I'm backing Ed Balls.

It's not just because he's the person who is most likely to sink the Labour party - although this is both true and also a factor. However, there is another reason. See, out of all the Labour leadership candidates, I truly understand what Ed Balls stands for.

The Milibands have failed to distinguish themselves from each other. I cannot make out one from the other, and often seem to be running to establish not who could be Labour leader but who is the blandest of the pair. The same applies to Andy Burnham - he is indistinguishable from the Milibands, which is no mean feat given he isn't actually a Miliband. And as for Abbott - her entire campaign is based on her ethnicity and her gender. She hasn't given any other reason why she should be Labour leader. She doesn't appear to stand for anything other than the broad parameters of her own identity.

Whereas Balls... well, Ed stands for something. In fact, he stands for two things. He stands for naked self-interest based on a completely undeserved and arrogant sense of entitlement. And he stands for a pig-headed inability to understand that the game is up and he should give up. There is something honest about Ed Balls - what he stands for is written all over his porcine face and in every stuttering statement. For Ed, it is all about the Balls, and that's why I'd urge all Labour supporters to back him. Besides, naked self-serving transparency would probably be something that a lot of those who can vote in this leadership election can emphathise with...

Thanks to the BBC for their new "Air disasters timeline". Should really help with my fear of flying. Almost as much as the deceptively named Airsafe does.

Mind you, the last time I tried to fly anywhere, the problem wasn't so much what happened in the air, but rather the inability of the airline to get us off the fucking ground in the first place...

David Miliband - Winning the Bigot Vote

His campaign must be doing well, because Miliband Major has only gone and won the support of "that bigoted woman":

Gillian Duffy told the Daily Mirror that David Miliband would make a "great prime minister" after he visited her at home in Rochdale.

...

She said of David Miliband: "He's a really nice man and obviously very intelligent but also down to earth. I think he would be a great prime minister.

"I felt David really listened to my points of view and shared my concerns on the issues that matter to working people."

Good-o. An important supporter for Miliband Major. I wonder where his campaign will go next. Maybe he can go make peace with Sharon Storer. Or have a pint with that mullet-haired yokel who Prescott lamped back in 2001.

It is this sort of thing that really brings home just how much Miliband Major is the continuity candidate for Nu Labour. Fuck the issues, fuck the attempt to redefine Labour for a changed political landscape. Fuck all that, we've got to get on with this: the cheap publicity stunt with no real importance beyond a quick soundbite from someone no-one should really care about at all.

Sleeping in the Commons

The aroma of burning martyrs is almost overwhelming:

Some MPs reportedly slept in their offices recently following late sittings in the Commons.

Such events have become more rare in the last few years as politicians have brought in more family-friendly hours, but some have said they need to bed down at work to reduce costs in the wake of changes to their expenses regime.

The poor dears. If only we would give them more of our money to cunt away on second homes and kitkats from hotel minibars.

Still, it's nice that they are sleeping in their offices rather than during debates and votes. And it is also nice that they're working late. Like people across the country have to do on a regular basis. I mean, what the fuck do they want? A medal?

Actually, they probably do. And you know who would have to pay for that...

Gordon Brown's Work Ethic

Yep, Gordo has been writing his book and apparently we're supposed to be impressed:

Gordon Brown has reportedly been writing thousands of words a day since leaving office.

Great. Well done Gordon. Except anyone who has ever tried writing anything other than an essay will know that it is, typing skills permitting, possible to write thousands of words a day. The trick is writing a thousands of words a day that are actually worth reading - as opposed to writing thousands of words of self-serving arse.

I've always been surprised that we're supposed to be impressed by Gordon's work ethic. Sure, the man might work hard. But working hard is not the same as doing quality work. Ronald Reagan worked just a few hours a day, yet ruled the USA for eight years and helped to end the Cold War. Gordon Brown worked (if his spin is to be believed) eight days a week, yet he fucked up this country and his own chances of re-election.

So write away, Gordon. Keep on writing. Write thousands of words a day. That still won't make what you write worth reading.

Why it is too early to write off Obama

It is becoming increasingly common to see Barack Obama's chances of re-election being written off by many. But I reckon it remains far too early to wave goodbye to the concept of a second-term for President Obama.

Certainly, I'd agree that his first term in office has not been as smooth as many might have expected. For example, the potential loss of Rahm Emmanuel would be a further swift kick in the knackers for Obama. Then again, White House Chief of Staffs are often replaced (look at the number who served under Clinton). The idea that a Chief of Staff is there for the duration is a largely fictional one (see Leo McGarry) or only happens if said Chief of Staff is largely impotent (see Andrew Card). Powerful, politically ambitious and long-serving Chief of Staffs are few and far between - H R Haldeman was arguably all three, but who wants to follow his career trajectory?

Other factors, like the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, have actually played out quite well for Obama. Sure, he's taken some flak for not responding quickly enough to that disaster and (from some) faced criticism for his anti-business rhetoric. But guess what? He's targeted BP (rightly or wrongly) for a reason, and as I watch Tony Hayward easing himself out of BP, I can't help but notice that he has been pretty successful at deflecting attention from himself to one of the companies responsible for the disaster. Sure, by all means criticise Obama for his rhetoric, but don't lose sight of the fact that it is done for a reason - and that Obama seems to be benefitting from that rhetoric.

No doubt that if the Democrats do badly in the midterms, we'll have another round of gleeful "Obama's finished" stories. But again, they'll be short-sighted, since Presidents often face a hostile congress. Furthermore, both Clinton and Reagan were unpopular at the mid-point of their first terms, yet went on to win comfortable victories at the next Presidential election. By contrast, Bush Senior was very popular about halfway through his first term. It didn't stop him from going into early retirement after the 1992 Presidential election.

Whenever I see someone writing off Obama, or comparing him to Jimmy Carter (which is basically the same thing), I can't help but notice that there is a fair amount of wishful thinking involved in such statements. Of course those on the right, or who are for the free market and against increasing the size of an already bloated state even further, want Obama to fall at the next election. But the sad truth is wanting it will not, alone, make it happen. And there is one big thing missing for those who want Obama to replicate Carter's performance in 1980. Namely, a decent Republican candidate.

Because in order for Obama to fall, there needs to be a credible opposition. And at the moment, the Republican party is struggling to be one. Sure, some of its attacks against Obama are sticking - and this will help it in the mid-terms - but a victory in a Presidential election needs a credible, eloquent spokesperson who can become the nominee. That's what's absent from the Republican party at the moment. The party is an amorphous, anti-Obama blob, with no clear figurehead. And put very simply, an anti-Obama feeling is not going to be able to become the next President of the United States. The Republican party needs to be trying to identify people to nominate, right here, right now. And if they really want to win the White House back, then they need to find someone credible to nominate.

