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...

Laurie Penny, Spending Cuts and Attempted Suicide

As part on my ongoing habit of being late on just about everything, I see that Laurie Penny is indulging in a jaw-dropping bit of hysteria (that manages to be in pretty bad taste at the same time):

It's 2am, and I'm sitting under a strip light in the emergency unit of my local hospital, waiting for the doctors to finish attending to a young friend of mine who attempted to end her life tonight. When the paramedics arrived, they told us she wasn't the first - for many Londoners, it seems, something about the news or the weather today gave the impression that a crisis point has been reached.

Timmy nicely fillets her assertions here, while DK turns in an excellent piece of splenetic rage against her here. But I'd just like to throw into the maelstrom my own thoughts on young Laurie's work.

First up, she's being pretty fucking assumptive. She doesn't specify why her friend tried to end her life (and in fairness, I don't want to know and nor should she tell us) and she clearly doesn't (and can't) know why other Londoners (all we know is that there is more than one) have attempted to end their lives either. It hardly seems surprising, though, that in a city the size of London that a certain number of people would try to end their lives each day. What would be surprising, though, is if they were doing it (as is strongly implied by Penny's article) because of the Comprehensive Spending Review. In fact, that would be fucking staggering - particularly if they were trying to commit said act over Labour's failure to counter the CSR to Penny's liking.

Given we don't know the motives of those who attempted to end their lives on that evening, I d0 have to say that it is pretty offensive - and an example of rather odious cheap political point scoring - for Penny to link those personal, troubled acts with the particular partisan argument she wishes to make. It is the sort of thing you see The Daily Mail doing all the time (albeit not normally from a leftist perspective) and, as most normal people know, aping that hate rag is not the way for any journalist to go.

But I don't think that Penny is stupid, even given the crass and offensive paragraph reproduced above. She can write well, knows how to frame an article, get the reader bought in to what she's saying and how to structure an argument (no matter how easily the logic of said argument can be refuted). She isn't dumb. Her big problem, rather, is that she is almost hopelessly naive. She is a living embodiment of the Entitlement Culture, and she lives in this strange bubble where the whole country should conform to her own, statist outlook on life. She's a idealist through and through. Don't get me wrong, I'm an idealist too - but it is mixed with both pragmatism and a healthy dose of cynicism. I know governments and political parties will do things of which I do not approve - however, I don't then link my disappointment in them to the attempted suicides of people I've never met.

It's tempting to round this post off with a terse phrase like "grow up", but I don't think that is what Penny actually needs to do. She needs to get a grip on reality, and the nasty world that is politics. The world isn't suddenly going to become compliant with what she wants and feels she is entitled to. Practical reality will always constrain what she demands. And in the case of spending cuts the practical reality is starkly simple - there's no money left, and all the parties (including Labour, deep down) know that cuts have to be made if the state is going to stay afloat.

Obama, Islam and The Daily Mail

Oooh, it has been a while since I last tore apart a Daily Mail article. Then I saw this one, that combines largely incoherent rage against two of their favourite targets (Islam and Obama) and... and how could I resist?

The headline is:

'Provocative, insensitive and uncaring': Fury after Obama backs mosque near site of September 11 disaster

Two points - first of all, being "provocative, insensitive and uncaring" is something that The Daily Mail should know all about - it is what they do all day, every day. In fact, it should probably the tagline for their hate-rag.

Secondly, I thought that September 11th was a terrorist attack - the use of the word "disaster" seems curiously restrained for the Mail. They missed a chance to be hyperbolic there.

On with the article:

Barack Obama has been hit by a furious backlash from victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks after he backed plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

As we shall come to see, the sentence above should read that Obama "...has been hit by a furious backlash from some victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks and some Republicans..." An important qualification that the Mail didn't see fit to mention. Then again, imprecise terms help to create the hysteria, don't they? As this next section shows.

The proposed site for the 13-storey building is close to where almost 3,000 people died nine years ago after Muslim hijackers flew two jet airliners into the World Trade Center.

Oooo, and there is is - the motherload. Note the phrase "... Muslim hijackers". Can we dispute that? Technically not - the hijackers were Muslim. Yet they were also male - so why not write "male hijackers"? They were also human - so why not write "human hijackers"? Why not list their individual ethnicities? The problem with the use of the term "Muslim" - what makes it misleading at the very least - is the broad nature of the phrase. Islam is a religion followed by millions across the world and has different factions that believe in different things. The 9/11 hijackers were a particular kind of Muslim - they were Islamic fundamentalist militants. And as such, they were divorced from the vast majority of Muslims across the world. The use of the word "Muslim" in this context is misleading as it does not take into account the breadth of beliefs and different levels of fundamentalism inherent within that religion.

BTW, fact fans, the new mosque is two blocks away from the site of Ground Zero. Just in case you are wondering.

Mr Obama expressed his support for the mosque, which will replace a building damaged by the attacks, at a White House meal celebrating Ramadan.

He said: ‘Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country.

‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’

Let's have a round of applause for Obama - a man who thus far in his presidency has been more than a little underwhelming has said something that is simultaneously courageous and absolutely right. America was founded on the principle of freedom of religion - and this freedom has to be protected, particularly if the religious building is being built on private land in accordance with the law.

