Disillusioned And Bored

Voluntary Code Free Zone

2007-03-29T11:22:00.000+01:00

More rubbish from the BBC (here) on the need for a voluntary code for blogs.

Here are the two logos that I'm hoping people will adopt and put on their sites to signify their attitude towards the concept of a voluntary code.

Here is the main one:

And for those with a more sensitive disposition:

You can read more about the voluntary code here as reported by the BBC.

I have had some requests for a high res version of the middle finger logo. You can get that here. Please drop me a line if you decide to use any of these, so I can add it to my list of adopters.

Update: James Higham of Nourishing Obscurity has figured out the HTML for posting the polite badge. I can't figure out how to post the HTML to the blog entry without it turning into the image, so if you want the code then just email me.

Another Mii Round

2007-03-05T20:44:00.000Z

Three more for you. I have to get out more!

Mii A Party Leader?

2007-03-03T16:52:00.000Z

One of the features of the new Nintendo Wii is the ability to create your Mii. This is the digital representation of you in the game and online. Loads of websites have sprung up that focus on famous Miis. I've taken a crack at the UK political party leaders here:

Feel free to make your own political mii online here and I will post the best ones that are emailed to me. There will definitely be a prize for the winner.

Update: By popular request, here is Nigel Farage. I've given him the funny wine-purple colour from the UKIP website as his top. Unfortunately, he's quite tough to do as he has few distinguishing marks:

Update 2: This article has been linked to by Danny Finkelstein at Times Comment Central and so I've whipped up a Mii for him.

Crazy Ken And His Fantastic Police State

2007-02-25T22:32:00.000Z

I'm not sure if this is an actual sign (I found it here), but if it is then we should be afraid.

Bush Bikes Through Bomb Drill

2007-02-25T19:43:00.000Z

This from Think Progress:

“Dozens of high-level officials joined in a White House drill [today] to see how the government would respond if several cities were attacked simultaneously with bombs similar to those used against U.S. troops in Iraq. … President Bush went on a bike ride [this] morning and did not take part in the test.” (HT: Huffington Post)

It's just not surprising any more. Not long now...

Straw Tries To Out-Hain Hain

2007-02-23T09:29:00.000Z

First it was the ridiculous call from Peter Hain to make city workers give up two thirds of their bonuses to charity and now it is Jack Straw calling for reduced ticket prices at football matches (here). As the Deputy Leadership contest for the Labour party gets fully underway, it is tugging the Blairite mask from the faces of the major contenders. Populist to the core and natural state interventionists, their response to everything is control and regulate. Has Jack Straw never heard of the free market? Football clubs, as businesses, should be allowed to charge whatever they like. If we then choose to pay those prices then so be it. Why does the government need to be involved? Is football "a basic human right that needs protecting"? Obviously not, so leave it alone.

Imperial Press Conference

2007-02-23T09:07:00.000Z

Shock Deputy Leadership Announcement

2007-02-23T08:31:00.001Z

In an announcement that is sure to stun his colleagues, Des Browne, Secretary of State for Defence, has revealed that he will not be running for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. Political analysts and pundits will be shocked by this given the announcement by the rest of the Cabinet that they intend to run. A senior source close to Browne was overheard saying, "What a little shit. I don't understand why he doesn't just put his hat in. Even that fucking Blears is running." In other news, government ground to a halt today due to contrasting interviews being given by senior politicians who are looking to a future after Blair.

White House Attacks Bloggers

2007-02-22T14:27:00.001Z

There is a story here on Think Progress that appears to have been missed in the UK. Tony Snow, the White House Press Secretary, led a discussion with the MSM about how blogs and bloggers were affecting their role.

Tony Snow, White House Press Secretary:

“You’ve got this wonderful, imaginative hateful stuff that comes flying out. I think one of the most important takeaways is — it’s the classical line — not only should you not believe your own press, you probably shouldn’t believe your opposition blogs either.”

Watch the whole thing at Think Progress.

Extent Of Blair's ID Card Intrusion Revealed

2007-02-20T22:15:00.000Z

In a response to the 27,000 people who have signed the petition on the Downing Street website opposing the ID card scheme, Tony Blair has revealed the extent to which our civil liberties will be slashed. You can read the full letter here. Blair's tone has become ever more defensive and I couldn't help but go through it paragraph by paragraph. Apologies for the length of the post it is almost Unity size.