Because it certainly won't happen if the Republicans nominate that utter moron Sarah Palin...

Twattering

In a u-turn quicker than a Nu Labour minister facing a bit of tabloid pressure (given my comments on Friday), I'm now experimenting with a Twatter feed. Rest assured, I remain heartedly unconvinced by its usefulness and whether I can really be bothered with it, but in the interests of at least being a bit open-minded I'm willing to give it a go.

I'm going to attempt to put each post from this blog on to Twatter. I did try doing the same with my Facebook group, but I grew bored of that remarkably quickly. Therefore, if anyone knows of a way to link this blog to Twatter so all posts here are automatically be published there without an iota of effort from your humble author, please let me know in the comments sections. Oh, and please tell me how as well.

Right, enough of these new(ish)-fangled methods of t'interweb communication. Back to "normal" blogging.

Diss of the Day: Andy Burnham

A wonderful, and presumably unintentional, diss of Andy Burnham by the BBC in this article:

Mr Balls' rival Ed Miliband now has the support of Unison and the GMB unions as well as Unite. His brother David has won the support of two unions - Community and Usdaw.

Diane Abbott is currently being supported by two unions, the Transport Salaried Staff Association (TSSA) and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF). The fifth candidate in the election is Andy Burnham.

Poor old Andy. He's doing so badly in this election of non-entities that the BBC can't even talk about who is supporting him. All they can do is briefly remind people that he is still running.

Let's face it, he should just drop out now, because the longer he stays in this contest, the more embarrassing it becomes. He can't say he's in it to win it - the best he can say is that he's (barely) in it. He can't claim he's laying down a marker for the future, since this campaign will not leave him as a potential candidate of the future, but rather as someone synonymous with failure.

This is the least inspiring line-up of potential leaders that I can remember in a long time, and Burnham is proving himself to be the least inspiring of those insipid candidates. Andy Burnham is a non-entity fighting to get survive in a field already clogged up by non-entities, and perhaps the most damning indictment of Burnham's campaign is the realisation that if he pulled out now, no-one would really notice he'd gone.

Doctor Who - Blood of the Cybermen

"Do you even know what a plan is?"

So asks Amy at the end of Blood of the Cybermen. And it is a good question, since the adventure that precedes the comment shows that the Doctor has no plan whatsoever. And the overall feeling of the adventure is even better because of it.

Make no mistake about it, Blood of the Cybermen represents a massive step forward from the lumpen, often tedious City of the Daleks. It has a plot and everything. Sure, there are still the irritating little games (the maze format in particular becomes very boring very quickly) and the story is far more RTD than Moffat, particularly in the way in which it is resolved. But there is a certain confidence and sense of direction in Blood of the Cybermen that was missing from City of the Daleks. It even has some striking images that could rival some of the more terrifying ones from the TV series - particularly the idea of cyber-conversion as plague. In this respect, it nicely mirrors The Pandorica Opens - it does something interesting with the Cybermen.

Sure, on the TV screen, this would be a slight episode - one watched, and then promptly forgotten about. But it feels far more like the real episode that it so desperately wants to be than its predecessor, and that alone needs to be celebrated. This time, the script did some justice to the others who desperately try to create a gaming equivalent of the TV version of Doctor Who. So if you want to play the Doctor (and Amy), then skip City of the Daleks and instead go straight to Blood of the Cyberman.

The Doctor doesn't seem to have a plan, but judging by this, those making these games may yet show themselves to be capable of effectively planning a decent Doctor Who game.

A Manifestation of the Totally Boring - the Labour Leadership Election

Has there ever been an election more boring that the current contest to become Labour leader? If there has, then I've not come across it. Even Diane Abbott - a cretin but at least a cretin with opinions - has shown herself to be a damp squib in this contest. Miliband Major must be very pleased that he helped her into the contest; in doing so, he has made sure that the left is technically being represented without actually having a left-wing voice in the campaign. Basically, this leadership contest has become about five boring people in a room being boring. In silence.

Part of the reason for this is down to the candidates running. They are all lacking in charisma. In fact, for this lot, charisma is something that happens to other people. The fact that David Miliband - a man who makes IDS look like an eloquent, fiery demagogue - is leading this contest perfectly sums up the dearth of talent involved in it.

But there is a further problem; barring the surprisingly silent Abbott, the other four are so far immersed in the recent history of the Labour party that they are practically drowned by it. This extract from an article on The New Statesman perfectly sums it up:

Ed Miliband has ditched Labour's manifesto commitment to a 2:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax rises, and has hinted he would prefer a 50:50 split. I pointed this out to a former cabinet minister, now backing the elder Miliband, who rolled his eyes and said: "You mean the manifesto that Ed himself wrote?"

Which rather nails it for me. The Labour leadership candidates can all claim to be the bold new pioneers trying to drag Labour away from the now utterly discredited Nu Labour project, but barring Abbott they helped the creators of Nu Labour and did their level best to keep it afloat for years. And Abbott isn't about a bold new future for her party; she would drag it back to the days of Michael Foot. When it was even less popular than it is right now.

Whoever wins this leadership election almost doesn't matter; they will end up being the compromise leader of a compromised party. They cannot take the party forward into the future because they cannot escape the past. For better or for worse, the political zeitgeist belongs to Cameron and Clegg - the Scaramanga and Nick Nack of modern politics. The result of this leadership election will not change that.

Iain Dale: Against Protest, Against Democracy

It's a couple of days old now, but Iain Dale has another post up about those protestors who were in Parliament Square. And it shows him at his smuggest, illiberal and most insufferable worst:

Oh dear, I seem to have upset some people on Twitter this morning. Hey ho. I can't see why. What part of what I wrote can be disputed?

Let's see what Dale wrote on Twatter Twitter then:

Going past Parliament Sq on the 87 bus. Rejoice! The squatters have been evicted. Dirty, filthy layabouts.

Hmmm. I have real problems with his statement on Twittier, but let's see how he defends it:

They have indeed been evicted.

That doesn't make the eviction right, though. It may have been rubber-stamped by a judge (although only on appeal) but that doesn't automatically make the judge correct of the law correct. It is possible for the justice system to be unjust in its decisions.

And the fact that the whole site stinks of urine and faeces indicates the people who squatted their had issues regarding personal hygiene.