His speech on Friday was heavily criticised by a group representing the families of victims of the terrorist attack, who called the plan a ‘deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah’.

Bullshit. It will have quite the opposite effect - by not discriminating against Islam based on the fanaticism of a tiny minority of Muslims, his speech will reduce and slow the rate of radicalisation. To do the opposite - to ban this mosque on the basis of an ignorant tainting of all Muslims as fundamentalist will increase alienation and in doing so increase the chance of more bloodshed in the name of Allah.

Debra Burlingame, a sister of a pilot killed when his plane was flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon and a spokesperson for victims’ families, said: ‘Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see.’

Barack Obama was actually talking about a site two blocks away from "the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago". Furthermore, religious tolerance is part of America's values - and what Obama said is completely in line with those values.

BTW the Pentagon, where this lady's brother died, is in Washington, not New York. Wonder whether she objected to the rebuilding of the Pentagon? Probably not, because that wasn't about the "Muslims", just the US war machine that has, through years of attacks and aggression, helped to provoke the wrath of Islamic fundamentalists.

Peter King, a Republican congressman in New York, said the President had been wrong to back the plan, adding: ‘It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero.’

Ooo, looky, a Republican congressman in an election year who doesn't agree with the sitting US Democrat president. Who'd have thunk it, eh?

Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center, condemed the President for a 'gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost.'

Well, Regenhard is entitled to her opinions. Just as Muslims are if they want to express their religious beliefs in a mosque a few streets away from Ground Zero. In this case, on private property. The fact that Regenhard has lost someone does not make her opinion more valid that the opinions of others - tragedy is not a trump card in public political debate.

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said the decision to build the mosque wasn't an issue of religious freedom, but a matter of respect.

'The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding,' he said.

So, the House Minority Leader is opposing the sitting President in an election year - again, nothing startling here. It would actually be more startling - and, indeed, interesting - if said representative agreed with Obama. As it stands, the correct response is "of course he'd say that - it's his job."

New York Republican Congressman Peter King added: 'President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero.'

Hmmm, hasn't this already been said?

Democratic Senate candidate Jeff Greene of Florida said: 'President Obama has this all wrong and I strongly oppose his support for building a mosque near ground zero especially since Islamic terrorists have bragged and celebrated destroying the Twin Towers and killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

'Freedom of religion might provide the right to build the mosque in the shadow of ground zero, but common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else.'

This is more interesting if only because the person speaking is a Democrat. However, for all the world, he sounds a lot like a candidate in an election year trying to jump onto a populist bandwagon. And he's also wrong - he's conflating "Islamic terrorists" with "Islam".

However, Colleen Kelly, who lost her brother Bill in the 9/11 attacks, disagreed and claimed a mosque would be 'a fitting tribute'.

'This is the voice of Islam that I believe needs a wider audience. This is what moderate Islam is all about,' she said.

A-ha! Someone who gets it! Magic. And the fact that she tragically lost her brother shows that the families of the bereaved are not the homogenous entity they are sometimes made out to be for the sake of political expediency.

Challenged about his comments during a family trip to Florida yesterday, the President said: 'I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding.'

Obama said that 'my intention was simply to let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion.'

Uh-huh. Obama also gets the point about religious freedom in the US - a principle on which that country was founded that appears to be on the cusp of being forgotten.

The White House insisted Mr Obama was not backing away from his initial comments.

Spokesman Bill Burton said: 'What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.'

Good - Obama shouldn't back away from his comments. And I'd have more sympathy with the anti-mosque brigade if they were looking to ban all religious sites of worship within a two block radius of Ground Zero. But they're not; and even if they were, I'd only have more sympathy with them - not believe that they are correct.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist said: 'I think he's right - I mean you know we're a country that in my view stands for freedom of religion and respect for others.

'I know there are sensitivities and I understand them. This is a place where you're supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can't.'

Excellent! A Republican who gets it as well! No wonder he's having to run for the Senate as an Independent rather than Republican, though.

There had been mounting pressure for Obama to speak out on the issue after his political enemies, including former candidate for the vice presidency Sarah Palin, criticised the plan.

How predictable - Sarah Palin adopts the ignorant, populist stance on a issue. How deeply tedious that woman is.

The site was bought by the not-for-profit group the Cordoba Initiative for £3 million.

It plans to spend £75 million on a complex including a prayer room, mosque and ‘September 11 memorial and contemplation space’.

Developer Sharif el-Gamal said: ‘We are deeply moved and tremendously grateful for our President’s words.’

In a sense el-Gamal shouldn't be grateful to Obama - he should be grateful to the fact that America was based, in part, on the concept of religious freedom.

Which is the point here. Muslims have a right to worship just as much as any other religious believer. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure that Islam is a load of toss just like every other religion. But if you are going to have a free society, then you have to allow people to be free to believe in nonsensical toss. Otherwise, you are discriminating; you become illiberal. You become an enemy of freedom.

And if you want to understand just how crass the whole idea of not having a mosque near the site of Ground Zero, then just imagine the outcry if Northern Ireland banned Catholic Churches because the IRA once carried out terrorist atrocities in that country. Same principle here; just a different religion...

