From a report on the student protests:

Few seem to be older than 18, and several I have spoken to were under 16, having sneaked away from lessons without the knowledge of their schools

Wouldn't it make more sense to stay at school and get the qualifications necessary to get into university? Because I'm pretty sure that playing truant doesn't look great on a UCAS form...

Cablegate Boredom

Yet more genius from The Daily Mash:

Meanwhile, Julian Cook, professor of international news stories at Reading University, explained: "Everyone that America has been spying on would have already assumed that America was spying on them and if they didn't then they are even more cretinous than these leaks confirm them to be."

He added: "Nevertheless, the point about Wikileaks undermining the safety of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan would have some validity, if only it wasn't such a humongous vat of liquidised monkey-shit from start to finish.

"Because -and you might want to write this down and keep it somewhere safe - the key thingthat has undermined the safety of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is them firing their big fucking guns at Iraqis and Afghans.

"And of course that is usually on the orders of weasely little inadequates with penis issues who like to keep everything secret in a bid to make their imaginary cocks even bigger."

Can't fault any of that. And I'm not going to comment on "cablegate" or whatever the chuff it is called because, quite frankly, I don't give a fuck. The idea that diplomats might say shitty things behind the backs of other people when they believe it to be on confidence is not a news story in any way, shape or form.

The Sarah Jane Adventures: Lost In Time

One of the many ways in which The Sarah Jane Adventures is like classic Doctor Who is in how much the tone and style of the show varies from week to week. In class Doctor Who you could go from the tedious boredom of Sarn in Planet of Fire to the gritty, desperate drama of The Caves of Androzani right through to the absolute bollocks that is The Twin Dilemma in the space of just three stories. Likewise, The Sarah Jane Adventures allows you to go from a reasonably chilling ghost story to a working class alien Mona Lisa right through to farting aliens trying to take over the world using Nestle Clusters in the space of three adventures. In a sense, it is good that this happens because you never quite know what you are going to get. Of course, it also means that you could end up with a sub-par story for two weeks...

Lost in Time, however, raises the stakes. Not only is it very different to the story that went before, it also manages to tell four different stories with radically different tones across its 60 minutes. As a result, it never pauses for breath and sucks the viewer into its very diverse times. Clyde fights Nazis in rural World War Two; Rani witnesses the last days of Lady Jane Grey; Sarah Jane ghost hunts in the past. And all the while they are watched over by a mysterious (in that we are never given an explanation rather than him actually being enigmatic in his realisation on screen) by a strange Shopkeeper and his parrot. It might sound all over the place and a bit surreal. Hell, it is all over the place and a bit surreal. But that's why it works; there is so much happening that you can't help but find a part of the story to latch on to and enjoy.

There are downsides. I was left with the feeling that this whole story contained a number of plots because not one of the plots could actually sustain a full-length story on its own. And the linking narrative involving the Shopkeeper was very weak, in all honesty. It was nothing more than a catalyst for much more interesting action elsewhere. Furthermore, the resolution of the tedious "crisis" underpinning the story was lacklustre and anti-climatic. If your resolution involves a charisma lacking old lady turning up with a key to make everything alright again, then its probably time to go back to the drawing board and come up with something else. Preferably something good.

But, as a collection of stories, it worked. In fact, it is a good showcase for the series - it presented a neat summary of the types of stories the show does well. And it left me wondering just what the hell they would come up with next...

Admin and Announcements

Ah, the sort of post that an individual blogger believes to be of the utmost importance and everyone else skips over, wondering when something of actual interest is going to be written.

Let me explain what's going to happen (most probably) with this blog. As the eagle-eyed of you will have noticed, I have not been particularly prolific of late. The pace of my life has picked up both in terms of work and study which means something has to give; oddly enough, that's always going to be the blogging I do for free in the free time that has, of late, been radically diminished.

But I'm not giving up. Oh no, I'm not going to throw in the towel. Even if I tried, I know I would be back here again with a couple of weeks.

Instead of giving up, I'm going to be writing for the Liberty Cabal - a website that has the potential to be very important for the Libertarian movement in this country. The sort of posts I'll be putting up there will be about my conception of liberty as well as my concerns when I see it (all too often) being eroded by the "leaders" of this country. However, the political speculation, profane ranting and general geekery will remain at this site. And I'll also highlight my posts for the Liberty Cabal on this blog.

So a change; but most certainly not an end.

On Snow

Regardless of what you think of our imperial past (and I'm not the world's biggest fan of it), Britain used to be great. It had an empire that spanned the globe and a navy that was feared by every other nation. How time has changed things. Now pretty much the whole of the sodding British Isles can be brought to a shuddering halt by a bit of icy water settling on the ground.

But this post isn't whining about how crap we are at coping with even the most minimal amount of adversity. That much is obvious to anyone with more than three brain cells. No, what really strikes me is how just a smattering of the white stuff can reduce otherwise sensible adults into the state of jibbering, over-excited children. "Ooo look!" the cry goes out with the sort of excitement you might expect from someone who has just won the lottery "it's snowing!" Facebook and Twatter become rolling commentary on exactly what the weather is doing, and anyone who isn't jubilant over the fact that it is snowing is regarded as some sort of weird, misanthropic shit.

Of course, I understand that the snow looks nice - that is until someone walks in it or pisses in it or it starts to melt into that repugnant black slush. But there is also something strikingly beautiful about the desert - that doesn't mean that I suddenly want the frickin' Sahara to materialise at the bottom of my road. I'd happily look at a picture of a snowy scene and note its beauty; when it's actually outside the front door and I'm going to have to waddle through it to get to work it isn't so much beautiful as an absolute arsing inconvenience.

Which is the point - snow is actually cold, unpleasant, massively disruptive and actually quite dangerous (what with it being slippy and all). Those who coo at the first flakes that settle on the ground are actually cooing over something we could all do without; the very fact that they don't realise this makes me suspect that they aren't reduced to the state of gibbering idiots by the snow after all. Rather, the snow gives them the perfect excuse to show that all they actually are is deeply, deeply stupid.

The Pogues - Thousands Are Sailing

Those Protestin' Blues

The usual caveat that students, like everyone in our increasingly limited democracy, applies to this post. That said...