Well, my understanding of Parliament Square suggests that there are no toilets there. And my understanding of camping is that the longer you do it for, the more compromised your personal hygiene will become. It isn't pleasant - especially for those who have to clean up - but it seems to be a fact of life that those who camp in areas with no toilet or washing facilities will end up with some personal hygiene problems. Which, as an aside, is one of the reasons why I don't go camping.

And I hardly think the word layabout is going over the top to describe them. What else should I have called them? Fine, upstanding members of society? I think not.

Yep, but this is pure opinion, and the concept of what constitutes a layabout is both relative and very much in the eye of the beholder. Some would argue that these people are upstanding members of society since they are directly using their democratic right to protest. They might even argue that these people are contribute much more to our democracy that preening egotistical bloggers like Dale.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. This is not, as someone said "a sad day for democracy". It is the day when the silent majority fought back and said "enough".

Really? You're really going to do that? You're going to use one of Nixon's terms (the President when the Kent State Massacre took place) to justify your tweet? Now I've got to admit, that's bold.

But this isn't the day when the Silent Majority fought back. It is the day when the Mayor of London managed to stop protest from happening in front of the Houses of Parliament (which does make it a sad day for democracy, by the way) - to the applause of illiberal idiots like Dale. This is all about an elite dictating the terms of protest, and making sure that it does not happen in their line of view. It is not a victory by some sort of grassroots movement.

And while we're on the subject, I seem to remember reading once that many of the letters sent to Nixon from "the Silent Majority" were actually fabricated by Nixon's aides for political purposes. I suspect that Dale's "Silent Majority" is rather like Nixon's - all in his head.

Well done to Boris for carrying through on his promise.

Or to put it another way, well done to Boris for doing something that Dale agrees with.

I'm not going to rehearse the arguments about why backing a clampdown on protest in the very heart of democracy in this country is bad, but Dale's objections still mainly seem to be about the aesthetics of the protests and the fact that he thinks the people protesting smell. It just goes to show how paper-thin Dale's liberalism is, and how in reality he is socially conservative through and through.

Quote of the Day - Undermining Authority

"The greatest enemy of authority... is contempt, and the surest way to undermine it is laughter."

Hannah Arendt, 1969.

Fleet Foxes - White Winter Hymnal

Well, I'm off to Wales (via Birmingham and Malvern) for the next couple of days, so there won't be much posting on here - I'm off to the wedding of the Moai. There might be a bit of YouTube and a random quote coming up, though, so please feel free to pop back even while I'm away. Assuming you don't have anything better to do with your time...

The Big Society

So that's it? Really? That's all it is? Cameron's great, exciting, bold new vision for the future is little more than a Lyndon Johnson rip-off? Actually, I don't know why I'm surprised. It was always going to be like this. They are, after all, the Tories.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for increased localism and increased voluntarism. Yet this doesn't feel like the great rolling back of the state that we almost seem expected to think it is. Firstly, there's a suspicion that the areas being foisted onto volunteers are all areas which the government can no longer afford to fund and run itself. Furthermore, I remain very uncomfortable about state-promoted voluntarism; it has the potential to become the state interfering further in people's lives rather than the state retreating from the private realm. Besides, by definition, voluntary work taken up under compulsion from others ceases to be voluntary work.

However the biggest problem I have with all this is that it is state led. The central government is telling its people what areas they are allowed a little bit of autonomy in, and no doubt will also tell people how to go about their voluntary actions. This isn't about freedom, it's paternalism rebranded. It is a bit like parents allowing their kids to do a few things on their own - ultimately the parents remain in control because they can decide which areas their kids are allowed to be free in, and can also decide to remove that freedom whenever they see fit.

All this is based on the assumption that the central government knows best, and that state control is a given. And I just cannot stomach that. All this is saying is "you can be free if the government lets you." And that isn't freedom; in fact, it is quite the opposite. I don't want a big society, headed up by a bloated government. I want a free society, where those living in it can decide for themselves what that society should look like, rather than responding to government control and "guidance".

The Burkha Ban and the Tyranny of the Majority

And so it's raising its ugly head again - the talk of a ban on the burka.

Regular readers will know my stance on this; I'm not for any ban on full-face veils. That's not to say that I like the concept of the burka, or the niqab - however I feel the same way about them as I do most religious symbols. They are pointless, but not threatening. I think they are silly, but not offensive. If anything, I think a t-shirt with Che Guevara on it is more offensive than a Muslim veil. And no, I'm not calling for a ban on crass t-shirts. I don't think the state has any right to decide on what its citizens wear - if it starts to, then it may as well give Cabinet positions to those nauseating judgmental gits Trinny and Susannah.

And I also don't believe that the burka is synonymous with misogyny and sexism. I'm sure that some women are forced to wear the burka against their will, but that it doesn't then follow that all women who wear the veil are forced to do so. Some might choose to wear them. To believe that all women are forced into wearing the garment is like arguing that all western women who wear a short skirt are forced to do so by abusive and/or domineering men. That isn't the case; it maybe true in some scenarios, but by no means all. Besides, I think there is something very odd about trying to make the banning of the burka into a feminist crusade - effectively, this is saying that we're going to make women more free by removing the choice of whether or not they can wear the burka.

However, a couple of new arguments have come up from the pro-ban brigade. Firstly, we have the assertion that we should do it because the French have also done it. Sorry, but no dice. The French have done many things throughout their history that we have not done; the fact that another country has chosen to do something does not make it (a) right or (b) something we have to do as well.

Perhaps the better new argument from the pro-ban brigade, though, comes in the shape of the results from a recent poll mentioned in this Daily Telegraph article:

A YouGov survey last week found that 67 per cent of voters wanted the wearing of full-face veils to be made illegal.

And so, the argument goes, if 67% of the people want it, surely we should go for it, given we are a democracy?

Well, first up, polls are notoriously unreliable. According to the polls, Thomas Dewey won the 1948 US Presidential election, and Neil Kinnock won the 1992 UK General Election. Part of the problem with polls is that they don't actually ask the voters - they actually ask a tiny group of voters that they believe is representative of the people as a whole. This then allows for all sorts of distortion, including in how these things are reported. The line from the Telegraph article above should read "67% of the small group of potential voters approached as part of the survery want it" rather than claiming that "67 per cent of voters want it".

The other problem with polls is about the question(s) being asked. You might get 67% of those asked claiming that they want a ban if you ask something like this: "In order to combat the ever-present threat of international terrorism, do you believe the oppressive burka should be banned?" However, if you change the question to something like "do you believe that as an open, tolerant and non-racist country Britain should continue to allow women to chose whether they wish to wear the burka", you might find 67% against the ban. And neither question would test just how much people care about the issue of a burka ban. There is much truth in the idea that you can make polls say pretty much anything you like.