Why Cameron isn't like Bush

Just when you thought Labour leaning types had scraped the bottom of the barrel with their pathetic attempts to smear Cameron, you find that there is a new low that they can sink to. And here it is, in this question:

Is David Cameron the new George W Bush?

No. But let's look at the counter-argument laid out in the article anyway.

It may seem an odd comparison, with Bush drifting into discredited semi-retirement – one of his few relatively recent public appearances has been a pre-match coin toss for the Dallas Cowboys – while Cameron enjoys one of the most energetic prime ministerial honeymoons for decades.

Yep. If you want to compare the discredited Bush with another discredited former world leader living in a muted, enforced retirement that borders on seclusion, then you could try one Gordon Brown. The comparison makes far more sense there, particularly since both of them managed to fuck up the response to the global recession in their respective countries.

Yet in their backgrounds and how they have presented themselves, in their political trajectories and, most important, in their style of government, there are striking parallels. These parallels may tell us where Cameron's premiership, which will be 100 days old on 19 August, is heading.

Actually, if your intention is anything other than baseless speculation and crude party political point-scoring, comparing the administrations a US president who left office in 2009 with a British Prime Minister who first assumed office in 2010 is bound to be an exercise limited in its relevance.

Both men come from elite families, but rebranded themselves – with useful help from supposedly "anti-elite" parts of the rightwing media such as the Sun and Fox News – as relatively ordinary citizens.

Bush Junior was the son of a President. Cameron, even given his privileged background, cannot claim anything similar. If you want to compare Bush Junior with anyone in this country, then Prince Charles might be your best bet. It is the same sort of nepotism that made George W President that will make Charlie-boy king in this country.

Both men were political slow starters: Cameron not active in student politics in the 80s, despite the decade's crucial and absorbing ideological battles; Bush not winning elected office until he became governor of Texas in 1995 at the age of 48.

And here we see a delicious u-turn in the rhetoric of Labour types - gone are the attacks on the younger Cameron for working for Lamont during Black Wednesday. Instead, we get attacks on the younger Cameron for not being active in student politics. The poor fucker can't win - whatever happens, his past is a big stick to hit him with. The problem is a fundamental lack in the consistency behind these attacks.

Rather than doing early political apprenticeships, like the earnest young Milibands, Bush and Cameron had some hedonistic times as young adults, which may continue to interest their opponents and biographers.

And again, we see the reverence of the emerging professional political class in this country. Those who have lived more of a life than the Milibands are automatically judged as less capable of holding office - even though some sort of a life outside of politics is valuable for potential leaders. For the first, but not for the last, time in this post I will label part of this argument as pathetic.

Having missed the heyday of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, the two men began to rise instead when voters were losing their appetite for transatlantic conservatism's more caustic remedies, and positioned themselves accordingly as "compassionate conservatives". Most journalists took this carefully constructed moderation at face value.

So both men tried to be electable in order to win elections? The fuckers. Completely unlike say... Tony Blair, who never tried to appear as a moderate in order to garner electoral success. Again - pathetic.

Voters were less impressed. In the 2000 presidential election Bush, infamously, received about half a million votes fewer than Al Gore, despite Gore's over-complicated and stiff public manner, and a jittery economy. In this May's general election, it is already less remembered, Cameron's Conservatives scraped 36% of the vote – only a slight improvement on the share the party won in its heavy defeats in 2005 and 2001 – despite Gordon Brown's Gore-style presentational problems, and despite a British economy that was not so much jittery as post-traumatic.

Ok, time to crunch some numbers. In the 2010 General Election, Cameron's party won 10,703,954 votes. Brown's party won 8,609,527 votes. So, unlike the Bush/Gore 2000 contest, Cameron gained 2,094,427 more votes than Brown. The Tories also won 97 seats while Labour lost 92. This wasn't a narrow defeat for Labour - the Tories kicked their arses. The Tory problem lay in the parliamentary system in this country. Had it been a presidential system, these figures would have seen Cameron becoming President on the day after the election.

Oh, and on that 36% - Blair got 35.2% of the vote in 2005 compared to Howard's 32.4%. So to claim that Cameron's vote is only a slight improvement on previous results is disingenuous to say the least. He bettered Howard's total percentage easily and also beat Blair's - despite the fact that the latter went on to form a government with no real problems.

Comparing Cameron's problems with Bush's in 2000 does not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, and actually comes across as deceitful. Oh, and a bit pathetic as well.

And yet, out of Bush and Cameron's poor election showings in 2000 and 2010 has come a new, bolder British and American conservatism. You could call it a politics of wishful thinking – or of bluff.

Except, as we've seen, Cameron's party did the best in that election and cannot be compared to Bush's showing in 2000. The comparison is neither reasonable or meaningful.

First, the two men spun their thin or nonexistent electoral mandates as decisive expressions of public support. Thus, in America, throughout the month-long tumult of recounts and court challenges that followed the 2000 election, Bush presented himself as the contest's victor and Gore as the loser, when there was plenty of evidence that the situation was unclear or even the opposite. Similarly, in Britain this May, on election night, with a mere three seats declared (all retained by Labour) and the exit polls predicting a hung parliament, Cameron's key ally, George Osborne, told the BBC: "I do not think there's any question of Labour being able to continue [in office]." A few commentators fleetingly raised an eyebrow at Osborne's characteristically cocky, premature triumphalism, but it helped create a conventional wisdom about the election result that led directly to the formation of the coalition.