...the latest protest against spending cuts in education/tuition fee rises left me wondering just what the hell those involved wished to achieve. If it managed to achieve anything, it was simply alienating even more people. You could, as the students protested again, hear the whole of Middle England tutting in unison as their preconceptions about students were reinforced. Hell, even I muttered something under my breath about that combined "workshy" and "students", and I'm one myself at the moment. Way to win support, ladies and gents. Next up, you should have someone punching an old woman to make your "point". That should work even better. Assuming, of course, that your objective is to alienate as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

I dare say that the point of these protests was to draw attention to their cause. Which, in a sense, meant that these protests worked. In the same way that the tramp on the bus on the way home who has pissed himself also gets attention. Another protest so soon after the last one and before any real negotiation with the government takes place is the clearly the best way to make all those protesting look like gargantuan tools. And in the long term, it will cease to even get them attention. Tedious people doing tedious things over and over again is never the best way to capture the national imagination.

Of course, I suspect that there is a sense in which this was not a protest to actually make a point, but rather because protesting has become (probably briefly) very fashionable again. It's what all the cool kids are doing, see? At least until they get bored and find some other way of posturing.

Sure, I sound cynical - but guess what? That cynicism is borne from experience. These protests will achieve nothing - and the more there are of them, the more self-indulgent the students will look and the more powerful the government will become in this matter. If you want to stop these rises in tuition fees, then you need to work out a much better way of doing so. The efficacy of protesting can always be questioned; continued protesting is just plain dumb.

So...

...the real world is intervening and limiting the amount I can write on this blog. This isn't to say that I have nothing I want to write about - rather, the exact opposite is true. It is just finding the time to get it all from the tangled mess that is my brain onto a computer screen, and then onto the blog.

So what I'm trying to say is that there is incoming for this blog; it is just that it is difficult to predict what the eta will be for that incoming stuff. Bear with me, though...

Nudge Off!

The coalition, no doubt as part of the dubious and strangely familiar "New Politics", is looking to control how cigarette manufacturers package their wares. Basically, they want bland packages. For the sake of the children, of course.

To a large extent, this is a case of "what's new?" At least until I read this:

Dr Alan Maryon-Davis, professor of public health at Kings College London, said: "It's a very welcome statement from the health secretary and a good example of how the government can help people choose a healthier way of life by 'nudging' rather than nagging."

"Nudging"? Oh, Sweet Jesus Christ and all the baby orphans. This is not nudging, nor is it nagging. It is something all the more dangerous and illiberal. It is telling private businesses how they can and can't operate on utterly spurious grounds. It isn't about the people and their spawn; it is about the government flexing its muscles and using its power.

And the worst thing? It won't work. Those who like to smoke will continue to do so regardless of the packaging. Those who want to give up will not suddenly stop because their favourite brand of fags are now indistinguishable from all the other brands. And the kids... well, want to stop them smoking? Then enforce the fucking law that already says that kids are not allowed to smoke, rather than restricting freedom further in this country.

This isn't a "nudge"; it's yet another patronising and paternalistic restriction of freedom from a government who - on this most crucial of issues - looks almost indistinguishable from the last one.

Elsewhere...

I've got a post up over at The Liberty Cabal. A new website that may yet, given time, come to be essential reading for libertarians and liberals. In the meantime, please go read my post about how I think Ed Balls' sudden change of stance on liberty is not 100% convincing...

The Five Best Political TV Shows

And no, Yes Minister and its successor do not feature anywhere.

5. A Very British Coup

This show is an odd one for me - it basically makes a far left British Prime Minister a hero, and as a result I find I have nothing politically in common with the central character. Therefore, it is a testament to the writing that I at any point give a shit about the increasingly malign conspiracy against him. But this realistic, and occasionally grim, look at what a truly left-wing government would face is absorbing drama. To be sure, it is in parts a left conspiracy theory, but for me it remains interesting and relevant since it shows the sort of powers that would conspire against a non-consensus government - regardless of the ruling party's ideology.

4. G.B.H.

Again, this is - in part - a left-wing paranoid fantasy. It suggests that the establishment would do anything to stop the left... But it is also much more than that. It is about the battle for the soul of the Labour Party in the 1980s/early 1990s. It is keen to point out the danger presented by the deeply unreasonable and dogmatic far left, and how their bullying tactics had to be fought. Sure, the end result of the ditching of the far left was Blairism, but the drama shows that the alternative to Nu Labour was not palatable either.

And in a sense this is far more than just a political drama - it is about secrets, manipulation, dealing with the past and mental illness. It is clever and compelling in its own right; in short, it is great drama regardless of the political content.

3. The West Wing

A lot of people seem to dislike The West Wing - in part, I think, because it is a Democrat administration running the country. Sure, there's a bias in the programme - but I'm not sure how possible it is to do a political TV show without some sort of a bias. And there is a certain amount of schmaltz in the show - particularly in the first few episodes, where every episode seemed to have a full-on GODBLESSAMERICA moment. But the show is, at its best, an extremely well-written and performed offering, with genuine wit and intelligence on show. It should also be noted that the show was perfectly happy to go very dark in some of its story lines, and no character was presented as flawless. Finally, it had some of the best season cliffhangers of any show out there (especially Season One, Two and Four - indeed, the title of this blog was taken from the Graham Greene quoted used in the superb episode that ended Season Two).

2. House of Cards

It contains one of TV's greatest anti-heros and is endlessly quoted, but the House of Cards trilogy is about more than the conniving of the central character. The plotting is tight, and the whole thing is perfectly realised. There is a degree of verisimilitude that can't be taken for granted, particularly since the Prime Minister elected at the end of the first series is a double murderer (he's actually killed twice that number, but we don't learn about that until The Final Cut). The idea that a candidate for the highest office could personally off those who stand in his way sounds ludicrous, but the way the piece is performed has it all making complete sense and being very credible at all times.

Of course, the law of diminishing returns rears its ugly head across the trilogy, and when our anti-hero bites the dust at the end of The Final Cut there is a feeling that this is for the best, and the whole thing has gone on for a bit too long. But in doing so, the series (intentionally or otherwise) mimics real life - after all, how many long-serving Prime Ministers leave you wanting more? It is fitting that The Final Cut should make you think that the whole thing has gone on for just a bit too long...

1. The Thick Of It

I'd argue that The Thick Of It is neither the best nor the most entertaining of the shows in this list; however, I think it is the most accurate. Which is why, for me, it is less of a comedy and more of a horror story. I mean, who would want the laws by which they have to live their lives being made up by panicking politicians on the hoof under the watchful, malevolent glare of an unaccountable Prime Ministerial advisor? Yet who doesn't believe that this is precisely how politics in this country operates?

That's why Yes Minister isn't in this list; as great as it was at the time, its relevance has been diminished by the rise of the likes of Malcolm Tucker, Ollie Reeder and the Fucker. And that is why The Thick Of It is top of the list, despite not being the best. It is about how politics operates today and why we should be so cynical about that politics and our politicians.

