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…

The Toxic Labour Party

Here’s an interesting article about how Labour needs to detoxify its brand if it is to seriously stand any chance of winning at the next election. It is interesting because it accepts that Labour cannot simply coast to power, but I think its understanding of just how toxic Labour has become is limited.

Now, I don’t like any of the main parties, but Labour are the top of the pile when it comes to that dislike. When I think of the Tories, I feel a complete lack of enthusiasm combined with mild suspicion about their social conservatism. When I think of the Lib Dems, I get mildly amused by their ineptitude and amateur nature. But when I think of Labour, I feel rage and hate. I despise them for their continual raids on my wallet and the decimation of civil liberties during their long years in power. And I am enraged by their complacent arrogance, by their assumption that they should be in power, and that anyone who stands in the way of their project is in some way hindering progress. To my mind, none of the main parties have shown that they are capable of governing, but Labour have categorically shown themselves to be utterly incapable of treating the people of this country with any other than contempt. They have proven themselves to be utterly unsuitable for the task of governing.

And the fact that their party is now headed up by Miliband Minor and Balls – two of the most egregious minions of the worst Prime Minister we’ve had since Anthony Eden – show nothing more than absolute continuity with the Labour project of the last decade and a half. If they were in power, there’d be more of the same. Which would lead to a bankrupt country and far less freedom for its inhabitants.

So yeah, Labour needs to detoxify its brand. And it needs to start at the top, but finding a Leader of the Opposition and a Shadow Chancellor who are not synonymous with Nu Labour.

Cuts and Fairness

Oh God, I'm sick of it. Absolutely sick of it. I'm sick to fucking death of hearing that the spending cuts implemented by the coalition are not fair. Particularly since this sort of trite bullshit tends to spew forth from those who believe that the rich paying much greater percentages in tax is the very definition of fairness.

When someone says that the spending cuts aren't fair what they mean is that they don't think that the people being affected by the cuts are the right people, and that the axe is falling in the wrong areas. However, it is next to impossible to cut spending in this country without it affecting someone - such is the intense, pernicious reach of the state after 13 years of Nu Labour misrule. So no matter what is cut, it is going to affect someone somewhere who then will claim that the cut in question is unfair. How, pray, do we then have a fair tax cut?

And you want to know why the poor are more affected by the cuts? Because the Labour government did its level fucking best to make them as dependent on the state as possible. The fact that they are now being adversely affected is arguably as much the fault of the last Labour government than it is of the ConDems, if not more so.

The cuts hurt people - but that doesn't stop them from being inevitable and, in the longer term, helpful. I don't doubt for one second that we will be a far more healthy nation once we have weaned ourselves off the teat of the state and started to realise again that we can, and should, take responsibility for ourselves.

The New Ed Miliband

Just when I think I'm growing out of swearing on this blog, I read something like this: Ed Miliband is apparently turning his back on the Brown and Blair years.

It isn't an original observation, to be sure, but I'd just like to point out to him that you were a key player in those fucking years, you cunt.

And if you want to know why you lost the election, Ed, it is because of arseholes like you.

Still, perhaps the way forward for Ed's leadership is to turn his back on his government career, and I think we could all accept that. With a full, frank apology for his time spent backing Brown and an offer of reparations for the financial crimes of the last government.

But if that isn't forthcoming, Ed, then I'm sure I won't be alone in telling you to fuck right off. And please feel free to take your fucking party with you on your way to political oblivion.

The Labour Vitriol Against The Liberal Democrats

Well, this is going to whip the Labourites into an even greater anti-Liberal Democrat fever:

"I totally understand that some of these people are not happy with what the Lib Dems are doing in coalition with the Conservatives. The Lib Dems never were and aren't a receptacle for left-wing dissatisfaction with the Labour Party. There is no future for that; there never was."

Well, the problem Clegg's got is that for some, the Lib Dems were a receptacle for left-wing dissatisfaction with the Labour party; it is just for him and his fellow Orange Bookers that its not. But I do think that the future for the Lib Dems isn't in joining with the Labour party again. And the main reason for that is the behaviour of many in the Labour party since the election.

