Can you be a libertarian and a conservative?

Before we start, let’s get a couple of things clear. The question is not can you be a libertarian and a member of the Conservative party – of course you can be, although quite why you would want to join or proactively support Cameron’s mob is utterly beyond me. Likewise, I would not deny that there is much to be gained from libertarian/conservative alliances – temporary or otherwise. Indeed, one of the few rays of light in the dark, depressing Brown years was the ability of libertarians and conservatives to put their differences to one side to point out the numerous shortcomings of Britain’s worst Prime Minister in living memory. Rather, what I want to consider is whether there are inherent contradictions in the idea of a libertarian conservative.

Of course, there are immediate problems with definitions here. “Libertarian” and “conservative” are big terms that could potentially encompass many different definitions. So for the purposes of this discussion I’d call someone who wants to maximise freedom as much as possible is a libertarian (someone like Hayek, for example) and someone who resists attempts to transform or plan society according to an idealistic blueprint is a conservative (such as Burke or Oakeshott, for example). No doubt some people would contest these definitions, but that’s the very nature of both politics and political philosophy.

Immediately, there are points of agreement between libertarians and conservatives. Economic freedom would be one of those points. A libertarian wants to reduce the tax burden and to limit government intervention in the economy because both are encroachments on individual freedom. A conservative might use similar rhetoric to justify their own resistance to state control of the economy – I also suspect that they would point out that state intervention in the economy is a relatively new phenomenon that denies the basic conservative truth that humans are fallible, and therefore their interventions in the economy will be equally fallible. Indeed, one of the points of agreement between the two political mindsets during the Brown era was that man’s hamfisted and utterly counter-productive attempts to manage the economy.

There is also a certain pragmatism inherent in both libertarian and conservative positions. Both proactively engage with reality to the extent that they accept that real life is messy and often involves uneasy compromises. This is clearly distinct from many socialist or anarchist positions, where the argument is that the creation right set of circumstances will lead to either a better form of humanity and/or a better society. Conservatives and libertarians do not slip into the idealistic utopian trap.

Yet there are clear points of departure. Firstly, libertarians offer a radical political position. They talk about a fundamental redress of the balance between state and individual power. A genuinely libertarian state would be a radical departure from any political settlement that has gone before. Conservatives, however, would be more likely to argue for a return to a previous political settlement – one where state intervention in some aspects of life was more limited.

Another, and perhaps the most fundamental, difference between conservatives and libertarians is in the realm of the private rather than the public. Here conservatives tend to look towards traditional views when it comes to issues such as gender roles and sexual orientation. A libertarian, however, would ignore such traditional ideals and leave what is private to the individual concerned, perhaps within the limitations of a very loose reading of the harm principle. Therefore, a conservative might buy into a campaign such as Major’s Back to Basics, whereas a libertarian would almost certainly tut at yet another example of a government attempting to tell us how to live our lives.

So can you be a libertarian conservative? Personally I struggle to see how, unless you are such a liberal conservative that the word conservative starts to lose all of its meaning. For me conservatism offers only a limited attempt to extend freedom, and misses the point that the purpose of maximising economic freedom is to maximise freedom in as many other areas of life as possible.

I don't like the Royal Family and I firmly believe that Prince Charles is a jug-eared fuckwit of the highest order. But I cannot get excited or angry about the fact that he is costing the taxpayer more money. It's not because I think he deserves the money (the opposite is true), but rather because the money stolen by the government is spunked away on pointless projects like the Prince on an ongoing basis. It is too tiring to be angry about all the wastage of our money that goes on. If you tried, you'd spend all of your time enraged until you dropped dead of a massive stroke.

So Prince Charles is costing us more money, like a welfare recepient on the take but magnified onto a massive scale. Plus ça change plus c'est la même chose.

Reinventing Facebook

Google appear to be reinventing Facebook. Again. What'll be the lifespan on this one? I'm guessing not too long.

But it isn't just Google doing this. On an almost weekly basis I here someone saying "I've got a great idea for a business. It's like Facebook. But for xyz." They are intensely excited by their new idea, and can't wait to tell people about it. They are convinced that they are about to make their millions. The question that they can't answer, of course, is why the hell people won't just us Facebook to do xyz.

Facebook works because it is simple to use and broad in its applications. Attempting to reinvent it, or to narrow it to a specific area, will almost certainly fail since there is no reason why people should defect to the new site from Facebook. Facebook is the social networking version of the wheel, and therefore it is bloody difficult to reinvent it.

Time is short, and therefore at a premium, at the moment. Normal blogging will resume when I have a spare five seconds to think of something worth saying. Alternatively, it will return on Saturday when I blather on about a shit Doctor Who story again.

Guido Fawkes and the Death Penalty

The news of the conviction of Levi Bellfield for yet another appalling crime inevitably leads some to call for the reinstatement of the death penalty. And the Guido Fawkes website continues its shameless drift towards being the blogging version of The Sun with this sort of rabble rousing tripe:

The political class complains that the public is disengaged, could that be in part because there are a number of issues where the political class refuses to carry out the wishes of the people. All polls since 1965 when hanging was abolished show that there is majority support for capital punishment, yet there is no majority for it in parliament. It is not even an issue for parliamentarians even though the incidence of homicide is higher now than it was before the abolition of hanging. The coalition has promised that there will be e-petitions legislation before the end of this year. If it passes Guido will put all the resources at his command into a campaign for a vote on the restoration of capital punishment for child and cop killers. Even if we don’t win the vote on the floor of the House, we shall at least see which MPs believe salus populi suprema est lex, and those that put the welfare of child killers above the wider community. Bring it on…

Yes, because polls have never been wrong at all, have they? But let's take a look at what the writer at Fawkes' place actually claims. There is no evidence offered that "all polls since 1965" have shown a majority support for capital punishment - instead it links to a poll at this site, which shows the results of one poll from 2008 where 50% favour capital punishment, 40% don't, and 11% don't know. Yes, that's right - the poll adds up to 101%. Perfect.

But even if the polling data wasn't deeply suspect and in no real way supportive of what the site is trying to say, then there is still the really rather major problem of whether just because the majority supports something, does that then make it right? What if the majority called for the banning of homosexuality? The death penalty for drug users? Second class citizenship for, say, Catholics? Would that then make it right? Not, of course it fucking wouldn't. But that's what happens when you use the logic of The Sun; your case is simplistic and designed not to appeal to individual intellect, but to the unthinking mob.

And on the death penalty itself, I can't support it. I understand the thirst for revenge, particularly when dealing with such a spectacularly vile creature as Levi Bellfield, and particularly when that thirst comes from the bereaved. But revenge is seldom the best motivator for a supposedly dispassionate and neutral justice system, and revenge is not always applied to the guilty. In short, I can't really disagree with anything Longrider says on the death penalty here. There may be an intelligent case to be made for the death penalty; it certainly won't be made at the Guido Fawkes website.

Doctor Who: The Dominators

I want to love The Dominators, I really do. Patrick Troughton's Doctor is my favourite, and unfortunately there are precious few stories of his left in the archives. Unfortunately, The Dominators has one massive problem - it's utter crap.

There are four key reasons for this:

1. The Quarks. They are just dreadful in every way. The design is rubbish - they look like what they are; kids in cardboard boxes who occasionally wave their "arms" in a completely unconvincing and unthreatening way. Furthermore, as enemies, they are pretty crap. They burble every now and again like a Sat Nav that has just inhaled helium, and they need recharging every 5 seconds like a really primitive mobile phone. Finally, they are pretty easy to defeat - you just push 'em over.

2. The Dominators themselves. While they look pretty formidable, and they display a penchant for cruelty, they actually achieve very little since they spend nearly all of their time sniping at each other. After a while, it just becomes really, really boring.

3. The Dulcians. The emphasis is very much on dull. They do remarkably little other than talk to each other in a pious and pompous way. As the story progresses, you start to wonder whether it might just be better if the Dominators win out. The most interesting thing about this race is their curious style of dressing, which seems to consist of vests and curtains.

4. The story. It is essentially a rewrite of the first Dalek story - itself not a striking classic of plotting. It is all about the limits of pacifism, and the need to fight sometimes. The problem is that point can (and is) made in about five minutes, leaving us with a couple of hours of not much happening.

Is there anything good about it? Well, Troughton and Hines are as great as ever. Troughton always seems to give his best, even if the scripts really don't deserve it. Cully is also a relatively interesting character - something that is slightly undermined by the fact that he is a youthful rebel who looks like a portly, balding bank manager. And that's about it really. I seem to remember reading that one of the reasons why Troughton left was because he felt that the quality of the scripts was declining. Given his first story was the superb Power of the Daleks and his second season opener was perennial favourite Tomb of the Cybermen, it is easy to empathise with any despair he may have felt when faced with The Dominators to open his third season as the Doctor.