By God, there are just so many attempts at spin in this paragraph it is nearly unbelievable. Firstly, owing to the curious electoral college system in the US, the results of the 2000 election were unclear until Florida declared. Secondly, Osborne was absolutely spot on - there was no question of Labour continuing in office. The Tories didn't win outright, but the Labour party clearly lost. Even with the Lib Dems, they would not have been able to form a majority government. They were a discredited government led by a massively unpopular leader. Finally, what led to the formation of the coalition was Clegg deciding - quite rightly - to talk to the party that did best in the election first, and then the synergy between the Tories and the Lib Dem negotiators. The "conventional wisdom" wasn't created by triumphalism - it was created by the real politics of the election results and the coalition negotiations.

Once in government, Cameron, like Bush, has again exceeded the electorate's instructions. The cautious, inclusive, compassionate conservative has turned into a divisive rightwing radical.

Cameron has done nothing - nothing - that could be considered right-wing or radical. Nor did Bush Junior, for that matter, until he was able to manipulate a shell-shocked and traumatised USA in the aftermath of 9/11.

Both men have used national emergencies as political cover. For Bush, it was 9/11 that justified his huge, reckless neocon experiment. For Cameron, the emergency, more contrived, has been the double one of a hung parliament and a large national deficit – neither of them remotely unprecedented, but scary enough, in a Britain recently grown accustomed to political and economic stability, to make a shrinking of state spending drastic enough to satisfy the zaniest of 80s Thatcherites look like common sense, for the time being, to an impressive 55% of voters.

What is the charge here? That politicians use events in order to bolster their popularity? Because they do - and they have done so for pretty much all of recorded history. It is just that some are better at it than others. Gordon Brown, for example, constantly tried to do it but, unfortunately for him, was shit at it.

And the reason why 55% of voters might be supporting Cameron is because they understand that the cuts aren't zany but essential.

Will Cameron's shallow and opportunistic radicalism succeed? The Bush precedent suggests it may, but only for a few years. Bush was re-elected in 2004, and his approval ratings remained healthy until mid-2005. During this post-9/11 period, it sometimes seemed as if his government could be kept aloft almost by agenda-setting rhetoric alone, without the clever thinktank ideas and canny legislative arm-twistingand basic administrative competence that sustained Thatcher's and Reagan's administrations. In 2002, a Bush aide told the New York Times magazine writer Ron Suskind that he dismissed critics as members of the "reality-based community". "When we act, we create our own reality … We're history's actors ... and you will be left to just study what we do.''

Again, I'm not quite sure why Cameron is being compared to Bush. He doesn't rule like Bush, he isn't facing the same challenges as Bush, and there is no reason to think that the history of the USA in the early part of this century should suddenly be transferred to Britain in 2010.

At times, there has been a whiff of that gravity-defying arrogance about the coalition: in Michael Gove's careless handling of the school building programme; in Cameron's desire to give his government a fixed five years in power, after the public have just voted for a fluid British politics.

Firstly, Gove isn't Cameron and it is possible that the coalition will learn from Gove's errors. They certainly should do. And Cameron wanted, along with the Liberal Democrats, to create a stable government in this country. I really don't see what is so wrong with that. Finally, the assertion that the British people voted for a "fluid British politics" is shite. They voted for particular parties; the "fluid British politics", if it exists, comes from the lack of a decisive result - which is likely to change at the next election.

When government gets difficult, ambition and rhetoric will only take you so far. In 2005, Bush was found wanting by Hurricane Katrina and the war in Iraq; his ratings never recovered. Eerily, Cameron has enjoyed a first three months in power almost free of awkward events and accidents.

So what? I don't get this comparison. Yep, Cameron may yet be tested by events. But given Hurricane Katrina occurred in a different country in the bastard past, I don't see how it has any bearings on the challenges that Cameron may face in the future.

But he has inherited a weaker economy than Bush, and is likely to face a stronger opposition leader and has a coalition to keep happy.

Which rather makes my point - you can't compare Cameron with Bush because they are not facing the same circumstances. But the comment about the opposition leader makes me chuckle. Given the charisma vacuums vying to be Labour leader, there is no chance of Cameron facing a stronger opposition leader than Bush did.

He will be lucky if, like Bush, he gets five good years.

Well, let's hope that Cameron doesn't get five "good" years like Bush - given those five good years for Bush involved mass murder on American soil and the invasion by Bush's country of two nations.

I'm not a fan of Cameron, and I can already see a number of reasons and ways to attack him. But to compare him to Bush is an insult to Cameron and to the challenges facing this country. I'm all for actually taking the fight to Cameron; to criticise him for what he is and what he does. However, to attack him for being like Bush is deceitful, lazy and incompetent. Even for The Guardian, it is utterly pathetic.