Since the Lib Dems did the only thing they realistically could in May and joined in coalition with the Tories, the Labour party have acted like a bunch of mad stalkers that have been spurned by the object of their affections. The level of bile that the Labour party have heaped on the Lib Dems is entirely out of proportion with their "crime"; after all, the Lib Dems joined with the effective winners of the last election, but before they did that, they negotiated with Labour and certainly gave that party the chance to win them over. But no, the Labour party have acted with arrogance and bile towards the Lib Dems; the occasional lip service paid by some of the contenders for the Labour leadership to the idea of the future Lib-Lab pact doesn't make-up for the bitter vitriol thrown at the Lib Dems by the Labour party since May.

Labour are still in shock from their defeat in May and still labouring under the delusion that they are in some way entitled to power. It is the same arrogance that defined Nu Labour, and ultimately sank the Brown administration. The Labour party still expects to be in power, and if they can't achieve it by themselves, then they expect the Lib Dems to prop them up. The fact that Clegg and Co. chose not remains a point of bitter contention for the Labour party. And given the level of bile thrown at the Lib Dems, I really don't see whatever future they might have resting on an alliance with Labour.

A Tax on the Stupid

Y'know, a lot of people used to call the National Lottery a tax on the stupid. I don't think that's quite fair - it is a tax on the idiotically optimistic. Sure, you're pretty stupid if you enter the lottery but in the near impossible circumstance that you won, not many people would be remarking on that stupidity. Unlike, say, if you gave money to the last government in return for one of their pointless, invasive and pointlessly invasive ID cards.

Therefore, I've got no sympathy whatsoever for people affected by this:

Labour have failed in attempts to get compensation for people who bought ID cards, which are set to be scrapped.

They say thousands of people who voluntarily spent £30 on cards did so in "good faith" and should be refunded when next renewing their passports.

But they lost a vote in the Commons during a debate on proposed legislation to abolish the cards.

If you got an ID card before you had to, then you are either a Labour minister, utterly thoughtless or blindly obedient to the state. All of which suggest you are a person of limited intellectual capacity. Furthermore, if you paid for an ID card knowing that the opposition parties opposed them and that opposition party would almost certainly form the next government, then you are doubly stupid. Basically, you wasted your money. You lost out on the money you sunk into the ID card scheme. Boo-fucking-hoo for you.

Normally I support the government returning whatever money they can to the people. In this case, though, I don't - partly because they cannot afford to refund those stung by this scheme. The entire ID card folly cost the taxpayer millions - each ID card is estimated to have cost £20,000 each. This isn't just government waste - this is government waste pumped up on speed and steroids. The comparatively small amounts of money individuals have lost by signing up to the scheme is gone - as is the taxes of many others who had to pay the government under duress for this scheme, even if they didn't get an ID card and thought the whole thing was a shit idea from the very start. If you paid for an ID card, you don't deserve a refund. You're just a bit dumb.

Which is perhaps the sole achievement of the ID card scheme - it finally managed to create a tax on the stupid.

A-level Results: Clearing Chaos

And so it rumbles on - they're aren't enough places for all those who want to go to university. From The Guardian:

Six students are fighting for each spare university place, figures revealed today.

Which means that there are clearly going to be a lot of disappointed students out there. The question, though, is why should they be disappointed? The answer is twofold. Firstly, there has been an expectation created by the Nu Labour government that everyone who wants to can go to university. Their arbitrary, stick-a-finger-in-the-air-and-come-up-with-a-number, figure of 50% of people attending uni had no meaningful connection with the real world, and now that realisation is sinking in for thousands of students across the country. Fundamentally, and unlike the school system, it isn't open to everyone. It is selective. And as the numbers wanting to go to university continues to go up while funding for universities is going down there is only one way this was ever going to end. Disappointment for some.

But there is another reason for the disappointment; no-one really challenges the idea that going to university is a good thing. There seems to be an ongoing mental block around the question "should I really bother with university in the first place?" This question has become even more pertinent now there is a massive cost associated with attending university coupled with the fact that there is no guarantee of employment on the completion of a degree.

