Monday Morning Rank Hypocrisy

Oh, good grief:

Prime Minister David Cameron and his senior colleagues must "come clean" over their dealings with the Murdoch family, Labour has said.

The party has sent letters to Cabinet ministers, containing more than 50 questions it claims have still not been addressed by the coalition.

It comes in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal.

No, it comes in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal taking something of a back seat to the Norway massacre, the death of Amy Winehouse and the precarious financial situation in the US. And it also makes me want to ask one, just one, question of the leading lights of the Labour party who kneeled before the (now fading) might of the Murdoch empire: How come you lot are such hypocritical cunts?

The Ludicrous Idea of Cameron Resigning

Cameron is now the bookmaker's favourite to be unseated as party leader first. All I can say to this is "oh please".

What has Cameron actually done wrong? Well, he displayed poor judgement when he employed one Andy Coulson. Poor judgement, mind, because of what that man has allegedly done in the past, not because of anything he did in power. I mean, there's no evidence of Coulson invovling himself in... say... a dodgy dossier now, is there? And Cameron's lapse of judgement really is small fry compared to the sort of mistakes made by his predecessors in the role - Brown nearly bankrupted us while trying to prop up failed banks and his own spurious and false claim to have ended boom and bust; Blair dragged us into an illegal and largely unwinnable war so he could continue to act as the fluffer for the most idiotic president of recent times; Major sank the economy for a bit through his desperation to be part of the ERM. A bit of perspective here would be good, people. Cameron fucked up - but employing Coulson is really rather low on the list of fuck-ups when it comes to those who have inhabited Number 10.

And the other charges - that Cameron is too close to News International, for example, are true both of the most recent Labour Prime Ministers. And it is probably worth asking when this phone hacking took place - on Cameron's watch? Err, no, it appears it took place under Nu Labour, when both Brown and Blair where desperately courting the man who is now public enemy Number One - Rupert Murdoch.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not writing this because I support Cameron or the Tories - regular readers of this blog will know just how little I rate both the man and his party. But we really have lost the plot if we are going to demand the resignation of a PM because he employed the wrong person to talk to the press on his behalf. The whole thing reeks of hysteria and hyperbole. And the thing most likely to sink Cameron isn't the accusations - which, as things stand, are a mild squall in a very small thimble of tea - but his failure to stand up and just brush off the calls for him to go. Cameron needs to get a grip; so do those calling for him to go.

Size Doesn't Matter, Law-Breaking Does

Before we start, let's talk pause for a moment to pause on the comments of one Ed Miliband:

"I think that we've got to look at the situation whereby one person can own more than 20% of the newspaper market, the Sky platform and Sky News.

"I think it's unhealthy because that amount of power in one person's hands has clearly led to abuses of power within his organisation. If you want to minimise the abuses of power then that kind of concentration of power is frankly quite dangerous."

I love the latter paragraph. Miliband Minor is probably completely oblivious of the fact that it could just as easily be applied to the Nu Labour government as it could to News International. But I digress.

The general feeling coming from both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister seems to be that the size of News International is the problem. Of course, there's no doubting that Murdoch has controlled a lot of the press in this country for a long time. Some would say he's controlled too much of it, but I wouldn't, frankly. Because when people talk about the plurality of the press (as Clegg is currently doing) I can't help but notice that there is still a lot to choose from in this country, even before the News of the World was given a metaphorical bullet in the back of the head by its owners. I don't read The Sun and, since it disappeared behind a pay wall, The Times either. I don't have Sky, I don't watch Fox News. Despite the amount of the media that Murdoch owns, it is still perfectly possible to ignore Rupert's acquisitions if you so wish.

Of course, it could be claimed that it doesn't matter to me what News International are up to or what they think as they do not watch my every move and report on it - unlike those who rule our country. The sheer size of the Murdoch empire makes it impossible for the ruling parties to ignore it. But is this actually true? Sure, News International attempt to influence successive governments, but part of the problem is down to successive governments not just acknowledging those attempts, but proactively courting Murdoch and his media outlets. And it doesn't even need aggressive legislation to stop the influence of the Murdoch empire - politicians could just stop seeking and then suckling on the teat that is News International. Of course, it could be argued that what Miliband Minor and Clegg are now starting to do is take on NI - but what they are actually doing is nothing more than shameless bandwagon jumping. This has nothing to do with preventing a repetition of the News International crisis, and has everything to do with get good column inches and poll boosts for two party leaders who have been seriously struggling in recent times to get anywhere.

And you want to know why this is nothing more than bandwagon jumping? Well, the problem with News International isn't its size - it is down to the fact that it broke the law. Having a large organisation does not mean that you will automatically seek to blag and to phone hack. It doesn't automatically mean that you or your employees will systematically seek to break the law. Indeed, it looks as if those at the head of News International do not operate like a normal major multinational plc, but rather like a mafia family or a cult. But let me repeat myself - size doesn't matter, law-breaking does. And there are laws in place to deal with News International - but I've already mentioned this earlier in the week. What Miliband Minor and Clegg should be doing is calling for the enforcement of the existing laws, not new regulations. But they can't do that, they won't do that because they are, basically, out and out cowards who are more interested in not missing a populist bandwagon than they are in crucial political principles such as the importance of the rule of law and the need to avoid legislation and regulations designed to do nothing more than please the fitful, ever-changing and oh-so-temporary baying mob.

For Law, Against New Laws

As the News International scandal rumbles on in a way that increasingly resembles an endless car journey (what’s that? Rupert Murdoch is still a cunt? What a ground-breaking story!) we hear, in amidst the faux outrage from rival media outlets and the shameless vengeance of that uber-twat Gordon Brown, occasional calls for new laws and/or public inquiries. And for the life of me I can’t work out why.

