A Thought Experiment from Simple Country Folk

Go to the other URL, please

2005-08-13T12:24:00.000Z

This blog has been discontinued. Go to my new site which is much better and less silly, and which has slightly improved web design. Not much there at the moment, though. Have patience.
Oh yes, the URL is www.jawbox.co.uk

Robin Cook 1946 - 2005

2005-08-06T18:57:00.000Z

I said recently that I had written my last post on this blog, and that was how I intended it, but I felt compelled to post a short tribute to Robin Cook, who has died of a suspected heart attack while hillwalking in the West Highlands. There have been few politicians I have respected more than Robin Cook, for his intellect, his integrity, his moral conviction and his eloquence. His courageous resignation over the Iraq war, when his peers would not, said a lot about him. Parliament has lost its most skilled debater, the Labour party has lost an intellectual powerhouse, The Guardian has lost a very fine columnist - indeed, many of his concise, intelligent yet forceful arguments constructed for that paper in the last months of his life are possibly what I will most remember him for - and the electorate has lost a man in which it could be proud.

So it's goodbye from me...

2005-08-01T16:24:00.000Z

Yes, this is my probably my last "proper" post on this site, as I'm going away now to set up a proper website, powered by WordPress and hosted by 34sp, in other words, an escape from the confines of Blogger. It's been fun, but when Simple Country Folk remerges, it'll have more pages, room, links and just better stuff generally. Bye now.

What I do when the weather's crap

2005-07-28T20:52:00.000Z

As the weather in Cornwall's gone from sun-drenched tropicalness to just drenched in the space of a few days, it's important to have something to do when the beach is not practical. Here, plastic model kits come in. I am currently modelling 1/700 Russian warships, and have just made an Oscar-II class guided missile submarine, of which some photos are on my Flickr page. It's a good passtime, if sticky and annoying at times, and I'd like to dispel the myth that modellers are predominantly middle-aged losers. Anyway, until the weather improves, I'll be indoors modelling the Northern Fleet. (Well, the Oscar-II and a Sovremenny class destoyer, at any rate.)
In response to the IRA's statement yesterday, I can't summon up the annoyance, vigour and scepticism to blog about it now. Tomorrow's another day.
Jean Charles de Menezes, the Stockwell shooting victim, wasn't acting suspiciously, was wearing a light denim jacket not a heavy coat, and used his Travelcard instead of jumping the barriers. In other words, all three reasons the police issued as to why he was shot turn out to have been lies. Great.
Brian Haw wins his court appeal against being moved out of Parliament Square. Take that, you authoritarian bastards.

Desmond - must try harder

2005-07-27T12:54:00.000Z

Need I say more?
Kachepa update: Home Office messed up their passports and other travel documents at Heathrow, so they're back in Weymouth for the time being.

A collection of cowards and scoundrels

2005-07-25T22:02:00.000Z

I refer, of course, to the Home Office, whose contemptable decision to deport the Kachepa family back to Malawi from Weymouth illustrates among other things the extent of the craven cowardice displayed by the Home Office (and in particular the immigration department) in the face of the right-wing, racist, anti-asylum gutter press.
If you're unfamiliar with this case, let me explain. The Kachepas are originally from Malawi. They've been living in Weymouth for a few years now, after their asylum application was rejected, but are in danger if they return to Malawi, even more so since the husband decamped back to Malawi and shacked up with a relative of the former (nasty) President. They therefore have very good reasons to suspect that their lives will be in danger in Malawi. They are well liked and respected in Weymouth, and have made, according to everyone who's been asked, an enormous contribution to the local community. The campaign to let them stay has attracted high-profile support, from (among others) David Davis and Ann Widdecombe. Jim Knight, the local Labour MP, who before the election had a majority of barely 100, came out in support of the campaign and increased his majority to around 3000. Nevertheless, yesterday the decision to deport them was finalised, and they will be flying back to Malawi and possibly death as I write. Why? There was no opinion that wanted them deported, no reason not to let them stay. But the Home Office had to deport them anyway, because they must be seen as really tough on immigrants/asylum seekers/yobs/disabled people/foreigners/peace protestors (delete as appropriate). This is directly due to the tidal wave, to use their own phrase, of hatred and fear that the right-wing press whipped up a while ago about people coming into our country and taking our whatever. To see the scale of the influence that these people enjoy is terrifying, as terrifying as the agenda that it allows them to push.
Why is it that any "keep them out" campaign must be appeased, fuelling the fire of ignorance, bigotry and prejudice that they run on, but any campaign that says that "we would actually like them to stay because they're nice people" must be ignored? What rule is there that dictates this, acting as some kind of conscience-blocker to those who must make the decisions? I don't know, and frankly I think the truth of it might be more alarming that what we already think. All I know is that the Home Office, run down by years of Blunkett and his hate-filled rhetoric, is a rotten organisation, staffed by cowards and morally-bankrupt scoundrels, and needs throughly cleaning out.

Pixels for public consumption

2005-07-24T22:06:00.000Z

Yeehah! I got me a Flickr photostream! (Hopefully, I'll get round to uploading some photos onto it tomorrow.) Also a Flickr profile.

The very worst thing that could have happened

2005-07-23T17:06:00.000Z

As I completely failed to document yesterday, the armed police (or SAS) shot a guy in Stockwell tube station, someone they'd had under surveillance and followed to the station, where he jumped a ticket barrier after having been challenged. They chased him onto a Northern Line train, where he tripped over. They then pumped 5 bullets into him. The theory at the time was that he was a suicide bomber, but the longer they went without saying that he was carrying explosives on him, the less certain this seemed, coupled with my suspicions that this could very easily have been someone who simply panicked, was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or fell victim to a scared armed police or overzealous Special Forces. In other words, an Asian guy who was not a threat or connected to the bombings at all, but has been killed anyway. It has just been announced that he was, just as I feared, unconnected.
I don't suggest that this was the sort of 'shoot a coloured person' activity that's been engaged in in the past, and nor do I doubt the fear of the authorities that this man was a suicide bomber who was about to attack a tube train. But as we now learned, he wasn't. And it is an enormous propaganda coup for the jihadists - the websites will be salivating at this. It will be painted as part of the "War on Islam." It is, as one former Met officer said, "an absolute disaster" in every respect. A human tragedy, a self-defeating blunder, and somwhere in Britain, some new jihadists will have been recruited because of it.
Update: Reports are circulating that the guy was Brazilian. I suppose that's not as bad as it might have been (a Muslim being gunned down would have been catastrophic at this point, as I said earlier), but still utterly horrible and tragic.
Further Update: Jean Charles de Menezes, 27 years old. He lived for three years in Brixton previous to this, speaking perfect English, and worked as an electrician. Since it was chillier than usual in London yesterday, he wore a coat, obviously feeling it more being from Brazil, and since he was from a country where the police have a reputation for shooting people pretty randomly, he was probably disposed towards running away. The Brazilian Foreign Minister will meet Jack Straw and demand an explanation. Incidentally, the reaction to this tragedy from my favourite bunch of right-wing nutters, Free Republic, bears a look - fuckwits.

Not this shit again

2005-07-21T13:41:00.000Z

Oval, Warren Street and Shepherd's Bush evacuated. Small, pathetic bombs, and some pretty pathetic bombers too, the guy at Oval legging it before it went off. No-one killed as yet, 1 person injured at Warren Street. Apparently, small bomb on a bus in the Hackney Road. Several tube lines closed - Hammersmith and City, Victoria and Northern, possibly Bakerloo as well. In the absence of my being arsed to liveblog, here are some good ones: Nosemonkey, Londonist, The London Line, and The Guardian. Reports of nail-bomb at Warren Street seem unlikely, as do reports of smaller bombs in the City.
Increasingly credible reports of something going on at University College Hospital, however, where according to Sky and now 5 Live armed police have been deployed, although to what end is unclear. Apparently a guy was seen running towards the hospital from Warren Street tube. COBRA committee has met, with Blair due apparently to speak at about 3:00.

Good news

2005-07-17T15:16:00.000Z

PledgeBank's "refuse to register for an ID card" campaign has hit it's first goal, in that 10,000 people have signed the pledge, and now the money pledged by each person towards a legal defence fund can be raised (10 pounds each, meaning that a fund of 100,000 pounds ought to be available). This could not have come at a better time - the government is showing every sign of using the current anti-terrorist climate to push through even more badly thought out, illiberal legislation, and we need desperately to beat them on this front in order to salvage what is left of the liberties and rights that make us better than those we are apparently at war with. Congratulations to everyone who signed - you are the true defenders of our society, not Blair and Clarke.

Snigger snigger

2005-07-15T16:45:00.000Z

Robert Kilroy-Silk will face a leadership challenge in Veritas . One could almost feel sorry for him - then again, maybe not.

Le Grand Patrick

2005-07-15T12:50:00.000Z

Bye bye, Patrick, and good luck at Juve. One of the all time greats.

One week on

2005-07-14T22:11:00.000Z

It's now 7 days after the bombings. Prominent Muslim figures have been being wheeled out to denounce the attacks for that length of time, which has got slightly irritating, not only because of the needless repitition of it but because there is a certain element of denial coming to the fore, as in the stating that Islam does not condone such acts being allowed to airbrush out the fact that there clearly is a problem with radicalism, albeit a limited one, that needs to be dealt with.
Community relations in the Leeds area, where the bombers came from, seem to be holding - just. The local neo-nazis appear to have organised themselves tonight, with their usual arsenal of imaginative slogans: "Keep on huntin" from the National Front, "Fuck Labour" from Combat 18.
Two minutes' silence was observed throughout Europe today, and elsewhere. A vigil was held in Trafalgar Square.
It now appears that the US Marines may have summoned up the courage to venture inside the M25. From the American media, according to Londonist, London the Defiant has become Londonistan the Appeaser, and Britain generally has surrendered. OK, funny how no-one seemed to tell us that we had.

Excuse me while I vomit

2005-07-10T11:20:00.000Z

Fox News' response to the London bombings. I will now abandon any pretence at objectivity or evidence-based argument: JOHN GIBSON IS A TACTLESS, WITLESS SLIME-COVERED PIECE OF HORSE SHIT.

The aftermath

2005-07-08T15:14:00.000Z

Well, London appears to be returning to normal, not with it's usual bustle, but responding well. Many tubes are still not running, but a fair few are. All mainline termini have reopened. The current death toll is 55.
In the Commons, George Galloway was told by Adam Ingram of the government that he had "dipped his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood" having pointed out that this has almost certainly a result of the invasion of Iraq, probably what many were thinking. How Galloway refrained from crossing the chamber and delivering a swift upper cut I haven't a clue.
So, to the media. The Murdoch press has excelled itself, The Sun calling for the opening of internment camps in an editorial that proves what a bunch of complete fuckwits that paper's editorial staff are. Most papers are running special editions, far removed from their normal format. Abroad, Big Rupe's influence is also discernable, with his biggest US organ, Fox News, having broadcast a sickening report filed by a complete dickhead who talks about "Arabs" and "regular, non-Arab" people in relation to the Edgware road.
The "standing shoulder-to-shoulder" lobby also assert themselves, as in Fox's "support and solidarity" comment page. To which the response must be: We appreciate the sentiments, but please fuck off. We don't want to stand shoulder to shoulder, as in the eyes of many it was that decision by Blair, in conjunction with your moronic, kick-ass ideas, that got us bombed. We have a slightly more robust character, hence the lack of freaking out and praying by Londoners, and have been here before. Therefore, leave out your 'together we'll smash terrorism" stuff, and just let us get on with it.

In time of crisis

2005-07-07T19:10:00.000Z

Nosemonkey (not someone I usually read) observes around midday - 1:00pm that with multiple bombs exploding around London, rumours of attacks in Brighton, Portsmouth and Cardiff, and further rumours of the army being called in and marshal law being imposed, everyone just went down to the pub. My brother Tom appears to recommend a similar course of action. Good thinking.
Tom also appears to have found time to get himself some new web design. Nice one.
So, in summary, at least 37 dead. The city and country united in solidarity, as is the world. To the bombers: Fuck you. The police will find you, arrest you, hopefully give you a good going over in the anti-terrorist tradition, and with a bit of luck, you'll spend the rest of your lives rotting in Strangeways.

Fatalities

2005-07-07T14:27:00.000Z

The Guardian reports 33 - 45 dead at least, but the bus fatalities have not been counted yet, although there have been multiple deaths there. Worse than we might have assumed previously (there were about 2o killed at Edgware road), but nothing like as bad as it might have been.

Jesus

2005-07-07T12:20:00.000Z

There have been 4 to 7 bombings in London. One is on a tourist bus in Bloomsbury, and this is currently thought to be a suicide bombing. The rest are on tubes, at Edgware Road, Russell Square, King's Cross (where a tube train is apparently trapped underground), Moorgate, Liverpool Street and Aldgate East. Casualties appear mercifully low, in the tens rather than the hundreds. Charles Clarke has just addressed the Commons, and Blair has made two statements from Gleneagles, the last with him flanked by Bush and Chirac, two men who know exactly what he's going through right now. He has apparently just boarded a Chinook to head down to London.
This doesn't on first inspection seem like al-Qaida. Attacks on public transport are fairly standard in anyone's manual, but these seem like small bombs, more like ETA. These seem more like terrorism in the standard sense of the word (attacks designed to scare) rather than al-Qaida's preference for killing as many people as possible. The IRA had hinted recently that they were ready to return to hostilites, and having heard Gerry Adams recently that he was "in the Basque country on a tight schedule", I think they're probably linked in some way.
The Tavistock square attack is as yet unconfirmed either way, but an ex-US military man at the scene has apparently told the BBC that it seems like a suicide bombing. We don't as yet know.
They seem like economic attacks, with the map indicating a "triangle attack" around the city. I don't think that the G8 is much of a motivating force for any terrorists, and I think that this was designed, although it's guesswork, to bugger up confidence in the the Olympics. The security effort in Athens was massive, and I think that there may be some attempt to undermine London's. It's possible that there might be a parallel plot in Paris, and in Madrid, depending on who won. There is certainly an economic element, as right now Heathrow will be jam-packed with American tourists wanting to get home. If this is Islamic fundamentalists, however, I have one word: Iraq.

Chimps on bikes

2005-07-06T22:36:00.000Z

George Bush collides with a policeman while riding his bike in Gleneagles.

After the Who, the reckoning

2005-07-04T13:38:00.000Z

What are we to make of Live 8? Has it accomplished anything, save making a lot of noise and upping Bob Geldof's public profile? I don't know. One thing I do know is that chanting "Make Poverty History" again and again won't do a bloody thing for Africa. It isn't policy, that can be implemented quickly, it's just a slogan. I also know that the way Geldof has taken over a campaign that was gathering momentum and going fine without him has as much to do with his ego than anything else. His penchant for telling elected politicians what to do makes me irritated on a regular basis - since when did the ability to organise large concerts constitute a democratic mandate? Never, if my memory serves.
When Bob Geldof can give me a detailed rundown of the macroeconomic minutae involved in making poverty history, as well as a timetable and budget for it, I'll listen. Has he mentioned to Blair that for the money that No.10 and the Home Office want to blow on the ID computer is sufficient (apparently) to pay for the necessary antiretroviral drugs to combat AIDS for the next 10 years? Africa is an incredibly complex mess, and we should beware oversimplification. Live 8 may have raised awareness of the situation Africa finds itself in, and we can all agree that it is a grotesque one, but I am hard pressed to name anything else significant it has done. It isn't Geldof, Bono or Midge Ure's place to tell the G8 leaders what to do. They're all elected. The political will is actually there, this time, to make a difference, even in the US, traditionally the most self-interested nation, and a deal on debt cancellation is almost certain, by past standards a big step.
Among the most important things, in my eyes, in the interests of sorting Africa out, is that we start to question the wisdom of Free Trade. Caroline Lucas and some other woman who's name I can't recall write about this in the Guardian today. All the 'economic miracle' countries in recent years have become so because of protectionist trade barriers that allowed them to build up their own economies, without even considering "the spirit of competition" as some would have it. Free trade and open markets are fine when it's Britain and France trading, but when you don't actually have much of an economy or market to speak of, there's not much point in opening them up, is there? Therefore, free trade between the United States and Sierra Leone is a non-starter, because the former will eat the latter for breakfast. Let the Africans build their economies up, then we'll trade. And just get rid of the Big Men. They are not, under any circumstances, the men to sort the problem out.