But even if over 50% of the British population were demanding the ban of the burka right now as a matter of absolute top priority, it still wouldn't make it right. Indeed, many liberal theorists committed to democracy were deeply worried about the tyranny of the majority - which is exactly what this would be. 51% of the population can be wrong, and they can be wrong and oppressive...

Ultimately, we won't solve the problem of religious fundamentalism or sexism/misogyny by banning the burka. However, the ban would make Britain a little less liberal and a little less free. And it will also perpetuate the patronising and repugnant myth that all women from ethnic minorities are not capable of making their own decisions, and require others to make them "free" - whether they want this ersatz enforced freedom or not.

On Electoral Reform

The recent news about a potential referendum on electoral reform has created a lot of excitement for some. Despite the fact that I can see a case for the reform of the electoral system, I can't get too excited about this referendum. Firstly, all electoral systems have flaws, and you're not going to get true representation under any system. As far as I can see, we'd be replacing one flawed system with another, equally flawed, system.

And there's another reason why I don't think it is worth getting too excited about the concept of electoral reform - it isn't going to happen. I think the referendum will go ahead - it is too important for the Liberal Democrats and therefore for the coalition to be abandoned in the Commons. But at that referendum, only the Liberal Democrats will be campaigning for electoral reform. The Labour party will have overcome their brief flirtation with electoral reform that they experienced after the election, and will use the chance to fight against electoral reform during the referendum campaign as an opportunity to punish the Liberal Democrats for not joining them in a so-called "progressive coalition". The Tories aren't going to campaign for electoral reform either; the current system served them very well prior to 1992, and (the way things are going) will give them a workable majority at the next election. The electoral machines of the two main parties in this country will almost certainly campaign against electoral reform which means, with the best will in the world, that it ain't going to happen.

However, let's not get too carried away with the notion that the Liberal Democrats are seeking electoral reform because, unlike the two main parties, they are concerned with issues of representation. The reason why the Liberal Democrats want a new voting system is because it will benefit them. They are the victims of this current situation, and they - perhaps understandably - want to change that. However, this has nothing to do with democracy; instead it is down to self-interest.

And that's the biggest problem I have with electoral reform - it isn't going to change the way politics in this country works. It is smokes and mirrors - creating debate about a potential change that will, in reality, change very little. The problem with our democracy is that it is now dominated by three parties which, on so many areas, operate in open agreement on political fundamentals. And their party machines choose candidates - they take them, remove independence and thought from those candidates - and turn them into blind automatons to fight elections without using ideology or controversy. Then they can enter the Commons, where they become lobby fodder. In the unlikely event that they reach a position of real political power, they will be so used to conformity and so fearful of taking a controversial position that they will be just as bland as every post-Thatcher PM has been. The problem isn't with the electoral system; it is down to the fact that our "democracy" has become a self-perpetuating oligarchy dominated by bland party machines lost in a general ideological consensus.

Sure, yeah, let's have a referendum on electoral reform. Let's change the electoral system. But until we are actually willing to use that electoral system to reject the bland mainstream parties and consider more radical alternatives, nothing will really change in British politics.

Belle & Sebastian - Jonathan David

Abbott and Obama

Apparently, Diane Abbott isn't comparing herself to Barack Obama:

"I'm not comparing myself to Barack Obama because he's a once in a life-time figure but two years ago no-one could have imagined a black man as US President. If that was possible in the US, I think people can change their ideas in Britain as well."

Finally, I can agree with Diane Abbott. She's not like Barack Obama. In reality, all they share is the fact that they come from ethnic minorities in their respective countries. Aside from that, they share nothing. Obama is an intelligent, politically savvy with a certain quiet charisma and, for the most part, a very measured approach to political action. He is also, for a politician, relatively good looking. Unlike Ms Abbott, who is fat, earnest, hypocritical cliche and a charisma vacuum to boot. Seriously, watch her on stage with the other four candidates for the Labour leadership. She is the only person - bar Gordon Brown - who seems able to make Ed Balls look quite personable by comparison. The differences between her and the incumbent US President could not be more pronounced: somehow, Obama made himself synonymous with hope. Abbott is synonymous with nothing that even approaches hope.

So no, Diane Abbot is not like Obama. The very fact that she would compare herself with Obama highlights just how much of her political identity she equates with her ethnicity. And for the record, I think people in Britain probably would change their ideas and elect someone from an ethnic minority as a party leader, and potentially even Prime Minister. However, it isn't ideas around ethnicity that would have to change in order to put Abbott in Number 10. It is also our ideas around why it isn't a great idea to elect an inarticulate, hypocritical, socialist idiot as Prime Minister.

The Graduate Tax

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, is proposing a Graduate Tax to replace student loans:

He said he had asked Lord Browne to look at the idea of a graduate tax "as a priority" in his current review in to higher education funding in England.

This would mean students paying for their studies through the tax system, rather than through subsidised loans.

He said high-earning graduates would pay more than those on low incomes.

Right, let's look at why this is wrong. Why it is more than just wrong - why it is both dumb and appalling. And let's do that through an analogy.

Two students walk into the students union shop to claim a free pen when they first start their degrees. One student uses his pen to take lots of notes on lectures and seminars during his time at university. The other uses his pen to draw genitals in various library books. The former gets a first, the latter a third. Is then right to slap the former with a hefty charge for his pen (in part to fund the pen of the latter) because he managed to put it to much better use than the latter? Because that is what this tax is effectively trying to do.

If you do well at university, and consequently get a high paying job, you will end up earning more than someone who spunked away their time at university in various bars. However, you will have used the benefit of a university education far better than the person who just used it as a chance to party for three years. However, under a graduate tax, you would pay more than someone who did bugger all at university. You would pay more for having done well at your studies. You would end up paying for someone who has done less well than you, on account of nothing other than their relative failure.

On what planet is that fair? On what planet is that not penalising those who work harder at university? And is that the sort of society we want to be? Where we charge those who work harder more than those who waste their opportunities? Do we really want to disincentivise people from getting good degrees from good universities, and then going on to do good jobs?

Cable justifies it in this way:

"It surely can't be right that a teacher or care worker is expected to pay the same graduate contribution as a top commercial lawyer or surgeon," he said.