The Borisbike, LabourList and A Little Hysteria

LabourList is trying to argue that The Evening Standard is being nasty to poor old Red Ken again:

The excitable reporting from London's flagship paper was notable for their unstinting determination to nudge the 'Borisbike' nickname into London’s popular lexicon. After a cursory scan, I found the phrase used six times in Friday's edition. Apart from being one of the uncatchiest nicknames around, the trickiest issue arising from the coinage is that the policy actually originated from Boris Johnson's predecessor, Ken Livingstone, a whole year before Boris was even elected.

Yeah, well, as far as I can see the Standard is giving praise to the politician in power when something happens. Which is, y'know, the way things work. If the policy started with Red Ken, then he misses out on the praise because he didn't actually implement it. And it does work both ways - Gordon Brown's supposed economic miracle was actually created by one Ken Clarke under Prime Minister John Major - yet you didn't often see that acknowledged at the time.

I have no doubt that at the last mayoral election the Standard was biased against Ken - some might say, with good cause. But I think it is a massive stretch to argue that positive coverage of a Boris Johnson policy represents a slur on Red Ken. This isn't part of an election campaign - the campaign for London Mayor hasn't started yet - and Ken isn't even confirmed as the Labour candidate yet.

Get a grip, LabourList.

On Raoul Moat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Forces of Hell!

So, it turns out that Gordon Brown was nasty to Alistair Darling. I particularly like the hyperbole of "unleashing the forces of hell" - it speaks volumes about the privileged position of Mr Darling that getting a weekend of negative press is on a par with hell. God knows how he will cope when he (hopefully) loses his job at the next election. That will probably be hell... x1000!

The notion that Brown bullied his Chancellor can surely not be news to anyone right now. But what really strikes me is how strongly Brown's cowardice comes through in this story. He unleashed the forces of hell on the Chancellor, strongly implying that a lot of his concerted campaign to undermine Darling was delegated to others. Then he didn't follow through with his bullying - Darling kept his job. It makes Brown's actions even more pathetic. He comes across as a frustrated man venting said frustrations on his colleague. Nothing quite so dramatic as the forces of hell, but rather just a boss from hell.

And there is a certain genius to Darling's comment - it ensures his job is secure for a while yet. Brown the coward will not dare to remove Darling, for fear that it confirms what we all already know - that Brown is a bully. Which is ironic since Darling should arguably be sacked now given the amount of embarrassment he has just caused Brown at a time when Brown is floundering anyway...

While writing yesterday's post on the Orwellian nightmare of terror threat levels, I found myself wondering whether there was any depth to which the Nu Labour government wouldn't stoop in order to create fear and division within our society. The best I could come up with is "at least they haven't done anything stupid like introduce Sarah's Law."

*Sighs*

Nu Labour: Bankers and the Art of Creating "The Other"

Another day, another Nu Labour attack on a section of the people of this country. And today's attack victim is that gift that keeps on giving for Nu Labour - the bankers.

Alistair Darling is drawing up plans to face down the country's top bankers by taking the "nuclear option" of a windfall tax on their bumper bonuses as part of measures aimed at the super-rich.

Oh, goody. That will incentivise bankers employed in those institutions we, the British public, now own to work hard. And in no way whatsoever will this lead to bankers and banks heading abroad, to countries where the ruling elite are not so in favour of crippling the financial services sector.

This notion that bankers should be penalised for the crime of earning bonuses is as dense as it is ignorant. Bonuses are incentives for working hard and achieving goals. That is why banks - and other organisations - pay them. If a bank pays bonuses to those who do not deserve them, then that is their own silly fucking fault. And would result, in the long term, in that bank going under - except that doesn't happen any more, since Gordon Brown uses such circumstances to posture like Superman. Assuming, of course, that you see Superman as a fat ghoul with the personality of a rancid corpse. But the notion that banks should be able to do what they think is best is abhorrent to Nu Labour. I mean, they love to be interventionist in every single aspect of every single part of British life, but no-one gets quite the same level of intrusive manipulation and control than the banking sector these days.

The government's desire to control the banking sector is not simply down to their natural obsessive compulsive need to justify their existence through constant fiddling. No, this is something more. See, bankers have become the whipping boys of society - and the government can play to the public gallery by pursuing punitive policies against them. They can argue, every time they further cripple both a sector and the people working within that sector, that these people aren't in public favour just at the moment, they are simply doing what the public want them to do. The only problem with this is that the government, through their panicked rhetoric and desperate desire not to be caught up in the financial crisis they helped to create, made the bankers into a hated class of society in the first place.

A lot of political philosophy discusses the concept of "the other"; that (under)class of people within a nation that wider society defines itself by being in opposition to. There is much debate about whether "the other" naturally exists, or whether it is created by the powers that be in order to unite a naturally divisive society behind its ruling elite. I personally think (somewhat pessimistically) that it is a mix of the two. However, what is startling about Labour is just how carefully and cynically they have worked to create "the other" across their years in power. You can actually trace the history of Nu Labour by looking at which parts of society Nu Labour have set up to be shat on.

It started with the Tories. Back in 1997, when the Tories were about as popular as bowel cancer, Labour set them up to be the evil part of British society. However, as Nu Labour got involved in various scandals and as the Tories showed themselves to be about as effective as a fart in a hurricane, that stopped working. So Nu Labour helped to manufacture another subspecies to kick around. The paedophiles. And it worked very well. They managed to whip up a hysterical storm about child sex predators, and had the baying mob ready to shred anyone who looked a bit dubious. Of course, that didn't work so well either. Partly because mobs are difficult to control (particularly when fired up by such an emotive issue as child sex abuse) and also because paedophilia remains mercifully rare - at least in the high-profile cases of child sex killings. Which left the government with a vacancy for the post of the bit of society that the UK can shit on.