The Pope: You Can Rubber Up After All

And are we supposed to be impressed by this?

Pope Benedict XVI has said the use of condoms is acceptable "in certain cases", according to a new book.

That's big of him. Nice to see that he is slowly taking into account the well-being of those who follow his persistent little cult.

He said condoms could reduce the risk of infection with HIV, such as for a prostitute, in a series of interviews he gave to a German journalist.

No shit Sherlock! I'm amazed - I am absolutely staggered - that his Popiness has only just worked out that there is a link between HIV and unprotected sex. He's stating what almost everyone with half a brain cell has known for decades.

I think we're supposed to see this as a real step forward for the Catholic Church, but the reality is that they are only slowly catching up with the rest of the modern world. And it is pretty repugnant to think of how many lives have been blighted by the Papal stance on contraceptives (and on child rape by priests, of course) over the years - any current half-hearted endorsement of condoms does not make up for the damage inflicted by the previous Papal position on this. This sort of thing only highlights how unrealistic and cruel the Catholic Church often is with its worship of dogmatism and a leadership detached from the rest of the world in a collection of palaces in Vatican City.

Foot In Mouth Disease - Young Edition

While there might be the possibility of making the case for what he said, you really do have to wonder just what the hell Lord Young thought he was doing when he said this:

"...the vast majority of people in the country today, they have never had it so good ever since this recession - this so-called recession - started."

He pointed to the savings that "most people" had made on their mortgages as a result of interest rates remaining at 0.5% for the past 18 months.

See, I have no media training whatsoever - and, more often than not, a deaf ear to what it is right or wrong to say at any given moment - but even I can see just how craptacular it is to use the phrase "never had it so good" in relation to this recession. What sort of a special kind of moron do you have to be to think "yep, yep, that's what I want to say to a media outlet that will then reproduce my words to as wider an audience as possible?"

Still, we should take the time to note that one Ed Miliband is on hand to give us some unexpected and, no doubt, unintentional humour - as the BBC reports:

Labour leader Ed Miliband said Lord Young's initial appointment reflected badly on the prime minister as the peer was "out of touch with people".

Ed Miliband - one of the former playthings of the ever-odious Gordon Brown - should know about people being out of touch. After all, it came to be one of the defining features of the last Labour government of which he was a senior member...

The Sarah Jane Adventures: The Empty World

In which Sarah Jane Smith goes on holiday.

No, not really – she does put in an appearance at the beginning and end of the episodes to bookend it, but this is one of those Sarah Jane lite episodes.

And amazingly, it doesn’t impact on the quality. The series is lucky to have characters as engaging and as well performed as Rani and Clyde, who can not only carry an adventure on their own, but positively excel at it. In fact, it is almost something of a relief not to have the titular character in it – Sarah Jane’s breathless, often tearful presence grates occasionally.

Of course, the characters are aided by having a great little script. It takes the old sci-fi cliché of people waking up and finding that they are more or less alone in the world. The running around in empty houses and empty streets are spooky, and the tension of the piece escalates when the robots appear (no mean feat given the decision to deck said robots out in primary colours). The story even manages to sustain itself in the second episode, when explanations emerge as to why the world is empty and what the robots are looking for. Admittedly, all the talk of “son and heir” made me think of a certain Smiths song, but there was a certain logic to the whole story which was no means guaranteed by the high-concepts of the opening installment.

Flaws? Few and far between. The exposition about the theoretical abduction of Prince Harry seemed like an attempt to make a cheap political point and thus appeared completely out of place in the programme. Furthermore, the notion that a lost kid who thinks he is nothing being redeemed by an accident of birth seems to be an odd message to send out to kids everywhere who might think they too will never amount to anything.

But overall, this is another great little story for this season of The Sarah Jane Adventures - which is shaping up to be the best so far*.

*Yep, I know that – technically – the series has already ended but, as always, I’m a little behind with the times.

Liberalism is not socialism

Laurie Penny asks “Why do liberals hate Margaret Thatcher?” The simple answer is, of course, that they don’t. Some might like her, some might love her, some might despise her. They aren’t the homogenous bunch implied by Penny’s question. But acknowledging that would undermine Penny’s hyperbole, which in turn would destroy her whole writing style.

But what is startling about Penny’s question is the implication that she is liberal. Anyone who has ever read pretty much any of her work will know that she is a socialist through and through. And even if you think socialism is the best thing in the world ever (and it very clearly isn’t, but that's for another day) you should still be aware that socialism is not liberalism – and the two are often in conflict.

Of course, you could argue that Penny is liberal in the sense that she is towards the liberal side of the liberal/authoritarian spectrum. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work either. Socialism requires an authoritarian side to it in order to function (redistribution, for example, clearly requires coercion in practice). Furthermore, Penny’s awful whining about spending cuts shows that she is a statist through and through; she can't cope with the reduction in the size, scope and influence of the state.

I want to be clear here – I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with a socialist like Penny expressing their opinions. Indeed, she is paid by a largely socialist magazine to write socialist articles. But the word liberal has been much maligned, and it doesn’t need to be further maligned through misuse by socialist types such as Laurie Penny.

Ultimately, her question should have read "why do socialists hate Margaret Thatcher?" Then again, I don't suppose that said question would have had the same capacity to bring about paragraph after paragraph of bile against "Thatcher as an icon". It is pretty obvious why socialists would hate Thatcher, as she did a lot to break down the (failing) consensus politics that had so dominated in this country since the war...

Royal engagement bullshit

Helpfully, The Daily Mash has put together a list of the most gushing, fawning tripe written in the aftermath of the announcement of the royal engagement. It is reproduced in full below - be warned, though, dear reader, you'll need a strong stomach to get through it all:

Each and every one us will be deeply affected by the looming royal marriage... (Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph)

In an important sense, this betrothal has far more to teach a new generation about relationships - and fidelity, too. (Bel Mooney, Daily Mail)

For Kate and William, their engagement has profound national significance. They will help form our collective imagination. They are now part of what we are as a nation, how we define ourselves as individuals. (Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph)

As somebody whose business it is to study the human heart.. (Bel Mooney, Daily Mail - she actually wrote those words)

Today we are wiser and perhaps more humane. The unrealistic expectations that destroyed Charles and Diana have gone. (Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph - he's playing a blinder)

It is rare these days that we glimpse broad sunlit uplands, but this is one such moment. (Daily Telegraph editorial - sweet fucking Jesus)

And the winner is (obviously)...