The petition calling for the Government to abandon plans for a National ID Scheme attracted almost 28,000 signatures - one of the largest responses since this e-petition service was set up. So I thought I would reply personally to those who signed up, to explain why the Government believes National ID cards, and the National Identity Register needed to make them effective, will help make Britain a safer place.

Yes it's a big number. Not in the road pricing league, but a great response to an online poll. Good to see that the knee-jerk response isn't to reconsider the legislation, but rather to explain why it will go ahead anyway. As an aside, does anyone believe that Tony wrote this "personally"?

The petition disputes the idea that ID cards will help reduce crime or terrorism. While I certainly accept that ID cards will not prevent all terrorist outrages or crime, I believe they will make an important contribution to making our borders more secure, countering fraud, and tackling international crime and terrorism. More importantly, this is also what our security services - who have the task of protecting this country - believe.

I simply do not think that the views of our security forces are the most important factor to consider for an issue like this. Security services by their nature will always push for greater and greater powers. As a democracy, it is vital that the government hold these demands in check and prevents an overmighty police/security force. If we follow Blair's argument then we would allow all of the powers available to the former KGB if security forces thought this would prevent "international crime and terrorism".

So I would like to explain why I think it would be foolish to ignore the opportunity to use biometrics such as fingerprints to secure our identities. I would also like to discuss some of the claims about costs - particularly the way the cost of an ID card is often inflated by including in estimates the cost of a biometric passport which, it seems certain, all those who want to travel abroad will soon need.

Is it really wrong for us to assume that government figures that relate to large-scale technology projects will come in way over forecast? What evidence does he have that they can deliver projects on time and on budget?

In contrast to these exaggerated figures, the real benefits for our country and its citizens from ID cards and the National Identity Register, which will contain less information on individuals than the data collected by the average store card, should be delivered for a cost of around £3 a year over its ten-year life.

Comparing the ID card to a store card misses the entire point about compulsion. We can choose whether to have a store card or not. I also have more faith in the commercial pressures that would prevent Tesco abusing our data than the government as we shall go on to see in the rest of the letter.

But first, it's important to set out why we need to do more to secure our identities and how I believe ID cards will help. We live in a world in which people, money and information are more mobile than ever before. Terrorists and international criminal gangs increasingly exploit this to move undetected across borders and to disappear within countries. Terrorists routinely use multiple identities - up to 50 at a time. Indeed this is an essential part of the way they operate and is specifically taught at Al-Qaeda training camps. One in four criminals also uses a false identity. ID cards which contain biometric recognition details and which are linked to a National Identity Register will make this much more difficult.

There is not a system in the world that cannot be cracked. Terrorists and criminals will hack these systems and they will ultimately not be secure. The biometric passport has already been hacked and you can read more about this here.

Secure identities will also help us counter the fast-growing problem of identity fraud. This already costs £1.7 billion annually. There is no doubt that building yourself a new and false identity is all too easy at the moment. Forging an ID card and matching biometric record will be much harder.

But again, not impossible.

I also believe that the National Identity Register will help police bring those guilty of serious crimes to justice. They will be able, for example, to compare the fingerprints found at the scene of some 900,000 unsolved crimes against the information held on the register. Another benefit from biometric technology will be to improve the flow of information between countries on the identity of offenders.

This is an astonishing admission. The government is effectively going to trawl through the database and match old crimes to the information that we give them. Worse than that, this data will most likely be shared with all EU countries along with our DNA under an agreement discussed here last week. Mistakes will be made and innocent people will be implicated in crimes that they have not committed. This is a significant and unprecedented invasion of privacy. Where is the protection against crimes that might be put on the statute books by future governments that can be "solved" using the database? This information will be shared across government departments and ultimately abused. What additional information will be added to the card over time? How will this data be used?

The National Identity Register will also help improve protection for the vulnerable, enabling more effective and quicker checks on those seeking to work, for example, with children. It should make it much more difficult, as has happened tragically in the past, for people to slip through the net.

ID cards could speed up this process, but at what price to the rest of us? The government could start by fixing the mess that exists within the existing system. Why don't they know where paedophiles are today?

Proper identity management and ID cards also have an important role to play in preventing illegal immigration and illegal working. The effectiveness on the new biometric technology is, in fact, already being seen. In trials using this technology on visa applications at just nine overseas posts, our officials have already uncovered 1,400 people trying illegally to get back into the UK.