This isn't about elitism - rather, it is about challenging the idea that university attendance is a "good" in all situations and for everyone. In fact, it can be argued that it might be better and more profitable for some to go straight to work after leaving school. I mean, I know board members of FTSE 250 company who never bothered with university, and it hasn't held them back. In fact, quite the opposite.

As far as I can see from my university experiences* there are two reasons, and two reasons alone, for going to university. The first is if you need a university degree to go on to do your chosen profession - lawyer, doctor, teacher all spring to mind here. The second is if you absolutely love your subject, and are willing to run up substantial debt in pursuing your love of that subject. Otherwise, what are you missing out on if you don't go to uni? You can still have a social life, you can still make friends - but you can do it while you earn rather than just spend. And you can also help to fight the spurious and unfounded idea propagated by a target-obsessed Nu Labour government that success can only really come on the back of a university degree.

*Postgraduate about to start a PhD, fact fans.

Left-Wing? Join the Greens.

Via Charlotte Gore, I see Sunny Hundal has seen the light and decided to join... well, the Labour party. His reasoning, if you can call it that, is this:

But I also think there is a broader issue here. I’ve long said that lefties need to get more involved with Westminster and not just wash our hands off it when we get disillusioned. By that, I don’t necessarily mean going for political office but finding ways to put pressure on Westminster from the left.

Ah, the old entryism argument. Worked so well for Militant Tendency in the 1980's. And no doubt will work just as well for lefties joining the Labour party now.

What I don't get, though, both with people like Sunny and my self described left-wing friends who voted Labour at the last election, is how they can dare call themselves Labour supporters or members and then claim to be left-wing. Because there is nothing left-wing about the Labour party - nothing. Its record in power speaks for itself. It was responsible for the Iraq War. For the decimation of civil liberties in this country. For the debasement of democracy and the rise of spin. For the bailing out of failed banks. What is left-wing about that? Nothing. So why support them? Some sort of base tribal loyalty, where the Tories are worse than Labour, and the feeling that deep down the latter party remains in some way genuinely left-wing - even though the available evidence would (quite literally violently) suggest otherwise.

And lefties can't claim that there isn't an alternative. If you believe in left-wing politics - if you believe in socialism, if you believe in combatting climate change, if you believe a party with a truly pacifist agenda - then go join the Greens. Seriously; they are an updated version of what the left used to stand for. And they've even got an MP now, so you can't dismiss them as political by-standers. The choice is clear, the choice is stark - join a party discredited by endless compromise and a brutal yet pathetic 13 years in power, or join a party that pretty much stands for what you stand for but isn't utterly ideologically tainted. Some choice...

Of course, I can't stomach the Greens - but then again, I can't stomach the Labour party either. Yet as far as I am concerned the Greens have one big advantage over the Labour party - they are not the ideological equivalent of toxic waste. So the choice is simple: if you feel you need to be a member of a political party and you are left-wing, then either join the Greens and retain a shred of fucking dignity or follow Sunny and join the Labour party. Or to put it another way, sell your soul to the political equivalent of the devil.

On the Death of David Kelly

Andrew Gilligan, writing on how he believes Dr David Kelly was not murdered, concludes his article with the following:

I'm often surprised at the enduring interest in this one man's death. If you seek government culpability, the deaths of 150,000 Iraqis would seem, to me, rather more the point. David's was a mainly personal tragedy – and the reason Lord Hutton circumvented the inquest, and sealed the evidence, was not some conspiracy, but because his family wanted it. Among those calling for an inquest, David's widow and daughters have been notable by their absence.

Now, however, I believe that more harm and distress may be being caused by the endless tide of junk speculation than by holding a proper inquest. We should have one, if only to stop the nonsense once and for all.

I find it odd that Gilligan writes that Iraqi deaths are more the point than David Kelly's death. Personally, I think that they are both points in their own right - albeit, points about different things. Iraqi deaths make a point about the horror of an illegal war, the death of Dr David Kelly makes a point about the cruel efficiency of a government determined to pursue a new war against Iraq, and its willingness to brand anyone who might dissent as the enemy.