And why is this the clunker for the Troughton era? Well, there is another bad story in the archives, namely The Krotons - but that story is faster paced, shorter and with marginally more credible monsters (if only because they are taller than the Quarks). And, of course, The Underwater Menace is hardly a classic, but I can't include it as I can, and only ever will, see two episodes of this. And that is the real tragedy here - we have all five episodes of The Dominators and all four episodes of The Space Museum. Yet we cannot see the fourth episode of The Tenth Planet, or the vast majority of Evil of the Daleks or The Web of Fear. It is bad enough that large swathes of sixties Doctor Who were wiped back in the day; it is unforgivable that they wiped some of the best and preserved some of the worst.

Elsewhere...

I've a post up at the Orphans of Liberty about the big problem I have with anarchism or, to put it another way, why I am not an anarchist. Anyway, enjoy.

On The Frankfurt School

Over at the Orphans of Liberty, James Higham has a post up that is highly (to say the least) critical of the Frankfurt School. And as curious at it might seem to disagree with a frequent commenter here over a post on a website that I contribute to as well, I do have to take issue with his reading of the Frankfurt School. Partly because some of the contributors to the Frankfurt School have been key inspirations for my own views on politics*.

Before we get into the main body of what I want to say, let me first point out that it is possible to read most political philosophers in a number of different ways. Rousseau is for some a champion of democracy, for others an advocate and anticipator of totalitarianism. Machiavelli is for some an arch-cynic - the instigator of the realism in politics that can be traced straight to the likes of Tony Blair. For others, he is someone who is trying to put the concept of virtue back into politics. And so on and so on - the point here being that it is more than possible to read the collected works of the Frankfurt School in very different ways.

In part because the thinkers that make up the Frankfurt School are very disparate, and the school itself has been around for 90 years or so. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine Herbert Marcuse and Jürgen Habermas agreeing on very much at all. Furthermore, the main incarnation of the Frankfurt School came when Max Horkheimer became the director of the institute in 1930 - two years after the "Manifesto of Cultural Marxism" that allegedly came from the Frankfurt School that initially inspired James's vitriol. To some extent, attacking the Frankfurt School is like attacking the Conservative Party - you are attacking a long history of disparate thinkers who often just plain disagreed with each other.

But enough with the scene-setting. Let's look at the Frankfurt School itself. First up, yes, the Institute/School was founded on a Marxist basis. However, many of the key thinkers involved had at best an idiosyncratic reading of Marxism. Indeed, I struggle to see Habermas's discursive (and largely impractical) Theory of Communicative Action as hardly Marxist at all, while Horkheimer himself ended up on the side of liberal capitalism. Furthermore, Marx's canon is not without its merits, even for a libertarian like me. While I can't stomach the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and can clearly see the damage that concept has done, the "withering away of the state" sounds a pretty admirable aim to me. As such, it is wrong to conflate all self-defined Marxists as one and the same, and the Frankfurt School alienated just as many traditional Marxists as it did conservatives. We're not talking about Stalinists here, or apologists for Stalinism such as the Webbs. We're talking about a very disparate group of thinkers with an often unique interpretation of Marxism.

So the relationship with Marxism was extremely fraught and often full-on critical - in particular, with the USSR, as Marcuse's seminal work Soviet Marxism shows. It is, however, true that the Frankfurt School was also very critical of the Western world. But let's take a look at why. Adorno, for example, was a cultural snob and often attacked mass-market entertainment. He saw it as making the people compliant and distracting them from real political issues. Personally, I think it is wrong to dismiss mass entertainment, but at the same time, when I watch the feverish coverage of The X Factor I can't help but think of The Culture Industry.

On a wider basis, though, it is important to think about the context in which the wider context in which the school produced its work - especially the thinkers who produced their work between 1930 and 1970; in other words, the era of the Frankfurt School that is perhaps most associated with Critical Theory. This was the Frankfurt School forced to flee Nazi Germany - and one of their number did not make it, leading to his suicide. And it was this Frankfurt School that was faced with the apparent descent of civilisation into either fascism or communism - either way, into totalitarianism. The diagnosis of some of their number that the USA was drifting into totalitarianism was not without its flaws, but this was the America of the 1950s, of McCarthyism, and the America that plunged itself into Vietnam and ended up at the Kent State Shootings. Just as liberals of our era argued against the Patriot Act and (in this country) ID cards, the likes of Herbert Marcuse argued against a US state that was often draconian in its attempts to control its own people.

This underpins the critique of the nuclear family. To my mind, it is not so much a wholesale rejection of the idea of a family so much as a rejection of the patrimony and conformism that traditional views of the family were often used to back-up. Remember the context again - a Western world struggling to come to terms with ideas such as equality between the genders and ethnicities, as well as a world where homosexuality was largely taboo. It would be a reactionary, as opposed to a liberal or a conservative, who would argue that greater equality in these areas is not a step forward for liberty - and it is in part these areas of life that that lead to Marcuse's permissive, if not promiscuous, views on sexuality.

But is Critical Theory against Western civilisation? Yes, but only so much as it is critical of any civilisation. And in the same way that it is about immanent critique - the critique of any system using its own terms. This is what Adorno's Negative Dialectics is about. Any status quo, be it a liberal democracy, a pseudo-Marxist state like the USSR or a theocracy, should be open to critique. And that is the point of Critical Theory - it is about much more than just the Frankfurt School. Don't believe me? Just take a look at the list of critical theorists ; it shows how disparate a bunch they truly are. In a sense, I would define myself as a Critical Theorist. Finally, criticising a society does not neccessarily mean the wholescale rejection of it. One of the aspirations that informs Marcuse's work is how to use technology in such a way as to meet the wants of the whole of society. Given we still live in a world where famine is a problem, this remains a good aspiration and alludes to pertinent questions about the use of technology.

So the Frankfurt School are not a homogenous bunch of thinkers at whose doors we can lay many of the problems of our modern society and culture. Indeed, even if I did believe the harsh reading of the Frankfurt School (which, of course, I don't), that doesn't then mean that they had the power and the influence to fundamentally affect the societies in which they live. Quite the opposite is true, really, if we look at the Frankfurt School. They alienated potential allies in the Western and Marxist worlds to such an extent that such alienation almost seemed to be a mission statement. While Marcuse had a flirtation with the New Left, he was never really part of that movement and was harshly critical of its violence (through groups such as the Red Army Faction). However, his association with the New Left has tainted his record in the eyes of many, meaning he has gone out of fashion just as the New Left went out of fashion. As for the others, even those such as Habermas who have become public intellectuals in their own countries have been scuppered why one crucial problem - there work tends to be obscruantist in the extreme. Adorno, for example, was given to writing obtuse aphorisms, making his work interesting only if you can decipher what the hell he was trying to say. It is hard to imagine the political class who have created so many problems in our society making their way through Negative Dialectics. Indeed, that's why the political "theorists" (if we can dignify these crass writers with such a title) who tend to have the most influence on the political class are those who present a Ladybird version of political theory - like Anthony Giddens and Phillip Blond.

So I don't think there is anything to be gained by dismissing the Frankfurt School. There work was not without its flaws, but they presented a bold critique of issues still having a devastating effect on modern life, such as the growth of faceless bureaucracies and of bland conformism. They also pointed to the need to critique society rather than blandly accepting what the ruling class tell you (surely the point of websites such as the Orphans of Liberty?) You can look elsewhere for the malaise that has done so much to damage our society; fighting the Frankfurt School is fighting relevant ideas that we could potentially use at the same time as letting the real enemies carry on undisturbed.

*Not the greatest influences, though. For that I would have to point to Arendt, Lyotard and Hayek.

Free Speech and Insults

The Guardian has a passably interesting article up about the use of the word "retard" - arguing that it is effectively on a par with using the word "nigger". I'm not going to get into the substance of the article, although I'll note in passing that it might be a good thing if the word retard was used a little less by people as an insult or as a cheap joke - myself included.

What I want to comment on, though, is this passage here:

Hiding behind the right to free speech is not a defence. People gave their lives in the battle for free speech. I doubt they did so in order to give some hipster – claiming to be correcting myths and errors around disability through satire – the right to disabuse who they see fit.

To be really pedantic for a moment, I'd just like to point out that we don't know exactly what those who died for free speech were dying for; if nothing else, it is very difficult to ask them. It is probably safe to assume, though, that hipsters (what a wonderfully anachronistic word!) were not at the top of their agenda.

However, I do think that this paragraph represents a fundamental misunderstanding when it comes to the nature of free speech. The whole point of free speech means that it has to be free - and that includes allowing people to be free to attack others, to insult others and to use words and language in general in such a way that others may - and probably will - find offensive. Otherwise we are not talking about free speech at all - rather, the ability of a moral majority to dominate minorities with their own personal prejudices.

In the case of the word retard, it is difficult to argue that the word is more often than not used in a way that is insulting and demeaning to those with disabilities - probably to such an extent that the word's real meaning these days is purely as an insult. But that doesn't mean that people should be stripped of the right to use that word, or that free speech does not allow people the right to "disabuse others". There can be no conditions attached to free speech if it is to remain a meaningful concept.

But even as we acknowledge what could be considered to be a downside to free speech, there is a potential upside as well. Because just as people are free to insult, demean and bully others, so people are are free to argue back, to defend those being attacked, and to explain why certain words and certain behaviours are offensive to them and the wider community.

The people who died defending free speech did so to defend the idea that people should be able to speak freely, and to say what they feel. This includes the right to debate and argue over what is appropriate and what is offensive. If you don't like the word "retard" then you are free to say so, and to make you case to others who do use the word as to why it is so unpleasant. But there is nothing inconsistent in people arguing that free speech allows them to use any words or terms that they see fit; indeed, any other formulations of free speech would, fundamentally and crucially, not be free at all.

From some pro-Ed Miliband chopper:

Ed’s enemies have no discernible principle, however misguided. They dream only of David: limp, charming US conformist, token foreign secretary, but the rightful heir to the shining void of Blairism. Childish beyond words, their view is supplemented by the trivialist press. Sketchwriters, too idle to stay for any parliamentary business except the leaders’ set piece, expatiate on voice timbre, assurance quotient, facial appearance and high-profile oneupmanship. The government meanwhile is rolling over in contradictions, policy reversals and ‘clarifications’. The opposition won’t need a ‘stronger’ leader to defeat them at the next election. They might try calm or reticence or even unity – or that bit in the Brer Rabbit books about lying low and saying nothing.

I'm pretty sure that at least some of Ed's enemies have a very clear principle for opposing him - the fact that he's shit.

Thatcher Snubs Palin

It would take a hard heart not to laugh at this: Margaret Thatcher refusing to meet Sarah Palin. From a no doubt completely unbiased report in The Guardian:

It would appear that the reasons go deeper than Thatcher's frail health. Her allies believe that Palin is a frivolous figure who is unworthy of an audience with the Iron Lady. This is what one ally tells me:

"Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts."

While I would agree with the ally's analysis, I rather suspect that the old, frail Thatcher actually has very little time and energy for politics these days and therefore would rather not spend it meeting feckless wannabes for the Republican nomination.

But it is worth stressing just how different Thatcher and Palin are once you get beyond the fact that they are both female and are typically described as right-wing. Thatcher attended a top university before entering Parliament. She then spent well over a decade in various political positions, including party spokesperson and Education Secretary before taking a risk and challenging a former Prime Minister for the Conservative Party leadership. She then acted as Leader of the Opposition for several years before becoming Prime Minister about two decades after she first actively entered politics. Compare this with Palin, who was plucked from relative obscurity by an old man in a hurry and thrust into the political limelight. All she had to do for this celebrity is read from an autocue and wink occasionally. She didn't even complete her term as Governor, preferring instead to take the Sarah Palin show on tour across America. Whatever you think of her policies, Thatcher always appeared to be in politics to get things done. Palin appears to be in politics to build up the cult of personality and publicity that exists around her.

As I say, I suspect Thatcher is just too old and frail to be meeting up with potential Republican nominees. But if she was going to do so, I really doubt that Palin would be at the top of the list.

The Problem with Nadine Dorries

Or, to put it another way since there are any number of problems with Dorries, the problem with her blog.

Dorries has a long, whining post up about her "online stalker". Of course, the concept of a stalker in the world of Dorries is perhaps very different to what you or me might see as a stalker. As far as I can see, Dorries is complaining about a man who is trying to hold an elected politican - one who attempts to change national policies on issues such as abortion that could affect women across this land - to account. That isn't stalking - that's accountability, Nadine, and it is essential to every democracy even if it isn't always convenient for you and those around you.

But the problem Dorries - at least as she presents herself on her blog - is that she arrogantly seems to believe that she is in some way an important person and therefore what she says should be taken at face value. Therefore she does very little other than assert things without offering any evidence. Look at the post I've linked to - she offers nearly no links to back up what she says; it is fact because she says it is fact. Compare that post to this one critical of Dorries. Note that Tim Ireland actually takes the time to research what he is writing about; he offers relevant quotes and links to what he is asserting. The end result is that Ireland's work comes across as far more credible than the feckless, self-absorbed whining of Dorries.

Of course, I could be wrong, and Dorries may yet be right about her "online stalker". But there is no reason to suspect that this will be the case. If you're going to make accusations - as both Ireland and Dorries frequently do - then you need to be able to back those accusations up. That's where Ireland's blog - despite the fact that his politics is very different to mine - works while Dorries does not. And that's just one of the reasons why I feel Dorries is simply not suitable to be in any sort of a position of political power in this country.

Single Acts of Tyranny

From the outset, let me declare an interest - Stuart Fairney sent me a free copy of his book in return for a review. It hasn't affected my objectivity and, I suspect Fairney would be a bit disappointed if I didn't give my honest opinion on his work. Which means that this review will be pretty honest...

Single Acts of Tyranny is a brief, easy read, and in a sense reminded me of the work of Agatha Christie - not that Fairney is writing a mystery story anymore that Christie was a Libertarian writer. Rather, the point is that both authors make their work accessible and seem to understand that if you want to reach a large audience, then you have to write in a way that will appeal to that large audience. I doubt many literary critics will be raving about Fairney's book any more than they do about the work of Christie, but equally I can see people reading Single Acts of Tyranny as a way of relaxing while on holiday in a way that you couldn't do with, say, Atlas Shrugged.

The plot in itself is fast-moving and leaves the reader with little time to stop and evaluate it. Whereas this would normally hide a multitude of authorial sins, here it seems to be more that the author has a lot to say and is affording himself little space in which to say it. But that's fine - this is part political thriller, part love story, part political tract. Say what you've got to say, and then leave it. The point seems to be to get the reader to think about politics, and here I'd imagine the book will be a resounding success - for anyone not immersed in Libertarian theory, there is the potential here to be reading a really rather revolutionary and radical book that still conforms with intuitive common sense.

So we have here a light, yet politically astute, read that is deceptively simple. What could be improved?

Firstly, proof-reading. I know that the author of this blog criticising another writer for errors in their writing is the pot calling the kettle black, and the errors aren't too distracting, but for more pedantic readers it might become a problem. Secondly, the counter-factual background to the story didn't quite convince me. While I no issue whatsoever with the idea that the North might have won the Civil War, I seriously doubt that the South would have given up slavery and segregation that easily. Yeah, I understand the idea that slavery/racial segregation are economically counter-productive and it is irrational to pursue those objectives, but I also believe that when it comes to racial politics rationality often has a small (at best) part to play - as the example of Apartheid South Africa so brutally shows. Of course, I could be wrong, but that is part of the joy of the counter-factual - it provokes debate.

Finally - and this is perhaps the biggest problem - is the characterisations in the book. The leading protagonists and antagonists are not so much as they are ciphers - people designed to fulfil particular roles to advance the plot. In a brief book attempting to communicate a clear message about politics, characterisation does not have to be king, of course. But I just felt that at times it would have been more satisfying if the protagonist had been a little less perfect and the antagonist just a little bit less of a shit.

But these are relatively minor problems and do little to damage overall what is a very good book. So I would definitely recommend it - in particular to anyone who wants to learn a little bit more about a Libertarian political outlook.

Doctor Who: The Space Museum

Received wisdom would suggest that The Space Museum consists of an excellent opening episode followed by three deeply lacklustre episodes. And while this won't be the case with all of the stories I'll be watching as part of the clunkers, in this case I feel little reason to argue with received wisdom. That said, the difference between the first episode and the remaining three is not as vast as I remembered it to be.

The first episode does what many Doctor Who stories have done well - it sets up an intriguing mystery at the same time as setting up a story that it was always going to be next to impossible to resolve satisfactorily. There is much to enjoy, including the ongoing revelations that the four time travellers might not actually be where they think they are (or perhaps when they think they are). It all builds to a satisfying cliffhanger as the TARDIS crew actually arrive and begin their desperate struggle to avoid becoming embalmed exhibits in the space museum.