So why not just store biometric data for people who are trying to enter the country? Why do you need it for all of us?

Nor is Britain alone in believing that biometrics offer a massive opportunity to secure our identities. Firms across the world are already using fingerprint or iris recognition for their staff. France, Italy and Spain are among other European countries already planning to add biometrics to their ID cards. Over 50 countries across the world are developing biometric passports, and all EU countries are proposing to include fingerprint biometrics on their passports. The introduction in 2006 of British e-passports incorporating facial image biometrics has meant that British passport holders can continue to visit the United States without a visa. What the National Identity Scheme does is take this opportunity to ensure we maximise the benefits to the UK.

Maximise the benefits? Nobody else is pushing this hard against civil liberties. The US will certainly not go there and have sensibly forced the issue back onto governments such as our own. In any event, do we need to blindly follow companies and other countries or should we chart our own path using the principles of freedom and privacy that have been ours for centuries?

These then are the ways I believe ID cards can help cut crime and terrorism. I recognise that these arguments will not convince those who oppose a National Identity Scheme on civil liberty grounds. They will, I hope, be reassured by the strict safeguards now in place on the data held on the register and the right for each individual to check it. But I hope it might make those who believe ID cards will be ineffective reconsider their opposition.

That is not the aim of this letter. Anybody who was opposed to ID cards will not have been appeased by these weak arguments. Most of the most powerful arguments have not even been addressed.

If national ID cards do help us counter crime and terrorism, it is, of course, the law-abiding majority who will benefit and whose own liberties will be protected. This helps explain why, according to the recent authoritative Social Attitudes survey, the majority of people favour compulsory ID cards.

I'm sure that this is true, but how were the questions asked and who was surveyed. I'm sure I could construct polling questions that could deliver the opposite result. In any event, isn't it Tony Blair who always tells us that public opinion shouldn't matter (e.g. Iraq) and that he makes his decisions based on principle.

I am also convinced that there will also be other positive benefits. A national ID card system, for example, will prevent the need, as now, to take a whole range of documents to establish our identity. Over time, they will also help improve access to services.

I would rather have a range of documents from a variety of sources than one piece that could be systematically abused.

The petition also talks about cost. It is true that individuals will have to pay a fee to meet the cost of their ID card in the same way, for example, as they now do for their passports. But I simply don't recognise most claims of the cost of ID cards. In many cases, these estimates deliberately exaggerate the cost of ID cards by adding in the cost of biometric passports. This is both unfair and inaccurate.

The government has no credibility on this point.

As I have said, it is clear that if we want to travel abroad, we will soon have no choice but to have a biometric passport. We estimate that the cost of biometric passports will account for 70% of the cost of the combined passports/id cards. The additional cost of the ID cards is expected to be less than £30 or £3 a year for their 10-year lifespan. Our aim is to ensure we also make the most of the benefits these biometric advances bring within our borders and in our everyday lives.

blah, blah, blah.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Blair

Bugger off.

I've Jumped On The Terry Kelly Bandwagon

2007-02-19T21:58:00.001Z

I was sent to Councillor Terry Kelly - Socialist by Tom Paine and Not Saussure. It is absolutely brilliant and you should definitely check it out. He is a self proclaimed "man under siege" on his blog. He writes tremendous amounts of drivel and there are a number of other bloggers who love to wind him up. Who knew that such people still existed?

Why Not To Live Alone

2007-02-18T20:46:00.000Z

There is a story from Reuters here that is incredibly scary. Read the story and then think about all the things that can happen in a year.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Police called to a Long Island man's house discovered the mummified remains of the resident, dead for more than a year, sitting in front of a blaring television set.

The 70-year-old Hampton Bays, New York, resident, identified as Vincenzo Ricardo, appeared to have died of natural causes. Police said on Saturday his body was discovered on Thursday when they were called to the house over a burst water pipe.

"You could see his face. He still had hair on his head," Newsday quoted morgue assistant Jeff Bacchus as saying. The home's low humidity had preserved the body.

Officials could not explain why the electricity had not been turned off, considering Ricardo had not been heard from since December 2005.

Neighbors said when they had not seen Ricardo, who was diabetic and had been blind for years, they assumed he was in the hospital or a long-term care facility.