Well, yes, it can be right if they have all got degrees. It is like saying that it can't be right that a care worker has to pay the same as a commercial lawyer for a bottle of coke. It is right, given they are buying a commodity - through their own choice - of the same, or at least comparable, value. Sure, by all make your case that commercial lawyers earn too much relative to care workers, but the way to combat that is not something as regressive as a tax on the wealthy. It is to start getting people to question why there is such a wide disparity in salary between more vocational work and more commercial work. The way to change this - if you actually believe that this needs to be changed - is through changing attitudes. Not to further penalise the successful through regressive taxation.

And while we're on the subject, let's lay to rest the myth that those who earn more should pay more tax. Because the reality is they already do. Someone who earns £20,000 and gives up 25% of their earnings to the tax man will give £5,000 to the state. Someone who earns £40,000 and gives up 25% to the state would be losing £10,000. And that is assuming a flat tax rate across all earnings which, of course, does not exist.

All this achieves is creating a culture where those who have done well are made to pay more for their success than those who have done less well. The graduate tax is effectively saying "don't worry if you've got a third and are heading for the dole queue - the person who has just got a first and is heading for a decent job will fund your further education". It is nothing more than an example of the ever unworkable Marxist slogan "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

And this is supposed to be "radical" thinking on funding further education. Bollocks. Bollocks on stilts. This is absolutely typical of the mindset of modern political parties. Got a problem? Tax it. People drinking more than you would like? Increase the tax on booze. Do the same thing if you have an issue with smoking. Too much congestion? Try a tax. Further education a problem? Here's a thought - try tax. If it moves, tax it.

In short, there is nothing radical about tax, and in particular about tax increases. They are the norm, not the exception. You want to be genuinely radical about universities? Why not start thinking about reducing the number of people who go to universities? If you want to think the unthinkable, why not consider having fewer universities? Why not consider abandoning the arbitrary target set by Blair for university placements? Why not entertain the idea that some people might be better served by not going to university?

A graduate tax would be a further corruption and devaluation of the university system in this country. It would further extend the idea of entitlement at the expense of others in this country. If the Tories have an ounce of backbone or dignity, they will kill this idea from the socialist-in-denial Cable right now. It is wrong, it is unfair, and it needs to be stopped.

The Mash on the Graduate Tax

I've got a lot to say on Vince Cable's new, and utterly moronic, idea for a graduate tax, but it will have to wait until I've got a bit more time to put my thoughts in order. In the meantime, I'll send you in the direction of this article on The Daily Mash, and in particular this quotation:

"It is a central tenet of Liberal Democrat philosophy that the harder you work, the more tax you should pay."

As Homer Simpson might say, it's funny 'cos it's true.

BNP Infighting

It is always nice to have a bit of good news on a Friday morning, so I was very pleased to read that the infighting within the BNP has led to a high-profile sacking:

The infighting inside the BNP has taken a new turn with news that Richard Barnbrook has been sacked as the party organiser in Barking & Dagenham. He is being blamed for the party's defeat in east London but in truth he's been targeted because of his close association to Eddy Butler who is challenging Nick Griffin for the party leadership.

Excellent stuff - long may it continue. Let's hope that this party of knuckle-dragging racists tears itself apart. Of course, I don't expect the end of the BNP to mean the end of racism in Britain, but if that party does manage to spontaneously combust under the weight of its failure and the egos within it then that can only be a good thing. If only because it might help to provoke the main parties to rethink their policies on immigration and make them more about coming up with a meaningful immigration system, rather than just trying to outflank the BNP on this issue.

I rather think Richard Murphy could become a firm favourite of this blog, if only because he seems to be so crushingly ignorant. Check out this statement that he posted yesterday about the comments on a particular website:

...the libertarians and racists are out in force (why do they go together?)

Put very simply, they don't. The fact that those Murphy and his ilk would term Libertarians and racists might comment on the same website means absolutely nothing. It is a bit like claiming that Labour and the BNP go together because they have had party members serving together on a couple of local councils in the UK.

And if you stop to think about it for more than just a second, the concept of racist Libertarians actually makes very little sense. In order to implement racist policies, you need a high level of state intervention - something that Libertarians will instinctively be against. Indeed, two of the most racist states in history - Nazi Germany and South Africa under apartheid - made a veritable fetish out state control. And such states are clearly the opposite of what a Libertarian would want. Sure, you might be able to find some racists out there who dub themselves Libertarians, but the same is true of any political party/movement in the world. There will be racist Labour party members, racist socialists and racists tax lovers.

To try to lump Libertarians and racists together is frankly an ignorant thing to do, and looks for all the world like the desperate attempt to discredit an enemy that Murphy cannot argue against properly.

UPDATE

In the comments section of this post, Christie Malry points out that Murphy is now claiming that he is a Libertarian. Words fail me. I literally don't know what to say. It's a bit like Ed Balls claiming he's a Libertarian (although the way his leadership campaign is going he may yet do so) or Margaret Thatcher saying that actually she was a socialist. It is, not to put to fine a point on it, absolute bollocks.

Actually, I do know what to say now, and it's this: there is nothing Libertarian about Murphy. He worships at the altar of state control, seems to find taxation almost erotic rather than (at best) a necessary evil, and he wants to suppress free speech. The man isn't a Libertarian; if anything, he borders on facist a lot of the time.

Starsuckers

Starsuckers is a film by the same chap who made the excellent Taking Liberties. I thoroughly recommend the latter film; it is the type of piece that can make you very angry at just how our civil liberties have been frankly shat on under the utterly spurious idea of the "War on Terror". However, Starsuckers is different. It's a film about the manipulation of the media by corporations to sell products, and about the lack of balance against the messages proposed by these corporations. It is also about how celebrities have devalued democracy, and the dangerous implications of what happens when celebrities become experts.

As a result, it isn't a very good film. For several reasons.

Firstly, the director was railing against the lack of balance against the messages protrayed in the media by large corporations by... making a deeply unbalanced film. The director's (for he was at the screening and took questions after the film) argument that if people wanted balance then they could just go and read the mainstream media did not stand up to close scrutiny. If you want balance in journalism, then you should lead by example and create balance in your own work. Starsuckers isn't balanced at all; it a furious polemic. Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against furious polemics - this blog is full of them - but you shouldn't attempt to claim such polemics as journalism or anything other than biased commentary on the modern world. It is counter-intuitive to the point of stupidity to make a completely unbalanced film about the lack of balance.