Kelly's death was a personal tragedy, but it was a personal tragedy with considerable public implications. I can fully understand why the family might not want all information about the death of a loved one broadcast across the country. Yet what Hutton failed to understand is the concerns that many have about the behaviour of a secretive, spin obsessed government towards both David Kelly and the march to war in Iraq. By all means do what the family wants and keep some information secret; where Hutton failed was in his inability to answer or even seemingly address the concerns of those who felt there was something more, something untoward, about the David Kelly tragedy.

Now, I've got no divine insights into the death of David Kelly - personally, I think it is more likely that he committed suicide than he was murdered but since the circumstances surrounding his death is about as clear as mud it is difficult to say anything definite. Which is actually the real point here - the point that Gilligan misses. We should have a proper inquest because we live in a democracy where the actions of our government should be transparent. In this case, the government was anything other than transparent; a sin compounded by the fact that some many people have been calling for a proper inquest. The demands of the people are being ignored...

Basically, a proper inquest isn't - and shouldn't - be about stopping nonsense; it should be about addressing the very genuine concerns people have about how the government treats its people and the fundamental lack of government openness about such crucial issues as life and death in a society which, in rhetoric at least, calls itself free and democratic.

Democracy: a Threat to Freedom?

One of the biggest threats to freedom that is emerging in today’s society is democracy. That is not to say that democracy is in some way fundamentally illiberal – rather, the fact that democracy, which is a means rather than an end, has become an unchallenged synonym for freedom is a key problem. Democracy may play a part in a free society, but democracy itself is not freedom, and can be detrimental to freedom in some respects.

Democracy gives power to the people to choose their leaders; it does not, however, guarantee that the leaders chosen will respect freedom. Democracy, at least in the modern sense of a political system based on open elections, gives people the freedom to choose, but it does not follow that people will automatically choose to be free. The 2004 US Presidential election illustrates this contradiction; in a free election, the people choose to re-elect George W Bush – a President who brought in the deeply illiberal Patriot Act and who backed state torture of terror suspects. In this case, democracy worked against freedom; it allowed the re-election of a man who eroded the civil liberties that are so essential to a free society.

Furthermore, the term democracy has also been abused to such an extent that it has become almost meaningless. The Iraq war illustrates this: the invasion was meant to bring democracy to Iraq, and in doing so, bring freedom. Yet the concept of forcing democracy – which is fundamentally about the will of the people – on a nation without consulting the people is as completely contradictory as it is undemocratic. There was nothing democratic or free about how democracy was brought to Iraq; in a truly free and democratic society the people would have chosen what political system they wished to have, rather than having that system chosen for them by an occupying power. Here, “democracy” was neither about freedom or genuine democratic choice.

Finally, democracy itself has become detrimental to political life in many Western societies. Because democracy has become synonymous with freedom, it is assumed that if the people get the chance to vote every four to five years then they live in a free society. Inbetween those elections, politicians are simply not challenged as they should be, and the notion that freedom requires constant vigilance is lost as long as the people get to give the nod to one party or another at regular intervals. As the recent Labour administration in the UK shows, a government can do a great deal inbetween elections to corrode civil liberties in a nation without provoking uproar from the people losing their freedoms. The modern ideal of democracy seems to require only that people vote when they get the chance. Freedom, however, requires a lot more from its people.

Ultimately, democracy has a part to play in freedom, but the modern day reverence for democracy and the constant, incorrect conflation of democracy with freedom represent at the very least challenges, if not direct threats, to freedom.

This post is an entry in the blog contest responding to the new book, New Threats to Freedom edited by Adam Bellow. The contest is open to all and further information can be found here.

The Criminal Labour Government

Baroness Warsi actually saying something worth hearing:

I'm a lawyer. I can tell you that if an individual had run up debts so irresponsibly they would face legal consequences ...

By running up colossal debts on the nation's credit card, debts so huge that we have been borrowing one pound for every four we spend and increasing our national debt by £3bn a week, what Labour did to British people is frankly criminal.