Then the Twin Towers came falling down, and the government turned their attention towards Islam. It was subtle at first, talking about engagement with the Islamic community - a small yet both clever and corrosive way of highlighting perceived differences between "mainstream British society" and that of that of the Muslim section. Then, of course, it got more and more blatant as the UK invaded Muslim nations. After 7/7, the government rhetoric was at its most poisonous. But yet again "the other" refused to play ball with the government so determined to ostracise them. The vast majority of Muslims in the UK are peaceful, productive members of society; and of the minority who are not, they showed themselves (barring 7/7) to be incompetent in the extreme. I mean, it is difficult to paint a section of the British population as dangerous when their extremists carry out terrorist attacks on Glasgow airport that end with a terrorist getting their teeth kicked in by a baggage handler. Then there was the problem of the attrition of civil liberties designed to combat Islamic terrorism. They led to government defeats and both to much mirth and indignation about the crassness of such policies. And the end result of this attempt to ruthlessly stigmatise Islam in the UK? The English Defence League. Well the fuck done, Nu Labour. Hark the sound of one hand clapping.

So when the economy went down the shitter, the government - in particular the Prime Minister, desperate to preserve the utterly undeserved reputation for being an economic genius - turned to and then turned on the banking sector. Of course, bankers were in part responsible for the current recession. And many of them paid for it with their jobs. And bankers perhaps don't help themselves by being so arrogant and refusing to defend themselves in the notorious court of public opinion. Yet the government's attempt to make the whole banking sector into a scapegoat will fail - if only because at some point, in our service based economy, it is going to become clear to even the ignorant shites in Numbers 10 and 11 of Downing Street that we need a strong financial sector, rather than a crippled husk of one. But for now, they won't stop. The anti-banker rhetoric is just too useful to them.

Of course, other governments do the same thing. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the Tories to turn on their usual hate figures (such as immigrants) when they get back into power. However, it is Nu Labour who have turned this use of McCarthyism into a central government policy, and also transformed it into a constantly updating tool to both control and breed resentment within society. Their treatment of the bankers is just the tip of the iceberg; they have come to define their style of government by their ongoing cynical attempts to define British society as a whole through government sponsored resentment to a perceived bogeyman - regardless of whether the opprobrium is deserved or not. And this stands as yet another damning indictment of this hopefully moribund regime.

Only 50 Days To Save The World!

Ignoring the hysterical climate change nonsense inherent within the statement (as difficult as it might be to do so), take a look at Gordon Brown's latest pronouncement:

Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".

Right. Riiiiggght. So, having been in one of the most important positions in the UK government since May 2nd, 1997, and having been in charge of that government since 27 June 2007, he now decides - with 50 days to go - to lead a charge towards "solving" climate change. I'm sorry, but what about the preceding 12 years? What was wrong with doing something in the decade and a bit that Brown has been at the very heart of our government? Talk about leaving everything to the last minute...

Now, there are two possible interpretations to this hasty hyperbole. On the one hand, he could really believe that we only have 50 days to save the world. In which case he is an incompetent moron who needs to learn to prioritise the saving of the world over such things as commenting on that hairy testicle who sang on Britain's Got Talent. On the other hand, he might not believe at all in this 50 day deadline - in which case he is a shallow, manipulative oik trying to create panic to distract people from his own failing political career.

So there we have it - either the Prime Minister is an incompetent moron or a shallow, manipulative oik. Neither is a particularly attractive category for a Prime Minister, and it gets worse when you consider that Gordon is probably both.

We're All Paedos Until Proven Certified Innocent

I haven't commented too much on the new government scheme to make everyone who wants to have any sort of a contact with a child pay a charge of £64 for a certificate to prove they are not a paedophile. Yet on reading the astounding arrogance of Sir Roger Singleton, the man whose agency will be leading this latest affront on civil liberties and direct challenge to the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty rather than the other way round, I just couldn't help but comment. And get a little pissed off, too.

The BBC quote Singleton:

Sir Roger, whose agency will run the vetting scheme, said: "We need to calm down and consider carefully and rationally what this scheme is and is not about.

"It is not about interfering with the sensible arrangements which parents make with each other to take their children to schools and clubs.

"It is not about subjecting a quarter of the population to intensive scrutiny of their personal lives and it is not about creating mistrust between adults and children or discouraging volunteering."

Someone needs to point out to Singleton that just because he doesn't intend certain things to happen as a result of his actions doesn't actually mean they won't happen. After all, I've heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Unfortunately, in the government's desperate attempt to answer the hysterical plea of "won't some think of the children?" they are limiting and damaging the experiences of many children growing up, as well as casting a ghastly veil of muted accusation over anyone who wants to have any sort of contact with a kid. They are effectively saying "you want to work with/interact with children? You must be some sort of paedo."