Secondly, the film also made a lot out of the fact that newspapers would print unsubstantiated - or to put it more brutally, made up - stories. Which would be more shocking if we weren't talking about the tabloid end of the newspaper world and if the stories concerned weren't minor ones about celebrities. So what if the newspaper managed to get stories about Guy Ritchie juggling and Sarah Harding reading quantum physics into the gossip columns of tabloid newspapers? These stories hardly change the world; in fact, you forget about them as soon as you have read them (if you are interested enough to read them in the first place). I'd be far more inclined to be worried - and, indeed, interested - if these were the front page stories of reputable newspapers being made-up and phoned in. Unfortunately, they weren't. And it doesn't follow that stories printed as gossip in trashy sections of trashy tabloids being faked means that the major news stories in better newspapers are faked as well. The film seemed almost inclined to dismiss all journalism based on the actions of some gossip columnists writing largely irrelevant stories.

Furthermore, the whole thing felt like the content of the film - that corporations want to make money from you and will try to manipulate you in the process - was meant to be a massive revelation. And, of course, it really isn't. I've known about this for about as long as I can remember. I know there is bias in the media, and I deal with it. Nothing in this film actually surprised me beyond the apparent naivete of the production team, since all of this seemed to be coming as a total surprise to them.

Let's take an example. The film presented a negative side to both Live Aid and Live 8, and expected me to be surprised that the events weren't both total successes. Sorry, guys, but I don't really remember a time when I didn't think that both events were deeply flawed to the point of being worthless. The director's assertion that Geldof's version of the events - that both were resounding successes - has largely been unchallenged is simply not true. You can find alternative voices to the mainstream media. You just have to go and look for them.

Which leads me nicely to my main objection to the film. It seemed to suggest that we were all dumb and unable to work out these tricks of manipulation for ourselves. In some respects, it took an almost typically left-wing view that people as a whole need a wiser person to point out the reality of the world to them. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I have a greater faith in the intellectual capacities of most people. I think they will see through the lies, manipulations and distortions presented by some media outlets, and understand why those distortions occur. They will also understand that a celebrity is far less likely to have anything meaningful to say on many subjects than an expert in that field. We don't need a film like Starsuckers to point this out to us.

And this is the film's biggest problem - it comes across as patronising. It states the bleedin' obvious like it should be a complete surprise to us, and then expects us to swoon in awe-struck admiration at these crushingly self-apparent revelations. It almost seems to think that we're all too stupid to understand the world around us. I don't think that's true. But the upshot is we end up with a deeply cynical film that believes itself to be far more impressive and important than it actually is, or is ever likely to be.

Labour's record in government

Using the sort of levels of self-deception normally associated with a North Korean government official, Jackie Ashley is defending Labour's record in government:

Somebody needs to fight back against the hysterical torrent of abuse being poured on Labour's economic record, which after all included a decade of good times, the rebuilding of public services, and successful action to stave off a full-scale collapse in the banking system. It may be too early: the self-righteousness of the Labour-haters now matches the self-righteousness of New Labour in its pomp. But the time will come.

Where to begin? The torrent of abuse against Nu Labour might occasionally sound hysterical, but frankly that is with good reason. Labour's economic record is abysmal; they created a massive recession, over-spent to such an extent that radical cuts were the only way to keep this country afloat. And the decade of good times? Built on foundations of shifting sands, and as soon as the tide came in, those foundations were washed away, bringing the whole edifice down with a resounding crash. Praising Labour for the good times is a bit like praising Bernie Madoff for the good times; it misses the point that the failure was entirely down to what happened in those good times.

And the public services - what Labour managed to achieve there was to render every public service in this country not fit for purpose. The NHS is now, in many respects, deeply unhealthy. The education system often fails to educate people on any level. The armed forces are overstretched and underequipped, and the police force is lost in mindless bureaucracy and propped up by hundreds of ersatz officers with all the gravitas and authority of a vice-prefect in a school. The welfare state has ceased to be a safety net for people in need and has instead made living off benefits into a career choice. Labour didn't rebuild the public services; it battered the living crap out of them. The only way it could have undermined public services any further is by dropping napalm on all the public buildings in this country.

And stopping a full-scale collapse in the banking sector? Someone needs to spend less time listening to the self-aggrandising wibblings of Gordon "Saviour of the World" Brown. Labour simply took billions of pounds of the taxpayer's money and spent it part-nationalising shit banks that were failing. It is the same as borrowing a billion pounds and putting it on a three-legged horse with a lung complaint to win the Grand National - it is a jarringly stupid course of action, and one that borders on criminally negligent.

It is too early to start fighting back against the abuse heaped on Labour over their record in office, and it will always be too early. That's because their record in office was shocking - anyone defending it simply makes themselves look very, very stupid. The best bet for the Labour party is not to mention their record - a little like Basil Fawlty and the war - because when they do mention it, they simply point out just how incapable they were in power, and why they should not be allowed back into government for at least a generation.

Arcade Fire: Wake Up

There's a new Arcade Fire album on August 2nd (according to Wikipedia, so subject to both change and the impact of reality). If, like me, you can't wait, then here's a classic track from their brilliant debut album. Enjoy:

Refuting Richard Murphy: Freedom isn't Censorship

It has been commented on elsewhere over the course of the weekend, but I’d like to take a detailed look at a farcical comment on a farcical post on the blog of one Richard Murphy. He starts with an eye-opening, almost staggering bit of doublethink:

Censorship is an essential part of freedom

Really? I’d say censorship is, and always has been, an enemy of freedom. But let’s see how Murphy backs up his frankly audacious beginning.

Only those on the autistic spectrum fail to understand that editing is essential

Hmmm, I’m pretty sure that is (a) inaccurate and therefore (b) pretty insulting to those who happen to be on the autism spectrum. Perhaps someone needs to censor Murphy. At least, as we shall come to see, according to his own "logic".

Anyone with any sense does it persistently - not least because most of us do no wish to cause offence

But editing has also to be enforced on occasion. We protect the vulnerable - on grounds of gender, age, race, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, national origin and more - and rightly so

They must have the right to live unimpeded by those who would pick on them. This is done out of respect for them - we choose their rights over those of their oppressors, and rightly so

First things first, note how the word “censorship” seems to have been replaced with the much less controversial word “editing”.

But here is an essential point: Murphy seems to think that those who are discriminated against or oppressed are best served by trying to silence those who would discriminate against them/oppress them - as an aside, maybe we should oppress those who use autism as an insult - like Murphy. Unfortunately, this doesn’t tend to work. It is what Nu Labour tried to do for circa 10 years to the BNP, with the end result that the BNP started to look like martyrs and ended up making electoral headway. When the BNP were finally allowed to speak, more intelligent people showed just how crass their opinions were and they got their butts kicked in the last election. The message is clear: if you want to stop someone from oppressing someone else then simply let them talk and then discredit their opinions through superior argument. To me, it reeks of cowardice and fear about the efficacy of a counter-argument if you suppress someone else’s comment.

Well, I happen to think the right to free comment has also to be protected. If we do not then the right of free speech goes

Yet almost by very definition the right to free comment is being actively attacked if comments are censored.

And I, along with many others, think there is a coterie from the far right who do act deliberately and aggressively on web sites designed to encourage informed comment whose sole desire is to suppress that comment by imposing their will, aggressively

And I, along with many others, believe that there are a lot of sanctimonious people out there who are trying to impose their will by censoring others who happen to disagree with them. Like Mr Murphy.

That is in my opinion as oppressive as picking on a person for any of the reasons noted above - it is removing a persons liberty, their right to speak freely without fear, and to express a legitimate view without being intimidated

If you want to help someone to express their views without feeling intimidated, then stand up for them when they get abused.

Trying to oppress the oppressors simply makes you as bad as them, albeit through the use of different methods of oppression.

I see intimidation daily in the comments received here

I see it daily on CiF

I believe if the left are the defenders of free speech - and there’s not a shadow of doubt that left wing libertarians are just that - because unlike those who claim to be libertarians from the right we believe in the rights of all, then we have to say that the right of all to comment without fear of abuse and aggression has to be protected

If the Left are made up of people like you, Mr Murphy, then the Left represent the would-be destroyers of free speech.

That does not stop the right commenting

But yes it would prevent commentary from those known to be persistently abusive, whether on the site in question or elsewhere
I believe the value of CiF would sky rocket as a result

The value of CiF – which is limited at best – would not be aided by further censorship. If anything, that would make it more lopsided and would cease to make the comment there free. Perhaps it can be CiC instead – Comment is Censored.

And this is not censorship - it is standing up for free speech. It is opposing oppression. And it is saying editorial freedom is OK - after all, I’m not saying any bog should be shut. I’m not stopping any view point being expressed. I’m saying the right to edit is a freedom and a massively under used one on the left

The freedom to edit is not the same as the right to censor comments. And if you are censoring comments, then you are stopping viewpoints being expressed. See, an angry and/or abusive viewpoint is still a viewpoint. Mr Murphy needs to say what he means, and acknowledge that he is advocating censorship, and that by definition is a threat to free speech.

It’s massively used on the right. A friend of mine tells of seeking to place 25 comments, all mildly left of centre bar one on the Telegraph blog. 24 were blocked. The one where he agreed with Simon Heffer on classical music got through

I have a friend who told me that this is bollocks. Actually, I don’t, but anecdotal evidence like this generally is a complete waste of time.

So have no doubt the right censor on grounds of politics - and that apparently is fine

No, that isn’t fine. I don’t care who is trying to censor someone or what their political views are; they are wrong if they are trying to censor.

I’m not suggesting that. I’m just saying decency should prevail

And I think that’s completely and utterly reasonable

Except what is decency? Let’s try to spell it out – what is exactly is decency? Is it not swearing? Is it not calling someone stupid? Is it not disagreeing with someone? Is it not consistently calling into question someone else’s assertions when you do not agree with them? Is it indecent to question the wisdom of one Richard Murphy?

I think these final words in his comment show the truth about the Murphy definition of freedom:

And if you don’t understand that ask serious questions of yourself. But not here

What a smug and arrogant conclusion to a draconian and utterly illiberal comment, since the person Murphy was responding to was not thuggish, or abusive, or bullying. They were simply questioning Murphy's comments. It appears that, like so many people who believe they have discovered the truth, Murphy cannot bear dissent. Freedom for him is not so much the freedom to debate with him; it is about having the freedom to agree with him or not having the right to comment. Don't believe me? Take a look at the sixth requirement that a comment has to meet in order to be published on his site:

6. It is not questioning the fundamental tenets on which this blog is based.

Richard Murphy, trying to paint himself as a champion of free speech while he suppresses it.

Pathetic.

Reckless Drunk

The wonderfully named Mark Reckless on being too drunk to vote on the Finance Bill:

"I remember someone asking me to vote and not thinking it was appropriate, given how I was at the time.

"If I was in the sort of situation generally where I thought I was drunk I tend to go home.

"Westminster is a very special situation and all I can say... is given this very embarrassing experience I don't intend to drink at Westminster again."

It's funny, but in most places I've worked if you are drunk in the workplace then you get the sack. Reckless is lucky - very lucky - that he is in the Commons, where it is one rule for his lot, and one rule for the rest of us...

David Miliband: Loyal Critic

David Miliband on Gordon Brown:

"I supported and voted for him. I agreed that we needed greater moral seriousness and less indifference to the excesses of a celebrity-drenched culture.

"I agreed with him when he said that we needed greater coherence as a government, particularly in relation to child poverty and equality.

"I agreed with him on the importance of party reform and a meaningful internationalism that would be part of a unified government strategy.

"I agreed that we needed a civic morality to champion civility when confronting a widespread indifference to others.

"But it didn't happen."

And:

"It was not just more of the same. Far from correcting them, failings - tactics, spin, high-handedness - intensified, and we lost many of our strengths - optimism born of clear strategy, bold plans for change and reform, a compelling articulation of aspiration and hope.

"We did not succeed in renewing ourselves in office - and the roots of that failure were deep not recent, about procedure and openness, or lack of it, as much as policy," he added.

That would be David Miliband who served as Foreign Secretary throughout the Brown years. That would be the David Miliband who refused to challenge Gordon Brown, even when it was clear that Brown was a failure. That would be the David Miliband who only now seems to be recognising what the opinion polls were saying for ages, and what the electorate told his party in May: Gordon Brown was an unpopular failure.

It would also be this David Miliband, so I guess we shouldn't be too surprised:

David Miliband, loyal supporter of Gordon Brown. David Miliband, passionate critic of Gordon Brown. David Miliband, Bananaman. David Miliband, still in his disguise as Eric Wimp.

Provoking North Korea - a dumb idea

North Korea telling the "truth" about the attempted suicide of a US citizen in one of their prisons:

"Driven by his strong guilty conscience, disappointment and despair at the US government that has not taken any measure for his freedom, he attempted to commit suicide," the North's KCNA news agency said.

"He is now given first-aid treatment at a hospital."

Hmmm. Now, I'm not saying that a totalitarian dictatorship might tell self-serving lies, but I'm not so sure that he attempted to commit suicide because of guilt and despair at the US government. I'd imagine that the sentence of eight years of hard labour for the crime of entering the country is probably more of a motivating factor. Still, the North Korean government is responding with customary restraint; no chance of freedom for this chap, but rather "harsher punishment".