Government Pledges Our DNA To The EU

2007-02-16T02:32:00.000Z

It was, I suppose, only a matter of time before the European Union got its hands on our extremely intrusive DNA database. The Blair government doesn't give a damn about civil liberties and has now actively set about creating an EU-wide database that gives other governments access to our records. A large number of people on the database haven't even been convicted of a crime.

I have said it here before and I will say it again, we are evolving into a police state. The most worrying thing about the sharing of data across borders is the fact that DNA will become part of the passport application in 2009. DNA data can today be used for relatively few applications, but that is not to say that current scientific research won't yield greater uses. Feel afraid.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "The decision to share broad categories of information across the enlarged EU is deeply troubling. The information includes personal data, it is not limited to criminals and there are no reliable means to guarantee the safeguards on the use of that information by criminals gangs or those not entitled to use that data."

Citizen Hain

2007-02-15T23:46:00.000Z

Not so much a lurch as an opportunistic hop to the left by arch idiot Peter Hain. Not content with telling city workers to donate two thirds of their bonuses to charity or face a big fight, he has now suggested that television licences and bus passes should be means tested and given free to "the poor". If that doesn't contribute to a poverty trap then I don't know what will. Would we then need a sliding scale of television licence fees as people move out of poverty? It strikes me that a better move would be the removal of the subsidy for the BBC altogether. Then there would be no television tax and Eastenders could be paid for by advertising revenue. Do you see how less state intervention can actually be empowering Peter?

Let Peter's Westminster Popular Front come together for this "war on inequality".

More BBC Waste

2007-02-14T11:53:00.000Z

The Telegraph has picked up on the fact that the BBC has spent £700,000 or the equivalent of more than 5,300 household license fees on the redesign of the BBC 2 idents. They look lovely, but what a ridiculous amount of money flushed down the drain. Do they really need to spend this money at a time when they are downsizing? Would a commercial enterprise spend this money?

To add insult to injury, they were filmed in South Africa due to cost and the weather!

The Tip Of The CCTV Iceberg

2007-02-14T11:02:00.001Z

Is it surprising that CCTV cameras are being abused by staff at CCTV centres? Not really. There's an article in The Sun today that outs Tom Muff, who couldn't be more appropriately named, as spying on women using the police screens that he is paid to watch.

A POLICE CCTV operator has been carpeted — after security camera footage showed close-ups of the boobs and backside of a woman in the street.

Shocked detectives found a 20-minute sequence of saucy footage while checking the film during a probe into an assault.

The screen was filled by shots of a scantily clad woman’s breasts, bum and legs as she was “followed” by cameras in Worcester.

The Sun story, as you can imagine, is focused on the more salacious side of the incident, but there is a much larger issue at stake. Anybody who claims that this type of ubiquitous surveillance is only troubling to those of us who've done anything wrong is crazy. This is an occasion when an individual abused the system, but in the long-run there is no reason that the government can't undertake similar or worse abuses of our rights. Dizzy wrote yesterday about us not assuming that future governments will be as incompetent as the current one and he is absolutely right. This technology in the hands of an efficient state machine rather than a horny operator could be terrifying.

Russian Soldier Prostitutes

2007-02-13T19:14:00.000Z

This story here on the BBC website is too bizarre for words. Apparently, young soldiers based in St Petersburg have been forced into prostitution. If that wasn't bad enough, one was beaten so severely that he got gangrene and had to have his legs, and wait for it... genitals amputated. Are you kidding me? Is this common?

Richard Dawkins Interviewed On CNN's Paul Zahn Show

2007-02-13T11:22:00.000Z

This is not the best interview ever, but as usual Dawkins is extremely eloquent.

Petty Victories In The Blogosphere

2007-02-13T09:47:00.000Z

In the US, the big blogging story today is that a blogging member of staff for Presidential candidate John Edwards has been forced to resign. This has been heralded as a huge coup for the Catholic groups that set out to achieve this. It's yet another example of the influence of blogging on mainstream politics. The key question though is what it has really achieved? For some it will be proof that their contribution to the blogosphere has been recognised. For others it will be the culmination of thousands of words wasted in defence of a fallen comrade. For yet others it will mean nothing as they continue to blog about Jessica Simpson's new brown hair do.