Of all the newspapers...

2005-07-02T15:36:00.000Z

...The Sun thinks that we should all learn French - well, what else should we expect from the paper that published entire editions in French back in 2003, when their creative juices had come up with "Le Worm" as a suitable nickname for Jacques Chirac. Unfortunatly, there is a problem with their exhortations:
"Most teenagers cannot even ask for a Grand Mac et Frites."
Er, yes. I know this is a quote, but even so, I think they will find that un Grande Mac avec des Frites is more accurate, if they want us to actually speak French rather than Franglais. This is shockingly bad form on Rebekah Wade's part, who I believe lived in Paris (If she requires linguistic help, could someone please direct her here). Whatever next? The Morning Star encouraging the buying of stocks and shares?

This aircraft carrier has performed an illegal operation

2005-06-28T22:31:00.000Z

No, this isn't yet another ranting blog post about Iraq, but rather about the MoD's baffling decision to start running it's warships on Windows, rather than their own operating system that has been used previously. This is not new news, the first details having emerged sometime last year, but I remembered it a few days ago and realised that it bears blogging about.
The thing that probably brought this to mind was the case of Gary McKinnon, the London-based hacker who hacked into the computer systems of the US military, in one case crashing an entire naval base for a week. The question I and many others will have asked at the time was a simple but important one: Why on earth were the US military's computers so easy to get into? The obvious answer was that they were running on Windows, by virtue of it's age and familiarity the most hackable-into operating system known to man. I think their doing this is borderline criminally irresponsible, but that's a side issue. No actual ships or submarines were affected, thankfully, in that case, although the potential was presumably there for such an effect. However, speculation in circles this side of the Atlantic that many of the recent changes to and downsizing of the British military relate to unofficial policy that in future conflict, the US military and the UK military will always be acting together and should therefore be able to interface was only boosted when the announcement on the RN using Windows was made, and the McKinnon case only brought this to mind once again (I don't have to explain why the aforementioned policy is both ludicrous, unreliable and dangerous, but the potential will presumably now exist for UK bases and ships to be crashed too as a result of this decision).
British refusal to recognise that at some times, there will be military situations arising involving us that do not interest the Americans, and thus we will be on our own, does not help. Still, the two militaries know all about working together from recent experience, and we do not need a shared naval operating system, unless the plan is to actually encorporate the Royal Navy into the US Navy, which would surely take sycophancy to new heights. The big danger from this decision does not revolve around, as might be thought, the possibility of a Trident missile being launched by a hacker (thankfully, ballistic missile launch procedure on submarines do not depend on a computer and is impossible to execute without the actual say-so of the captain and executive officer, as anyone who's seen Crimson Tide will know), or indeed, a conventional missile being launched, although this is presumably possible given the reliance on computers here. Rather, the danger is of individual system parts, and concievably, entire warships or battle groups being rendered useless by the code being corrupted. We're talking here about air-sea search radar, fire control systems, and air defense, to take three examples, all entirely reliant on computers, being made inoperable, and thus leaving warships unable to attack or to defend themselves. In Iraq, this would not have made much impact, as the coalition had air superiority and the naval role was fairly limited, but in the Falklands, were that conflict to repeat itself today, the naval task force would have been sitting ducks, all because of some Argentine hackers. I quite like the idea of some postgraduate hacker taking control of the Ark Royal and making it go round in circles, but one suspects that most hacking wouldn't be such fun. I just hope the MoD buys a bloody good Firewall.

A vowel, please, Carol...

2005-06-26T20:41:00.000Z

God almighty. Richard Whiteley's dead. No articles published yet, so can't link. Very, very sad.

I predict a riot

2005-06-25T11:23:00.000Z

For Christ's sake. Just when you think that Iran might be dragging itself out of the 7th century, albeit reluctantly, they go and elect the hardline Mayor of Tehran as their new president. At this moment, when a moderate president who can actually talk to western governments and doesn't feel physically sick at the sight of a woman's ankles might not be a bad idea in order to lower the chances of being invaded might just seem a pretty good idea, no, let's go back to 1979, and turn this place back into Ayatollahland! This is the mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's manifesto, at a glance:

- Women wear the full veil. Showing any skin whatsoever is a disgusting sin.
- Further recruitment and use of the religious secret police, the Besij.
- Tackle "western decadence" generally. (I think we know what that means.)

A progressive chap, clearly, but I suppose that's democracy. The students aren't going to like this, however - they want their parties, drinks and rock music, and aren't going to have some theological fascist telling them what to do unless they really haven't got a choice. Oh well, whatever. Clearly, the flooding of Glastonbury was an omen, Allah striking a very wet blow against the aforementioned decadence. It does us some good to remember that the only Middle Eastern country with functioning, non-persecuted Christian churches and Jewish synagogues was until recently, er, Iraq. Then something happened which made it a whole lot more Iranian, can't remember what it was.

Fin

2005-06-21T14:02:00.000Z

They're over, the exams are over. Liberation is a good feeling indeed.

Your left ventrical will hate you forever

2005-06-18T16:06:00.000Z

Thanks to b3ta and Fraser Lewry, Steak Tartare, indirectly from Waitrose. I might try this, if I ever get a prime rump steak and the house to myself (unlikely).

For the European project to succeed, Britain must leave the union

2005-06-18T11:33:00.000Z

"We will not negotiate it [the rebate] away - period." The spirit of European solidarity, evidently, from the mouth of our dear leader. Blair's refusal to talk about the UK's EU rebate, 3 billion pounds which we would not notice going missing, has lead to the collapse in bitterness of the EU summit in Brussels, with Chirac describing the British government's stance as "pathetic". I agree. The abandoment of the rebate would be a three-day wonder, with the Sun, Mail and Express going ballistic for three days, then it would be all over, and no-one would care any more. Why does Blair not realise this, or does he, and does not wish to act on it? Yet again, he is reinforcing the suspicions of those of us who believe that Britain is little more than America's man in Europe. The British belief that we have the right to shape Europe - be it the Common Market, European Community or European Union - is manifesting itself again here, yet it is supremely misguided. We refused to join in the first place when the first version of the EU was formed in the post-war years, and that means that when we joined, it was on France and Germany's terms, not ours. It should not be any different now.
More important, in the minds of some of us, is the direction of the EU. Many of us, and that includes a majority of people in most member states, believe that Europe, the continent that spawned the first socialists, should be providing the social-welfare alternative to the free-market, robber capitalist economic models of the United States and the Far East. What is the point of Europe if it is just another neo-liberal trade block, confirming the (so-far unfounded) suspicions of the old Labour left that it is a rich man's club, driving down wages and protections in a bid to be more competitive? There is none, as far as I can tell. Our vain attempts to be more "competitive", as Blair would have it, are useless when faced with China and India, economies where the workforce will work for a pittance, and for no benefits or protections. Europe has not undergone 200 years of social progress, undergoing wars, revolutions, power struggles and oppression, to see our vision destroyed in under a decade by some jumped-up free marketeers - but as we try to rival the Far East in being attractive for the manufacturing sector, as I said, an impossible task - we are destroying what we've achieved. For this particular problem, the solution is a simple one - forget the idea of "free trade" and stop trying to be competitive, but instead place heavy tariffs on imports from the East and US, making them work to our agenda instead of us to theirs.
The bigger problem, however, is the countries that stand in the way of the social vision. The recent enlargement, bringing in very pro-US countries in the east, has not helped this, but still Britain leads them. Sadly, as things stand, in the interests of the union, the founder countries must ask Britain to leave. For as long as our government stands in the way of such progress, we do the union no good, and the paradox that this creates (that Europe's success is in the national interest, but the broader European interest created thus is not served by Britain's membership) is one we must resolve. Europe also needs new leaders, as all the main leaders today are in some way or other damaged goods. The British problem could also be solved in this way. Brown, the eurosceptic, may be just what is needed here. His "flexible market" ideas are ones just about acceptable to me, and I suspect European opinion generally, whereas Blair's free market ideas are not. However, Blair shows no sign of standing down yet.

Out of the frying pan, into bed

2005-06-11T16:04:00.000Z

The worst week of the exams is over, with two weeks left to go of sporadic exams (one maths and science module each, the last French writing paper and the last humanities papers). Cue the best night's sleep I've had in about 4 weeks.
So, to South America, where I gather Bolivia is in the midst of revolution, with the government falling, and demonstrators demanding the renationalisation of the country's resources and redistribution of wealth among the populus. The broadcast media haven't bothered to report this in any depth, save possibly Newsnight, but Richard Gott writes about it in today's Guardian. Anyway, good luck, comrades.
The government's new incitement to religious hatred bill is in a right mess, with it's passage through parliament being entirely uncertain. Although it is designed to win back Muslim support for Labour post-Iraq, since the only ones who are actually inciting religious hatred at the moment are Muslims, the support there might quickly drain away, and no, it can't and won't be used against the BNP. They don't give a damn about religion, and indeed never claim to - race and ethnic origin is their bugbear and the exploitation of fears relating to it their raison d'etre. For them, Muslim is a loose concept that relates, as I say, to ethnic origin - in their context it means brown-skinned people coming anywhere from North Africa to Kashmir, and that renders the law useless against them. The law is worryingly vague too - it doesn't specify whether internal factions within religions (Sunni and Shia, Protestant and Catholic etc) can incite hatred against each other, and on the assumption that the drafters of this legislation took this thought into consideration, doesn't it rather threaten to yet again derail the Northern Ireland peace process?
"We know your church to be the harlot of Babylon and the abomination of the Earth".
Punch anyone you like. Just beware the plugin download.

The madness of Sir Bob

2005-06-07T20:16:00.000Z

Lack of bloggy activity recently is largely due to a hectic exam schedule, being tired as a result, and generally a lack of being arsed at this time, when I could be honing my SIN, COS, TAN technique instead (this week in particular is the big week in the exam calendar, the one in which 15-16 year olds from Penzance to Lerwick, when not in the exam hall or revising, are sprawled over their beds trying to decide whether to opt for hanging themselves or shooting themselves.) And just to help me and the other teenage residents of the Caerhays area that little bit extra, Restormel Borough Council, the bastards, have closed the main road between the school and my home for resurfacing work until the 7th. So that's my most recent grievance with local government.
But anyway, back to current thingys, and Live 8, and more specifically Sail 8. The manifold problems with Live 8 have been talked about a lot (the lack of a specific focus, the collection of crap artists, the problems of taking 1,000,000 people at once to an old, stone-built city smaller than the London Underground's Zone 1). Sail 8, however, is a whole different kettle of fish. This is Geldof's deranged plan to take a massive flotilla of craft, from motor cruisers to rowing boats, across one of the world's busiest shipping lanes a la Dunkirk, to pick up anti-whatever protestors on the French coast and take them to the south coast for the "long walk to justice". What's wrong with that, you might say, a bit of symbolism never hurt anyone? Well, in this case, that's debatable.

1) Taking rowing boats across the Channel is bloody dangerous. People who do this are either foolhardy or well-prepared, and only ever do it solo.
2) Illegal immigration. If there's going to be a mass exodus from France to Britain, how the hell does Geldof propose getting these people through immigration on that scale? And what are the chances of a lot of illegal immigrants coming across with the flotilla? Fairly substantial, I'd say.
3) Although they claim to have done it for this, shutting off an entire shipping lane for a day is extremely difficult, well-nigh impossible, I'd say, and requires extensive use of radar, patrol aircraft and surface ships. In other words, it's a huge operation, with shipping companies standing to lose a lot of money willing to break the sea-lane boundaries, and will be very expensive.
4) For every shipping company that breaks the rules, more will stay in port and make a loss. This includes all the cross-channel ferry companies, some of whose routes will inevitably be crossing the special shipping lane and who in any case have a duty of care to their passengers, and will therefore stay in port, and sue Geldof for damages when it emerges that they've lost millions.

So, someone has to stop him. If this plan goes as Geldof intends, people gonna die. I'd never anticipated speaking in favour of control orders, but they're a great tool here. Lock Geldof and Midge Ure in their houses, and let the G8 employ their own massive political will to good effect. Then we can all go home. Ah well, English Paper 1 calls.

Are you watching, Mr Prescott?

2005-06-04T19:19:00.000Z

The Zanu-PF approach to social housing is a fascinating one that deserves serious consideration by western governments. However, it would mean, applied in Britain, that it would make living in Keighley as expensive as Belgravia. That is, assuming that you wanted to live in Keighley.

Probably the deadest constitution in the world

2005-06-03T19:02:00.000Z

Intensive GCSE revision of late has meant I'm running a bloggy deficit on several issues. Therefore, here's a compressed blog on these:
EU Constitution - Stop, what are you doing? This constitution is not ready yet! Yes, it's nee from the Dutch, voting no for more complex reasons than did France (immigration, resentment of the Euro, wages being driven down as a result of both). I'm in an unfortunate position here - this seems like a victory for UKIP, John Redwood and the rest of that lot, and I'm pro-constitution. Just not this one. So, this time, could we aim for a statement of values and principles, instead of a Thatcherite economics policy paper?
Live 8. Listen, Geldof, you prat, you are not an elected MP, head of state, or anything else. It is not your place to tell elected politicians who (sacrilige alert) might actually do something not to turn up because they don't see eye-to-eye with you. And Edinburgh cannot by any stretch of the imagination take 1 million people at once. So for once in your life, shut up.
I'm running out of Lager slogans with which to refer to the constitution. I don't think Budweiser should apply to the EU - "we believe fresh constitutions taste better."

Golden hello

2005-06-01T21:50:00.000Z

Human Rights Watch report that AngloGold Ashanti, a major gold-mining company in Africa, were giving large cash payments to a Congolese rebel group, the FNI, (renowned for killing people then cooking and eating their major organs) in exchange for access to a gold-mining town. Nice to finally see some ethics creeping into capitalism.

Non

2005-05-29T20:12:00.000Z

According to the first exit polls issued at about 21:00 PM GMT, the French have voted no by around 53% to 55%. This may, of course, be wrong, and if the result is as tight as that, where this leaves the constitution and the EU in general is unclear, regardless of whether it is oui or non.

Oui ou Non? Pourquoi?

2005-05-28T19:42:00.000Z

Tomorrow France will go to the polls, in their referendum on the EU Constitution. The polls, although within the margin of error, show a narrow "non" vote in the offing, but of course these polls have been wrong before. However, in France, traditionally the most pro-Europe country, a non vote ought to never have been in contention. So why is it? Ask Tony Blair.
Neo-Liberalism, free-market economics, or whatever you wish to call them, are the answer. I have a very clear memory of the final round of constitution negotiations before the constituent countries signed up, when Blair took his opportunity to strip the constitution's text of all the worker's rights and social protections necessary to the EU social model, in favour of his market-orientated ideas. He should have been stopped by the main defenders of the social model (Chirac, Schroeder and Zapatero) who were also present, but they stood down and Blair won the day. As a result, the idea that the EU block should provide an alternative to the free-market approaches of the Far East and the United States is, for the moment, dead. This should never have got to the stage it has, and the French No campaign should never have worked as coherently as it has. An alliance, unholy in the extreme, of right-wingers, socialists, communists and the neo-nazis of Jean-Marie Le Pen's Fronte Nationale, has emerged to oppose the treaty, and how this ever came about is a mystery to me.
Of course, this may be what Blair's aim was. Pro-Europe as he may be (something about which I am entirely unconvinced), he will not risk exercising anti-Europe feelings in Britain that would be to his detriment. This helps to explain why so many times Blair has declared the beginning of the British 'Yes' campaign, and a noticable silence has followed. I hope France will vote yes (as Timothy Garton-Ash appeals to them in Thursday's Guardian), on the basis that a no vote would be interpreted as a victory for UKIP, et al, and we can fix the constitution's manifold faults later.