Diana, the bride at every royal funeral and the mourner at every royal wedding, was present in more than just the engagement ring which sat so heavily on the hand of this young woman who must now walk a mile in her bloodied shoes, on a road leading who knows where. (Julie Burchill, The Independent)

And the worst thing? People are paid to write this tripe...

I must be missing something...

...because I really can't figure out why this man has been arrested. Listing MPs he claimed voted for the Iraq War can't be a crime - isn't that information publicly anyway? Isn't it on a number of different websites and contained in public documents like Hansard?

I suppose it must be something to do with what he put with the list of MPs because otherwise there's surely no cause to arrest someone for publishing information that is already in the public domain, and has been for over half a decade. The alternative is that we've drifted into being a totalitarian shithole far quicker than I ever anticipated, even in my most cynical moments...

The royal engagement

In its slightly gushing and sickening article on the coming royal wedding, the BBC asks:

What is your reaction to the news of the Royal engagement? What message would you like to send Prince William and Kate Middleton?

First question first, I think. What is my reaction to the news of the royal engagement? Well, the curiously ambivalent feeling of irritation and apathy. Apathy because I don't much care about a couple who I don't know, don't care about and will never meet getting engaged. Irritation because the whole world is going to bang on about this marriage right up until the day it dominates the UK's TV schedules and the two actually get married. I don't want to have to care about the royal wedding - I'd rather just forget about it. But the media, and the unthinking, dumb royalists who lap up this sort of shit, will almost certainly not let me.

As for sending a message - well, in the highly unlikely event that William and Kate care in any way, shape or form about my opinion, I'd like to send them individual messages. Kate - are you sure about this? With every passing day, William looks more like his father. And have you seen his father recently? You're going to end up married to a jug-eared oaf who wears a constant rictus grin on his face. He's not going to look better with age. And William - I'd just like to say that I think you are your family are an unacceptable burden on this country, and I really wish you would all have the dignity of pissing off out of the limelight and ending your dependance on the public purse.

I can't stomach the royal family - never been able to, and that is unlikely to change in the near future. Particularly since it appears that this latest bout of regal nuptials is going to force so much attention on such an undeserving family.

It Could All Have Been So Different...

As Labour types continue with their asinine grumblings about the fact that they are no longer in power, they would do well to remember that it could all have been so different. There are two scenarios which, had they been pursued by the Labour party, could have had them still in power at the moment.

The first has been much commented on – the failure to call a General Election shortly after Brown became PM was a colossal tactical error. They would have won that election, and right now would still be in power as part of a five year term. Furthermore, Cameron – the first Tory leader since Major to be Prime Minister – would have been deposed, and the Tory modernisation programme would have been stopped in its tracks. That was the perfect time for the Labour party to win a fourth term, and they bottled it.

But there is another way in which they would have stayed in power. Had Brown been dropped and replaced by a more collegiate, affable leader such as Alan Johnson, then they would have lost fewer seats at the last election. They could never have won outright, but they would have been in a better position to claim that they were the ones that the Liberal Democrats should have negotiated with in the first instance. Furthermore, having a leader other than the egregious, arrogant Brown may have allowed for rather more successful negotiations between Labour and the Lib Dems. There would have been no guarantees about it, but a Lib/Lab Pact for the new millennium would have been far more likely with a Labour leader other than Gordon Brown. But again, the Labour party missed its opportunity.

So what to make of these costly errors? What can the Labour party learn from its mistakes? Mainly, I’d argue, that cowardice has a cost. Not going to the country in 2007 cost them the chance to win an election outright. Not replacing Brown cost them the chance of being credible coalition partners for the Liberal Democrats. Both were potentially difficult decisions fraught with risk – they would have been gambles, but they might have paid off with the prize the Labour party now seems desperate for – a continuation in power. But their cowardice stopped them, and ultimately led to them losing power. Which is perhaps the perfect epitaph for the Nu Labour years – they were ultimately kicked out of power because of the cowardice and aversion to risk that defined their time in power.

Student Morons

Via the ever melodramatic Penny Red*, an interesting comment from one of those idiotic students who rioted last week:

"Look, we all saw what happened at the big anti-war protest back in 2003," says Tom, a postgraduate student from London. "Bugger all, that's what happened. Everyone turned up, listened to some speeches and then went home. It's sad that it's come to this, but..." he gestures behind him to the bonfires burning in front of the shattered windows of Tory HQ. "What else can we do?"

What else can you do? Well, perhaps you could try negotiating in the year or so before these fee and cuts rises come into effect before you resort to violence.

See, there is this thing you might have heard of called diplomacy. It allows for people to talk, to negotiate with each other and come up with a peaceful solution. It is what countries do when they don’t agree on things – a dispute between rival nations tends to lead to further talk, rather than sending in the bombers.

What else could you do, Tom? You could have talked – tried to persuade the government to change their plans, or persuaded the people to back you in your dispute with the government. Instead, you and your idiotic ilk have managed to alienate pretty much all moderate people in this country at the same time as making the government – and the Tory party – into the victim in this little drama. The riot, the broken windows, the possible attempted murder charge – what you and your friends did, Tom Not Nice And Dim, is pretty much the worse thing you could have done. Any sympathy most people may have had has gone – and it is your fault.

*As an aside, check this article out for some more jaw-dropping hyperbole from Ms Penny - where the student rioters are compared to the suffragettes.

Exhaustion

DK’s struggle to comment on what is happening is typical of Libertarian bloggers – we’ve seen so-called change occurring in May, and now have to make the same arguments for liberty for a new bunch of gurning, illiberal idiots.

Sure, the coalition is not the same as the last Labour government – and anyone who claims that it is misses the point. But the differences are outweighed by the massive similarities – in particular, the faith that the state is the answer to all of our problems – it is just a case of getting the “right” party into power.

So we make the same points again, again and again. And the government either doesn’t hear, or doesn’t care, or is simply unwilling to change.

Yet I still have hope – hope that at some point the people of this country will finally see through the nonsense spouted by statists. But what worries me is just how big, how terrifying the crisis will have to be for the people to finally lose their faith in the statist propaganda. We’ve had a nonsense war on terror, an attempt to bankrupt a country through propping up failed banks, and a continual war on civil liberties and still nothing – people still vote for the statists. What will it take to stop them from doing so?

But given the complete absence of change (or even the desire for real change among the majority), those of us who have been banging on for years about the growth of the state and the ensuing diminishing of our liberty are bound to feel dispirited and exhausted. Yet the case we make still needs to be made and I hope that, despite the weariness many bloggers are feeling at the moment, that there will still be some who go on making that case.