Baroness Warsi back-tracking on the one thing she's ever managed to say that is actually worth hearing:

I think it was a manner of speech that I was using ... Labour's conduct has been pretty appalling, but frankly I have to say that, as far as I'm aware, it has not been criminal.

Hmmm. I'm prepared to be a little bit more categorical and clear in my thoughts of the Labour party in power: I have to say that I believe the conduct of Labour in its thirteen years in power was criminal. The amount of debt that they've run up leaves them open to the charge of criminal negligence, but it is about more than just the debt. Labour in power consistently tried to pervert the course of justice repeatedly by denying or undermining inquiries into attacks on this country, the death of government employees and the murder by the police of an innocent man on the tube. But above all, Labour dragged us into an illegal war. Thousands of people have died because of what the Labour government did. Quite literally, the Labour party has blood on its hands.

You were right the first time, Warsi. The Labour government from 1997 to 2010 was criminal.

The Deal

Many of you will probably have seen The Deal when it was first broadcast, but it is worth revisiting now the Nu Labour government is over. It takes on an ominous tone given what we now know about Nu Labour, and the comments about Brown's personality and his image problems leaves me wondering just why, given this was broadcast in 2003, Labour went on to blindly elect Brown as leader.

Whether you're watching it again or viewing it for the first time, The Deal gives an essential and compelling insight into the compromised creation of Nu Labour.

Bye bye Jack Straw

There must be barely a dry eye in the house - Jack Straw, the Demon Headmaster himself, is leaving front bench politics. From the BBC:

Announcing his resignation from front-line politics, the veteran MP said: "I was first appointed to the Labour front bench in 1980, and then elected to the shadow cabinet in 1987."

Straw's career is clearly remarkable - to have survived thirty years of front bench politics is no mean feat. But what is even more remarkable is that over the course of the three decades that Straw has been on the Labour front benches, he has failed to achieve anything of any worth whatsoever.

Labour's record in government

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best government in a generation?

"The best government in generation" - that's the way I keep on hearing the coalition being described, including by some intelligent people. It bothers me a bit, so I though I'd work out why.

On one level, the description is entirely accurate. That this government is better than the last one is a given, and will remain so as long as the coalition doesn't actually declare open warfare on its own people. The Brown administration was the worst one we have had in this country since Anthony Eden nearly got us into a war with America over Suez. But the Brown government didn't last for a generation; it struggled to exist for just over half of a Parliamentary term. In order for the coalition to be the best government in a generation, it will have to do more than just be better than the last administration.

So let's travel back in time, and see whether the coalition is better than the Blair governments. Well, the first Blair administration did absolutely nothing - even when it had to do something, like during the petrol crisis and the foot and mouth outbreak, it did nothing other than faff about a bit. Blair's pitch for re-election in 2001 can be summed up like this: "give us another four years, and we'll actually do something this time." His second government was the one that took us into war with Iraq - and in doing so pretty much guaranteed that Blair's legacy would always be tainted, and his government associated with the starting of an illegal war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives. And Blair's final years in office after winning again in 2005 saw a man desperately trying to cling to power in order to find a positive historical legacy - something that would never happen. So yes, thus far the coalition has been better than the Blair administrations, but that isn't difficult. The Blair years consisted of apathetic indolence, pointless warmongering and vicious infighting. They hardly represent a model government.

And what did we have before that? The Major years - a government that managed to destroy then rebuild the economy, and never managed to stop fighting amongst itself. Furthermore, the Major administration from 1992 appeared to be mired in sleaze and also appeared to be completely detached from the people it was meant to represent. And any government that ends in the sort of wipe-out that the Tories experienced in 1997 cannot really stand as anything other than a failure. Again, to be better than this doesn't take much.

We actually have to go all the way back to the second Thatcher administration from 1983-1987 to find a functional government that actually did something effectively for this country - since from 1987 the Tory government became increasingly dysfunctional and developed its taste for regicide. 1987 saw the last good government in this country; a fact that is simultaneously terrifying and absolutely unsurprising.