Eh?

2005-05-25T22:20:00.000Z

OK, that was ever so slightly strange. Well done Liverpool - incredible result and astonishing comeback from half-time. Delighted for them, despite what I said previously. (I still hate them for knocking us out.)

Heavens above, you've...

2005-05-24T19:23:00.000Z

...got to be kidding me.
The lack of recent political blogging is mainly due to the fact that since the election, bugger all's happened that's worth blogging about. David Puttnam has headed a commission that was meant to address the chasm between Parliament and the people, however, and the findings are quite interesting although in my opinion, he ought to be much stronger on the role of the media (references to "meaningless quangos" and "useless bureaucrats" from the right-wing populist press are the main problem here). This rubs off on the public mood, as reported well by Polly Toynbee last year, and also commented on by Martin Kettle in the aftermath of the Hutton report, both in The Guardian (I completely disagree with Kettle's take on the Hutton report itself, and believe that for him to link the media culture to a defence of Hutton, but his analysis of the media is spot on).

Metaxas through the ages

2005-05-23T18:00:00.000Z

I am in no way a regular listener to Radio 1, nor do I have much interest in their output, so this blog may seem slightly strange. On the Sunday before last, when I and my family were returning in the dead of night from St Austell station to home, Radio 5 live was (briefly) on in the car. Presenting the 10PM - 1AM slot was Nemone Metaxas, who from having previously looked at radio listings I knew to be the presenter of the graveyard Radio 1 slot. I was slightly mystified as to what exactly she was doing on 5 Live, but I let the matter drop. I also assumed that Nemone Metaxas was not her real name, since it sounds pretty unusual and to my untrained ear more like a stage name. Clearly, I was wrong, but still, an unusual name, no?
In the midst of last week, however, bogged otherwise down with revision woes, in a moment's respite I referred to my edition of Chambers Dictionary of World History (that's the sort of thing I do to relax), looking for information on European Communist parties in the middle of the last century. Among these, and of foremost historical importance in their region, it is arguable, was the KKE, or Kommunistikon Komma Ellados, the Greek Communists. I read that, and I quote, "In 1936, the KKE's plans for a general strike on 5th August were foiled when the Metaxas regime arrested all leading members on the preceding day". Huh? Haven't I heard that name before? I checked, and it wasn't misreading on my part - Ioannis Metaxas was the post-war fascist dictator in Greece, who, it is believed, was assassinated in 1941 by the Gestapo.
So that's two Metaxas in under a week. Any thoughts on my part that Radio 1 are employing the descendant of a Greek fascist are most likely infounded, of course. (That's a disclaimer I thought I'd never write.)

Eurovision, The Cup and frogs

2005-05-21T18:46:00.000Z

Only a quick blog tonight, as Eurovision is coming on in about 10 minutes - my top tip is Moldova with "Grandma bangs the drum", but watch out for Transdniestria (if they're in it, that is).
Jesus, what an awful match. I can't believe I spent my whole afternoon watching it.
Most people will have, in the last few months or so, seen the cursed "Crazy Frog" ringtone advert. Rightly, many people contacted the Advertising Standards Authority - but completely unrightly, the big issue for many was not that it is the most annoying advert anyone has seen since, well, the "Clever Girl" OXO ads back in the 60s. It was that they noticed that the frog had a penis, in full view (I didn't personally notice as I pride myself on not looking for the dick on an animated frog during the ads). Anyway, the ad has been redone now, slightly less annoying as the frog makes marginally less noise than in the origanal, and now has a black box over his dick. What a bloody country.

Death to short people

2005-05-19T20:46:00.000Z

I know that ever since he attempted to ruin Bill Clinton's career Christopher Hitchens has attempted to be good friends with the right, but even the recognition of this didn't nullify the extreme offensiveness of a piece he has in today's Independent. Interviewed about George Galloway's Senate hearing (which even right-wingers conceded that he won hands down, the New York Post's headline being "Brit fries Senators in oil"), he spews blatant lies, middle-class slanders and snobbishness, accusing Galloway of being a Ba'athist and of having met Saddam on numerous occasions, a claim that Galloway had, funnily enough, disproved in the hearing. As he has the decency to mention in the interview, before the hearing Galloway called him a "gin-soaked ex-Trotskyist popinjay", which might just possibly have had something to do with what Hitchens had to say, dare I suggest?Saying that Galloway is a member of a "Leninist sect", the Socialist Workers Party, is also a lie - although he has undoubtedly attended events that were connected to the SWP, as, indeed, have I. It is interesting that in one of the article's last attacks, Hitchens attacks Galloway for being short and fat. The last time I saw Hitchens on TV, he himself was, well, short and fat, if anything more so than Galloway. Someone ought to suggest to him that he buys a mirror, usually considered a household essential.
I didn't really expect anything better from Hitchens, of course - he's become far to Americanised in his time there and has developed all the Bushian character faults. However, the fact that The Independent published this does not speak highly of them, and The Guardian's coverage was pretty sneery too, albeit in a more read-between-the-lines way. It all points to one thing - Galloway has become the Tony Benn of our times, in a period where Blairism threatened the destruction of that breed anyway, it seems that the media find it quite reassuring to have a lefty to insult, ridicule and sneer at with every possible opportunity.

Our best friends

2005-05-17T16:35:00.000Z

It's clear evidence of a double-standard in operation when, as another central Asian republic descended into anarchy, that the protestors are not labelled as pro-democracy demonstrators but as "possible Islamic extremists". But then again, this is Uzbekistan we're talking about, our best friends in the region. On Friday morning, a demonstration broke out in Andijan, in the east near the capital Tashkent. 23 dissidents, facing charges of Islamic extremism (a favourite excuse of the regime for crushing dissent) went on trial, and something snapped in the public consiousness that meant the holding jail being stormed, the 23 freed, and demonstrations breaking out. President Islam Karimov, however, does not fanny around when there's something to be done, and unlike his neighbours in Krgyzstan, there were no warnings to disperse, and no tear gas. Instead, a column of armoured personnel carriers drove into the city centre, and promptly machine-gunned everything that moved. The death toll, owing to tight media restrictions in the country, ranges from 500 to 700 dead - in any case, worse than Tiananmen Square. I should imagine that this was the initial crushing of the rebellion, and that the "mopping up" process beloved of fascist regimes, where anyone who is possibly an enemy of the state - political opponents, trade unionists, human rights campaigners etc - is simply rounded up and killed, has only just begun.
So were they Islamists? The accounts I heard as I followed the story on BBC World (I was in Bruges from Thursday to Sunday, and the Novotel I was in did not have CNN) sounded like exactly the opposite. This was, apparently, a collective effort of people demonstrating for democracy, religious freedom, against economic repression etc. The eyewitnesses in the square where the killing took place said that they were often business owners, angry at Karimov's economic policies. Certainly, Craig Murray says not - and he should know, having been the UK's ambassador to Uzbekistan until recently. In any case, we are not talking here about mere repression - this was mass slaughter. So why do we not condemn Karimov for this horror? Simple. He's an ally in the "war on terror", and gives the Americans an air base. That makes anything he does legitimate. It's like we've gone back to to South America of the 70s and 80s.

Into old Europe

2005-05-11T20:15:00.000Z

I'll be away from the computer for a few days (I will have returned by Monday), as I'm off to the old Belgian city of Bruges, or if you prefer Flemish, Brugge. If my memory serves this will be my first trip to old Europe since the term was coined, and I'm looking forward to it greatly. I won't, however, be visiting the resort of Bruges-on-Sea, unfortunatly.

Lord Lord

2005-05-10T20:23:00.000Z

Andrew Adonis, the newly enobled special adviser turned education minister, has an interesting name. Since he's never stood for election, Blair this week made him a peer, thereby avoiding all that democratic, elected by the people for the people nonsense that you have to put up with nowadays. However, it should be known to those who've read Milton that Adonis means Lord, so what we essentially have here is the new schools minister Lord Lord, a modern-day answer to Major Major Major Major of Catch-22 fame.
Joke about it though we may (and do), Adonis' appointment is not a laughing matter. As one of the unelected, unaccountable "special advisers" so beloved of Blairism, he has never been elected, and thanks to his peerage never will be. Doubts exist, believe it or not, as to whether or not he's actually ever been a member of the Labour Party - he was an SDP activist years ago, and that's about the extent of what we know. In the meantime, as the sworn enemy of comphrensive education, Blair has given him carte blanche to develop his own policies, and accordingly, all of the New Labour education policies, notably faith schools and the "City Academy" scheme (brand-new schools funded in part by private sponsors, in return for which the sponsor gets to set part of that school's curriculum). Blair and his mates cannot dismiss the critics of this wrecker as the usual left-wing suspects, since they include many Labour right-wingers, notably Roy Hattersley, who, in his day, was thought of as somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan. These people recognise, however, that comphrensive education is the key value of all Labour values, and without that, state healthcare, the workers owing the means of production et al are worthless, without foundation. It is this idea (among others) that Blair intends to destroy, and will not leave of his own will until he has embedded for all eternity the seeds of New Labour. To this end, the party must kill the problem at its root, and perform a coup d'etat as soon as possible. The Parliamentary Labour Party must once again find it's backbone - or face a split worse than the SDP breakaway.

Nuclear arms and the man

2005-05-09T20:22:00.001Z

It is expected that within this Parliament, Blair will have to decide whether to order a replacement ICBM system for Trident and commission a replacement for the Vanguard class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) that act as their launch platform. This is a more important issue, I believe, than it's place on the news agenda would have you believe. The nuclear club has expanded significantly of late, in more ways than one. China's acquisition of nuclear weapons has increased in recent years, although their launch capacity may well leave much to be desired. India and Pakistan are both now nuclear armed and have come closer to conflict than the US and the USSR ever did more than once in recent years, Iran today announced that it will resume uranium enrichment, and the IAEA reported yesterday that it believes North Korea has now 6 nuclear warheads, although like China, it's capability to deploy them is most likely to be substandard. Lastly, Israel remains the only nuclear country to have not declared that it has them, remains the country that may well be the first to use them, and remains the country about whose launch capability the least is known.
This was, at least, the case until recently. We are left with the 4 nuclear countries not mentioned in the above list, the US, Russia, Britain and France. It is apparent that some day, this detterent will fail to deter, and the consequences will be too horrible to contemplate. It is up to Britain and France to lead on this issue, I think, and of those two France is the most likely to. France enjoys the greatest degree of autonomy on this issue, as it makes it's own missiles (we order Trident from the US, and Vanguard is essentially a scaled-down version of the US Ohio class SSBN), and is therefore most likely to disarm, in my opinion. It is clear that somebody has to start the process somewhere. Certainly, the US and Russia will not. Their activities of late have been alarming - Russia has three SSBN putting to sea in the next few years, two new Borey class boats and one refurbished Typhoon. This significantly increases their ability to blow up the world, and given the Russian Navy's lamentable safety record of late it is one I would much rather they did not have. As for the Americans, their developments of late have been truly terrifying. The "mini-nukes" they are currently developing (nuclear warheads with a -5 kiloton yield) have only one purpose - to be used premptively. The idea of them is the ability to take out a tank brigade, say, in a single strike, and this idea, accompanied by the neocon contempt for human life demonstrated in Iraq, rips up the unwritten rule that these weapons are always the weapon of last resort and will never be used premptively. In a time when the British armed forces are a wholly-owned subsiduary of the US government, the British defense secretary talks about using nukes in the as if he was considering walking the dog, and we have the most dangerous US administration in living memory in office, it is arguable that the need for disarmament has never been greater.

L'etat - c'est moi

2005-05-08T20:13:00.000Z

As a small but vocal group of Labour backbenchers call on Blair to go "sooner rather than later", it becomes painfully clear that Blair believes that it was he, himself that won the election and he owes nothing to Brown. Blair has been something of a national embarassment for about 2 years now, and this only enhances the effect, since it is clear to every other sentient being in these islands that he is an electoral liability. However, if one reads Andrew Rawnsley's article in The Observer today, it is apparent that he believes that he has done his penitance for Iraq. The fact that he believes that going to war on a pack of lies, resulting in the deaths of 100,000 innocent people is a debt that can be paid off over time says a sad amount about the man.
In response to the Labour backbenchers, some of the cabinet have been wheeled out to deal with them, and rebut their arguments. David Blunkett introduced his own particular brand of diplomacy into the equation by warning against "self-indulgence" (yes, that's the same Blunkett that indulged as home secretary his own particular vice of locking people up without trial, had an affair with a married woman and keeps to this day a 3m grace and favour house in central London that he is in no way intitled to). However, any idea that Brown might have held from the middle of the campaign that Blair knows that he is in his debt, and that some unspoken deal about the leadership might have been struck, has clearly been dashed. The Blairites made it perfectly clear that Blair will be dragged from No.10 kicking and screaming - but I suppose, knowing about the man's character and record, that was inevitable.

Hacks

2005-05-07T19:46:00.000Z

Right, my sleep levels were topped up last night, and my brain is finally back to fully-operational status. There's been some talk this election about the only two journalists to have emerged from the campaign with their reputations enhanced being John Humphreys and Jeremy Paxman. I agree with Humphreys, whose talent for incisive, dogged but intelligent interviewing has been a benefit to his audience in this election, cleverly making both Blair and Straw look pathetic at various points by exposing their deceit over Iraq. His presence will be missed when he retires. However, Paxman in my opinion has shown himself to be little more than an ignorant boor, who cannot be bothered to prepare properly for interviews (in sharp contrast to Humphreys), does not listen to the answers he gets, and generally treats the interviewee with contempt. Paxman has a history of this, and his election-night interview with George Galloway was just the tip of the iceberg. I do not care what Paxman's personal feelings towards Galloway and people like him are - I suspect that there is a certain degree of middle-class, right-wing contempt there - but that is not the issue. Galloway was elected to Parliament, overturning a 10,000 majority (no mean feat) and is therefore deserving of respect (no pun intented). No-one elected Paxman to his position. There are certain standards that we should expect from our journalists - I'm not saying deferance, but a recognition that elected members of Parliament are worthy of some respect and thereby a lessening of the culture of contempt towards politicians that is in large part fuelled by the media. Paxman needs reminding of this quickly, but to be fair there have been a few people who have condemned the Galloway interview this time. I just hope more do next time.
David Trimble resigns the Ulster Unionist leadership after losing his seat. This has been coming for 2 years now after Sinn Fein/IRA tried to screw the Unionists at one of the rounds of peace talks. The episode underlines my feelings on Northern Ireland, that although they are both as stupid as each other, Paisley is a democrat while the Sinn Fein/IRA are murderers who have distinctly fascist leanings (and bear in mind that both my parents were raised Ulster Catholics). Well, good luck dealing with the wild man of Ballymena, you Fenian scum.

Cabinet

2005-05-06T20:34:00.000Z

The new cabinet has been announced. It's fairly much the same as last time. The main changes are: Peter Hain becomes Northern Ireland secretary, Geoff Hoon becomes Leader of the House, John Reid gets Defense, Patricia Hewitt gets Health, Alan Johnson becomes energy secretary and Blunkett returns in Work and Pensions.
Northern Ireland has been declaring. Adams and Paisley are both in again with increased majorities, the SDLP have surprisingly taken South Belfast and expect their new leader Mark Durkan to hang on in Foyle, but David Trimble has lost Upper Bann, topping a miserable campaign for the Ulster Unionists.

The day after...