Remembrance Sunday

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,

Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.

They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;

They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

From 'For The Fallen' by Laurence Binyon

Quote of the Day

"Majority does not mean large number, it means great fear."

Jean-François Lyotard (1924-1998)

RIP Dino De Laurentiis

As a producer, he was just as capable of making absolute rubbish as he was making works of genius, but his name is on many striking films that the Hollywood mainstream would not have touched. His impact on the career of David Lynch would be reason enough to celebrate his life and career; the fact is that there is much more to him than that is a testament to just what he managed to achieve during his life.

RIP indeed.

The Student Protest(s)

So... the student protests. How did they work out for you, my student brethren? Well? Do you think you achieved something positive? Because if you do, then you're an idiot.

Before we start out on just why the protest/demonstration/second-rate riot was a shit idea, let me first declare categorically that it is the right of everyone in this country to protest on any issue they so wish. It is one of the few remaining privileges our increasingly misanthropic and patronisingly paternalistic leaders allow us. We should protest; it gives volume to our often muted and forgotten voices.

However, before anyone does protest they need to work out (a) what they are protesting about and (b) what they hope to achieve from the protests. And on both of these counts, the student protest(s) on Wednesday failed.

First up, let's look at what the protest was about (and in the process, what it wanted to achieve). It wanted to make a near bankrupt government (consisting mainly of Tories, with some Liberal Democrats thrown in for good measure) reverse its decision on tuition fees. Fair enough - self-interest has always been a big part of politics, and it always will be. The problem, though, lies in some of the messages being broadcast by the protestors. To claim that Nick Clegg was nicking the money of students, or carrying signs and shouting chants along the lines of "Tory scum" is hardly likely to get the incumbent government onside. But the fundamental question (and challenge) remains - what are you protesting about? The fact that tuition fees will go up in the future? Or that the incumbent government happens to be Tory and is propped up by an increasingly compromised Liberal Democrat party?

But there is another problem inherent in the protest(s) - the idea that students are in some way owed this money. If the money is coming from the government, then it isn't their money. It isn't even the government's. It is taken by the government from the taxpayer using inherently coercive measures. If you want the money supplied by the government, then you need to convince the person who ultimately parts with the case - the British taxpayer - that you deserve the money. And a lacklustre protest that occasionally flared into vandalism and violence is not the best way to do that.

The reality is that universities will get less money moving forward, and that fees will rise. Therefore, what students needs to do is convince the government (and, I'd humbly suggest, the taxpayer) that their courses, and their institutions, contribute something to society that warrants the cost incurred by that society - if, that is, they want to keep the fees down and the funds up. So guess what? You have to sell your course and your university. And yes, that will be easier if you are talking about PPE at Oxford than if you are talking about Media Studies as De Montfort. But it can still be done, even if you are studying the latter.

The point is this, though - you have a democratic right to protest. But if you want to get the government and the people of this country on your side then you need to do something a little more convincing that heading out on a midweek protest that descends into political point-scoring, anti-Tory chanting and pathetic vandalism. This protest will have set you back, Mr and Ms Student. It will have set you back one hell of a lot. You have come across as feckless, unthinking morons. And I say this both as a postgraduate student, and as someone who hopes before to long to teach at university level.

While I struggle to write something coherent about student protests, I'll leave my beloved readers with this - the ever awesome attempt to sell perhaps the worst idea for a film ever. Enjoy.

Laurie Penny, Hyperbole, and Remembering the War Dead

Laurie Penny, on what for her constitutes "form" and for most other people hysterical, nonsensical hyperbole:

'Sacrifice' is the word continually used to associate this cynical and relentless carnage with public nostalgia for the glory of past victories. There are, however, two meanings to the word 'sacrifice.' One can sacrifice, in the sense of willingly giving one's for a cause, or one can be a sacrifice, offered up for slaughter by one's betters in the name of god, or greed, or homeland.

And this is news precisely how? Undoubtedly, some people in almost every war there has ever been have been sacrificed for whatever cause was being fought for. That is the nature of war - it is unfair, and it is unpleasant. But then again, it is war - what the hell were you expecting? A walk in the park?

And there are other reasons why people fight and are forced to fight - not just greed, good or homeland. World War Two would be the classic example here - sometimes, people fight for survival. That has nothing to do with being "offered up for slaughter by one's betters" - instead, it has everything to do with not being dominated by a totalitarian nightmare. I'm opposed to war - to some extent I am instinctively a pacifist. But at some point you have to fight, or risk being dominated by those you might abhor.

It is this second understanding of sacrifice that we should bear in mind this Poppy day. Even in the Great War, not all of the men and boys shot by their own side for cowardice or driven out 'like cattle', in Wilfred Owen's words, in front of the German machine guns, died with future generations in mind. Not all of them bled willingly, for king and country; some of them simply bled because they had been seriously injured, because their leaders deemed it appropriate for them to die in pain and terror. A million cardboard flowers, rooted in the dark earth of this country's frantic military self- fashioning, will never be enough to mop up the carnage.

And in this paragraph we see that Laurie has completely missed the point of Remembrance Sunday (not "Poppy day" - let's call it by a more proper name, shall we?) It isn't about political point scoring, it isn't about class strife. It is about remembering all those who died -whether they did so willingly, or under duress in a state of terrified anxiety.

And the Poppy is not meant to to mop up the carnage - it is a symbol, to remind us of that carnage and those who died. And it should also remind us to reflect on why those wars happened, and what we can do right now to prevent future devastating conflicts.

But thus far in her article, Penny has been restrained. She's flirted with the idea of class conflict and its impact on the choice of those who were sent to fight in the First World War. As always, she saves the best - and most offensive - to last:

As we celebrate another memorial Sunday, we should remember that the politicians wearing red flowers in Whitehall have cheerfully authorised the decimation of jobs, welfare and public education in order to defend Britain's military spending and nuclear arsenal and offer tax breaks for business. They have sacrificed the life chances of a generation of young and working-class people whilst making rhetorical sops towards "the national interest", and that is not remembrance, nor is it any way to honour the memory of the Great Generation. That, in fact, is "just show business".

Yes, what we should do is remember, on Remembrance Sunday, not those who died in war but rather the actions of politicians with whom Penny does not agree. Yes, that's the fucking point of Remembrance Sunday, isn't it? To agree with Penny's crass political point scoring. Don't think about the war dead, for God's sake. Think about the fact that a feckless and hopelessly naive young journalist writing for The New Statesman doesn't like spending cuts.