Well, I say "desperate struggle", but what actually happens here is a sort of tepid, muted adventure that barely sees the Doctor, Ian, Barbara and Vicki breaking a sweat in their attempts to survive. Hell, at one point Barbara even complains that she, Ian and Vicki should stop standing around and complaining and actually do something. She's absolutely right, of course, but it is a bit of a problem when your characters start pointing out the flaws with the script - a bit like the moment at the beginning of the second episode when the corpulent oaf leading the planet complains about how boring his life is. I mean, that's our introduction to the planet, for God's sake, and it is a complaint about how boring it is. Still, at least it is accurate.

Because the planet Xeros has to be one of the dullest the Doctor has ever and will ever visit. The ruling elite are all slightly overweight colonial types dressed in the brightest of whites (a Daz commercial if ever there was one) while the rebels, if we can call the insipid bunch of black clothed weasels with stupid eyebrows rebels, just don't deserve the help of the regular cast. It is like planet of the Ken Clarkes against the planet of the Ed Milibands. By the time we see Daleks for the second time in this story at the very end, the revolution is over and very sadly it has been televised.

Don't get me wrong, the first episode isn't perfect. The scene where Vicki is stopped from sneezing is the sort of thing that an eight year old would write if they had watched too many crap cartoons. And, in part because it is never really explored properly, the talk of jumping a time track is never quite convincing (especially given the lame explanation for the events of the first episode right at the end of the story), even if it does lead to the story's most interesting and unsettling moments. Likewise, the following three episodes, for all the endless capture/escape/recapture padding and dreadful, childish lines about "ray guns" are not all bad. In particular, the scenes where the Doctor mocks his captor in the second episode are excellent and very Doctorish - and I say that as a fan who really does not rate Hartnell. In fact, Hartnell is on form throughout this story, making it a shame that he doesn't really appear in the third episode at all.

I guess The Space Museum couldn't really happen in today's Doctor Who. At some point, someone would make the writer tone down the first episode and raise his game with the final three. As a result, we'd have a bland, inoffensive and yet watchable Doctor Who story. Which is both a blessing and a curse, since we'd miss out on the boredom that makes up three quarters of The Space Museum, at the same time as never getting to see the really rather innovative and interesting first episode. And as a result The Space Museum is actually a good microcosm of the Hartnell era, which was experimental and therefore scaled some great heights at the same plumbing some terrible depths. And it has Daleks, the Hartnell era - it's all right here, in The Space Museum.

The Pitiful Republican Candidates

I find it difficult to argue with this:

Shortly after the debate, Esquire quoted John Weaver, the longtime McCain strategist, scorning the GOP field as "the weakest since 1940." The New Hampshire debate provided plenty of evidence for his conclusion that the Republican Party "is nowhere near being a national governing party."

The truth is that no-one currently in the fray for the Republican nomination next year - including the ever ignorant Sarah Palin, whose constant flirtation with the concept of running for President has now become so tiresome that she is being eclipsed by her own clone -looks remotely credible as a candidate who might just be capable of taking the White House from Barack Obama. And the end result at this rate will be that Obama, like Bush Junior and Clinton before him, will be re-elected not because he is any good, but because his opponents are godawful no-hopers.

"I owe my life to smoking"

Miliband Minor's Twitter Mauling

There's a certain idiotic brilliance to this. I mean, what the hell to Ed Miliband and his team think was going to be the outcome of him answering questions on Twatter? Are they really so naive that they thought that only people as earnest as Miliband Minor would head online to talk to him? It was an example of someone who really should have known better walking headlong into the most obvious of ambushes. And that ambush was actually created by Team Miliband Minor. Talk about making a rod for your own back.

But after a pretty disastrous week for the lesser Miliband, this is surely the last thing he wanted - a widely reported online savaging (even if The Guardian is desperately trying to spin it). And the fact that he created this own goal speaks volumes about just how inept he is as politician. I reckon that this will be one of those moments that people in the future will use to explain to others why Ed Miliband had to be replaced as Labour leader.

With most promotions you might get a lot of warm congratulations and people wishing you well for the future. With this one, you get a target sign on your head in perpetuity (or at least until trigger happy Americans find you) and a deeply held wish from sane people the world over that you do really, really badly in your new job.

Spiderman The Musical: Turn Off The Show

I think we can file this one under "seriously, what were they thinking?"

Troubled Broadway musical Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark has officially opened to mostly harsh reviews.

Although critics agreed the latest reworked version was clearer, most blasted the show.

A Spiderman musical on broadway, in part scripted by those tools from U2, just plain doesn't work and gets shitty reviews from critics? Who'd have thought it? I'm a big fan of Spiderman, but even I can see that this had "shit idea" written all over it from the outset.

The Dubious, Yet Still Useful, Advice of Tony Blair

Mehdi Hasan on why the Labour party shouldn't listen to Tony Blair:

1) On Blair's watch, Labour lost four million votes between 1997 and 2005. Lest we forget, in the 2005 general election, Blair was re-elected with a vote share of 35 per cent - that's less than the majority-less Cameron achieved in 2010. Blair won in 2005 because his opponent was Michael Howard.

Couple of points here. Firstly, Blair may have lost circa 4 million votes between 1997 and 2005, but he also gained around 2 million for Labour in 1997 and in doing so gave the Labour party a formidable majority that allowed it to stay in power even as voters began to desert Labour. Which leads me nicely to the second point - Blair didn't win in 1997 because he was up against Howard (who actually managed to make 2005 a competitive General Election in a way that Hague or IDS would never have been able to manage) but because of Britain's curious electoral system that is often very much biased towards the incumbent. Indeed, that's why Cameron - despite routing Labour in many respects - was unable to form a government in 2010 unaided.

2) When Blair left office in the summer of 2007, his personal poll ratings were falling - and so too were the Labour Party's. As the authors of the new book, Explaining Cameron's Coalition, argue, "Blair's ratings were falling from 1997 and that, even if Labour had not changed leader, it is likely that Blair's would have been as low as Brown's were by 2010."

So? This shows the inherent naive way of thinking of many Labour supporters. The choice was not simply between Blair and Brown, no matter how the post-Blair succession actually went. There could have been any number of other MPs to replace Blair when he resigned had Brown not stitched up that leadership contest like a second-rate Stalin. Blair and Brown would have been shit in 2010, fine. What about Alan Johnson? Or Jack Straw? Or maybe even David Miliband? There were other potential leaders out there who would have been more popular than both Blair and Brown.

3) Blair invaded Iraq. Regardless of whether you think it was right or wrong to topple Saddam Hussein, politically, the war was a massive misjudgement on Blair's part. It split his party and the country, cost him his political capital, wrecked his reputation and undermined any legacy he might have hoped to leave behind as a three-time election winner. As the former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell once put it, "Mary Tudor had Calais engraved on her heart. Blair will have Iraq engraved on his heart and there is no escaping it."

Well, this is true - even thought the phrasing makes me picture Blair trying to invade Iraq single-handedly. Blair's legacy will forever be tarnished by the pointless, illegal war in Iraq. His decision to climb into the arsehole of the least intelligent and capable President in living memory was such an error of judgement that it makes every other decision he ever made open to question. But the fact that he dropped the ball in such an lethal way when it came to Iraq can't change the fact that he is perhaps, in electoral terms anyway, the most successful Labour leader of all time. If memory serves, he's the only Labour leader to have fought General Elections and not lost at least one of them.

So Hasan is right, in a sense - Miliband Minor should be wary of the advice of one Anthony Blair. But he should also be wary of not taking that advice when it comes to electioneering. Blair won three successive General Elections on the trot and - as much as I openly despise the truculent shit - anyone wanting to win a General Election for themselves should at least think about why Blair managed to achieve what he achieved.

David Miliband: Still Shit, Just Like His Brother

Of course I watched the Miliband Minor bashing of this past week with an amused smile - as someone who cannot stomach the little turd, it was a beautiful thing to see (well, read about). But what does bother me is the fact that his equally vapid and unlikable brother's unused victory speech has surfaced. It isn't so much the content of the speech, which could be spouted by just about any senior figure in any of the main parties with only the personal touches changed. Rather, it is stuff like this:

He and his wife Louise Shackleton clambered into their car just before 7pm to get home. As he was driven through the late September evening he is said by friends to have recited his undelivered speech in its entirety. In the privacy of the two-hour journey back to Primrose Hill, only his wife heard the address that had been meant for the thousands in the conference hall - but clearly for the country too.