2005-05-06T13:20:00.000Z

...and the situation is as follows. Labour back in with their majority cut back to around 66 (some seats, I think, have still to declare), the Conservatives making about 30 gains, and the Lib Dems making about 11. Although the Lib Dems did the best in the overall national swing, this failed to translate into seats. That is to say that they unseated quite a few Labour MPs but lost a few of their own to the Tories. UKIP took no seats, I think, Kilroy lost impressively in Erewash, and Ann Cryer in Keighley beat Nick Griffin of the BNP into 4th place. George Galloway won in Bethnal Green and then had a rather funny interview with Paxman, which served as a good mechanism to prove that he [Paxman] is little more than an ignorant, grumpy old boor.
Howard says he will resign the Tory leadership "sooner rather than later" to make way for a younger leader. The names mentioned thus far are David Cameron (who, if selected, might be a Tory version of Blair), George Osborne and Boris Johnson, but I think the last is probably a joke. Boris' dad Stanley failed to win Teignbridge (a Lib Dem hold). I heard Jeremy Corbyn on The World at One saying that Blair would now find it extremely difficult to get some of the more controversial legislation through, particularly ID cards. Contrary to the rumours that were flying about, Bob Marshall-Andrews held on in Medway.
Blair will announce his new cabinet later today. The fact that the Tories did so poorly should not disguise what a terrible night this was for Labour. They lost around 100 seats, a bad night in anyone's book. There seems to be a consensus that Blair was the reason for this, with Iraq being the biggest policy issue. It also seems likely that he will also go sooner rather than later.

1:25 AM

2005-05-06T00:22:00.000Z

A trend has emerged across the county, almost uniformally - a 5/6% swing away from Labour and a 6/11% swing to the Lib Dems. They are very confident and are now almost certain of taking Birmingham Yardley and Bristol West, and look set to do very well. Jack Straw has, disappointingly, held Blackburn with about an 8000 majority. Even more unfortunatly, Bob Marshall-Andrews has conceded in Medway, a failure which he has blamed on Blair. The Tories have taken Putney and so far that is it for them, but we haven't really got to the marginals yet, but they seem quite confident in Battersea and the aforementioned Medway seat. Somehow, Labour has contrived to lose Nye Bevan's old seat in South Wales, but that may have more to do with a local issue than anything (it was an independant that won there). We don't yet know what's happening in Bethnal Green - the last I heard Galloway was slightly ahead but it's very, very tight. Helen Clark, I'm just hearing, has been beaten in Peterborough. There seems to be an anti-war consensus in London as a whole, and that may cost them. Certainly, Tessa Jowell, who has a London seat, was looking very concerned when Paxman interviewed her. Gordon Brown, when returned in Kirkcaldy, said in a not-too-coded way that they would "listen and learn".
Apparently, the latest news is that the Tories have beaten the Lib Dems in Newbury - so the balance may be being redressed. Hung parliament, anyone? I'm off to bed now.

12:15 AM

2005-05-05T23:14:00.000Z

1 of 2 things is happening: The Tories are not picking up as much as they should, or the Lib Dems are doing much better than the exit poll said. Both are possible but either way people have been lying in the opinion polls. The Lib Dems appear to have unseated the repulsive Barbara Roche, Galloway now leads in Bethnal Green, and in Erewash, Robert Kilroy-Silk is tanking. Yay!

11:30 PM

2005-05-05T22:31:00.000Z

Labour's vote is collapsing. They've held Sunderland North, but again, a 5% swing to the Tories has occurred - 1 point short of what the Tories need nationwide to kill Blair's majority. The Lib Dems appear confident of taking Birmingham Yardley, Birmingham Edgbaston and Cardiff Central, and there are other seats that the Lib Dems and Tories between them are aiming to take. Many South Wales seats are included in this, and many of the Strathclyde/Inverclyde/Lowland seats in Scotland appear to be going the same way. Stephen Twigg is in trouble in Enfield Southgate, apparently. Bethnal Green and Bow "King vs Galloway" is set to declare around 2 o'clock. The vote in Torbay has gone through the roof - I suspect that UKIP have done well in the fishing communities there. This is terrible for Labour, and it is because of Blair and the "Iraq factor". So much for parking the issue - Blair needs to go soon, if, of course, it is Labour that form the next government.

10:53 PM

2005-05-05T21:50:00.000Z

Sunderland South has declared. Chris Mullin holds it with about an 11,000 majority. He's about 2000 votes short of what he should be, and is therefore doing worse than the exit poll says. The Tories appear to have a chance of taking Dartford, which is very worrying, and it looks likely also that the 10 Birmingham seats could be purged of Labour MPs, by the Tories and Lib Dems respectively. Margaret Beckett says she is worried that the race card is working better than they had counted on - evidently, the Tories generally are doing better than had been counted on. This could be a terrible night for Labour yet - they should be very worried.

10:12 PM

2005-05-05T21:08:00.000Z

We're off. The NOP/MORI exit poll shows Labour in with a majority of just 66, having lost about 100 seats. The Tories gain about 44, the Lib Dems gain just two. The maths here seem slightly suspect, but we shall see. The swing shows Labour 5% down from 2001, the Tories unchanged and the Lib Dems up 5%. Peter Snow's having a lot of virtual fun. The first ballot boxes are arriving in Sunderland South, being run in by a crack team of sixth-formers.

Zero hour approaches

2005-05-04T22:40:00.000Z

In around 7 hours 30 minutes, the polls across the country will open, and the British General Election 2005 will be under way. The democratic process, dear readers, WILL be blogged, (there's my piece of bombastic electoral posing) whether by me, my brother at Flashboy, Chris Applegate at qwghlm (who appears to have form in the live-update blog arena - this will be a first for me) or indeed anyone else. I had, and do, intend to do a live update blog, but it will be limited owing to my being in my last year at secondary school and thus needing a reasonable amount of sleep. I will strive to deliver, (until 2:30 at least at which time I stop caring) the latest news on the exit polls, what David Dimbleby, Fiona Bruce, Peter Snow et al are saying, and the latest as all the seats declare, at least 10 minutes after most other blogs do. I expect to start blogging about 11:00pm.
As the polls still aren't showing much shift (tiny, 1 point Tory gains but nothing ground breaking) no-one's getting very worked up except for Andrew Marr who appears fascinated by the marginals directly north of London. One thought, however, is worth considering. If by about 2:00 on Friday morning it appears that Blair's back in with one more thumping majority, Howard's probably out of a job as his playing the race card will have backfired hugely. Who will be there to pick up the pieces? If the Lib Dems' "decapitation" strategy works, they may be even shorter on propective leaders, especially as Oliver Letwin and David Davis, a fair way up the line of succession, are under serious threat in their own marginals. Most people on the Tory front bench are merely carbon copies of Howard. Malcolm Rifkind was last year parachuted into the safest Tory seat in the country, Kensington and Chelsea (it's not really that Chelsea. West Brompton and proud of it!), but I suspect that he may be too centrist for the very old party members who spurned Clarke and Portillo in favour of Iain Duncan Smith. Clarke's name keeps being mentioned to me, but this is fantasy. He hates the rest of the party, and they hate him. Portillo is out of the picture, and so my money goes on Teresa May. A second Thatcher? I don't know. Certainly, she was the one who pointed out that they were and are "the nasty party" and someone has to push the necessary reform agenda through, that cuts the party in the country loose and transforms the Tories into a purely socio-economic party, accepting that the country has moved on from "blacks and the bomb". She might be the one.

"Believe and work hard"

2005-05-04T16:16:00.000Z

Michael Howard, interviewed on PM, quotes Rafa Benitez, and says "All the pundits said Chelsea would beat Liverpool, but we beat them." Right, you asked for it, you Tory so-and-so. 1) It wasn't a goal, Gallas hooked it off the line. There was no way the referee or the linesman could have been sure, and it should not have been given. 2) It's wasn't a football match, as a match requires 2 teams. We had Chelsea, playing good football worthy of a place in the final, playing against 10 Liverpool defenders and a goalkeeper. 3) Further to that point, you were pathetic. You are a disgrace to English football and the Champions League, and Milan will walk all over you. You will not win it and will not be in it next season. You are a UEFA Cup side, and no more. 4) Shevchenko's coming to the Bridge in the summer, so nah-nah-nah-nah-nah.

Bugger

2005-05-03T20:51:00.000Z

Yes, bugger. Bugger, bugger, bugger. This was one of the most disappointing European nights I can remember - the worst team won, in a manner of speaking. It will seem unsporting of me not to wish Liverpool well for the final, but I simply can't. It's all very well talking about humility and spirit triumphing over multi-roubles, but I cannot support a team that, over 180 minutes, made no attempt to play football, launched no attacks, etc etc. It is debatable whether or not Liverpool actually won (replays may show that the ball never crossed the line for Garcia's "goal"), but even so, what Mourinho said on the TV (the best team lost) will be sneered at but is true. It is concievable that this final will be of even poorer quality than last year, as Milan were not that impressive against PSV. I wouldn't put money on it, but I am in the irritating position of not being able to support the home team in the final. I suppose, were Liverpool to win, seeing the trophy back in Liverpool would have a lot of nostalgic value, but it would not be deserved. The Champions League is about football, not fighting spirit.
So attention turns to next season. Johnson, Kezman, and possibly Drogba will all be on their way, and (we think) Inter Milan's Adriano will come in. Robben won't go, but he deserves to - his recent attitude has been a disgrace. He didn't want to play in the semi-finals of the Champions League. He isn't in Holland any more, and it is not acceptable to adopt the mentality that since you are self-evidently the best you needn't worry about the prize. He will have to change.

Are you sniffing what we're sniffing?

2005-05-02T22:34:00.000Z

"It's not colourful to impose petunias on illegal elephants." Yes, that is a small sample of the work that I've produced thanks to kryogenix.org, whose "Your own Conservative Poster" piece of programming has, for those with internet access at least, livened up an otherwise pathetic election campaign. Indeed, I think it a fair assessment that this election, without it's large number of bloggers and satirical programmers, would be very, very dead. All hail the blogosphere, and may it continue for a long time to come.
A prevelant and uber-sneaky phrase that has popped up in the campaign is "real people" as in "Leave it (your intelligent questioning) out, I'm off to speak to some real people." Now, I'm getting unpleasantly used to election-related apoplexy but still, Jesus, that phrase makes me mad. It implies that anyone who can be bothered to actually inform themselves of the issues in this election is obviously not worth the time of day, since they're obviously members of the despised "chattering classes" who corrupt the political debate in this country by bamboozling "ordinary folk" with their big words. Never mind the fact that it is the chattering classes that have kept the electoral debate above (only slightly) the derisory levels that it reached in the US last year, and incidentally, while we're on the subject of Operation Death to Kentish Town, prepare yourself for the return of the Blunkett.
Anyway, I heard Labour's education policy today (sorry, Blairite education policy). Assembed by, among other distinguished figures, Chris Woodhead, it includes more faith schools and a speeding up of the euphemistic "City Academy" scheme, in other words, the stealthy privatisation of state education. David Blunkett weighed into the debate, answering Shirley Williams' criticisms of the policy by saying that she was a useless education secretary in her time, who couldn't take a descision to save her life, but he's nothing against her personally. Heaven help us.

The mark of Crosby

2005-05-01T12:33:00.000Z

"How would you feel if a bloke on early release attacked your daughter?". What a nice campaign! Yes, it's one of Lynton's "dog whistle" issues again, which have been so appealing, inclusive and generally successful that Labour appears to be headed for being returned with a 100-150 majority. The polls still show a clear Labour lead, holding steady at 7 or 8 points, which , looking at electoral history, would generally indicate a majority in the aforementioned region.
However, it is astonishing that the polls look this way after all the recent Iraq-related leaks. Whether they still will look the way they do after today's leaks have been registered on the public conciousness remains to be seen. Iraq, having been absent from the agenda for a day or two, today returned to the agenda thanks to two items in the Sunday papers. Firstly, The Observer runs a story including an interview with Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of Defense Staff at the time of the war. He says two key things, to summarise, that 1) he has, in his opinion, absolutely no legal cover from prosecution at the Hague or elsewhere, and 2) that if he or any other UK soldier is prosecuted, he will ensure that Blair and Goldsmith are brought down too. This may be fairly typical top-brass guff, but even so, for such a high-ranking figure to come out with such furious comments is surely very significant. This, however, pales into insignificance when compared to the Sunday Times' lead story. They have obtained leaked documents from No.10, secret minutes that a Downing Street staffer appears to have anotated, with the message that they are extremely sensitive and should not be copied. They reveal, and appear to be authentic, that Blair had commited the UK to regime change in Iraq at least 8 months before the troops went in, and was looking for reasons to invade. Some particularly embarrassing comments come from Jack Straw, who is minuted as saying that as Saddam's WMD capacity is less than that of Iran, North Korea or Libya, the WMD case is very thin. Essentially, these documents make it clear that Blair was making the intelligence and case fit the situation he found himself in, directly after the 2002 Camp David "Council of War". Military plans for invasion, they reveal, had already been drawn up by then - I do not see how Blair can continue to deny these things. At any other time, this would be the straw that broke the camel's back pretty quickly, but 4 days from an election Blair will obviously not resign. If Labour gets back in, of course, this is clearly not going away.
Only one question remains - why are these leaks all coming out now? I can understand how Goldsmith might have leaked the truncated legal advice with the intention of spinning it, but leaking this, by it's very nature unspinnable, would just be suicidal. It therefore seems likely that there is a Conservative mole in Downing Street. I recently speculated on the possibility of Crosby having set up an "October Surprise" - 4 days from polling day, is this it?

2CV transformer

2005-04-29T22:59:00.000Z

Outstanding remake of the Citroen transformer advert, only with a 2CV. Snigger snigger snigger...(Download about 7 minutes)

Happy helicopter day

2005-04-29T19:07:00.000Z

Today is the 30th helicopter day, a pan-European celebration over the evening of the 29th and 30th of April each year. No-one knows why this is celebrated, and no-one understands the strange ritual of Europeans climbing furiously into helicopters on top of tall buildings, and taking off in a great hurry. Still greater is the mystery of why France celebrates more keenly than other countries. Still, have a good one!
Election highlight of the day: UKIP's first Party Election Broadcast. If you missed it, download, open and watch.
There's been a lot of talk about proportional representation recently, the most recent contributor to the debate being Polly Toynbee in today's Guardian. The many different methods of proportional representation make it difficult to comprehend, but since the most obvious method involves the general abolishing of constituencies, I am not in favour. I also think that as most MPs campaign largely on 'local issues' and Parliament is formed on a local basis, 'by the people, for the people' we ought to retain the current system. The main concern that Polly raises is that currently, we (Guardian readers) have no-one really to vote for, but how does PR change that situation? It doesn't. New Labour would still exist under the system that she proposes. Indeed, a beginning to the solution to the pressing issue of the moment, taking back the Labour Party, is available under the current system, and proposed by Rory Bremner in today's Daily Mail. (The Mail's ridiculous website means I can't link to the article.) 'Decapitation' as he puts it, is the means to an end - the defeat of Blair in Sedgefield and Straw in Blackburn, respectively by Reg Keys and Craig Murray. I agree. Kick these two warmongers out, and start the fight to take our party back.

Out at last

2005-04-28T19:25:00.000Z

Downing Street today published the full 13-page legal advice to Blair from March 7th. The document is here. The leaks yesterday have allowed them to publish the document in full and spin it once it is out, thereby taking the pressure off without breaking the principle of not disclosing it while it is still secret. The language is extremely legalistic, thus allowing them to blow smoke in people's eyes, what Jonathan Freedland in today's Guardian calls the "anorak factor". Therefore, the only purpose the episode may have served is to demonstrate what slippery buggers lawyers can be, but maybe not. Although the most recent polls are holding steady for Labour, they've been taken before this mostly blew up. Any impact has yet to be recorded, therefore, but as I now hope for a Labour defeat (not a Conservative victory) I am waiting in anticipation. The consequences of another 150-ish majority for Blair are too horrible to contemplate - I listed them yesterday.
Incidentally, I would like to apologise for my intemperate language yesterday. I know that it makes for unattractive writing, but it was a fair summation of how I felt then, and still feel.