And how offensive is it to compare a generation who may have some of their number adversely affected by the spending cuts with the generation sent to die on the battlefields of the First World War? How crass can one person be? That is no way to honour the memory of those who died. In fact, it too is "just show business" - it is taking an event, and twisting its meaning to back up whatever toss Laurie Penny happens to be thinking at any given time. It takes Remembrance Sunday, and debases it. It turns it into the sort of cheap political point scoring that shows what an ignorant idiot that writer actually is.

Self-Justification and Political Memoirs

There are many reasons why a politician would write their memoirs - to record a genuinely historical moment in history (like, say, Churchill), to set the record straight (like Nixon tried, and spectacularly failed, to do), to gossip to a much wider audience (Mandelson) and to make a shit load of cash (hello, Bill Clinton). However, with the publication of Bush's book (a tome apparently not written on chew-proof paper with waterproof crayons, much to the astonishment of most) a new form of political memoir has been truly been enshrined - the whiny pile of self-justificatory tripe.

Bush has been defending waterboarding - how he fought for freedom by getting others to torture suspects. It is, of course, entirely justifiable in Bush's worldview - but then again, Bush only sees the world in terms of absolute good and absolute evil. He misses the shades of grey that define existence for most. Yet the very fact that he is having to justify and explain his actions shows how he and his idiotic War on Terror have been tainted since the days when he had a genuine chance to unite pretty much the whole world behind him in an assault on globalised terror.

Bush seems to be claiming that lives were saved by waterboarding. Aside from the fact that this doesn't make it right (torture often works - many nations choose not to do it anyway because they are aspiring to be civilised), waterboarding may have prevented certain terrorist attacks. The operative word there being "may". But how many others have become radicalised because of the stories of US waterboarding of terror suspects? Actions as controversial as water-boarding have consequences, both good and bad. Bush says water-boarding saves lives - I say it will also cost lives in the future - if it hasn't already.

Bush is not alone in publishing this sort of memoir, though. Blair's own book seems to have a large theme running throughout it that basically seems to be saying "Don't judge me because of the Iraq War!" Like Bush, he seems to be fighting for a place in history that doesn't come with the tag of "warmonger" - something that, for neither man, is going to be very easy.

Brown's forthcoming book won't be about the Iraq War - he's not fighting the tag of "warmonger". Rather, he's trying to avoid the caption next to his picture in any history book reading "incompetent cunt". He's going to be banging on about how the recession wasn't his fault, but any signs of recovery (however slim) were entirely down to him. His book gives every indication of being a wretched last gasp of a desperate man who has not quite come to terms with the fact that he utterly fucked up in the job he fought for across his adult life. It is Brown's last-ditch attempt to avoid being tagged as a failure for the rest of time (or at least until his abortion of an administration is forgotten - which, given the levels of the debt he left us with, will be quite some time). Like Bush and Blair, he's seemingly destined to fail.

Of course, the books of all three men will make lots of money (even if some of it will be grudgingly given to charity by some of the authors) and keep the authors in the public eye. But the tone of these books seems to be about the last ditch attempt to carve out a place in the history books. None of these men deserve anything more than consignment to the dustbin of history as incompetent, immoral failures. So if you do waste your time and money by buying and then reading their books, just keep in mind that these tomes are nothing more than the final, desperate ramblings of compromised men.

Whatever happened to Ed Miliband?

Y’know, I thought being Leader of the Opposition meant that you were supposed to lead, well, the opposition. Thus far, Ed Miliband's leadership had consisted of retiring from frontline politics to relative obscurity. Which is a bold strategy, but not likely to be a successful one given his current position. There are many types of Conservative leaders that Miliband could attempt to emulate; Iain Duncan Smith is not probably the best one though.

The reasons for his relative silence are something of a mystery. The coalition is doing many things that people find controversial – Miliband Minor’s response is to mutely shrug and wonder why people are looking at him with an expectation that he should say something.

But I do have a theory. Miliband Minor has managed to slip down one of the few remaining ideological cracks in the narrow consensus of modern British politics – he is lost somewhere between the centre ground (where everyone seems to want to be for reasons that frankly defy understanding) and the slightly left-of-centre. And the reason is simple – the ‘Red Ed’ tag. As soon as he had been announced as leader, he managed to get the tag ‘Red Ed’. He was tagged as the plaything of the Unions; a dangerous leftie throwback to the Labour party of the 1980’s. And that panicked him, and meant he was unable to position himself anywhere. He couldn’t be Nu Labour, because we seem to hate that brand now. And he can’t be left-of-centre without proving the cheap jibe of “Red Ed” completely correct. He’s got nowhere to go.

Of course, this wouldn’t be the case if he had a backbone. He could stay the course, and defend the Nu Labour brand, or he could be more the left-wing man many assumed he would be (and far closer to his father). But he doesn’t. Like most people in his generation in the political elite, he seems rather afraid that having political convictions will lead to difficult situations. You know, awkward stuff like having to defend his position. The sort of thing that politicians used to do as a matter of course, but now avoid like the plague..

But, while the “Red” tag was arguably cheap and has not necessarily been borne out by the Labour leader’s behaviour, it may yet prove to be one of the most effective nicknames given to a politician in recent years. It seems to be the root cause of the silence of the man who should be leading the opposition in our country.

Work For Welfare

And just what the hell is wrong with this new welfare plan?

Under the plan, claimants thought to need "experience of the habits and routines of working life" could be put on 30-hour-a-week placements.

Anyone refusing to take part or failing to turn up on time could have their £65 Jobseekers' Allowance stopped for at least three months.

The Work Activity scheme is said to be designed to flush out claimants who have opted for a life on benefits or are doing undeclared jobs on the side.

So, people who may be taking out the piss out of the benefits systems are going to be expected to do some work in order to justify their ongoing benefits payments. What the hell is wrong with that? It is basically saying that those who want benefits should have to work for them. Like, say, the vast majority of poor sods in this country. How the hell can that be controversial?

Fortunately, the Archbishop of Cunterbury is waiting to tell us:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, expressed his concern, telling the BBC: "People who are struggling to find work and struggling to find a secure future are - I think - driven further into a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair, when the pressure is on in that way.

"People often are in this starting place, not because they're wicked, stupid or lazy, but because their circumstances are against them, they've failed to break through into something and to drive that spiral deeper - as I say - does feel a great problem."

Good ol' Rowan Williams - he always manages to make the separation of Church and State seem like not only a good idea, but absolutely fucking essential.