The whole paragraph seems designed to create sympathy for Miliband Major, and almost to fabricate that feeling of "oh, but what if David had been elected rather than Ed?" There almost seems to be this sense in which the Labour party missed out on a great leader when the unions the Labour party chose Miliband Minor over his marginally more famous brother.

What bollocks. What absolute shite. The people who swallow this sort of line are wearing rose-tinted glasses so thick that they are effectively blind to the reality of what is really rather recent history. David Miliband isn't a great lost Labour leader; he's the spineless, geeky fuck who did nothing about torture being used as part of the War on Terror and who preferred to spend his time posing with a fucking banana than deposing the totally destructive and utterly repellent Gordon Brown.

David Miliband is not a great lost Labour leader, nor is he a great lost potential Prime Minister. He's a policy wonk promoted far beyond his level of ability and charisma. Had Labour elected him, they would be facing the same problems as they are with that chinless wonder of a brother of his. It is difficult to know who the right choice was for Labour leader last year, but I'm pretty sure that the right choice didn't have the surname of Miliband.

From a LabourList article speculating on who was behind the latest leaks to hit the beleaguered Miliband Minor leadership:

So we could well presume it was the Tories. It may not rid them of Balls, their bogeyman, but it has got the spotlight off them temporarily and has got everyone focussed on Labour’s big split.

Errr, no, that doesn't make sense. I'm not a Tory, but I'm pretty sure that if I was then one of the main people who I would want to keep at the very heart and at the very head of the Labour party would be Ed Balls. Yes, he manages to land some blows on the Tories. But he does so in such a way that makes him utterly repellent - like a school bully with no self-awareness whatsoever. He comes across as a repugnant individual; a nasty little thug who finds arguing with and smearing his opponents almost arousing. He is about as popular as foot and mouth disease at a country fair.

So the Tories will want to keep Balls as Shadow Chancellor for as long as possible. Having that vile puff adder as close to the top of the Labour party is great for them - it will remind the people of so much of what they hated about the Brown years. And if the Labour party wants to figure out who has stitched up Balls so nicely over the past week then they should bear in mind that if you climb to the top of the greasy pole by shafting other people, you leave in your wake a lot of enemies. And if you also leave a paper trail, then at some point you can be sure that someone you fucked over will delight in returning the favour...

Doctor Who: The Clunkers

In order to distract myself from the summer break between A Good Man Goes To War and Let's Kill Hitler, I'm going to be watching and reviewing a story from each of the eleven Doctors here every Saturday. But, since Doctor Who fans are often far better at slating their favourite show than praising it, I'll be watching eleven of Doctor Who's all time clunkers.

In the unlikely event of anyone wishing to join me in this quixotic quest I am only choosing stories currently available on DVD. However, if don't own the DVDs and don't want to buy some of the more disappointing entries into the Doctor Who canon, then you can also find most Doctor Who stories over at DailyMotion. And for anyone interested, the running order will be:

The Space Museum
The Dominators
The Time Monster
Revenge of the Cybermen
Time-Flight
Timelash
Time and the Rani
Doctor Who (1996 film)*
Aliens of London/World War Three
Partners In Crime
The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood

So join me here, next Saturday, to read my review of The Space Museum. If you don't find this whole idea tedious, that is...

*Yeah I know there isn't any other choice when it comes to the Eighth Doctor, but in about nine week's time I'll be explaining why this is one of the weakest Doctor Who stories of all time regardless.

The Deserving Poor

It seems to be increasingly common for socialists and social democrats to shrilly denounce the incumbent government for trying to reintroduce the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor. My point isn't to debate whether or not the government is actually trying to do so. Rather, it is to say this - that I can't, for the life of me I can't work out why this distinction is such a problem for some.

I suppose that part of it may well be that there is an element of judgement involved in deciding who should and who shouldn't be poor. Who makes that judgement? It's important because it gives the judge considerable power over the person being judged. In an ideal world, it could be argued, no-one would have the power to judge whether someone deserves their status in society or not. Then again, in an ideal world poverty wouldn't exist, surely?

Furthermore, socialists and social democrats have few qualms about judging who among the wealthy deserve their wealth and who does not - for example, those who have inherited their wealth. Indeed, there are some who are less discerning, and see all those who are rich as undeserving of their wealth and, following on from this, that the wealth should be redistributed to those who deserve/need it more.

Of course, someone judged to be as undeserving of their wealth is in rather an easier position to deal with it on the grounds of their wealth will mean they're faced with fewer problems than if they were living in poverty. But that doesn't change the fact that left or right, Labour or Conservative, rich or poor, the majority of us do make judgements as to the extent to which people deserve the circumstances in which they live.

Besides, might it not be helpful for someone living in relative poverty, (in part at least) through no fault of their own, but who has and is working hard to overcome that status to know that people see them as different to those who fail to do anything to alleviate their poverty? The tendency of socialists and social democrats to lump all people who could be considered to be poor together arguably damages the individuality of the poor and distorts the crucial reality that different people respond to being poor in different ways. Furthermore, surely the ways of dealing with people being poor differs depending on whether they are willing to work to change their circumstances or not? For example, someone who is poor and refuses to work is very different from someone who is poor and is desperately trying (successfully or otherwise) to find work, and the ways in which the wider community can help the different individuals must surely differ. Finally, it is worth noting that differentiating between the deserving and the undeserving poor does not necessarily condemn the latter to total deprivation and absolute rejection by society (even while acknowledging the fact that some who make the distinction want precisely that).

The point is that concepts of desert play a fundamental role in politics - and the poor represent no exception to this. To ignore this is to stick your head in the sand. So let's talk about the extent to which people might deserve to be poor or otherwise, and see where that leads political discourse.

From the chap producing a coin to celebrate Prince Philip's 90th:

Sculptor Mark Richards, who designed the coin, said: "The challenge for me, in creating this design, was to capture a man who gives great support to the monarch and the country, while remaining largely in the background.

"Therefore I have focused on a close-up of his face with all its accumulated dignity, wisdom and experience."

What, seriously, the "dignity, wisdom and experience" of this man? I think Richards' description is stretching credibility well beyond breaking point...

BREAKING NEWS: Blair and Brown didn't get along that well

I'm amazed that this constitutes news:

The Labour Party's two most senior figures have denied a "brutal" plot to destroy Tony Blair after the 2005 election, as a probe was launched into leaked documents.

The Daily Telegraph claims Ed Balls , as well as Labour leader Ed Miliband , began scheming to divide their party within weeks of the general election.

Really? How amazing. I mean, the Labour party civil war wasn't mentioned at all in the period after 2005 (or, indeed, before it). Everyone always thought that the relationship between Blair and Brown was hunky-dory, didn't they?

Of course, Miliband Minor (sort of) and Balls are on hand to deny the story:

Mr Miliband told Sky News: "I think what you are seeing is an overhyped version of ancient history.

"Frankly, the era of Blair and Brown is over. This generation of politicians is not going to repeat the mistakes of Blair and Brown."

Mr Balls told Sky News: "The fact that the first time I knew that they'd been taken was last night when they appeared in the Daily Telegraph I think shows that I didn't think this file, these documents were of great significance.

"The last time I saw them was when they were on my desk in the department before the general election.

"I don't know how they've been taken. I'm glad that's now being investigated.

"But the idea that these documents show that there was a plot or an attempt to remove Tony Blair is just not true.

"It's not justified either by the documents themselves, or by what was actually happening at the time."

The phrase "but they would say that, wouldn't they?" has seldom been more pertinent. Although I do like the fact that Miliband Minor stops short of fully denying the allegations. A brush-off is not the same as a denial...

Conservative Party chairman Michael Fallon MP said the leak showed Mr Balls could "not be trusted".

"First he denied this at the time, [but] now we know it's true," he said.

"It shows he's completely unsuited to be a serious figure in government. He simply couldn't be trusted, for example to plot against his current leader Ed Miliband."

Fuck-a-duck we've got an intellectual giant here. Ed Balls unfit to be a serious figure in government - who'd have thought it? And the fact that he can't be trusted is an absolute revelation.

Miliband Minor is right (a phrase I seldom, if ever, use) when he says that this is "ancient history". Honest to God, the Blair/Brown feud got boring while those fuckers were still running the country. It is beyond boring now. And anyone who needs evidence beyond that of their own eyes and ears that both of the Eds are wankers utterly unfit for high office is hopelessly naive.

Rowan Williams and the Non-Existent Fear

One of the greatest, and most important, political concepts of all time is the idea of the seperation of church and state. While we haven't quite managed it completely in this country, you'd think that we could be spared having to hear about the political preferences of the Archbishop of Canterbury. But clearly he wouldn't agree.