That legal advice again

2005-04-27T22:24:00.000Z

After sporadic pressure over a number of weeks, someone has leaked Lord Goldsmith's penultimate legal advice on the war in Iraq to BBC News and Channel 4 News. To put this in perspective, on the 7th March 2003, Goldsmith produced this leaked advice. Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the then chief of the defence staff, refused to commit troops to action on this basis, despite the fact that a quarter of the British Army and most of the fleet was in the Gulf already. 10 days later on the 17th of March, Goldsmith's revised legal advice was produced, shown to cabinet and the defence staff, and quoted to Parliament. On the 19th of March, the first waves of B-52s took off from RAF Fairford in mid-afternoon, and the war had begun. The thing is that the 7th March advice contained huge numbers of caveats, which was what prompted Boyce to reject it as insufficient. It was never shown to cabinet. It is fair to assume that had Parliament seen it, they might have opposed military action. But by March 17th, the caveats had all gone. Accordingly, Blair told Parliament that it was legal, and they voted for the war. Among the key caveats, and there are many of them, are that it was desirable to produce hard evidence of non-compliance, that the war might well be challengable in court at a later date, and that if world opinion remained against the war, it would be hard to dismiss the French veto as "unreasonable" and use that as justification for war.
The weird thing is that that legal advice was 13 pages long, yet the version received was truncated to 3 pages. You would have thought that someone following their concience would have leaked the whole thing, but this had been boiled down to 3 pages. Why, and to what end was it leaked? Who did it? One possible answer here is that Goldsmith himself leaked it to take the pressure off, as the pressure has been mounting over several weeks. People cannot keep on demanding publication when it's been leaked, but leaked in such a way that the government can defend itself. I saw Jack Straw interviewed on Newsnight and his defense had clearly been meticulously worked out, refering to policy papers, security council statements etc that no-one has ever heard of.
Even so, they are still faced with the problem that even if they can defend it in such a way that would stand up at the Old Bailey, that may not stand up at the ballot box. The conclusion that would be drawn by most non-learned viewers is a simple one: The war was illegal and they knew it. However, they just don't care. They treat parliament with contempt, the public with contempt, the Labour Party and the international community with contempt. Therefore, screw the consequences, I hope they get kicked out on polling day. I simply have forgotten, or no longer care, why Howard's Tories should be kept out. They are all scumbags. Lying, complicit, criminal, morally bankrupt scumbags. I hate them. At least with Howard, he won't have a huge majority and might force reform in the Labour Party. I hope, unlikely though it may be, that the British people will rise in their rightous might come May 5th and destroy New Labour. Blair, Brown, Straw, Clarke, Blunkett, Beckett, Jowell, Kelly, the whole fucking lot of them.
What do we have to anticipate from 4/5 more years of Blair? Let's see. Blunkett back in the cabinet. People being locked up without trial and deported to the US without evidence. Bombing Iran. 4 more years of George and Tony. More anti-terror laws. More 'special relationship' sycophancy. An unremittingly New Labour term of office. More PFI projects. What do we have to lose, save the economy which the Tories will inherit in very good shape, and would have their work cut out to screw up? Nothing. So fuck them all. Leave the offices of state which you have so disgracefully blemished. Do not come back, ever. The people of Britain will have their say, and you will reap what you have sowed. You will pay, all of you, for the 100,000 Iraqis, the 1,500 Americans, the 86 British and the others. You will pay for the systematic destruction of Fallujah, which, as was said in today's Guardian, is truly a Guernica for the 21st century. Maybe Blair will end up like Pinochet. We can but hope, but for the moment, just go.

Bad links and the Champions League

2005-04-26T22:07:00.000Z

Firstly, an apology. The link on my last post to the Iraq Survey Group's final report instead linked to the text of UN resolution 1441. The correct link is here.
Having tonight watched the first leg of the AC Milan - PSV Eindhoven semi-final in the Champions League tonight, I'm filling up with good vibes about this year. Milan won the match 2-0, scoring at the end of the 1st half (Shevchenko) and just before the 90 minute mark (Tomasson). In short, PSV conceded at the worst possible times they possibly could have, despite playing the better football and being generally the better side on the night. As you would expect from a Guus Hiddink side, they came out with a clearly defined plan (keep it tight and stifle Milan's attacking football) and they largely kept to it. This is not to overstate Milan's attacking prowess, which, had Shevchenko not been on the field, would have been non-existent. It is either a mark of PSV's discipline or Milan's lack of ideas that Milan were mostly restricted to playing route 1 football, with their Brazilian wunderkind Kaka doing nothing all night long. They won the match by virtue of PSV losing their heads and possesion at crucial moments, but I think that had PSV not squandered so many chances (they had 15 shots on goal in the second half alone, easily more than Milan, and hit them without exception at the Milan goalkeeper) the result might have been very different. I do not think that PSV can salvage the tie, but I think that the likelihood of the Champions League trophy coming back to England this year is very, very good. Milan were unimpressive, and I think that Italian football is flattering them (they are tying at the top of Serie A with the worst Juventus side that anyone can remember). Certainly, with a back four with a combined age of 141 years (Cafu, Stam, Nesta, Maldini) they are getting old, and although they are great players, both Maldini and Cafu are past their best. Assuming that Chelsea deal with Liverpool (which is far from certain), I cannot see those two dealing all night with Arjen Robben and Damian Duff, especially when they double up on the same wing. The number of chances that PSV had tonight, and squandered, would almost certainly have won Chelsea the match if it had been Robben, Duff, Drogba and Lampard latching onto those chances. Even if it is Liverpool that get through, I think that they would still win. Milan's route 1 football was exactly the kind of football that Juventus tried and failed to break Liverpool down with in Turin a week or two ago. In short, it's coming home, I think...but to London or Liverpool? I wouldn't like to say.

Article 2 of the United Nations charter? Don't make me laugh!

2005-04-25T22:19:00.000Z

While it is unlikely to make anyone change their minds at this late stage, the Iraq legal advice furore has exploded back onto the political scene again, as the Liberal Democrats always intended to make happen in the latter stages of the campaign. Most of us had suspected this was coming, and it was only a question of when. In any case, the first I heard of it was on Today this morning, with Jack Straw being decisively ripped to shreds by John Humphreys. Straw had one fallback position, namely that UN resolution 1441 made the war legal. This might be true if there had been any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but as there were none, it kind of cancels itself out. There is stuff, I think, in 1441's text that refers to consequences for Saddam if he fails to comply, and it could be argued that this extended to military action, but since Saddam could not disarm, this was a surefire route to war. The thing is that 1441 makes the mistake of assuming that Saddam has WMD, an understandable position given that most major intelligence services and most people, myself included, thought that he probably did have some artillery shells filled with Sarin or something of that nature, but nothing scary and certainly nothing to justify an invasion. Now here the legal argument would run, and I think would stand a good chance of being upheld in court, that as soon as the Iraq Survey Group reported that there were no WMD 1441 became void as a resolution, and never had any legal authority in the first place as there never were any WMD.
WMD do not, of course, enter the discourse anymore if Labour can help it. Blair is completely open that his object was regime change, despite the fact that this is completely illegal under Article 2 of the United Nations charter. But who cares? International law is for corrupt wimps like France and Russia, who holier-than-thou Labour MP Ann Clwyd (today's apparatchik of choice) had no compunction about blaming for the situation that Blair now finds himself in.

Tory tracker poll trauma

2005-04-24T20:04:00.000Z

Well, alliteration was never really my strong point. Yes, with around 10 days to go till polling day, both the BBC and ITV tracker polls have the Tories trailing significantly. Since around the halfway mark, Labour has opened up a 10/8 point lead and has not surrendered it, despite the Tories best efforts. If we discount the possibility of lying voters, the Tories have three options. 1) Panic, and go as far to the right as they can without actually proposing deploying troops in Brick Lane. 2) Start hitting Blair on Iraq, specifically on the as-yet unpublished legal advice, which it now appears advised Blair that war might be illegal. 3) Abandon the national campaign, and embark on a damage limitation exercise, sending the big hitters back to their constituencies to ensure that the Liberal Democrats don't unseat them.
Of these, I suspect that 1) is the most likely. I don't think that Lynton Crosby has actually learnt as yet that the kind of racist tactics he used down under don't really work here, and I don't think that Howard is wise enough to refute what Crosby tells him. 2) is risky, as the Conservative Party was more pro-war than Labour was, and could well be turned back on him by Blair. However, realistically it may be their best way at this point of starting to pull the numbers back, reminding the reluctant Labour voters why they are reluctant, and stealing the Lib Dem's clothes. 3) might actually be the wisest. Some of their biggest names, notably Oliver Letwin in Dorset West, are at serious risk of being "decapitated" by the Lib Dems. However, it would be seen as surrender, and Howard would unquestionably lose his job.
It is worth remembering that much of what Crosby knows about campaigning was taught him by the Republican Party in the US, and to this end he may well have a kind of 'october surprise' up his sleeve. What this might be is questionable, but the most likely scenario is a ministerial scandal or a revelation that Blair and Bush have a deal on Iran. This being said, it could be anything, and he might not have anything at all.
It is all the more extraordinary that the Tories are as far behind as they are, because Blair has been extremely unimpressive on the campaign trail. He has looked tired, fed up, unprepared, and has clearly had other things on his mind. I think he is actually questioning whether he wants this anymore, and there seem to me to be three things that might be making him think this. 1) He's undergoing a midlife crisis. This would explain the botox injections and spray-on tan that he appears to have utilised of late, but this could equally well be the result of Cherie and Carole Caplin badgering him. 2) He has been psychologically affected by the war in Iraq. War is not something that Blair is new to, having sent troops into action 5 times in 6 years, but Bosnia and Sierra Leone et al were relatively bloodless and short-term affairs, and no-one doubts that Iraq has been the most bloody and exposed conflict of the lot. It was also Blair's first actual full-scale war. I think that at the end of the day, despite what it is tempting sometimes to think, Blair is not an evil man, and has more firmly embedded moral certainties than, I suspect, Bush does. I think it is very concievable that having seen some of the things from Baghdad and elsewhere that we have all seen, but having felt that he was at least partially responsible, he has been feeling very uneasy and may feel that he has blood on his hands. That would play on his mind greatly. 3) The third reason is most likely known to people reading this blog, but it would be wrong of me or anyone else to publish it on the net, as I suspect and hope most others who know it feel. Suffice to say that it must have made Blair question a lot where his priorities lay.

Wealth, slippers and gravel driveways

2005-04-23T12:05:00.000Z

It took up about 4 hours of my Friday afternoon, but armed with a set of the orginal lyrics, a rhyming dictionary and a brain, I completed my Magnum Opus: A Blairite version of The Internationale.

Arise stakeholders from your semis
Arise prisoners of red tape.
For reason in reform now thunders
And ends at last the age of cant.
Away with all your regulation
Polite masses arise, arise
We'll start henceforth the emulation
And spurn the dust to win the prize.

Chorus
So colleagues, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites those above the poverty line.
So colleagues, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites those above the poverty line.

No more hindered by inaction
On tyrants maybe we'll make war.
The workers won't take strike action
They'll keep their ranks and work much more.
And if those ingrates keep trying
To sacrifice us to leftist divide
They soon shall hear the insults flying
We'll scorn the unions on our own side.

No SAIC from on high delivers
Much faith have we in markets free.
Our own right hand the chains won't shiver
Chains of forced equality.
E'er the executives will keep their booty,
And give to none a happier lot.
Each in the boardroom must do their duty
And we'll strike when the levellers do not.

A round of applause, if you please. The accompanying music files are here (It may just be my aging headphones, but the MIDI isn't very good).
One last point. The BNP are a curious bunch, as was proved today at their manifesto launch. It's something of a relief actually, beacause just as you were becoming nervous that they were transforming themselves into an actual political party, with the majority of the Neo-Nazis and general-purpose idiots having been shipped out, and them getting themselves some actual socio-economic policies (albeit less blacks and tax), they make you feel all nice and secure inside by proving themselves a complete bunch of idiots once again. Their main initiatives are: End immigration, pull out of Europe, bring back national service and scrap income tax (eveything you'd expect) but then, they lose their heads. The key initiatives are to pull the troops out of Iraq, then deploy them to ports and airports to keep the foreigners out, and to arm each adult male with an assault rifle. So that you can be well prepared for them coming to power, and discriminating in your choice of lethal firearm, take your pick. I recommend the French-made FA-MAS 5.56mm, which would really piss them off.

Cohen has a psychotic break

2005-04-21T20:39:00.000Z

I've been meaning to blog about this since the weekend. Nick Cohen, the author of the "beyond prejudice" column in The Observer, went completely bonkers last weekend, comparing George Galloway's Respect coalition to Mosley's British Union of Fascists from the 1930s. The basis of this comparison is that both Mosley and Galloway are outspoken ex-Labour MPs who have moustaches. Galloway has had to fight three libel actions in recent times, two against Oona King and one against the Daily Telegraph, and due to this article, he might fight a fourth. Cohen appears to suggest that Respect is little more than a Galloway-centric personality cult, much as the BUF was for Mosley. If we just leave aside for the moment the sheer, poisonous absurdity of comparing George Galloway, the veteran socialist and anti-rasicm activist with Oswald Mosley, the extreme-right Nazi enthusiast and vicious anti-semite, and examine what on earth posessed Cohen to write this diatrabe in the first place, the conclusion makes a laughing stock of the 'beyond prejudice" column title.
Cohen was one of the left-wing columnists who supported the Iraq war. Why exactly he did this is something of a mystery to me, but I expect he had got fed up with opposing every war on moral judgement grounds. In any case, he, who may well have considered himself Paul Foot's natural successor, has ever since been forced into ever more ludicrous positions for justifying the war. His current fall-back position is that Bush, Blair, Howard and Berlusconi went into Iraq so that the Iraqi trade unions could build a democratic country, and we must protect the unions doing this (those four well-known advocates of socialism and trade unionism would obviously do this). Having got himself on the wrong side of the biggest left-right debate of our times, he has mounted ever since ever more unjustified and vicious attacks on the anti-war movement, accusing us of being pro-Saddam. This is just the most ridiculous and actionable of them.
If Cohen must find a modern day comparison for Mosley and the BUF, he would be best looking at Veritas. They are not a broad coalition, unlike Respect, and their politics and in particular those of Robert Kilroy-Silk are very much like the BUF's. Indeed, on the personality cult front, when one looks at the Veritas membership and constituency, they appear to largely consist of the people who used to watch Kilroy's show. When we also consider the viciously right-wing nature of his beliefs, and his more-than-likely fascist leanings, only then do we realise this that we see how lucky we are that Kilroy is unlikely to get very far in the political game, so perfect a fascist leader would he be.

Blair admits to illegality

2005-04-20T21:28:00.000Z

Well, alright, not really, but what Blair, perhaps unwittingly, said on his trip to Leeds today is quite revealing. During his trip there, he was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman for BBC1 and Newsnight. Paxman challenged him on the legality of the war, and Blair responded something like this: "We had Saddam there, in flagrant breach of UN resolutions, and I was faced with the choice to leave him there, humiliating the international community, emboldening him, or we could remove him. I chose to remove him." There are four points to make about this.

1) Since Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, he wasn't in breach of UN resolutions, which all assume that he actually had them, and should therefore disarm.
2) The international community would not have been humiliated, as it wasn't the international community facing him down. It was the US and the UK.
3) Blair did not choose to remove Saddam. Bush did, at Camp David, approximately a year before the troops went in.
4) Under the UN Charter, making such decisions as Blair now openly admits to, ie removing someone from power because you think it's "the right thing to do" is completely and utterly illegal.