It should be clear to everybody now other than the terminally stupid and Rebekah Brooks that something went badly wrong not just within News International, but in the initial police investigation into the phone hacking. And it is hardly controversial to say that hacking into the phone of a missing schoolgirl or the phones of dead soldiers is a bad thing. But does this warrant a new law to prevent it happening again? Does it require some sort of public enquiry in order to prevent a repetition? Of course it doesn’t. Why? Because phone hacking is already illegal. The same goes for blagging. So rather than calling for further regulation and for a public flaying of News International, perhaps we could all call for the existing laws to be enforced. And if the initial police investigation was ineffective in doing that, well, there are laws about perverting the course of justice that could apply to that neutered attempt to look into the misdeeds of the Murdoch empire. There are laws against what the NI journalists did; if they are enforced, then there is no need for further laws.

And this really rather obvious, yet curiously ignored, idea can be applied elsewhere. For example, rather than having ever more imaginative ways to stigmatise drinkers and smokers in the name of protecting the children, perhaps the existing laws – which have been in place for as long as I can remember – could be enforced. It is illegal for children to drink and smoke. Further legislation around this is irrelevant if the existing laws are enforced.

It would be wrong to say that every aspect of British life is regulated through the government, although it increasingly feels that way. But there are a plethora of often repetitious laws on the statute books, yet still our leaders feel the need to add to those laws. Why do this? Well, part of it is the naked desire of the ruling class to be seen to be doing something. It is easier for them to say that they are going to introduce a raft of new laws to deal with a problem than it is for them to say that the existing laws just need to be enforced and the people need to be patient. It is the mindset of “shiny new thing make it all better” – a new law will definitely stop xyz from happening in the future… despite the fact that other laws have not done so. One of the things the people need to do is to call their rulers on what could best be described as their total bullshit when it comes to new laws, but the increasingly bovine population hardly seems capable of that.

Ever since Obama was elected to the White House using slogans consisting of largely meaningless, yet positive, sounding slogans (“Hope”, “Change” etc) it has been the desire of all parties in this country to paint themselves as the party of change. So I’d like to suggest a way in which those parties could actually offer real change. Why don’t you commit to implementing no new laws where existing laws are already in place? Why not commit to making the existing legal system work rather than clogging it up with repetitious and pointless legislation? Yeah, I know that will remove a lot of the busy work that you like to have as legislators, but it would also be an example of leadership. And surely it hasn’t become too utopian to expect our leaders to actually lead?

So let’s try to engage our critical faculties, in as much as they still exist, when it comes to legislative proposals from our MPs. Let’s make sure that they only go off on their legislative adventures if it is absolutely necessary. Let’s reward those who are wise when it comes to the rule of law, and punish those who believe that legislation is about getting a good headline rather than making life better for the people of this country. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a whole host of laws that need to be repealed in order to enhance life in this country, and I would love to see that happen. But before it does, we need to stop the fuckers in Parliament adding to the sum total of legislative bollocks in this country. And as our starting point, suggesting that new restrictions on the press and public inquiries into the alleged misdeeds of News International are fucking pointless when what they did is already illegal.

Is it wrong of me to feel remarkably little sympathy for Gordon Brown over this? The closest I can come to sympathy for the man is for his children, who genuinely may be innocent victims in all this. But Brown is the man who shamelessly sucked up to the press - including those rags controlled by Murdoch - at the same time as shamelessly trying to manipulate and bully the press while getting others to smear his rivals. There are innocent victims in the scandal engulfing Murdoch's UK operations, but I struggle to see Gordo as one of them.

Cable V Murdoch

Yet more proof that what I, and other wise heads such as myself, have been saying for ages - namely, that Vince Cable is an idiot. Why else would you put yourself in a position where you have effectively declared war on Rupert Murdoch? I mean, it is the political equivalent of walking up to the scary looking guy in the pub - the one with bruised knuckles, wide angry eyes, with the physique of a shaved ape and sporting a "you are a cunt" tattoo on his forehead - and asking him to step outside. He's going to fuck you up without evening breaking a sweat. You're going to be picking bits of your shattered teeth from your shattered face while he goes back to his pint.

Maybe Cable is self-destructing a bit - I don't know. But whatever he's thinking and trying to achieve, taking on possibly the most powerful media tycoon in the world means his days in frontline politics are coming to an end. It is just a question of how quickly...

*NEWSFLASH* Rupert Murdoch is not a Libertarian

From the BBC news website:

Rupert Murdoch is a libertarian - against too much state control, and in favour of individuals taking responsibility.

Is he a libertarian? Really? Or is he just an economic liberal? Because there is precious little in a rag like The Scum to suggest anything other than a deep conservatism when it comes to social matters. Indeed, the next sentence arguably shows this social conservatism:

Hence the high praise for Margaret Thatcher.

Thatcher wasn't a libertarian. She was an economic liberal in a number of ways, but she was also deeply socially conservative. Furthermore, when you factor in the reality that Murdoch religiously flirts with successful political leaders of all parties in all countries, including the likes of the utterly illiberal Tony Blair, it is difficult to conclude that he is truly interested in anything other than the health of his business empire. That might be why he's a successful businessman; it certainly means he isn't a proper libertarian.

Libertarians need to work hard to stop this association of libertarianism purely with economic freedom. True libertarians (to use a phrase that is almost designed to provoke outrage) are just as much interested in social freedom as they are in economic freedom. To be free you have to be able to spend your money how you like and live you life how you like* - and as far as I can see, Murdoch only really cares about the former. That might make him a champion of economic freedom, and see him leaning more towards anarcho-capitalism. But it sure as hell doesn't make him a libertarian.

*Constrained by something like the Harm principle, of course.