And Singleton's talk of people calming down and being rational/careful is deeply ironic, given this measure is a completely hysterical and over the top response to the crimes of Ian Huntley. If the government truly had calmed down after that particular crime, then we wouldn't be looking at yet another government database that will do next to nothing to protect the people of this country. Yet will do a great deal to inconvenience the people, increase suspicion and paranoia within society at the same time as making childhood that little bit less enjoyable for children.

Thinking about this calmly would reveal that fact that most child abuse happens within the confines of the family home. And this database, with its intrusive and expensive checks, is going to do fuck all to change that.

The Limitations of Hysteria: What Can Actually Be Done?

Nothing raises the blood pressure of the Great British Public more than the news that a child has been hurt or killed. And when we hear that a child was hurt or killed by another child, well, that is the worst thing in the world. It is bound to create hysteria, anger and unthinking demands that someone does something! Whilst the outpouring of rage and grief can be taken as positive signs that people still care about each other and in particular for the young, such raw emotions seldom lead to sensible or considered pronouncements. When someone shrieks "won't someone think of the children!" they are often unable to think rationally about anything at all. Even the children they seek to protect.

This article is a great example of the sort of strident and impotent ranting I'm talking about. And, unfortunately, it also shows the limitations of all such angry, strident shouting. Take this extract:

How can it be, people will demand to know, that in this affluent civilised society young children are still emerging as monstrous savages? Sixteen years on from the shadow of Jamie Bulger’s death; after nearly 13 years of new Labour and its emphasis on child poverty; and at a time when there has never been more money devoted to protection, education, testing, checking and child development strategies, how on earth could something like this happen?

But we know why. And there really is no point in getting emotional. This horror occurred because the system for intervention in the lives of neglected children is woefully inadequate and intellectually and economically flawed. Too late, too short-term, too wishy-washy, too cheapskate.

Ignoring the fact that claiming you're not going to get emotional and then using such an emotive term as "horror" less that a second later is completely contradictory, the strident nature of the extract shows the real concern and the very real anger felt by the author about these crimes. Unfortunately, the anger seems to be directed against the state rather than the people actually responsible for this crime - the two boys. Yet what could the state actually do? And what warning signs were there about these two kids? Was there anything that truly differentiated them from other kids from underprivileged backgrounds? Was there anything to mark them out from other children whose parents appeared to be neglectful and were struggling to cope? Was there anything that marked them out from similar children in their peer group as potential psychopaths before they attacked?

Of course there wasn't. These children only stood out from the crowd after they had committed their crimes. And whilst we might demand more from local and central government employees, the simple fact is that they would need divine knowledge of the future to prioritise these two over other needy children in the country. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it can also be a frustrating thing. And you can't prevent crime retrospectively, just as you can't use precognition as a legal basis to accuse people of potential future crimes.

So, what can be done? If we want to prevent a recurrence, then what should we expect from the state? Our author has a solution:

Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, believes that early intervention is critical: that children must be helped before their third birthday to be saved. Can he convince David Cameron of the political merits of such a courageous, compassionate policy shift? We must cross our fingers and hope.

Great. So we're reliant on the radicalism of Iain Duncan Smith. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

But let's look at two key questions that arise around this idea of "early intervention." First of all, what does intervention mean? Does it mean advising the parents? Coaching them on *better* parental actions? Because in this case and the case of Baby P, advising the parents wouldn't achieve a great deal. So does intervention mean taking the kids away from their parents? If so, at what point do we move from advising to removal? And is there any evidence that taking these children into state care will actually improve their chances in life? If they are problem children, then it may be very difficult to find a permanent foster placement for them. Are they simply being removed from their homes only to face the same long term, bleak fate as they would have done with their parents, but this time sponsored by the state? We need to know - explicitly - what intervention means and then what good it will do for the kids before we can allow the state any further power over parents and/or their children.

And then who makes the choice of when to intervene? Oh yes, in this case the state should have intervened. But where to draw the line? At what point do kids become vulnerable? Who's going to judge when the children are being harmed by their parenting? Who is going to make the value judgment that their upbringing is not normal? Because, as a strident atheist, I could easily formulate an argument that anyone being raised as a devout Christian is being abused and having their horizons limited and that the state needs to intervene. But those with religious beliefs would point out I am simply reacting to my own prejudices, and have no right to tell them what to believe in or how to raise their kids. And they'd be right. So under the IDS programme, who does make the choice? Surely not Duncan-Smith - who as a socially conservative Catholic would have a very limited and skewered idea both of what normality and a healthy upbringing is. Maybe we can have a checklist of what is right for a child - because that sort of mentality really helps, doesn't it? And even if we can decide who makes the choice, you can guarantee that whatever limits they set will be deeply controversial and still open to vast interpretation. Even with the best of intentions - the saving of vulnerable children - you can be sure that innocent people would suffer, and loving families would be torn apart. And before anyone states that it is worth that risk, think how you would feel if it was your family.

Part of the problem is that, after decades of intrusive state intervention into every part of British life, the population is largely broken and sees the state as something that can make everything ok again. Of course it can't. We have a ludicrously high opinion of the state, that isn't backed up by reality. The sad fact is that it is in the nature of some people - both adults and children - to hurt others. No amount of state intervention is going to change that. The Soviet Union - one of the most controlling, totalitarian regimes that ever existed - still managed to have a prolific serial killer. And - on top of that - we need to get a grip on the idea that state intervention can be just as damaging as the state failing to intervene.