Blair also says that he "respects the sincerity of the anti-war movement." Has no-one told him that it's not our integrity that's under question?
On the same topic, I was listening to John Harris, occasional Guardian journalist and author of So now who do we vote for?, on Radio 5 live yesterday. He stated clearly for the first time that there are three occasions on which Blair appears to have engaged in wilful deceit against Parliament, the British people, or both. They are the following occasions:

1) The Camp David meeting, mentioned above, where Blair and Bush apparently agreed on the war plans. This is a bugger, because it's one of those "we know, but we don't know" situations. If it was ever proved it would be enough on it's own to bring Blair down, but proving it is the problem.
2) The dossiers. This is one that they've never bothered to deny, so little do they care. I am referring of course to the Campbell - Scarlet emails, asking for the substitution of "oppression of ethnic minorities" to "support for terrorist groups", and the pinching of an 11-year old thesis as the basis for an intelligence dossier.
3) Briefing against France's veto threat on the second resolution. Blair and Campbell put it about that France would veto the resolution whatever happened, whereas Chirac had actually said ce soir in the relevant TV interview, four times in fact. This made it clear that France would veto for as long as the situation remained as it was then. This is obviously less important than the first two, but as it was their excuse for not getting a second resolution, it is not insignificant.

Ratzinger

2005-04-19T19:33:00.000Z

Responding to the need to adapt to the modern, rapidly changing world, the Conclave of Cardinals have within two days of going into Conclave elected Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the former Archbishop of Munich and John Paul II's doctrinal enforcer, as the new Pope. Ratzinger is a liberal, tolerant guy, (the head of what used to be the Spanish Inquisition) who's all in favour of, you know, progress, modernity et al, as long as people don't engage in too much bad sex stuff. The election was greeted by a certain amount of confusion, as the smoke being emitted from St Peter's Basilica was neither white nor black but grey.
A tribute to the previous Pope.
Another tribute to the previous Pope.
In other news, Condoleeza Rice, visiting Moscow, has warned President Putin to respect democracy. After Florida 2000, this is something Bush's people are entitled to talk about. To his credit, Putin recognised this, telling Bush openly that he could complain about Russia's democratic processes when Florida had been sorted out.
Michael Howard invokes the Bradford race riots as a reason for raising immigration again and again and again. The lesson clearly is that the more fear and hatred you stoke up, the less likely you are to get race riots. Also, it gives him an excuse to regurgitate and use Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech again.

The Line is here

2005-04-18T20:28:00.000Z

Yes. The London Line, a new London newspaper that can be obtained in Tube stations, modelled on New York's Village Voice, went into print this week. I do not live in London, and so I mention this only because my older brother, he of Flashboy, is one of the bright young things behind this bright young publication. It is available free, but you are asked to place a small donation in the box when you pick it up. I doubt I would personally take a copy since it lacks football coverage, but still, if you see a copy, pick it up, place 50p in the box, read it, laugh, and take it home with you, where you should feel free to read it some more. They've got Belle de Jour as their agony aunt, incidentally.
Only one problem - the Line's graphic design, from what I can tell from the website, is very similar to that of Metro, the London Evening Standard mini-me that is already available in stations as a commuter paper.
Attention must obviously now turn to what is the best tube line and station on which to collect your copy of The Line. I think that it's probably Hammersmith on the District Line, which has a commutery feel about it, but you can take your pick.
I should clarify that this is an absolutely unashamed plug for a product, about which I am completely biased. I assure you, dear readers, it won't happen again.

Ricin reporting

2005-04-16T15:57:00.000Z

In today's Guardian, the director of the Human Rights group Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, has written a comment piece on the media's, particularly the BBC's, reporting of Kamal Bourgass's conviction last week. While ignoring completely the discrepancies in the prosecution's case that this blogger, among others, pointed out at the time, the reporting made no pretence at balanced reporting and merely presented the goverment's case. The worst offender here was the BBC's home affairs editor Mark Easton. The lengthy report he filed for the 10 o'clock news and Newsnight was worthy of North Korean state television, making no attempt to question the ludicrous nature of the charges, nor mentioning that most of the 'recipies' that Bourgass had came from US-based survivalist websites, and reporting on the law as if it were some kind of obstruction to the worthy policemen trying to protect us. How Easton managed to keep a straight face while telling us the bit about the deadly Nivea pots I haven't a clue, but he did, and the rest of the report was in that vein. A particularly crass moment came when he described an informant having "found his tongue", an informant who was at the time being interrogated by the Algerian Police.
Chakrabarti, as good an article as she has written, does not in my opinion go far enough. She is an influential figure in the human/civil rights arena, and is regularly to be heard on the television and radio. She has a voice, and in my opinion could have used it to much greater effect. Easton should have been at the very least reprimanded about the nature of his report, but if I were Richard Sambrook, I would have sacked him. He has a reputation as one of the better broadcast journalists around, and during his time at Channel 4 News some of his work in exposing the manifold failings of the British Judiciary was excellent. But the report he filed was so flagrantly partial, so shockingly one-sided that had it come from the other side of the argument No.10 would have certainly been calling for his head. He brought the BBC into disrepute as a provider of fair, unbiased reporting, that has in the past so infuriated the right. They have no grounds for complaint now.

And the winner is...

2005-04-15T14:48:00.000Z

Robert Kilroy-Silk. That is, the winner of the most repulsive party leader in the country, performing the impressive feat of beating Blair, Howard and Nick Griffin to the title in one fell swoop, at the Veritas campaign launch yesterday. Giving a speech in Derby, he attacked "Liberal fascists in London" displaying an impressive ignorance of both ideologies. He then went for a walkabout in Derby. Rory Bremner did a sketch recently of Michael Howard walking about a city centre looking for Blacks and Asians, and asking each one he sees "Are you an asylum seeker? When are you going back? I hope you rot." I fully appreciated at the time that this was a satirical sketch, and did not anticipate ever seeing it played out in real life. Well, did I not count on Robert! He sought out an elderly Asian gentleman who was, apparently, a failed asylum seeker, with the BBC cameras running. The conversation went as follows:

Kilroy: You're an asylum seeker.
Man: Yes.
Kilroy: When are you going back?
Man: Next July.
Kilroy: Next July? Why then? Why not tomorrow?...

Never mind that the man's English was less than basic, Robert still determined to bully him on national television. As the bile crept steadily up from my stomach and into my asophagus, the picture cut away to his speech, where he opened a copy of the Daily Mail and showed us all a picture of asylum seekers in Sangatte, eating lunch. Kilroy proclaimed the following:

Kilroy: Look at them. They're sitting around in Calais, drinking coffee and eating croissants! And when they get here, they abuse our hospitality. They don't need our help. They're not wanted here.

Not a rascist? Sure.
Pro-European as I am, I have started having doubts about the ratification of the EU constitution. Until now, I have supported the idea in the name of European integration, creating a second centre of power in the world that can stand up to the US. However, it has become apparent in the last day or two the extent to which the constitution favours the idea of the European free market as opposed to the European social model, and that is not what we want. If this is little more than a capitalist charter, (and it calls to mind the lengths to which Blair went to strip the constitution of all measures that were even vaguely socialist during the final round of talks) I think it would be wise to reject it. At the heart of this is a debate on what Europe stands for. Is it determined to become little more than a new US, that puts market forces ahead of everything, or will it stand for the alternative, the social structures that put welfare ahead of market forces and growth. (And you can leave the Chinese out of this. They've got all kinds of problems that neither Europe or the US has).

Crappy dial-up and the Nivea pots of doom

2005-04-13T22:11:00.000Z

Thanks to an absolutely terrible dial-up connection, I have barely been able to get on the internet for the past few days, let alone blog. Whether or not this had something to do with my mother's attempt to get BT Broadband Basic (17.99 a month but I wouldn't bother) remains to be seen.
Even without all the election news and print space, you could tell that an election was on the way today when a failed Algerian asylum seeker was jailed for 17 years for the murder of a Special Branch officer and an 'attempt to carry out a chemical attack with chemical weapons and explosives'. Don't ask me why but I immediately became sceptical when we were 1) told that this was not one loner in a bedsit with a fridge full of stuff that he was grinding up with a pestal and mortar but was actually a Europe-wide al-Qaida plot, the other centre of which was apparently Lyon, and 2) that the guy was attempting to make Ricin poison gas. Now if my memory serves Ricin was a poison gas that was made by the Soviet Union in the 80s, one of those things that you wish you could de-invent. Now when the Soviet Union made poison gases it did it in big distillation tanks in big laboratory complexes, usually underground somewhere in Kazakhstan. It did not get people to do it in a bedsit by grinding stuff up with a pestal and mortar, then spreading it out on a newspaper for some reason, then depositing it in...Nivea pots. Forgive my scepticism.
It is also important to remember that he is alleged to have made this in the form of powder, but the news is reporting it as Ricin gas. This would require a chemical change that I expect would be damn near impossible to achieve in a bedsit.
Ricin is, of course, something that one can manufacture in a bedsit without any risk of killing yourself. In any case, the news media was dominated by it today. Charles Clarke talked about the problem of illegal asylum seeking on Newsnight, a contradiction in terms unless we pull out of several very important treaties, namely the Geneva Convention and the European convention on Human rights.

Everything you need to know...

2005-04-11T20:03:00.000Z

...about the Tory campaign is summed up by this headline found in Lord Rothermere's august organ this morning: "Howard: I'll end migrant terror threat." I hate this man more than I ever thought was possible - I hate him more than I hate Blair, which I didn't think was possible either - and I hate his squalid, xenophobic, fearmongering band of right-wing socio-economic wreckers that pass for a political party. Howard's claim yesterday that "under Mr Blair, you can prepare for uncontrolled immigration...and 5 million immigrants coming to Britain over the next 3 decades" was typical of the hate-filled campaign they have run. Obviously, nobody was meant to hear the next three decades bit, but even so the figures are fraudulent in the extreme, a ridiculous extrapolation from this year's figures which due to the EU enlargement are the exception not the rule. Of course, the general public are obviously not interested in the fact that these are ridiculous fantasies and half-truths, and will not be shaken from their staunch conviction that 25% of the population of these islands are immigrants. I believe the real figure is under 0.5%, but there's too many of them, y'know.
Speaking of which, onto John Reid. On Friday, I unusually woke at 5:00 am, and lay in bed listening to first the BBC World Service and then Radio 4. When Today came on at 6, however, I immediatly turned off as I heard John Humphreys announce that the health secretary was to be interviewed next. On Saturday, I woke at 7:00 am and sensed his presence, on 5 live this time. On Sunday, I turned on the lunchtime news on BBC One and hoots man, there he was again. I didn't even bother turning on this morning.
The Lib Dem manifesto launch was postponed till tomorrow, as Sarah Kennedy went into hospital, heavily pregnant as she is.
I saw Anthony Mighella's Labour Party Political Broadcast, the theme of which is values. A fair summary of it is Blair and Brown in the cabinet room together talking a lot of guff. If you missed it this evening, you can watch it here.
Polly Toynbee on the Pope. Read. Now.

The future of dental care

2005-04-10T11:29:00.000Z

Dentistry has taken a quantum leap into the future.

Aux armes, citoyens

2005-04-08T10:52:00.000Z

On Monday, The Guardian published a list of all 600-odd MPs, informing us of how they voted on the 5 key issues, which are foundation hospitals, Iraq, top-up fees, the hunting ban and control orders. I think that the most important thing this election is to carry off a balancing act, between clearly rejecting Howard and sending an equally clear message to Blair that the left is still here and angry with him. To this end I have taken from that list 30 Labour MPs who have voted with the government on the 4 bad issues. I have not for obvious reasons targeted anyone with a 10,000+ majority, the exception being Oona King in Bethnal Green and Bow who may well be beaten by George Galloway. The 30 MPs who I have listed are by no means the most annoying or visable apparatchiks, they are simply the first 30 on the list who met the criteria. 3 are cabinet ministers, and they all without exception voted for Iraq. I shall list their names, constituences and majorities over the second placed party.

- Margaret Hodge, Barking, +9534 - Con. (Minister for Children)
- John Hutton, Barrow in Furness, +9889 - Con.
- Angela Smith, Basildon, +7738 - Con.
- John Mann, Bassetlaw, +9748 - Con.
- Martin Linton, Battersea, +5053 - Con.
- Oona King, Bethnal Green and Bow, +10057 - Con.
- Nigel Beard, Bexleyheath and Crayford, +1472 - Con.
- Sion Simon, Birmingham Erdington, +9962 - Con.
- Stephen McCabe, Birmingham Hall Green, +6648 - Con.
- Estelle Morris, Birmingham Yardley, +2576 - Con.
- Jack Straw, Blackburn, +9249 - Con. (Foriegn Secretary)
- Gordon Marsden, Blackpool South, +8262 - Con.
- Ruth Kelly, Bolton West, +5518 - Con.
- Terry Rooney, Bradford North, +8969 - Con.
- Gerry Sutcliffe, Bradford South, +9662 - Con.
- Alan Hurst, Braintree, +358 - Con.
- Ian Cawsey, Brigg and Goole, +3961 - Con.
- Nick Palmer, Broxtowe, +5873 - Con.
- Janet Dean, Burton, +4849 - Con.
- Nicholas Ainger, Carmathen West and Pembrokeshire South, +4538 - Con.
- Jonathan Shaw, Chatham and Aylesford, +4340 - Con.
- Christine Russell, City of Chester, +6894 - Con.
- Kali Mountford, Colne Valley, +4639 - Con.
- Jim Cunningham, Coventry South, +8279 - Con.
- Laura Moffett, Crawley, +6770 - Con.
- Geraint Davies, Croydon Central, +3984 - Con.
- Howard Stoate, Dartford, +3306 - Con.
- David Hanson, Delyn, +8605 - Con.
- Bob Laxton, Derby North, +6982 - Con.
- Jim Knight, Dorset South, +153 - Con.

In truth I've never heard of most of these. That, however, is not the point. The thing is that most of the Blair apparatchiks are not visable, but the are there, and it is they who make his unofficial but well-documented policy of contempt for Parliament and the Labour Party an operable one. Take them away, and his style of governance must change. We shall return here on May 6th, to see if anyone did lose their seats. Those Birmingham seats might well be affected by the Rover collapse, it is worth noting.
It would, of course, just be easier to beat Blair in Sedgefield, by backing Reg Keys.
This objectives may obviously have to come second, depending on how Michael Howard's campaign goes. This man must never become PM, ever. Read Polly Toynbee's article for why.
Have just been watching the Pope's funeral on Vatican State TV, better known as BBC One.