So yes, this coalition - which is a fledgling government that will not be possible to assess effectively until after it has left power - is, thus far, the best government in a generation. But for over 20 years, this country has had pretty dreadful government from its political class. And this is what bothers me - it isn't really an achievement to be the best government in a generation when you've only just started and when your immediate predecessors have been shit. The bar has been set so low for Cameron et al that they will be able to claim success even if they succeed at nothing other than avoiding direct, clear-cut failure.

Labour: Hated and Reviled

A little bit of self-deception from some twat writing on LabourList:

Over on Political Betting, Mike Smithson has suggested that the reason the polling for the general election was so inaccurate was a "shy Labour" phenomenon. In other words people were ashamed to admit they were Labour supporters.

I'm inclined to think that there's something in that theory. It's certainly more plausible than the idea that hundreds of thousands of people woke up on election day as Lib Dem supporters but changed their vote to Labour at the ballot box. I believe that the pencil can waver, just not that much.

If this is true then we're in a similar position now to the one Tories were in through the nineties - people are embarrassed to admit that they're Labour supporters. I don't believe we're hated or reviled in the same way that the Tories were - but I think a certain amount of soul searching is necessary if we're to realise why people might be wary of openly admitting support for Labour.

Ok, I'd like to say this - I hate and revile Labour in a way that far exceeds the contempt I feel for pretty much any other party bar the BNP. The Nu Labour years were a fucking disaster for this country; we are going to be feeling the consequences of their economic incompetence, idiotic war-mongering and general hatred of liberty for years to come. So don't deceive yourself, fella. People do hate and revile Labour. I am just one of them. And for anyone reading this, if you are too, then stick a comment to that effect on this post. Let's reassure our LabourList writer that the Labour party are actually hated and reviled.

And don't deceive yourself either about the extent of your defeat. The result of the election may well have been a hung parliament, but Labour's result represents a pathetic collapse in their support from 2005. Sure, Labour might have done better than some of the polls suggested, but that party was beaten by a damp squib of a man whose sole selling point was the fact that he was not Labour. Don't let a discrepancy in the Lib Dem polling figures against their actual support fool you - people deserted Labour in droves.

The Labour party has a big problem - it is hated by many people in this country, and those running for leader are unlikely to change that. Labour supporters can clutch at straws as much as they like, but they shouldn't think that they are able to hide the fact that the last election was a fucking disaster for the Labour party.

Revealing Labour and the Con-Dem attitudes to freedom

This is a very revealing section from a BBC news report on the smoking ban - revealing, that is, of some of the attitudes of the main political parties in this country:

The government has dropped a planned review of the smoking ban in England.

The previous Labour administration had promised it would be looked at again in autumn 2010, but the coalition says it has "no plans" to do so.

Publicans - who feared a review would extend the ban into beer gardens and doorways, damaging trade - backed a campaign to partially lift the ban.

First up, you might have thought that a review of the smoking ban might lead to the smoking ban being repealed, if only in part. If so, more fool you! No, for the Nu Labour government, a review is an opportunity to extend an illiberal, invasive and stupid policy. But that's Nu Labour for you - determined to interfere in your life as much as they possibly can, and then a little bit more.

Secondly, it is very interesting that the Con-Dems are not going to go through with the review. On the one hand, this is a good thing - no review, no extension of the smoking ban. On the flipside, no review, no repeal of the smoking ban. The Con-Dems increasing seem to be labouring under the delusion that if they don't extend the limits of state control in this country then they are being inherently liberal. That is, of course, absolute nonsense. If anything, it makes them conservative. If they truly want to be liberal, they need to roll back the impact of the state on its citizens that so dramatically increased under the last draconian government.

As things stand, it almost feels as if we are meant to be grateful when the state chooses not to further extend its often malign control further into our lives. I'd be far more grateful to the government, though, if it decided to roll back the frontiers of the state. But, as always, I'm not holding my breath.

The Harsh Truth About Spending Cuts

LabourList has an article up entitled The grim reality of "savage cuts" - you can go read the whole thing if you so wish, but you can probably guess what it is going to be like just by reading the title. It is one long whine from a Labour writer addicted to government spending.