Fundamentally, I don't get his point. If people are genuinely trying to find work as part of a quest for a stable future, then surely the government helping them with a work placement is rather helpful. Yes, it may not be the sort of work they want or aspire to, but remarkably few people actually have a job they proactively want to do. And this scheme isn't even aimed at genuine jobseekers - rather, it is trying to deal with welfare careerists and benefit cheats - those people who really shouldn't be paid for doing fuck all. And this is the point; people working for money is the norm. The fact that some people live of the beneficence of the state should not given them immunity from the need to work to earn money.

Sure, this policy will give certain people a stark choice - work or not get money. But the vast majority of people in this country have that choice and choose the former each and every day. There is nothing - fucking nothing - controversial about saying people should have to work for a welfare cheque. If you are on welfare and don't want to work then that's fine - that's your choice. But don't be surprised when the state - or the British taxpayer, more accurately - makes the choice not to fund you anymore.

Morrissey: First of the Gang to Die

"It's ok, Prezza did it too!"

Of course, it is difficult to tell exactly what happened here but somehow I don't think it is quite in an MP's job description to wrestle visitors to the Commons to the ground. Still, the MP concerned seems to have an interesting way of justifying his actions:

"It's always regretful to respond to provocation, but actually I think any normal person who is capable of defending themselves would have done exactly as I did.

"It happened to John Prescott a few years ago. It seems to have happened to me now."

Seriously, if your way of justifying your behaviour is to cite John fucking Prescott, you're screwed. You'd be better off saying nothing at all than likening yourself and your behaviour to that thuggish, corpulent cunt.

Woolas: Labour Politics in a Nutshell

That the odious Phil Woolas has got himself into serious trouble is something to cheer the soul; every single shitty MP who is held to account, particularly in the courts, is a plus as far as I am concerned. And it even gives Harriet Harman the chance to talk arse once more. She said:

"I don't think this is a reflection on the Labour Party as a whole"

Right. So you don't think that someone misleading others to win an election is a reflection on the Labour party. Have you not met Anthony Blair? And you don't think that smearing someone is a reflection on the Labour party - despite the fact that its leaders have employed people to do precisely that on a full time basis. And you don't think that someone using crude, borderline racist rhetoric on immigration is a reflection on the Labour party. Don't you remember your last leader, Gordon "British Jobs For British Workers" Brown?

The fact that a Labour MP has been forced out of his seat is always going to be a reflection on the Labour party, if only because of his allegiance to that organisation. But what is striking about the Woolas case is just how accurate a reflection of Nu Labour politics that little turd appears to be. He isn't an oddity or an aberration - he is a perfect encapsulation of the vile politics ushered into this country in the Nu Labour era. Deception, smears and crude racial/racist politics - some of the most recognisable calling cards of the Blair/Brown years.

Why Would You Do It To Yourself?

I watched a horror movie on Halloween. But it was nowhere near as horrific as this.

The premise is simple – a maladjusted, socially inept newspaper delivery man believes a lot of his problems stem from the fact that he has reached a certain age (26, fact fans) and not got laid. Therefore, he heads to a "virgin school" in Amsterdam, where a succession of mature women attempt to coax him into acts of intimacy, then of a sexual nature, before he finally gets the chance to have a fuck. It is as excruciating as it sounds. The scene where our misfit gets tugged off by one of his “teachers” is toe-curling not just for the viewer, but quite literally for the recipient as well.

Personally, I’ve always though that sex is something you learn through doing. I guess the point here is that the chap concerned hasn’t been able to adopt that approach, so now he needs to be taught. But the painful, debilitating shyness he feels is surely at odds with his decision to play out his sexual education on national TV. Seriously, why humiliate yourself in this way? I’m assuming money must have played a part, but if you are already struggling with self-esteem issues it seems counter-intuitive to me to humiliate yourself on national TV. But then again, this sort of television is becoming increasingly common – it accounts for the success of the fuck awful Jeremy Kyle. TV isn’t so much smashing taboos as demeaning anyone willing appear on the screen. And this becomes entertainment for us – watching and laughing at the freaks.

Nigel Kneale saw a dystopian vision of the future, where we would all ignore reality in return for being able to watch the sex Olympics on TV. He was too optimistic about human nature. We don’t want to watch the sex Olypmics – watching people excel at fucking is not what we want on our national TV. No, we want to watch an emotionally stunted man humiliating himself through shagging instead. We don’t want the best; we’d rather have someone humiliating themselves for our enjoyment. We don't even meet the basic standards of a dystopian vision of the future...

The 'Libertarian Blogosphere'

Let me tell you a little secret about the Libertarian blogosphere. It doesn’t exist. Seriously, it doesn’t. Indeed, the idea of a united corner of the blogging world devoted to libertarianism is nonsense – there are few people as individualistic, willful and downright stubborn as libertarians.

Of course, when you read the phrase “libertarian blogosphere” it is not always alluding to some sort of homogenous libertarian conspiracy on the internet. It is a form of shorthand, a way of referring to certain types of blogs that are linked through ideology. Except this too is nonsense. You only have to look at the broad range of blogs that are dumped together under the tag of “libertarian”. Guido is presumed to be a libertarian blogger, but he is a right-of-centre muck-raker, whose occasional attacks on the Tories cannot hide the fact that his preference very much lies with that party. Likewise, Old Holborn is resolutely anti-statist, but the extent to which he is a Libertarian is open to question since his stance is one of naked misanthropy, more often than not. You can argue that he is negative libertarian, but to me his ideological position is far simpler than that – he just wants to be left the hell alone. There is no clear libertarian blogosphere, and those who are often lumped in within it are not themselves libertarian.

The same is true of pretty much classification on the internet. The left-wing blogosphere can encompass the mercurial ramblings of Liberal Conspiracy, the demented world-view of Terry Kelly and the occasionally engaging work of Tom Harris. Likewise, talking about the Tory blogosphere involves a broad canvass of bloggers, from the mad, mad world of Nadine Dorries, the preening, self-regarding Iain Dale and the often critical ConservativeHome. The broad categories are meaningless; they deny the vast range of blogs available.

But it isn’t the existence of the categories that bothers me – it is the way in which vast vartieties of blogs can be dismissed using these categories. Take this article – it attacks certain libertarian blogs, and in doing so dismisses the whole of the libertarian blogosphere. To do so is curiously effective, yet also crass and completely unfair. It is a sign of ignorance to lump people together based on a crude prejuidice – yet this is typical of the tendency to define blogs not by their content, but by a broad label that may or may not be applicable to the individuals concerned. In a sense it is bigotry, and I’d argue it should be treated accordingly.