Great Frenchmen and stuff

2005-04-06T10:22:00.000Z

Election News: Last PMQs before Parliament is dissolved. Gordon Brown and Margaret Hodge at a sure-start centre in London, the Tories nowhere but taking about crime, and Charles Kennedy visiting constituences in Hampshire, focusing on childcare.
Ask Tony a question.
Newsnight has hired, for the election, an American pollster who worked for the Republicans in their elections last year, Frank Luntz. Last night, he conducted a focus group in Milton Keynes, a seat in which he's very interested because of it's marginality. You can watch the programme in which his report is featured at the watch Newsnight link, it's towards the end, but the download is probably pretty big. Anyway, he took about 30 people, of whom in 2001 9 voted Labour, 8 voted Tory, 4 voted Lib Dem and 1 for UKIP, with the rest not voting. At the end, not one said they would vote Labour. If Labour loses the election, it will be because of two things, firstly that the idea that Blair cannot be trusted is now a very strong one even in people who don't really know why he can't be trusted, and secondly because the British people are stupid enough to let Howard in. But look at the poll numbers when Bush appears on the screen...
Some French TV channel has done a French version of 'Great Britons' which you may remember on BBC2 a year or two ago. Unsuprisingly, De Gaulle came out on top, with Bonaparte not even making it into the top 10 for some reason. Anyway, here's my own top 10:

1) Voltaire
2) Thierry Henry
3) Jean Baudrillard
4) Jacques Chirac
5) Zinedine Zidane
6) Alexis de Touqueville
7) Madame Liberty (the girl from Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People)
8) Clovis, King of the Franks
9) Arsene Wenger
10) Monsieur L'Artiste (Steve Bell's French alter ego)

On one's marks, get set, go

2005-04-05T20:56:00.000Z

Her maj fired the election starting gun this morning, at Blair's request. He visited the palace around 11ish, and returned 30 minutes later, extolling the Queen's graciousness. He then climbed into a helicopter and headed off to my home region of the Westcountry, specifically Weymouth and Portland, where he showed off some regeneration project, a sailing academy if my short-term memory serves. Everywhere, that great socialist rallying cry had been plastered, BRITAIN FORWARD NOT BACK. The mark of Milburn, I think. Elsewhere, we saw Michael Howard launch his campaign at a London hotel, with more inspiring slogans (TIME FOR ACTION) and Mike looking more like a vampire than I've ever seen him, if a rather xenophobic, scaremongering, Welsh vampire. Of course, the Lib Dems were also aboot, with Charles Kennedy promising no negative campaigning and as far as I can remember, they didn't have an inspiring slogan, which is enough to get me to join them. I am a political anorak and was looking forward to this election, and I stress was, until it started turning ugly and nasty and boring. This has been a crap political day, and it shows signs of getting worse as the month wears on.
The day started well enough for the Tories, whichever poll you were reading. The ICM/Guardian had them 3 behind, as did Populus/Times/ITN, with the Mail and the FT's MORI poll strangely enough having the Tories 5 points ahead, although that only counts certain voters.
Oh, god, we've got a month of this stuff. Wake me up next year sometime, or alternatively, if the Tories win, don't.

The Vatican is a pretty religious place, apparently

2005-04-04T19:06:00.000Z

Firstly, quote of the day comes from the BBC's veteran war reporter Jeremy Bowen, on the 6 o'clock news: "I was allowed in with some other accredited journalists. There was a powerfully religious atmosphere." That's Jeremy Bowen, reporting from the Vatican.
The race for the Papacy is apparently down to two candidates, the Archbishop of Milan and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Spanish-inquisition style doctrinal expert. You'd better not write Pius Ncube off, however.
The Labour Party are striving to achieve something incredible - appearing as dodgy and unpleasant as the Tories. I know that the case of the Birmingham postal voting scandal is in no way representative but it may be taken as such by the public, and the overall nastiness of the Labour campaign, or at least the bits that are wheeled out in response to the Tory initiatives, is breathtaking. The discourse has been running something like this.

- Howard: We will bully (insert appropriate minority group) relentlessly.
- Blair: We already bully them relentlessly.
- Howard: You've had 8 years to bully them. Why are they still here?
- Blair: WOGS GO HOME.

That, however, is not the main point that should be stressed as a result of the postal voting scandal. It is worth considering that despite the damning criticisms levelled by the judge at the postal voting system, the government is in no mood to back down and scrap the scheme. It will not happen soon, but with this government and this government's attitude we may be forced to repeat the actions of the Chartists once again, and I fear for the result.

Son of the Thatch

2005-04-03T17:35:00.000Z

Mark Thatcher, sorry, Sir Mark, has been refused a visa to enter the United States on the grounds that he may be a terrorist. A further notable achievement for one of the most instantly loathsome men in the world - managing to be the son of a neo-conservative idol and still having your US visa refused.
He therefore intends to set up home in Europe. If Sir Mark feels like overthrowing any other governments, he would be well advised to get some professionals to do it and not rely on some old-Etonian, ex-SAS fantasists.
The Cardinals are arriving in the Vatican to pick the next Pope later this month - please please please not Ratzinger. I am still hoping that Pius Ncube might snatch it but hopes like that are beginning to fade.

Pope

2005-04-02T20:23:00.000Z

The Pope died at 8:37 pm GMT, 9:37 pm local time. BBC1 broke into their schedule at 9:10 to announce the news, and Radio 4 are broadcasting live as I type, approximately 9:30.

Pius Ncube

2005-04-02T12:08:00.000Z

Assuming that the Pope will have passed away within the day, I am launching a campaign to have Archbishop Pius Ncube of Bulawayo installed as the new Pope as soon as possible. We has assumed that he had probably the best name on the African continent, if not the world, but it turns out that we were wrong. The Guardian confused the good Archbishop, a staunch opponent of Zanu-PF (Mugabe branded him a halfwit), with an MDC candidate of the same surname - Welshman Ncube. I know that he cannot become the Pope, but Pius will do.
"By what name do you wish to be known?" "Pope Algebra I."

Il Postino

2005-04-01T18:47:00.000Z

Alright - I don't know why I keep referring to the Pope as Il Postino, but I do. The head of the Roman Catholic church is apparently just hours from death - this is being written at about 7:45 PM GMT - and indeed, Channel 4 News have reported that he has flatlined already. So prepare for the white smoke. It has been a rather unedifying spectacle, as the opportunity has been taked to make some Catholic conservative points about death and the circumstances in which it should be allowed - we keep being told that the Pope is 'showing us how to die' a sly condemnation of euthanasia if ever I heard one. Aside from the fact that I don't find him a particularly admirable man, I find the spectacle of an elderly man suffering a lot at the end of his life being served up for public consumption and used to make political-theological points rather unpleasant. Rather like Terri Schiavo's case, in fact.
Mugabe appears to have won the 'anti-Blair' elections (finally something the two of us can agree on) with some rather suprising majority increases. In one constituency, the Defence Minister increased his majority from 32 to over 9000. Now that's democracy!

Terri Schiavo

2005-03-31T17:50:00.000Z

Terri Schiavo died today at around 12 noon, Eastern seaboard time. I am not particularly interested in the theological arguments surrounding this tragic affair as my athiesm means I cannot accept or even consider any of them, but what does anger me greatly is the disgustingly hypocritical actions of the religious right, the apparently 'pro-life' lobby, (Interesting how they're not particularly pro-life when it comes to Iraqis, eh?) who have seized on this issue and exploited it for their own fundamentalist purposes, while smearing her husband repeatedly as a liberal, pro-abortion antichrist. Let's not pretend here that they actually give a damn about Terri Schiavo and her family, who have had to endure the torture of watching their daughter/wife live like this for 15 years. She ought to have been allowed to die humanly years ago, but the citing of God's will in the most god-fearing country in Christendom is always sufficient. I have my doubts about whether euthanasia or any kind of pro-life argument is actually mentioned in either testament, but that doesn't seem to matter these days.
Prince Charles hates the media, and Nick Witchell in particular (30 years of sycophancy rewarded thus). Can I make clear my contempt for the royals, and Prince Charles in particular?

bad day for blogging

2005-03-30T23:10:00.000Z

Yes, it's been a rubbish news day, so me not really having blogged properly is half down to there not being anything on which to blog (school meals?), and not having had the time to blog. Even England vs Azerbaijan was not really very worthy of comment. It ought to have been about 20-2 to England but one of those nights, you know.
Shock news, however, has reached us this evening that Christopher Eccleston (the Doctor Who guy) has resigned from the role after one series, fearing being typecast as the Doctor. It's being reported in The Sun so you might not want to take it too seriously, but they're already backing David Tennant (Blackpool and Casanova) to be the next Doctor.

Sweet god I hate Eric Joyce

2005-03-29T15:20:00.000Z

I just put "I hate Eric Joyce" into Google, and, wait for it, there were...no results. Therefore, I should use this blog to make sure that there is a result for this phrase, and so I can put into words just how much I hate this man. Eric Joyce MP is the sitting member for Falkirk West, and during his time as an officer in the Black Watch he was described by his CO as "uncontrollable", and eventually dishonourably discharged after writing several seditious pamphlets highly critical of Army practices, at the rank of Major. Selected as PPC for Falkirk West, he fell under the Blair spell going from being uncontrollable to being the possibly the most biddable MP in the Commons. I think he holds the record for most frequently making an ass of himself on Newsnight, an impressive feat considering the stiff competition from Donald Anderson and Bruce George, as he specialises in defending the most indefensible policies of all without a thought to his own personal dignity or possible promotion (he has been doing this, as far as I know, consistantly for around 3 years now, and is still a backbencher). His most memorable and unedifying moment, it is likely, came when he went on Newsnight to suggest that Saddam hid his WMD in the Euphrates when the Iraq Survey Group reported that there were none there. Recognition of his political prowess came by being the first MP featured in The Guardian Diary's weekly 'Top Toady" slot. So I'll say it again: I HATE ERIC JOYCE.
The RMT union will start a campaign to have the railways renationalised soon, at the same time as the NUT starts a campaign to stem the tide of 'academy' private schools, where the private sponsor can choose the curriculum (worrying as many of them believe that creationism is as valid a theory as Darwinism). Good luck to them both.
Oh yeah, that stuff I said about the Tories being on course for victory? Forget it.
Further to that, the Howard Flight affair is the reason that, much as I despise Blair, I hope that the British people will have the good sense to decisively reject Michael Howard on May 5th. A party must have the right to remain a broad church, and the action Howard has taken is a massive over-reaction that has merely ensured the Tory campaign's grinding to a halt. He has behaved in the manner of a dictator at the head of a democratic party, whose members must be free to express views that, dare we forget, Howard probably agrees with.

Stop Press - Chelsea WMD threat

2005-03-28T13:26:00.000Z

Reuters and AFP are reporting that sources inside UEFA, apparently close to William Gaillard, claim that Chelsea FC could deploy chemical, biological or nuclear weapons within 45 minutes of an order being given.

Easter greetings and stuff

2005-03-27T12:35:00.000Z

Happy Easter to everyone. I intend to go downstairs and watch the boat race on the TV to mark the day, as for me there is very little else to distinguish it save the unusually large number of eggs.
I heard a news report that Arjen Robben did his calf in again last night, during Holland's qualifier. Thank you, Aaron Moekeana, if that is how it's spelt, your contribution to the overall quality of football in the Premiership is utterly matchless.
Now to the jewels of the internet, and the outstanding "I Hate France" website. It is a fairly typical post-Iraq US-run website but is notable for it's very, very liberal reading of history, especially it's assertion that "Charles Martel beat a SMALL Muslim raiding party at the battle of Tours", which contrasts sharply with Gibbon's description of the "victorious line of march sustained for over a thousand miles, from the Rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire" (Decline and Fall, Ch.56) and it's failure to mention anything that happened between 1756 and 1815. There are other gems of historical half-truths and fabrications there too - read and chuckle.

Heffer at last

2005-03-26T17:42:00.000Z

I promised I'd get round to this, and behold! I have. First, let me introduce you to Simon Heffer. Simon is a columnist for that stirling publication, the Daily Mail, a paper best summed up by Chris Applegate's "Daily Mail O-Matic" headline generator. Now, I feel and indeed have felt for some time that Heffer missed his true calling, as a pamphleteer for the National Front (Britain Strong, Free and White etc) or as webmaster of such a website as Redwatch, perhaps. Indeed, he probably would have been best as a US Congressman in the 1950s, so allowing him to serve on HUAC, but thanks to the politically-correct space-time continuum he missed that.
It is probably mistaken, however, to make Heffer into a figure of fun. His weekly column inches in the Mail are, without exception, the most poisonous, hate-filled, bigotry-ridden anywhere in any newspaper in the country, even by the Mail's standards. The levels of hate he reveals weekly for liberals, socialists, foriegners generally, the French in particular, travellers, ethnic minorites et al are so incredible that they could not possibly be held by anyone in their right mind, and that is the problem. Whatever I may say about Heffer I don't think he is actually insane, which might be an explanation for his rantings (see the case of Congressman Robert Dornan, Ca-47, for a good comparison of this kind of insanity), and this means that it is utterly bogus. He writes this way not because he actually thinks that way, but because he is paid to be the most reactionary columnist in the country, not excepting Richard Littlejohn in The Sun and Robert Kilroy-Silk in the Sunday Express, and because the people who read the Mail need someone to look up to, a role model who will say the things that they are afraid to. I'm talking here about the Conservative Party in the country, the ones who get very upset when they find that they can't call Pakistanis wogs.
The other thing about Heffer is that he is deeply, deeply ignorant. After the Freedom of Information act was passed he called for the transcipt of the Granita lunch to be released, assuming that Brown and Blair took a civil servant to lunch with them.
I've just heard that Jim Callaghan has died, a day short of his 92nd birthday. His wife Audrey died 10 days earlier. Farewell to the last real Labour PM this country had.

Please stop this now, you're scaring me

2005-03-24T20:41:00.000Z

Since I last blogged, events in Kyrgyzstan have spiralled out of control (We will cover Simon Heffer eventually, I promise). What yesterday had been sporadic clashes with riot police in the southern cities have now turned into demonstrators moving into Bishkek, storming the parliament building and government buildings, taking the state TV station, and driving the government from power, forcing the Prime Minister to resign and the President to disappear. We're hearing that he's either gone to Moscow (he and Putin are friends) or over the border to Kazakhstan. They're already talking about it as the "Lemon Revolution" (crap name, no?) and once again, we're back to Post hoc, ergo propter hoc in relation to Bush's "Freedom doctrine". Interestingly enough, however, and unusually for the western media , Eddie Mair on PM (Radio 4) asked the question of one of the demonstrators: "Is this a revolution or a coup?", to which the man responded that the President's supporters were hired thugs. thereby dodging the issue quite effectively.
It is a question that needs answering however, and not just by hailing the "Advance of Freedom". We need to look at what we know for sure, and the most pressing issue is this: Was, indeed, the election rigged? If not, there are no grounds for the actions of the demonstrators, and as we only have their word that the election was rigged, (I don't think the OSCE has commented yet) I think that scepticism would be wise.
The other issue here is that revolution is meant to be about a better way. When the opposition descend to common thuggery, they have lost their moral high ground, and this is just what the Kyrgyz opposition have done. Before we get too carried away, let's remember that Kyrgyzstan has a border with Uzbekistan, a country with a far worse government (President Islam Karimov boils dissidents alive, apparently) yet they are an ally of the US, so the chance of revolution there is small. Each country that has undergone one of these coloured revolutions, incidentally, has some economic or military signifigance to the US or Israel - Kyrgyzstan (borders China), Ukraine (borders the Russian Federation), Georgia (oil and gas), and Lebanon (threatens Israel as long as Syria is there). We've heard nothing from these countries since their revolutions, but I imagine that in the Ukraine especially, the private pillage of state-run assets has already begun, with Halliburton at the forefront. We would be very naive to imagine that Bush and his private-sector gang are getting nothing out of this aside from a nice warm feeling inside that they've 'brought freedom' to various peoples. A dangerous precedent has been set, and it must be stopped as soon as possible. It is obviously a possibly, however remote, that either the President will return with some tanks or that China will invade under the guise of peacekeeping. Whatever - this cannot continue.

No colourful revolutions

2005-03-23T19:25:00.000Z

Yes, we start with the newest protesty thing in former Soviet territory, in Kyrgyzstan. Kudos must go to the pro-government demonstrators in Bishkek, for their slogan "Please no colourful revolutions." Well done, lads.
More neo-liberal stuff now, and it seems that we have President Chirac to thank for halting, for the moment at least, the British-led liberalisation of the EU single market. This US-inspired, Thatcherite work in driving down wage levels and worker's rights is typical of everything that New Labour stands for, and should be opposed by every European who believes that an EU social compact is more important than China-style economic growth in the single market.
Channel 4 News tells us that Lord Goldsmith's legal stance on the legality of the war certainly changed at short notice, thanks to a letter of resignation that was released under the Freedom of Information act, but with one crucial paragraph censored out. How C4 uncovered this I don't know but it confirms our suspicions about that legal advice.
A website I came across today emerges as the offical British Republican campaign for an elected head of state. I urge you to get involved, even if I haven't yet.
We're getting ever closer to Heffer. Have patience, friends.