Obviously, as a Libertarian, I have no issue with spending cuts - in fact, I think they are not only essential but also the right thing to do. And I'm not naive enough to think that a LabourList writer is going to understand that point of view - after all increasing government spending is pretty much the Labour party's reason for being. However, I do think that the article in question - like most of the bleating from Labour party types about spending cuts - misses the truth about those cuts.

Because, ladies and gents, the Labour party is the reason why those cuts have to be made.

Had the Labour party not dragged us into two wars that it actually didn't have the will to fight properly, then maybe there'd be enough money to prop up the existing bloated state. Had the Labour party not tried to nationalise the failing sections of the banking sector, maybe the cuts could be small rather than savage. Had the Labour party not fucked up both the economy and, to a large extent, the country as a whole, maybe the bloated state could have lumbered on for a bit under a flabby post-Blairite consensus.

But no - the last Labour government has forced the coalition's hand through its utterly inept dealings when it came to the economy and to spending. So you'll have to forgive me if I feel nauseated by the hypocrisy of a party bemoaning cuts that it made inevitable.

The Labour party needs to go away and think about what went so badly wrong during its 13 years in power, and what it plans to do to prevent history repeating itself if they ever win power again. Until then, they really should show some humility and shut the fuck up.

Religious Education Today

The BBC brings us news of yet another area in which the state school system is failing:

Religious education is "inadequate" in one in five secondary schools in England, according to watchdog Ofsted.

Since “education” and “inadequate” have become largely synonymous since Nu Labour decided to shaft the state school system, it’s worth clarifying what exactly the problem is with religious education:

Its study suggested many teachers were unsure of what they were trying to achieve in the subject.

Which does raise the interesting question of what should religious education look to achieve today? Indeed, should there be any sort of religious education in state schools in this day and age?

To the latter question, I think the answer is yes – despite being a committed atheist. While it sometimes pains me to admit it, religion is still important to many people in society today, so in order to understand what religion is (and maybe even help to combat religious intolerance at the same time), religious education is important – and part of that education should also involve a discussion of atheism. There may even be a chance within this to debate questions of morality when discussing religion.

But what there is no place for whatsoever in religious education is promotion of any one religion. Religious education should not promote Christianity, or Islam, or any other religion. If pupils decide to follow a religion, then that is their choice. Religious education should be explicitly about educating kids, not promoting one religion and critiquing the others*.

To me, this is not controversial at all – but I suspect that to many religious groups it will be very problematic. But ultimately, if you want to educate kids about religion today, you have to reflect the fact that Britain today is a multicultural society where people choose to follow a number of different faiths – and some choose people not to follow any sort of religion at all.

*Which is exactly what my experience of religious education was.

Nu Labour's real legacy

Harriet Harman, trying to create a legacy for the Labour party that doesn't focus on their abysmal failures over the past 13 years:

Ms Harman said Labour's opponents would attack the party's record in government, but "we will not let them".

"For every child who, instead of being cooped up in a flat, is playing in a brand new children's centre, that is our legacy.

"For every patient who instead of waiting in pain is cared for by doctors and nurses in a brand new hospital, that is our legacy.

"For every villager in Africa whose life has been transformed by cancelling third world debt, that is our legacy."

Ummm, Harriet, the other parties have already been attacking your record in government. That's how you lost the election.

But let's rewrite her speech to make it a little more realistic:

For every child who emerges functionally illiterate from a school system crippled by Nu Labour meddling, that is your legacy.

For every patient who dies because the NHS refuses to give them the drugs that would save their lives, that is your legacy.

For every orphan, crippled person, or corpse who died at the hands of the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq or Afghanistan, that is your legacy.

For every troop killed or crippled because your government would not provide the equipment they needed to fight the war you created, that is your legacy.

For a country mired in debt because a idiotic government attempted to nationalise the banking sector, that is your legacy.

For every little loss of freedom that became so synonymous with the Labour government, that is your legacy.

A broken, bankrupt country stepping into the light uncertainly after 13 years of draconian Nu Labour misrule: Harriet Harman, that is your legacy.