The US Mid-term Elections in Perspective

How different it must all have looked to Obama two years ago. Then, he had just been elected by a legion of adoring followers. He had won the most convincing victory for a Democratic presidential candidate in a generation. And his followers seemed to think he was poised to be one of the greatest presidents of all time.

Now, he's just another president - kicked senseless by an electorate angry over the economy and his apparent failure to make "change" and "hope" actually mean something. He had a lot of political capital when he was elected, but large swathes of that were spunked away over health-care reform. He's battered, he's on the ropes but - and this is the crucial bit - there is no reason to think that's he given up or is defeated.

So, despite all the right-wing crowing on both sides of the Atlantic about "one-term Barry", I think it is far too early to write off Obama. And I still believe that in another two years time, Obama will be celebrating a comfortable win at the 2012 Presidential election. There are a number of reasons for this.

Firstly, the mood of the electorate at mid-term elections tends to be very different to how they vote at Presidential elections. It is one thing to vote for a Tea-Partier in a Senate or House election, another to do the same for a presidential candidate. On both sides of the Atlantic, voters like using these sort of elections to fire a warning shot across the bows of their leaders. That is no guarantee that they are willing to actually dump them at the next election. Blair took kickings at local and by-elections; the British people still managed to elect that egregious idiot a number of times.

Secondly, this was not (quite) the comprehensive drubbing of the Democrats many were expecting. They lost control of the House, but not the Senate. Harry Reid kept his seat. The likes of Christine O'Donnell were (mercifully) rejected by the voters. The Democrats are battered, and bruised but not down and out. Furthermore, the heady rhetoric of many Republican candidates about "taking America back" means they will have to do a great deal to meet their campaign promises - and if they don't, they can expect the same sort of kicking next time out that Obama has received for not living up to the empty campaign slogan of "change".

Furthermore, there is tension within the Republican party between the mainstream and the Tea Party. And there is a real danger for that party that, come the Presidential primary season, a long drawn out battle will be fought between a mainstream Republican candidate and a Tea-Party member. If this happens (particularly if, as seems very likely, Obama will be renominated without a fight) then the spectacle of the Republican party in the run up to November 2012 will be bitter infighting. It's one of the key rules of modern politics - divided parties seldom win. As things stand, the Republican party lacks a clear message and a clear strategy. It consists of a party with two separate, and not necessarily compatible, wings eyeing each other up warily. And it is going to take a lot of compromise to get that party to unite behind one individual presidential candidate - and there is no guarantee that this candidate will be credible.

Finally, Obama has one massive advantage - incumbency. For the next two years, he could effectively campaign for re-election from the White House, showing that he is presidential, a real leader and with every pronouncement he makes heading to the top of the news bulletins. Contrast with the Republicans, who don't have a figurehead and aren't likely to have one for a good eighteen months. Obama has two years in which to get that formidable publicity machine that got him elected in the first place going again. As long as he understands that the voters aren't happy, he can do something to change that in his favour.

So I think Obama will re-election, and history has shown time and time again that presidents who suffer mid-term setbacks can go on to win again, sometimes by landslides. Of course, nothing is set in stone, and the Republicans may yet turn this muted victory into the start of a real campaign to take back the White House. But the Republicans aren't as strong or as united as they might appear to be, and Republican triumphalism over this election win is likely to be as damaging to their cause as apparent Democrat complacency was after Obama's win in 2008.

When Will Nick Clegg Go?

It can now only be a matter of time before Nick Clegg loses his position as leader of the Liberal Democrats. There is a certain Faustian element to his decision to get into bed with the Tories – he got the job of Deputy Prime Minister, but in the long-term, damnation and (almost certainly) eventual dismissal from his own party. Let’s not rehash whether he made the right choice, but instead consider when the deed will finally be done, and his increasingly uncomfortable party gives him the chop.

Frankly, I can’t see it happening while the coalition holds. As much as many Lib Dems might not like the coalition, the lure of being in power coupled with the chance to temper the Tories (no matter how limited that power is) will stop them from changing their leader while the coalition exists. So the best chance Clegg has for a prolonged time as Lib Dem leader is the extension of the coalition arrangement for as long as possible. The other alternative elections results would lead to Clegg being bounced before he had any time to think about it.

If the Tories (most likely) or Labour win an outright election victory, then the Lib Dems will be out of power. What use would the Liberal Democrats then have for a former Deputy Prime Minister in a Tory led coalition as their leader? They would need to redefine themselves in view of the changed political circumstances. And if Labour won but not outright, you can be absolutely sure that one of their conditions for a entering into a coalition with the Lib Dems would be the sacking of Nick Clegg.

But when the enforced retirement finally hits Clegg, he can at least take some comfort that he has been the first Liberal in decades – and the first Liberal Democrat ever – to get to one of the top positions in British politics. The cost of his political influence and power is longevity as Liberal Democrat leader. But when the history books are written Clegg’s time as Deputy PM will probably be what they note rather than his leadership of Britain’s perennial third party.

Student Radicalism

Or rather, the lack thereof.

Once upon a time, and for a fleeting moment, students were genuinely radical and – in the case of France – actually looked, for one fleeting moment, like they could have a real impact on political history. Indeed, some Marxists – such as Herbert Marcuse – began to see students as the impetus for revolution rather than the proletariat. But that faded… until now, in this day and age, we have the spectre of student protests again. Not over war or discrimination in society, however, but rather over the amount that they have to pay in order to get their university education.

I’d imagine that some of the potential protestors – such as the socialists shouting “Stop the Tory Axemen!” on campus last week – see themselves as radicals, taking direct action and “fightin’ the power”!

In a sense, of course, they are right. They are fighting the government, and the right to protest is something I absolutely support. But I do think that those involved in the protests should be under no illusion what they are doing. They are not being radical, they are being fundamentally conservative. By definition, conservatives resist change – and what are these protests about? Conserving the status quo. Resisting change. Nothing radical about that.

And what motivates these conservative protests? Self-interest. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with self-interest – it motivates vast swathes of politics, and always has done. But this is a world away of protesting to end the Vietnam War, or for civil rights.

Following on from this, you can see just how student radicalism is at least wasting away, if not a terminal case. Look at what has happened over the past few years – the police killing people, the attempts to bring in extended periods of detention, the bailing out of failed banks with public money (that could have been spent, among other things, further education) and so on – all met with nary a mutter from the majority of students in this country. Yet come a potential increase in the costs of education or a reduction in the amount of money some institutions have to spend, and the sleeping student behemoth awakens.

So by all means, have your protests, make your voices heard – that is your right as participants in a democracy. But please don’t pretend that you’re being anything other than self-interested conservatives.