There are no simple answers to the questions posed by this sort of event; no matter how stridently the voices of impotent rage in the aftermath might demand them.

Obviously not the Mayor of Baltimore

Alex Hilton has written an explanation of his little joke that has created such controversy. It makes for a good read, if only because it shows just how no-one should have fallen for this joke. It appears the intention was to be a mild rebuke for Chris Grayling. Although the end result of this little jape seems to have been anything but embarrassing for the Tories.

What Hilton has done is simply - and accidentally - turned what was a mildly embarrassing comment by the Shadow Home Secretary into something that has embarrassed vast swathes of the left-wing media and blogosphere in this country. Instead of exposing the hyperbole of Chris Grayling, instead Alex Hilton has shown the naked eagerness of left wing journalists to print anything and everything that might in anyway discredit a Tory. Even if the story does actually stand up to even the most basic of fact-checking.

Hilton writes:

And if any part of this bit of fluff made you smile, or made you critically analyse a politician's hyperbole, then it achieved its aims.

Well, it did make me smile. If only because it highlighted that fact that the left-wing media have nothing useful to report on - like constructive policies that could make a difference in Britain. Instead, they are grasping at bit of straw - or fluff - that could be used in any way to discredit the Tories. Regardless of Hilton's professed aims for this joke, I can't help but think that he can't be tremendously pleased with the way it has turned out. Against any available parameter, this little jape has ended up being a massive own goal. He wanted to expose the Tories; instead, he did much to show up the left wing at the same time as getting on the wrong side of many people he needs - as a Labour PPC - to get support from. Nice work, Alex. With you out there, the Labour party doesn't need enemies.

The Tories, Britain and The Wire

So, a Tory has created a whole bag of controversy by trying to be a bit hip and referencing highly acclaimed US TV programme The Wire. LabourList asks whether anyone's street really resembles The Wire. I'm guessing that Mr Grayling's street probably doesn't, what with him being an MP and all. As for my street, well, I can't comment on whether it resembles The Wire or not. I would say that sometimes it resembles The Shield. Albeit without the *aggressive* policing.

You can make what you will of this storm in a crackpipe teacup. Old Holborn points out that parts of Britain are worse than Baltimore, which is where The Wire is set. And Guido does something that politicians of both parties seem reluctant to do - actually offer a solution. And his idea - decriminalising drugs - would actually do a great deal to make our streets less like The Wire and more like... oh, I don't know, I don't watch enough US TV to make a valid comparison. But the sort of place where people don't get shot in the face owing to drug-related crime.

Gary Glitter: The Worst Man In History. Ever. Bar No-one.

I am inclined to agree with the Devil on this one:

Unpleasant though he may be, I have to say that I have found the constant hounding and lurid reporting of Gary Glitter's release and subsequent attempts to go... well... anywhere, extraordinarily fucking distasteful.

Quite. Glitter committed a horrific crime. He has served his time, and he is now a free man. He shouldn’t be hounded to the ends of the earth by the media and by the Home Secretary.

But there will be those who argue that Glitter is still a danger, and may pose a threat to other children. But here’s an idea – a crazy, almost lunatic idea - that just might work: how’s about parents take some responsibility for their spawn and don’t let their kids near him? After all, he couldn’t be any more distinctive*:


This pathetic paranoia about paedophiles would be hilarious if it were not so obtrusive and ineffectual. Constant headlines about the freakish Gary Glitter are not going to achieve anything other than shifting copies of tabloid rags to the hysterical masses. The simple fact is that child abuse is a problem – but creating bogeymen such as Gary Glitter merely hide the fact the most likely perpetrator of child abuse is likely a family member or a friend of the family.

So leave Glitter alone to find a rock to crawl under. He’s served his time; he is known internationally as a monster. He’s been punished for what he did by prison, and will be continued to be punished by his odious reputation. The shrill hectoring of the tabloid press is as unnecessary as it is distasteful.


*Picture via The Daily Mail - your one stop shop for hysterical, hate-filled nonsense!

Paedo-geddon!

The Devil's Kitchen rightly points out this absurd and frustrating story - a vicar banned from a school for kissing a girl on the cheek. Frankly this is worthy of Chris Morris - it is beyond belief. I am surprised that they did not drag him from the school and burn him in a giant wicker phallus. It almost looks like a wind-up. Sadly it isn't.

There is a massive difference between someone kissing a child on the cheek and someone abusing a child. I cannot, cannot, understand how people do understand this very simple fact. How can showing affection to a child who has done well be interpreted as abuse?

And there is more to it than just the absurdity that someone links a kiss on the cheek with statutory rape. Is this really what it has come to? Are we so paranoid about paedophiles that we see them everywhere? This is like America at the height of McCarthy's power - rather than reds under the bed, we have paedos under the bed.

And how does this help children? They will grow up afraid of adults, and afraid of affection. Yes we have to teach kids to be careful and to avoid strangers. Monsters do exist, and kids need to be protected from them. But the fact remains that the chances of a child being abused by a stranger is far far far less likely that the chances of a child being abused by someone they know.