His New Statesman article is the sort of toss that continually gets printed by that magazine. And Rowan Williams has been comprehensively shredded just about everywhere this morning - particularly since he, as an unelected, unaccountable public figure, is really taking the piss when he criticises the democratic credentials of the coalition. One of the biggest problems, though, is that his whole article is predicated on the shakiest of grounds. Take a look at this paragraph on the much-maligned concept of the Big Society:

Government badly needs to hear just how much plain fear there is around such questions at present. It isn't enough to respond with what sounds like a mixture of, "This is the last government's legacy," and, "We'd like to do more, but just wait until the economy recovers a bit." To acknowledge the reality of fear is not necessarily to collude with it. But not to recognise how pervasive it is risks making it worse. Equally, the task of opposition is not to collude in it, either, but to define some achievable alternatives. And, for that to happen, we need sharp-edged statements of where the disagreements lie.

First up, it may not be enough to respond with things like "this is the last government's legacy", but it is still important to stress that. Labour were in power for 13 years - the situation the coalition inherited is Labour's fault. In fact, I'm amazed that the coalition doesn't spend more time pointing this out. If I was Cameron or Clegg, I'd be saying something like "this is all your fucking fault" every time Ed Miliband opened his stupid mouth. Likewise, the economy does restrict what the coalition can do. Labour could afford to do far more because the national bank account hadn't (yet) been ransacked. The Con-Dems were always going to be far more restricted as the money has been spent.

He's right, of course, when he says that the point of opposition is to offer some sort of tangible alternative to the government. But he's wrong when he talks about it coming from the left. The left (or at least the mainstream left) has become inherently conservative. That's the point of Blue Labour, that's why the Labour party in opposition can offer nothing more than "we'd do the same, but more slowly and with sad looks on our faces".

Indeed, as far as I can see radical alternatives will come from outside of the right-left political spectrum. Likewise, radical change does not - as Williams seems to believe it should - involve maintaining the current level of state power. There are radical alternatives to the status quo; these challenge that size and scope of the state in modern Britain. They dare to say that the answer to everything may not be state intervention and that the government both should not and cannot be held responsible for all aspects of national life. Take child poverty. The last Labour administration threw vast amounts of money at ending child poverty and nothing happened. It is time to consider other options and other institutions in society that might be able to help deal with and maybe end this problem. And it is striking that the head of one of those potential institutions is so utterly caught up in the statist myth.

But the biggest problem with the Archbish's article is that it is, as seems to be the case with many people writing for The New Statesman, based on unsubstantiated assertions of nothing more than the author's opinions. Williams writes about "plain fear". What fear? I have not come across anyone afraid of the coalition's policies. Sure, some people are angry and resentful about the coalition's approach, but no-one I've come across is afraid. As a result, the whole article comes across as a case based on a false assumption, and that is a fatal flaw. It isn't enough for anyone - even the Archbishop of Canterbury - to effectively say "it is true because I say it is". I doubt I am alone on demanding a little more proof of the fear that is the foundation of this article before I can treat Williams' views with the credibility that he seems to believe they deserve.

Dan Hodges, Ed Miliband and a Chronic Lack of Choice

I do enjoy some of the articles written by Dan Hodges over at The New Statesman - the ones slating Ed Miliband, obviously. Miliband Minor has few critics as persistent as Hodges. His articles on the failing and flailing Labour leader are filled with gems such as this one:

Liam Byrne has presented Ed Miliband with a chance to begin to define his leadership. If he takes it, it could be a turning point. If he doesn't, it may represent one final, missed opportunity.

I think Hodges is often spot on in his analysis of the flaws of the lesser Miliband. However there is a problem in that Hodges clearly has an agenda of his own - since he was a key supporter of Miliband Major's bid for the Labour leadership. And this is what, in a sense, makes his articles even more fun - because the comments descend to the level of internecine-Labour party conflict, with some defending the indefensible (i.e. Ed Miliband) at the same time as (quite rightly, on some levels) accusing Hodges of being motivated mainly by sour grapes.

But the point is that Hodges' scribblings accurately represent the big problem that faced Labour when they replaced Brown and, arguably, still faces them today should they choose to do what is necessary and bin the Ed. That problem is the complete lack of choice when it coems to potential leadership candidates. Had Miliband Major been elected then there would be someone who supported his brother's campaign belly-aching on a weekly basis in The New Statesman about the failings of David as Leader of the Opposition. Neither of the Miliband leaders are inspirational in any way, shape or form - including the lost Miliband, Andy Burnham. Ed Balls is just plain vile, while Diane Abbott remains a joke. No matter who won the Labour leadership election last year, all would be struggling now as Labour leader. Furthermore, if there were to be a new contest right now, it is difficult to imagine a more inspirational line-up. The party hasn't reinvigorated itself in opposition; rather, it still doesn't seem to understand that it needs to reinvigorate itself at all.

So keep on sniping away at Ed Miliband, Dan. But at some point you're going to have to face up to the fact that your chosen candidate wasn't any better, and that the problems with the party you support run deeper than the fool who happens to be running that party at the moment.

NCH: An Unconvincing Idea

Try as I might, I just can’t get worked up over this private university thing – certainly not the extent of this rather embittered commentator or this jaundiced old Marxist rent-a-quote. I can’t help but think that if Grayling et al want to do this, they should feel free. And the whole project can fall into the category of stuff I don’t really care about.

So my point isn’t about defending or lambasting this institution – I’ll leave that to others who care more. What I would say, though, is that £18k a year (or a magnificent £54k for a degree) does sound like an awful lot, particularly when you can get a degree from Oxbridge for literally half the price. The counter claim is that with fewer students there will be a greater chance to have face to face interaction with your tutors. But that is only of benefit if those tutors are great teachers. Which, along with the cost, is one of the things that really doesn’t work for me with regard to this project.

The names mentioned are certainly big names – and with the likes of A. C. Grayling and Richard Dawkins, this college is probably attracting the closest the UK has to public intellectuals. But fame does not mean quality – after all, Ben Affleck and Tom Cruise are internationally famous actors, but that doesn’t actually make them any good. Grayling is a remarkably bland philosopher, Dawkins is a relentless dogmatist who shows the same zeal with regard to his atheism as many religious fundamentalists. Elsewhere, the other intellectuals involved that I’ve actually heard of are Ronald Dworkin (a kind of sub-John Rawls obsessed with a sort of intangible egalitarianism) and Niall Fergusson – a controversial historian at best with an unhealthy respect for imperialism. Sure, these people are visible, but that doesn’t make them (a) any good or (b) able to teach.

The whole thing comes across as a bit of a stunt – an injection of celebrity culture into the academic world. I dare say there will be some who will be willing to pay these exorbitant fees to end up with a degree from the University of London and the right to say that they studied under Grayling and/or Dawkins, but I suspect they will be few and far between. Furthermore, even if the college does take off then there are no guarantees that the institution will win respect even if it does gain students (a point that much of the criticism of this scheme seems to miss). So while I wouldn’t deny the right of Grayling and the others to found this institution, I would recommend that serious students look elsewhere. You can get a decent degree from a respected institution without the cost and the risk inherent in the NCH project.

Idiot of the Day

The fact that he is called Weiner makes this story just perfect.

Obligatory Admin Post

Ooo, a post about blogging admin. This'll be a humdinger of a read.

Couple of points are worth making, though. I do have an e-mail address for this blog (thenamelesst[at]yahoo[dot]co[dot]uk) and I do check it... every now and again. So feel free to e-mail me, but don't think that I'm ignoring you necessarily if you don't get an answer straight away. And if you need an urgent response on anything (although Christ knows why you would) then best to leave a comment on here or on Twatter telling me that I've got mail.

The second point is that there is no point whatsoever in sending that e-mail address LinkedIn invitations. I have a LinkedIn profile, my blogging avatar doesn't. That's a level of interweb weirdness that even I'm not happy embracing.

That is all. Normal Service will be resumed (which these days seems to consist of despairing of politics and speculating about Doctor Who).

Over at The New Statesman, the Littlejohn of the Left - aka Laurie Penny - is up in arms about welfare reform. It's at her usual level of hyperbole and melodrama - note the hint at a link between government policy and suicide. But her case, such as it is, can be summed up in the final paragraph:

There used to be a liberal consensus that it was the government's responsibility to provide employment and ensure that those unable to work were entitled to a minimum standard of living. As the Welfare Reform Bill oozes unchallenged through the Commons, the real scandal is not that the government is lying through its teeth in order to justify its evisceration of the welfare state. The scandal is that no one in Westminster is prepared to make a moral case for welfare provision as the honest heart of social democracy.

First up, there is, and has never, been a liberal consensus in this country. Indeed, "liberal" is a word that has been truly stretched beyond its elastic limit. It is largely meaningless now. Besides, there is a strong case that what Penny is alluding to is actually socialism rather than liberalism, and there are many liberals who have argued that socialism is an enemy of liberalism.

Secondly, we have the term thrown in there about a "minimum standard of living". Fine, you might think - until you start to examine what that phrase might actually mean. Then we hit the problem of the fact that there is no consensus on what a minimum standard of living is. It could just be having a roof over your head and food on the table; it could be much more than that. A lot of this boils down to the old debate about whether poverty is absolute or relative, and that's an important distinction for the case that Penny is trying to make. See, if poverty is absolute, then I might agree that we can find and then ensure we deliver a minimum standard of living for all. But if it is about relative poverty, I rapidly lose interest. At that point a minimum standard of living drifts towards the redistribution of wealth as a means of delivering an equality of outcome - an idea I find intolerable, nonsensical and idiotic.

Then we have the accusation that the government is lying - we aren't given any real evidence for that, we just have to take Penny's accusation at face value. Which is a real problem, given her tendency for hyperbole and hysteria. Yeah, the government might well be lying - wouldn't be the first time. However I would like a little more evidence than just the say-so of Ms Penny, though.

And "evisceration of the welfare state" is a class Penny-ism - it can't be welfare reform or harming the welfare state. No, it has to evisceration - only that is melodramatic enough.

Then we move onto the heart of the matter - Penny's assertion that no-one is making the case for social democracy. Note, as an aside, how we've moved from liberalism at the start of the paragraph to social democracy at the end - the two are not synonymous, Laurie, not in any way. But the real point is that Penny seems to think that making the case for welfarism (which is effectively what she's calling for) is not as easy as she makes out. Yeah, you can do as she does and tug on the heartstrings. You can talk about destitution, about suicide and about the long-term sick having to go out to work (which surely isn't a problem if they are able to do that work despite their illness). But you also need to explain at what level welfare provision stops and at what point people should have to go out and work for a living - just as those who are paying the welfare claimants (i.e. the taxpayer) have to do. There is a moral question here, and there is also an economic one - how is any welfare state going to be funded? The money just doesn't appear by magic, you know. It comes from those who pay tax.

And as a final point it is worth noting that this is not an attempt to destroy the welfare state, but rather to reform and improve it. The tone of Penny's article is typical of her general style but also gives away the innate conservatism that she now shares with so many of her Labour/left-wing brethren. There's nothing radical about opposing reform to an imperfect institution such as the welfare state. In fact, it is conservative bordering on the reactionary. Which is perfect, really. Laurie Penny as reactionary conservative. More and more like Littlejohn with every passing day.

Doctor Who - Bridging the Mid-Season Gap

We now have a wait until the next episode of Doctor Who hits our screens. But let's put it into perspective a bit. Three or so months may feel like a long time, especially when there is so much of the story-line unresolved. But let me tell you - as someone who first really became a fan of the show in 1988 - three months is nothing. After Survival we had to wait around seven years for a new episode - and after that new episode we had to wait the best part of a decade until the next new episode came along. Trust me, the wait until September is nothing.

But this post isn't just about the curmudgeon in me muttering "they've never had it so good!" The point I want to make is that there are ways of bridging the gap between episodes - a gap that in the past has been far longer than the one we've got now.

DVDs are an obvious way, particularly since the BBC is issuing them on what feels like a frenetic pace at the moment. And if you haven't explored the good Doctor's back catalogue, then you'll be missing out on some true gems. And some utter shite as well, but there's fun to be had in every Doctor Who story - barring, perhaps, Time-Flight. Then there are the spin-offs - and since 2005 we've been blessed with a lot more than one paltry episode of K9 and Company. There's Torchwood, of course, but for me the very best really is The Sarah Jane Adventures. If you haven't had the pleasure then I suggest you go take a look - they are arguably closer to the classic series than much of what is now Doctor Who.

But of you think that Doctor Who ends when you turn of the TV then you're very much mistaken. Big Finish have been producing Doctor Who audio dramas for over a decade now, and while the quality is mixed, there have been some brilliant offerings. Doctor Who and the Pirates (everything The Curse of the Black Spot should have been but wasn't), The Holy Terror, Master, The Chimes of Midnight and The Fearmonger are all excellent stories in their own right, and sit well with the best that the TV series has to offer. But if you only try one of the Big Finish productions, make sure it is Spare Parts - one of the best Doctor Who stories ever written. It helped to inspire Rise of the Cybermen and The Age of Steel, but that really is damning it with faint praise. I can't recommend it highly enough.

And then there are the novels. Sure, some of them are cack-handed fan fiction that spends more time trying to be iconoclastic but ends up being navel-gazing rubbish that never quite gets around to telling a decent story. But others are actually really rather good. Conundrum is a particular favourite of mine - and you can't go wrong with pretty much anything with Steve Lyons on the cover (quite why he hasn't written for the TV series is beyond me - The Witch Hunters would be an excellent, and challenging, addition to any new series of Doctor Who). Elsewhere, The Burning offers what is an clever way of rebooting the show at the same time as maintaining its basic identity, while Eater of Wasps is another example of a story that should make the jump from the printed page onto the big screen. And that is just scratching the surface of what now probably amounts to hundreds of Doctor Who novels out there.

So the point is that there is a whole world of Doctor Who out there waiting to be found. I've been an avid fan for over 20 years and I've barely scratched the surface. A bit of a wait until September? Pah, that's nothing. And if you take a look at some of the stuff mentioned here (assuming you haven't already) then the time will just fly by. Like you were in a TARDIS or something...

Doctor Who: A Good Man Goes To War

Q: When is an ending also a beginning?

A: When a good man goes to war.

Ok, it isn't as catchy as some of the poetry in the programme, but it alludes to a crucial point that we should probably deal with straight away. Yeah, this is not a stand-alone episode and yeah, you're doing to have to wait a while to see how this concludes. But I've only got this to say to the whiners out there who will be lambasting the complexity of the overall story arc and the long wait until September: deal with it.

And before we go any further, let me warn you, in the manner of one Doctor Song, that there are spoilers ahead. Seriously, heed that warning. If you haven't watched the episode, then go do so and then read on. I'm not going to be held responsible for ruining any of this for anyone.

This was a mighty fine piece of Doctor Who. Sure, it was showy and very ostentatious - it had the celebratory feel of "let's try to get as many different monsters into this as we can". But that's fine - why not, if it's going to be done so well? And I like the fact that the Doctor has an army he can call on if need be, and it makes sense that someone as startling as him would have others in his debt. And, of course, it is good that the Doctor is shown to be the man who can stop an army without shedding blood. Just as it should be.

But what was even better was the fact that the Doctor was tricked by enemies who know him all too well. It wasn't just that the army left to allow for a trap to be set, then sprung. It wasn't the further fact that his enemies managed to pull the substitution with the Flesh trick for the second time on him. It was the fact that Moffat let the audience in on this trick; for very early on, we understood that this was all a trap, and so we were allowed to see the arrogance of a Time Lord lead him right into a trap when really he should have known much better.

And the episode also managed to pull off some other surprising tricks as it went along. I mean, it managed to have a poignant moment with a 12 year old Sontaran, for heaven's sake. And I really like the idea of a Silurian adventuress living in Victorian England solving crimes. There's a spin-off show, right there.

Anything that didn't work? The Headless Monks seemed like a vaguely good idea that was not at all fleshed out. As it stands, they were a bit of a nothing - and I don't know why we couldn't have had the Silence back as the main adversaries. And overall I felt that the whole thing could have done with a little bit more time to, well, breathe a bit. I'm all for fast-moving Doctor Who, but this felt like a six episode story crammed into about forty-five minutes.

Of course, this is all window dressing around the main revelation of the story; the Ponds' baby and the identity of River Song. From the moment I heard the name "Melody Pond" I knew that those who have been speculating that River was Amy's daughter were right. But that didn't stop the slow reveal of River's identity being a joy to watch - especially since it was the information that reinvigorated the Doctor and galvanised him into action. There is also an added poignancy when you consider that the Doctor already knows how Melody/River will die - and that he has already made a sort of afterlife for her. And it does raise a number of questions - is River a Time Lady? It was strongly implied that she is and, following on from this, that she was the regenerating girl from the end of Day of the Moon. Which would also make her the girl that Amy shot... and it is increasingly looking like the person in the astronaut suit who gunned down the Doctor was River, and that is the crime that she is serving time for in the Stormcage. But if so, why? And how will the Doctor be saved from that brutal murder on the beach? I mean, surely he will be saved, right? But then there was that snapshot of a skeleton holding the sonic after the end credits had rolled...

The overall story is starting to fit together, but there are enough balls still in the air to make me desperate to know what happens next. But that's Ok, because Doctor Who will return in Let's Kill Hitler. And why not?

The won'tsomeonethinkofthechildren brigade is out in force:

Parents need much more help in protecting children from online porn, a review commissioned by the prime minister is to say.

The Bailey Review says parents should be able to buy computers, devices or internet services with adult content already blocked, rather than having to impose controls themselves.

And we've got some sort of prattling jackanape on hand to clarify exactly what needs to happen:

"Whilst most parents regularly check what their children are viewing online, and set up parental controls and filtering software, they remain concerned because they are not as internet savvy as their children.

"That's why I am calling for a new approach where all customers have to make an active choice over whether they allow adult content or not. This is something internet service providers have told me is workable."

Now, I've got a plan that should enable this problem to be resolved - it basically requires parents to start acting like, well, responsible adults and looking after their spawn. Don't think you're as internet savvy as your kids? Well, do something about it and learn about the internet. Here, I'll even help you - over 1,660,000 suggestions in response to typing "how to stop children accessing porn on the internet" into Google.

I don't have a problem with the idea that ISPs could offer a service whereby porn sites are automatically blocked - if there is a market for it, they'll probably be well up for it. But I do object to the idea that everyone has to make an active choice about whether adult content is allowed or not. All those who don't have kids or who are responsible parents shouldn't have to talking to fucking ISPs about such things - particularly not because of a minority of feckless and/or utterly stupid parents.

But that's nothing compared to the biggest problem I have with this sort of idea - namely, the implication that the population has now become so bovine and mindless that it can't seem to do anything without a government report and without government intervention. This all implies that people are now so incapable of even looking after their children without the government doing something. To all those who need this sort of help when it comes to da interwebs - get a grip. If you're old enough to have children surfing the internet, you are also old enough to be a responsible adult. So start acting like one.

Doctor Who and the Curse of the Anti-Climax

RTD did many great things with Doctor Who. He brought back the show, made it into one of the most successful BBC productions of recent years, and brough an emotional depth to it that had seldom been seen in the so-called "classic" series*. But, by God, was he capable of delivering an anti-climax. He would ramp up the tension, make things seem more and more urgent and desperate. Then he'd hit us with a big anti-climax - a switch is flicked, and the story is switched off. A great example of this is Doomsday - you have Torchwood, parallel universes, Daleks against Cybermen with the Earth caught in the crossfire. And how is it all resolved? A couple of bloody great switches are flicked. Sure, there is more to come - with the heartbreaking scene between the Doctor and Rose in Bad Wolf Bay - but the main story ends up being superb in set-up, amateurish in resolution.

Generally speaking, I'd say that Moffat is better at RTD at creating a credible conclusion to his stories. Then again, his stories - and in particular, the story arcs - have become bigger and bigger in their scope. I've enjoyed the overaching story arcs since he started running the show, but I can't help but notice that he increasingly is using cliffhangers to divert attention away from unresolved storylines. The Doctor's dead, killed by the Impossible Astronaut - but, a-ha, look, a regenerating little girl. There's a regenerating little girl, but we won't focus on the explanation, and instead say that Amy Pond has been kidnapped and replaced with the Flesh. Each time there's an unresolved storyline, Moffat hits us with something else. Which makes for an exciting, surprising and thought-provoking show. But could well be setting him up for a fall when it comes to resolving those storylines.

Part of the genius of Moffat, though, is that he doesn't seem to feel pressure to resolve those storylines at the same time and in line with viewer expecations. What caused the TARDIS to explode in the last season? We still don't know. Which is why - and this will only really be a problem for those slightly dull people who need every plot strand tied up before the end credits roll - I don't expect all of the plot strands to be tied up by the end of A Good Man Goes To War. In fact, quite the opposite - I expect there to be another jaw-dropping cliffhanger that will open up a whole host of new questions.

Except we know at least one thing. Tomorrow night, we're going to find out who River Song is. It's right there, in the trailer - River Song says that this is the day when the Doctor finds out who she is. If Moffat ducks that and doesn't tell us, it's a cop out. But if he does tell us, he's bound to disappoint unless he comes up with something staggeringly effective. She can't be the Doctor's wife - it's too obvious and this series has already made it clear that the Doctor is effectively married to the TARDIS these days. To have River Song being Romana or the Rani would please many fans but probably bemuse many casual viewers who don't have detailed knowledge of late seventies/eighties Doctor Who. My own personal theory - that River Song is a future version of Amy Pond (a tenuous theory based largely on the water related words in their names - Amy POND and RIVER Song) - may have some legs, but for reasons I can't quite put my finger on it just doesn't feel satisfactory (probably the fact that it is all based on a shit pun).

I hope Moffat can pull off something pretty bloody spectacular - and if any Who writer can do it, he's probably the one - but I do think that with this ongoing plot strands and bigger and bigger cliff-hangers Moffat is running the risk of falling foul of the Curse of the Anti-Climax (albeit in a very different way to RTD).

*Not that the original series wasn't classic - I just see the whole thing as one big story, so the division between the classic and new series is largely meaningless to me.

The War on Drugs and Political Cowardice

The phrase “no shit Sherlock” springs to mind.

Rather like the War on Terror (which is a war on a tactic rather than an actual enemy), the War on Drugs was always a nonsense. The drugs trade is a vast, complicated network that it is almost impossible to fight – particularly when one of the main tools in the Western world to control drugs is to lock up addicts and dealers together in institutions rife with drugs. Put simply, you can’t fight the heroin or cocaine trade. It is like trying to fight international logistics; it isn’t going to happen. For every victory - for every dealer locked up - there are thousands of others out there. And for every poppy field burned, there are thousands of other farmers who depend on the revenue from the drugs trade in order to feed their families.

However defeat in the war on drugs is not the only reason for legalising them – there are more positive reasons for legalisation as well. Put simply, adults should be treated as adults. They should be allowed to choose whether they use narcotics or not – just as they should be able to choose whether they drink alcohol and eat rich, fatty foods. Sure, some people will become drug addicts – just as people become drunks and obese. But that’s the point of being an adult; that’s the point of having choice and therefore how adults can have personal responsibility.

But that is one of the reasons why the governments of the Western World won’t legalise – it involves treating adults like adults, and our governments increasingly believe that we are wayward children who need constant control. Of course the White House has rejected this report; accepting it would involve relinquishing some of its control over its people.

It will also be a courageous politician who advocates drug legalisation, if only because of the hysterical anti-drug rhetoric that has accompanied the ridiculous war on drugs. And, let’s be honest, courage is not something that can be associated with the modern politician…

So drug legalisation is the right and common sense thing to do; ending this pointless failure of a war on inanimate narcotics is the logical thing to do. Unfortunately, the one thing that will guarantee that it won’t happen is the political class.

Predicting the Opinion of Political History

This proved, somewhat unexpectedly, to be a very interesting documentary.

In a sense, I know very little about the Wilson/Heath years. I mean, I know the basic outline of what happened, if only because it provides some of the context for contemporary politics. But for me, the Wilson/Heath years (and the Callaghan administration) is part of the dour, drear post-war consensus era – that dull time when politics ground to a halt because the main parties pretty much agreed on everything. The programme did little to change my opinion of this era, but it did reframe it in a way that I hadn’t considered before through making it a duel between two of Britain’s least compelling Prime Ministers. It’s an interesting way of looking at politics between the mid-sixties and the mid-seventies.

And it did leave me wondering how the current political era will ultimately be viewed when similar documentaries are made in the future. I mean, in a sense it is easy to write the history of the Nu Labour years as it has two defining characteristics (ignoring the obvious ones like spin, mendacity and crushing incompetence). You can sum up the Nu Labour years by referencing the illegal and pointless war in Iraq at the same time as talking about the Blair-Brown rivalry. Unlike the Wilson/Heath years you don’t really need to mention whoever was in opposition. But what about the current era? How will the first year of the coalition be remembered?

I suspect that it will be remembered as the time when politics – or at least politicians and political commentators – went a little mad and forgot that the main party in government was the Tories rather than the Liberal Democrats. It will be about how the opposition party decided to fight Britain’s third party rather than the first party, and how the pointless chunterings of a second-rate politician like Vince Cable became front page news. And I rather suspect that historians will be incredulous as to the extent to which Nick Clegg became a Teflon coating for David Cameron. Above all, though, I think that this era could be framed around the question of why the Labour party allowed the Tories to coast to a real general election victory under the vacuous and utterly pointless Ed Miliband…