However, as much as I have sympathy for Gomes' plight, after all, he is probably living a nightmare each and every day at the moment, I do have to say that he was pretty dumb to provoke North Korea in the first place. That government has no respect for human rights of human life whatsoever; they were never going to respond well to Gomes' actions. And as a result, I do think that you have to be pretty dumb to provoke North Korea. It is a bit like prodding a rabid wolf in the bollocks with a big stick. At some point, said wolf is going to get pissed off. And when it does so, it is going to bite your fucking face off.

On Raoul Moat

Anyone looking at any of the British news outlets today will probably clock that the story of the meathead gunman Raoul Moat has ended. And it has ended in a deeply predictable way; like many of his monstrous ilk, Moat has not died in a hail of bullets fired by his pursuers, but rather by a self-inflicted gun wound and in a miasma of self-pity.

This part of the BBC news report made me raise my eyebrows though:

A guest-house owner, who did not want to be named, told the BBC: "He actually said, the one thing that sticks in my mind, 'I haven't got a dad'... and he also said that, 'nobody cares about me'."

Clearly Moat hasn't been catching up with the news - the downside, no doubt, to being on the run in a forest - because as far as I can see many people have cared about him this week. Every news outlet has been running multiple stories - about the hunt, about Moat as a person, and about what might have caused his attempted killing spree. Sure, people might not have cared that much about Moat's well-being, but every media outlet in the country did at least seem to care about what was happening.

And for the life of me I struggle to understand why. After all, the constant reports of the hunt for Moat are hardly the most fascinating of stories (we don't where he is, we don't know where he is, still no idea where he is, nope - no news on where he is, police have found him, he's dead). And it isn't really in the national interest either; the only reasons why anyone should have been concerned about Moat's shooty tendencies was if they happened to be a police officer in the Newcastle area or a resident in Rothbury. Otherwise, you were always going to be pretty safe from Moat. Furthermore, for a gunman on the run, Moat was mercifully poor at killing people - he tried three times and only succeeded once. The one successful slaying is a tragedy for the man's friends and family, but compared to the actions of others who go out killing with a gun, Moat's 33% success rate was pretty inept.

So why all the attention on this figure? His handsome good looks? I think we can dismiss that. No, I do believe that the only reason why our media spent so much time on this story is because they believed people wanted to hear about it. Which is utterly depressing. What does it say about a country that they want to revel in the hunt for a lethal, failed human being? Why do we want endless speculation about his motives? Why do we want graphic footage of the aftermath of one of his attacks? Are we really so base and so prurient that we have to see the video on the BBC website of this oaf's death?

The sad thing is that for a lot of the British population, the answer to that last question is "yes". Because while there is something innately brilliant about human potential, there is also a baser, darker side to the way we interact with each other. There is a sense in which we want to revel in the misfortune of others, and smugly note from relative safety that "there but for the grace of God go I". We also want to hear about the monsters - we want to hear about their monstrous acts, and like the reassurance when they've been caught and/or killed. And we want to smugly feel that we are better than the likes of Moat. Whatever our flaws, we're not as bad as this particular man.

To some extent, this tendency has always existed in humanity; it's just with the 24/7 news cycle the tendency becomes impossible to miss. What we've seen over the past week is the tendency of some people to rubber-neck at a car accident magnified on a national scale. It happens; to deny it is to be very naive. But that doesn't make this truth any easier to swallow, and if you're anything like me you'll end up feeling depressed not only that the likes of Moat exist, but also about the way many people respond to something like Moat's killings and the subsequent hunt for him.

This paragraph, from the ever insane LabourList, is an outstanding example of getting pretty much everything wrong:

There is a tremendous appetite in the Parliamentary Labour Party to debate where we went wrong, where we went right and most importantly where we go next. Often it feels like it descends into academic discussion while schools and housebuilding programmes are cancelled out in the real world, but there is a serious point behind it. Somehow it seems the Tories have managed to convince people that the only way out of the recession is to make savage cuts."‘We have a huge deficit that we have to repay", the argument goes, "so the cuts are inevitable". It’s easy to see how this sort of belief takes hold; it’s a straightforward return to Thatcher’s "balancing the household books" approach. If you owe money, you pay it back.

Let's start at the beginning of this paragraph. Firstly, I'm not seeing any appetite whatsoever within the Labour party to discuss where that party went wrong. On the contrary, there seems to be an ongoing failure to discuss the elephant in the room - that they actually lost the election. We hear about how the Tories didn't win outright, or that the Lib Dems somehow betrayed the Labour party by going into a coalition with the Tories. We don't hear about how the electorate turned against the Labour party after 13 years of power.

This sense of denial comes across in the second sentence of the paragraph. The author is missing the point that all the Labour can really do now is engage in academic debate since they are out of power. If the coalition wants to cut programmes, then they will do so. The Harman led Labour party can do nothing more than howl in empty impotence as this happens, because they are now the opposition rather than the government. In fact, it would be healthy for the Labour party to get lost in a haze of debate about their failures, because that's the only way they might be able to work out where they went so wrong, and how they might be able to win back the British people.

And the argument about how the Tories believe they can cut their way out of the recession is not quite correct. The Tories have got to make cuts because the Labour party spent far too much while in power. The Tories aren't so much worried about the recession as they are about the country going under. Cuts are inevitable and they do hurt: however, this debt does have to be paid back. And all of this is the fault of the Labour party; a bit of internal debate might help to show them that this is the case.

The simple fact is that if you spend money, you do have to pay it back. The last Labour government laboured (no pun intended) under the delusion that you could, like a political version of Viv Nicholson, spend spend spend without having to face the consequences. The reality is this money was always going to have to be paid back; anyone who says otherwise is hopelessly naive. And when that naivete occurs in a party governing a country - as it did under Gordon Brown - it becomes negligence. Criminal negligence.

There is a real need for an effective opposition in this country, and realistically only the Labour party can fulfill that role at the moment. However, in order to be effective, the Labour party also needs to be credible. And it cannot be credible as it continues to deny that spending cuts were inevitable and the fault of the Labour party. The future of the Labour party lies in highlighting which areas of government spending should not be cut, rather than attempting to deny that the cuts were inevitable and have become essential. The sort of delusional bollocks that appears on LabourList - day after day, week after week - simply shows that the Labour party hasn't clocked that politics in this country has fundamentally changed. It makes them look obstinate, naive and completely out of touch with political reality - which are among the key reasons why they were so comprehensively rejected at the last election.