Surrey can deliver ICBMs within 45 minutes

2005-03-22T19:54:00.000Z

Surrey Satellites, a small satellite firm in the home counties, has been branded a 'threat to world peace' by the Pentagon. The reason? It's going to sell weather monitoring satellites to China, which some bright spark at the DoD thinks can be used to, er, shoot down American satellites, which would give China the advantage in any war across the Taiwan Strait. The idea that the Chinese could be bothered to use satellites as weapon platforms is absurd, since there are other aspects of the Chinese military that need urgent investment in (eg making sure those subs they bought from Russia actually float), but no matter. But let's suppose for a minute that these concerns are not the real concerns of the Americans, which might be connected to Surrey Satellites being the company that will make the Galileo satellites, the EU/Chinese competitor to the US-run GPS network. It's rather like the threats over the EU arms embargo, which I suspect are only being made because the Americans don't want anyone to sell stuff to the Chinese before they can lift their own embargo.
Tony wants us to pray more, and for religion to play a larger role in our life generally. Yeah!
I promised we would look at Simon Heffer soon, and we will, but when I have a clear day with nothing else on my mind.

Metatwaddle

2005-03-21T19:23:00.000Z

I should start by paying tribute to the wonderful Postmodernism Generator, part of the Communications from Elsewhere website that I have meant to visit for ages but only got around to yesterday. It instantly generated for me a 6000-word essay entitled The Paradigm of Sexual Identity: The Cultural Paradigm of Discourse in the works of Tarantino. Paradigm being, of course, a postmodernist buzzword. For a good understanding of what postmodernism is you should read Intellectual Impostures by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, a wonderful book that explains well what is too long and annoying to explain here.
I hear that Reg Keys, the father of one of the Red Caps that was killed in al-Majar-al-Khabir, is to stand against Blair in Sedgefield at the election, and will try to make a proper go of it, rather than just a protest campaign. To this end the local Liberal Democrats and Tories should decline to stand in a seat that they will not win (Blair has, I believe, a majority of around 17,000, one of the largest majorities in the country) and make available their resources, activists and facilities to Mr Keys. In addition to the backing that he already has (Brian Eno is financing his campaign, and Adam Price, the Impeach Blair Welsh Nationalist guy, is managing it). Good luck to him anyhow - it is high time that Blair was made to pay for the blood he has spilled in Iraq.
Also, Craig Murray, the whistleblowing former ambassador to Uzbekistan who wasn't entirely comfortable with us being good mates with a country that boils dissidents alive, is standing against Jack Straw in Blackburn. He's writing a weekly column on the campaign in The Guardian, which I link to here.
Funny how UEFA are charging Chelsea with bringing football into disrepute every other week, but haven't charged Ferguson with similar offences in, what, er, 14 years at United?
Soon, we will examine the erratic behavior of Daily Mail columnist Simon Heffer. Be prepared for some scary content.

The rise of the religious right

2005-03-19T19:14:00.000Z

During the US election, I felt a certain amount of predicable despair about the role that the religious right played in getting Bush elected. I thought at the time however that this was basically an American problem and that we were pretty safe from the nutters on these islands, and in Europe generally. However, I fear I may have been wrong, and that the UK may be the next front for the religious elders and their obedient hordes. If we ignore the contemptable Christian Voice, who have acted like a westernised Taliban recently, and look at the more mainstream lot, the most recent case being the Roman Catholic church taking their stance against abortion. Cardinal Murphy O'Connor clearly believes that this is 'their moment', and he may well be right. Other examples are the Sikhs destroying artistic freedom by shutting down Bezhti by force, the Anglicans caving in to the primitives in the African church on homosexual and women bishops while being led by that big girls blouse Rowan Williams, and the Muslim schoolgirl Shabina Begum. This situation is not helped by the government's new anti 'religious hatred' law, which effectively means that to critisise religion is to break the law, and the fact that Blair is willing to meet any religious representitive under the sun but has not met with an athiest in 8 years. This completely ignores the fact that this is a largely secular country, and most Britons do not want to have to put up with these people. The secular lobby should, therefore, be doing much, much more than they are, ie demanding that Blair recognise that this country does not share his views of morality and the world in general.
This is another area where our cross-channel cousins get it exactly right. Vive la France!
So to the Champions League draw. I think it will pan out as follows: Juventus to beat Liverpool, Chelsea to beat Bayern Munich, AC Milan to beat Inter and Lyon to beat PSV Eindhoven. I guarantee nothing, but I reckon we're looking at a Juventus vs AC Milan or Chelsea vs AC Milan final. Milan's route to the final looks pretty clear cut, but Chelsea and Juve's less so.

UEFA and other stupid stuff

2005-03-15T20:51:00.000Z

I was delighted to hear that Jose Mourinho has issued an ultimatum to either apologise or face legal action to UEFA's refereeing bossman Volcker Roth, over his comments that Mourinho is an "enemy of football". They are scandalous comments, completely unacceptable from such a prominent figure in the football hierarchy, and just the latest in a string of trumped-up, overblown and very unfair accusations and slanders against Chelsea. If we leave aside Ronaldinho and Eto'o's comments after the Barcelona 2nd leg as those of extremely bad losers, we are left with the litany of minor 'offences' for which Chelsea are to be charged and possibly punished by UEFA and the FA. Let's see. 1) Mourinho's 'shhhhh' gesture to the Liverpool fans in Cardiff. Oh dear, how appalling. 2) Mourinho's 'excessive celebrations' on the pitch after Barcelona last week. Dearie me, imagine that. Beating Barcelona without Arjen Robben and in one of the most tense, thrilling footballing displays Europe has ever seen and he celebrates. Bring back hanging. 3) Ashley Cole being tappedb up. This is slightly more serious, but clubs do it every week and are never, ever indicted for it. Why have Chelsea been? 4) Anders Frisk death threats. This has nothing to do with Mourinho - fans in this country have a long history of ridiculous overreactions to stuff, ie Urs Meier getting similar death threats after England - Portugal. Eriksson made no comment on that occasion and still the death threats came. Chelsea cannot be held responsible for the actions of a minority of their fans, outside of the footballing envioronment. The idea, anyway, that anyone should take moral guidance from the organisation that refused to take action against Luis Aragones is laughable, as pointed out by the blessed Marina Hyde in The Guardian.
UEFA's beef may be explained by the large Barcelona following there feeling very angry about Chelsea having knocked them out of the Champions League, and being rather vindictive as a result. The FA I don't know about but the parallel campaign in the British football press may also be explained by the unusually large quotient of United/Liverpool fans there.
The most pathetic bit of this campaign is those who cannot think of anything more to say than "They've just bought everything". I do not need to link to any examples of this, as you can pick up the Daily Mail, The Sun, Daily Express, The Mirror et al, flick through the back pages and see such a piece, usually written by some football-traditionalist who probably does it because he doesn't like all these foreigners coming over here. However, recently Will Buckley in The Observer wrote a piece in which says that Mourinho has made British football better by his presence, and so he has. He makes us laugh. He provides good headlines, no matter what the press say, and so on. Thank you, Mr Buckley.

Labour is stumbling towards defeat, and it hasn't a clue why

2005-03-14T15:59:00.000Z

The horrible prospect that the Tories might actually win the election has only started being actually considered in the last week or two, but with good reason. I don't usually pay much attention to the Mail on Sunday, as we usually buy it for laughs, but yesterday Glenda Jackson had an article in there that made a lot of sense. You will, obviously, have heard the various rumours of Milburn being got rid of as the 'election supremo', the stories of John Reid being shunted aside after going to pieces on Newsnight and Charles Clarke's job being under threat as a result of the anti-terror laws. These are all reasonably valid points to make, but the briefing against these people, naturally from No. 10's press office, reveal a great weakness that Labour, and particularly the Blair apparatchiks, have not recognised and / or are too afraid to recognise. It is this: The Campbell-inspired culture that says that Blair's reputation and integrity cannot be allowed to come under serious attack is meaning that it is always the aides-de-camp that get the blame, not Blair. Let us examine the cases above. 1) Milburn was appointed by Blair, as a deliberate snub to Brown. It is not really Milburn's fault that he is not up to running the campaign. 2) John Reid was obviously told to blow a gusket on Newsnight by Downing St, as an excuse to give him the moral high ground during the interview and dodge awkward questions, and 3) Clarke's recent behaviour is contemptable, but it is Blunkett's mess, not his, which was made with Blair's full support. The only conclusion to draw from this is that Blair is the problem, and should have been dispensed with as soon as he admitted that the WMD were not there.
It is, of course, too late for that. It is a matter of weeks, not months to the election, and we can blame the PLP's gumption bypass for that. But we cannot ignore the fact that Michael Howard has learnt two very important lessons - firstly, that the more he talks about immigration the better his poll numbers look, and secondly, that as long as the Labour Party is engaged in infighting he is free to set the agenda.
Labour has only itself to blame for this mess. Blair is a liability, and the idea that this election can reinstate the old, circa 1997 "Blair magic" is pure fantasy. Blair will leave Downing Street - indeed, will go to his grave - with the word IRAQ stamped on his forehead in bold lettering. He can never escape that, and the sooner he realises this the better it is for everyone. Currently we are on course, I think, for a Tory victory, unlikely as it may seem. Unfortunatly it may only be that that sounds the death knell for Blairism, and allows Labour to rediscover it's socialism.

Writing this may land me under house arrest, but...

2005-03-12T20:53:00.000Z

There is no cause more noble in the world today than the destruction of Blairism, to paraphrase the man himself writing in The Guardian today. There is one way to accomlish this, and that is for all lefties in the Blogosphere to unite under the Simple Country Folk banner, march on London and camp outside Downing St, making sure to bring plenty of cucumber sandwiches, smoked salmon pate and a copy of Private Eye. This way we can starve Blair out. Don't bother bringing any guns, that will get you under house arrest.
Sorry, I had a psychotic break there. But still, Destroy Blair.
I have discovered the identity of the island on which Howard and his gang are planning to keep all the Asylum Seekers / immigrants / scroungers / undesirables. Look at the slogan on this publicity campaign.

Welcome to the police state

2005-03-11T17:48:00.000Z

As I write this, it appears that the Conservatives have capitulated and accepted a government compromise on the Sunset clause. How utterly pathetic - whatever happened to the concept that you do not detain anyone without due process of law, the fundamental legal concept at the heart of this that no-one save Helena Kennedy (long live she) appears to have remembered? How long will it be before these powers are used on anti-war protesters, or journalists? What will happen when the Conservatives get in again with another paranoid psychopath in the Thatcher mould? How will they be tempted to use these powers then? One day, we may hope, MPs will wake up and realise just what they've done, and may they be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. But one does, however, get the impression that they don't really care. What a dreadful state of affairs, and what a blemish on the "Mother of all Parliaments".
If you remember the Terrorism Act 2000, we were promised then that they would not be used against anti-war protesters. They almost immediatly were.
Incidentally, I heard Norman Tebbit on the radio today. According to him this strategy came to Blair directly from Bush's campaign last year: "You put a bill in that is unacceptable to the opposition and go into the election claiming that you're tough on terror and they're soft". As Tebbit is well connected in both US Republican and Westminster circles, I would say he is an authoritative source on this. The idea that Blair would go into an election campaigning on security with the economy in the shape it is, almost full employment, and inflation at it's lowest ever boggles the mind, but it probably would happen.

Now I get it...

2005-03-10T18:56:00.000Z

The Prevention of Terrorism bill which the Government seems inexplicably determined to ram through Parliament as soon as possible has had many people wondering about why it is so rushed. However, we may have it figured out. If the election is called for May, after that the Parliamentary recess runs until October, I think. In recent days, though, there have been credible reports from across the pond that Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb, or otherwise attack, Iran on or around the 6th of June this year. Britain's large Iranian population means that if such an attack were to occur, there would be a lot of very angry Iranians that it might be quite advisable to put under house arrest before they started burning down the American embassy or something similar. It is, of course, taken for granted that for Blair to support such an attack would be political suicide, but it is entirely possible that he agrees with Bush's approach to this or has unsuccessfully tried to talk him out of it.
This, therefore, may well be what is going on behind the scenes, the reason for the urgency that they cannot possibly admit.
Of course, the fact that such an attack would mean the collapse of every remotely non-islamist government from the Nile to the Hindu Kush is neither here nor there. Not in George's world, anyway - a mentality perfectly illustrated by the appointment of John Bolton as the US envoy to the UN.
Incidentally, the irony of someone like me backing the House of Lords over the Commons has only just been pointed out to me.
A note about the remarkably unsuccesful "Cedar Revolution" and other governmental reforms in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. I have only just been introduced to the concept of Pro hoc, ergo propter hoc. Translated as "After this, therefore because of this" it is very applicable to these situations, and the currently proliferating idea that Bush is directly responsible for them. Just because these events occured after Bush's inauguration speech DOES NOT MEAN HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM. 1) Palestine was already democratic, 2) The majority in Lebanon want Syria to stay, 3) 56% voter turnout is not massive, it's about the same as in the UK, and thanks to the Shias getting elected the Iraqis are not free. Let us remember here that freedom and democracy are not the same thing, and in the case of the Middle East can very well be mutually exclusive.

Chelsea 4 - 2 Barcelona (5 -4 agg.)

2005-03-08T22:53:00.000Z

Wow. Incredible entertainment but I feel utterly drained. You do get put through the mill a few times as a Chelsea fan, and that match filled our quota for the next 10 years. The start Chelsea made was sensational, but when Barcelona started getting back into it...aaaggghhhh.
But there was something intended about John Terry getting the winner. Anyway, you can take cricket, tennis, badminton, and rugby union, lump them all together and it wouldn't compare even remotely to football. It's the best thing in the world, not excepting Dr. Oetker pizzas.
And United are out. Aaaaahhhh, poor diddums.
What the hell are the IRA playing at? "Madam, I assure you it's a routine operation. They won't feel a thing..."

Anti-turr legislation and other lumber

2005-03-07T21:17:00.000Z

Firstly, apologies to Nicholson Baker for plagerism in the blog title. Now, down to business. The Government's legislation for 'control orders' have been defeated by a majority of 130 in the Lords, a crushing defeat. Among those voting against the bill was Derry Irvine, the former Lord Chancellor and Blair's law lecturer at Oxford, which is pretty damn embarrasing for the Gov't as he is a fairly staunch Blairite and one of Tony's conifidantes. However, I cannot help feeling if we are being led astray. I am informed of an occasion before I was born where there were plans to put a sewage works next to the local village. Predicatably there was uproar about this and the company responsible consulted, then moved the location to a little further away, an apparent concession that was intended to (and suceeded in) currying favour with the locals. The only thing was that they had always wanted to build in the eventual location anyway, so it all worked out nicely for them, as they appeared to have been very reasonable. I think that this may be what's happening with the Prevention of Terrorism bill, and nobody's noticed it.
When you think about it, having a judge approve the control orders is no better for the opponents of the bill and no worse for the government. Judges don't rock the boat, and no judge is going to be the one who allowed the bombers to go free. But still, has it not crossed Clarke's mind that 1) The people who are locked up can never be bought to trial and 2) once we find out who's been locked up and where they live, their homes will become targets for large protests? No, probably not. Everything is decided on how the editorial in The Sun the next day will read. Also, has it not crossed Blair's mind that if it hadn't been for Blunkett being so eager to lock them up in the first place, they wouldn't be in this mess at all? Again, probably not.
So, why the hell are they doing it? Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer wrote a very good article the other day summing up the issues and reasons involved. They are completely irrational and morally indefensible, but sadly understandable.
"Those who would surrender essential liberty in order to gain a small amount of personal safety deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin