Guido's Death Penalty Campaign*

I seriously think that Kelvin McKenzie should take some sort of legal action against Guido Fawkes (or whoever is running that site these days) for identity theft. Because with this sort of rabble rousing, he is truly gunning to the online version of perhaps The Sun's most notorious famous editor. Yes, he is/they are launching a petition to bring back the death penalty for child and cop murderers.

The logic, such as it is, seems to be that this should be done because a majority of the population back such a move. The evidence offered is scant, and "all polls" actually refers to just one poll, of 2,011 people, dating back to December 2008, in which 50% of the people (so just over 1,000, then) were for the death penalty. It is difficult to take such a result and project it with any degree of credibility across a population of over 60,000,000. And even if you could, would that then make it right for the majority to force their opinions on the minority? What the majority decided that pseudonyms should be banned from the internet? Or, more controversially and seriously, if Catholics should be declared second-rate citizens?

And while we're on the subject or spurious logic and borderline misrepresentation of the facts, what about the guff about "getting real justice" for the next Baby P? Those involved in the foul abuse of Baby P were not convicted of murder, and therefore would not have been eligible for the death penalty. This is nothing other dog-whistle politics - an attempt to gain support by mentioning the most infamous recent case of a malicious child death. Presumably Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting - two people who even to your humble author, a passionate opponent of the death penalty, can see the case for executing - are just too old hat these days.

Guido has done some good work in the past (McBride, Hain) and may yet continue to do so (Morgan), but this sort of thing does him no favours. It also does damage to the blogging world, since one of the few possible USPs that exists for political bloggers is that they are not like the MSM. Guido turning his site into not just a tabloid but one of the worst of the tabloids as well as one currently having its reputation justly dragged through the mud is a a depressing sign that, when (pseudo-)fame and (presumably) money come calling, the temptation to sell out is too much to resist.

I've no idea whether this idea/campaign has legs or will simply die a death. But I do sincerely hope for the latter, since the whole thing reeks of a cynical and desperate attempt to court public approval and precious little else.

*Yup, this post is largely a rehash of an earlier one. But since Guido has not really moved on in his opinons and logic this sort of post, by its very nature, can't move on that much either.

Beware the Populist Politician

Much has been made in the past few days of Obama's comments about BP in the aftermath of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While it is wrong to paint BP as a complete innocent in the story, there can be little doubt that Obama's comments have had implications that were easy to predict - it has damaged BP as a company, it has put strain on the special relationship with the UK and it has left the US wide open to charges of hypocrisy when you consider incidents like the Bhopal disaster. Plus, y'know, this BP bashing doesn't actually help to resolve the issue - it is in everyone's, including BP's, best interest that this disaster is dealt with as quickly as possible. Now, I'm pretty sure Obama is intelligent enough to have anticipated at least some of these consequences, which does rather beg the question of why he went ahead and made his comments anyway. The answer is obvious - a little bit of short-term populism; a chance to identify an enemy of the American people (in this case BP) and then a chance to look tough by bullying that enemy.

You can see another example of the same phenomena here in the UK with Ed Ball's sudden conversion to the need to restrict immigration or, to put it another way, Ball's recent conversion to immigrant bashing. Now I don't think that Balls - who for all the world comes across as an economic policy wonk (as well as nasty little wanker, but that's not the main point here for once) - really has a problem with immigration. However, he saw his boss taking a (deserved) kicking for ducking a debate with a voter about immigration, and has decided that he doesn't want the same thing to happen to him. Plus, he's in the contest to be Labour leader and needs something to differentiate himself from the other candidates other than most people who know of him seem to think that he is a bit of a prick. Therefore, jump on the bash the immigrant bandwagon, and maybe even score some nice headlines from The Sun and The Daily Hate Mail while you're at it.

Of course, this approach from Balls misses the point in a number of ways. Part of the reason why Labour lost the last election was because of immigration. However, there were a number of other factors that were also crucial in creating that staggering defeat. Like the fact that they shafted the economy, the education system, civil liberties and the armed forces over a 13 year period. Balls is also missing the point that the reason why so many people in the UK feel uncomfortable about immigration is because Nu Labour studiously refused to engage with anyone on any sort of a debate over immigration - meaning that it has almost become a bit of a political taboo. What Nu Labour should have done is have made the case for immigration - to have pointed out during their years in power that the economy is dependent on immigrant labour and on immigrant spending. Instead, by saying nothing, they allowed the BNP to grow and for immigration to become something sightly sinister in the eyes of some voters. Of course, Balls could try to make this case now rather than bashing immigration. But he isn't, because that's a debate that needs to be had over a long period of time, whereas he may be able to benefit from immigrant bashing right here, right now.

Both Obama and Balls (surely this is one of the first times that the two have been directly compared and found to be similar) are playing tactical, rather than strategic, political games. They are chasing headlines, and trying to make themselves look tough in the eyes of the media. The problem with this is that politicians chasing headlines are never politicians at their best. In fact, they tend to be at their self-serving and cowardly worst when they're doing things like this. And there is a real danger to politicians in that they might get caught up in responding to events rather than trying to think strategically about what they want to achieve overall. There is a fundamental difference between a politician with a determination to implement a vision and a politician determined to chase headlines/respond to events. It is the difference between a Thatcher and a Major, and an Attlee and a Blair.

So beware of politicians flirting with populism. Beware of those politicians chasing headlines. Beware of politicians trying to look tough for the media. Because this is where we tend to see politicians at their most untrustworthy, self-serving and shallow.

Further Proof of the Shameless Lord Mandelson

Peter Mandelson:

Business Secretary Peter Mandelson this week claimed there was now a "contract" between the Sun and the Tories.

Yes, because there was never a contract between Nu Labour and The Sun, now, was there? And his tetchy response has nothing to do with the The Sun now having an effective contract out on the Labour party, does it?

He also accused the paper of "bad taste and crude politicking" over the story in a BBC interview.

In fairness, The Sun does do both "bad taste and crude politicking". But - hang on for a moment - so does Peter fucking Mandelson! In fact - and let's be honest about this - the only reason why Brown brought Mandelson back from the life raft for failing Labour politicians EU is because of his rare gift for media manipulation with no regard to taste and his abilities when it comes to crude politicking.

If you really want to make the case for your political leader being persecuted by an unfriendly media outlet then it tends to be best if you haven't spent the best part of your career wooing and coaxing said media outlet in to berating the opposition. Fuck me, what next? Alastair Campbell calling The Sun low brow and not that sophisticated?

Gordon Brown, Letter Writing, and Afghanistan

There can be few better examples of the inverted midas touch* of Gordon Brown than the furore about his letter to Jacqui Janes and then his ensuing phone apology. Of course, Gordon Brown's handwriting is appalling and very difficult to read, and his phone call reads like a muted argument involving a man who can't help himself but to try to make himself look correct, even if it means arguing with a recently bereaved mother who he has already managed to piss off massively. Now, this whole exchange has given Brown some unlikely (and, no doubt, extremely temporary) allies and I have no doubt that Jacqui Janes' appalling tragedy has been shamelessly milked by The Scum - a paper that, lest we forget, was a bellicose supporter of both the Iraq and Afghan invasions and that did much to ensure both the election and repeated re-election of Nu Labour. But I can't help but think that once again we have a classic mountain being constructed from a molehill - and one that obscures what should be debated right here, right now.

The issue isn't Gordon Brown's handwriting, or his insensitivity on the phone. That is nothing more than cheap, point scoring politics. Fun, to be sure, but nothing more than that. And the issue isn't about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan in the first place - that's one for military and political historians now. The fact is we are there, and people are dying. So there are two, crucial issues - one tactical, one strategic. And neither is about this unfortunate letter sent out by Gordo.

On a tactical level, there needs to be an open and honest debate between the government and those leading the armed forces on what needs to be done to make sure that the troops have the best chance possible of surviving in what is proving to be one of the most hostile battlefields Britain has encountered in decades. Specifically, what equipment is necessary. Put simply, when joining the army people should expect at some point to have to fight. They shouldn't expect to die because their "grateful" government has failed to provide the equipment needed for the army to fight the very war the government sent it in to. There has been lots of talk recently about spending cuts, with many lamenting a drop in spending - yet it appears that perhaps the one area where more spending might be appropriate is on those fighting a brutal counter-insurgency in Afghanistan.

The alternative to increasing spending on the Armed Forces in order to maximise their chances of survival is, of course, to get the fuck out of Afghanistan. But even if we choose to stay, then we need to come up with something a little more credible than the present plan. Which seems to be sitting tight and hoping for the best. No-one is saying that it will be easy - after all, Afghanistan is a disparate collection of tribes that has track record of repelling any British incursions. Yet there needs to be some sort of strategy to indicate just how the ongoing deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan can be turned into a situation where if we cannot claim something approaching victory then at least we can point to some sort of stability in that country. At the moment, there appears to be nothing.

And once we have managed to sort out both the tactics and the strategy in Afghanistan, then we can focus on the blame game and giving Labour the kicking it so richly deserves for the Afghan disaster. But when we do, the focus should be on the failure to give troops vital equipment and a plan. Rather than Brown's letter-writing ability. Because whilst he may have blundered in his dealings with Jacqui Janes, at least he didn't stoop as low as Donald Rumsfeld and his special signature stamp...

*In that everything he touches turns to shite and becomes absolutely worthless.

Harman On The Sun

Harriet Harman on the desertion of The Sun:

Harriet Harman has said Labour "won't be bullied" after the Sun said it would not back Labour at the next election.

The Sun must be shitting itself. Although the Labour refusal to bullied probably won't stop The Sun from giving it a try.

Opening a debate about equalities at the Labour conference, Harriet Harman said she was speaking about "something the Sun knows absolutely nothing about - equality".

She went on: "Let's face it, the nearest their political analysis gets to women's rights is Page 3's news in briefs."

Which is all very true, but somehow less easy to defend when you factor in the shameless way in which the Labour party courted Murdoch's tabloid under Blair. The Sun may have no idea about equality, and may have all the political sophistication of a wank rag, but it is only now that The Sun doesn't love them anymore that Labour have actually noticed this.

Labour, Tories and The Sun

In terms of timing, you can't fault them. As Brown sat back in his chair, pleased to have made it through a party conference without an overt challenge to his leadership, The Sun turns round and tells him to go fuck himself. Yep, The Sun is again a Tory paper.

This happening is not really surprising; the only thing that mildly surprises me is that it took so long to happen. Yet despite the inevitability of this announcement, I would imagine that the Tories are this morning celebrating winning over such a popular newspaper, whilst Labour are readying themselves for whatever damage this particular publication chooses to inflict. I'd throw in a note of caution here, though. The Sun is good at self-promotion, and The Sun is great at bigging up its own influence. However, The Sun coming into the Tory camp doesn't so much guarantee a Tory victory as confirm that one is likely.

See, given half a chance The Sun will always make claims like "It's The Sun Wot Won It". That doesn't make the claim true. Sure, The Sun may be able to sway the views of a small minority of people, but the paper really isn't the driver of public opinion that it makes itself out to be. In fact, it tends to sense the way public opinion is going, and follow that.

This decision isn't one of political principle, and it doesn't reflect the strengths or the weaknesses in the cases of the Labour Party and the Tories. It simply shows that The Sun wants to be on the winning side and that, in its judgement, the winning side is headed by the Boy Cameron rather than the Grey Ghoul Gordon.

Could this be The Sun's idea of the best news story ever? I mean, it has got sex, lesbians and underage fornication all at the same time. No doubt it caused some sort of meltdown in an editorial meeting as the paper simultaneously wished to denounce this woman as a terrible paedo at the same time as wanting to get as many salacious details into their article as possible. It wouldn't surprise me if they considered one of those photo story articles that they use on their problem pages (you know the ones - they tend to involve a woman/women in their underwear for at least two frames out of three) before deciding that might just be a little too much, even for them.