So why is a relatively small online group of bloggers so focused on this story? I think we all feel that the political systems in our vast liberal democracies are remote, unresponsive and difficult to influence. These victories show that we can influence and that we aren't just shouting into a void. It's the little guy reclaiming some power for a change and what a rush when one of your blogging campaigns leaves cyberspace and ends up on the front page.

Blogging as a medium of communication is well suited to those of us with a slightly obsessive personality. From the early morning newspapers to late night TV, everything around us becomes something that might make a good blog entry. You can post instantly on any topic, so the desire to maintain a dialogue and a somewhat unique perspective on the world for your 45ish daily readers can concentrate the mind on issues that to others would appear to be esoteric and bizarre. These little victories can take on mammoth proportions. Let's just hope that the desire to be "influencers" doesn't just lead to petty squabbles and victories that are anything but.

The Problem With Permanent Sucking Up

2007-02-12T14:32:00.000Z

I've always been a big fan of being sucked up to and whether it's in a shop or on a plane, a bit of brown nosing goes a long way. In small doses it can make you feel special, warm and just a little bit powerful. I suppose it's a bit like a gateway drug. It starts with the occasional weekend excess, but in a short time you've moved on to Class A ego stroking and from there it's a risky business. An overdose can be fatal.

Judging by the last few weeks, Blair has been smoking the crack pipe of adulation for slightly too long. He's become a man obsessed by the hand of history and the "legacy" that he will leave after 10 long years in office. Jackie Ashley writing in the Guardian today has been the first to out Tony's post office plan. He will become to the global environment what Superman is to Metropolis. In Ashley's words it is "Tony to save the world".

If the Priory didn't have enough on their plate, what with Jade Goody's recent stint, it is becoming increasingly clear that Blair needs a bit of therapy and counseling of his own in order to beat his addiction. In cases like this, the intervention strategy might be appropriate. First of all Tony must be removed from his Downing Street buddies that lead him astray. Secondly he needs to understand the impact that his actions are having on those closest to him. It's only when he can admit that he has a problem that he can begin to change. C'mon Tony it's not too late.

New Look...

2007-02-12T03:41:00.000Z

No, not the low end chain of high street clothing stores, a make-over for the blog. I thought that if it was good enough for The Mirror, The Times and The Appalling Strangeness then it was good enough for me. I've tried to keep it very simple and based it on the standard Rounders theme.

Worst Dressed?

2007-02-11T21:25:00.001Z

Admittedly there were a lot of contenders at this year's BAFTA awards, but I think Eva Green wins. What the hell has she done to her hair?

Did the guys who redesigned the Mirror website style her for the night? I'm sure I recognise that red.

Expensive Mistakes

2007-02-11T20:07:00.000Z

First The Times and now the Mirror. Who redesigned their site? It is awful and now officially the worst newspaper website in the UK, just ahead of The Times Online. From the bubbly buttons to the busy screen it is a travesty of crap design. I'm no designer, but does anybody want to hire me as a consultant on a newspaper redesign? I certainly wouldn't do a worse job than these guys have.

BBC Once Again Stifling The Media Industry

2007-02-11T15:32:00.000Z

Good to see Kevin Bakhurst, the BBC News 24 Controller, writing here on the BBC's The Editors about competition being a fine thing for viewers. It is always fun when the word competition is used by an organisation that faces no competitive threats whatsoever due to its position as a taxpayer funded body. Yes, competition is a good thing for the audience, so maybe we can start by leveling the playing field.

Here are his comments:

It emerged late yesterday that from the Spring, if Ofcom approves, Sky News will no longer be available free to viewers on Freeview.

They currently get around 845,000 viewers a week on this platform out of their weekly total of 4 million. For us at the BBC, I think this is a double-edged sword.

Sky have already rather given up on viewing figures as BBC News 24 has moved substantially ahead of them (6 million a week versus 4 million). Whereas, a few years ago audience size was their preferred measure of success, it has now been quietly dropped. The move on Freeview will almost certainly be another big blow to their audience size.

I can fully understand why Rupert Murdoch and BSkyB have taken this decision on commercial grounds alone: you can make money out of movies and sport but not easily from news. However, I do think it's a real shame for TV News coverage in the UK.

We are very fortunate to have two thriving 24-hour TV News channels and I firmly believe competition is a good thing for the audience. Sky's decision will be a bad thing for news audiences, particularly those who can't afford subscription services and choose Freeview for that reason. I would just say that for us at BBC News 24, we put immense value on our audiences and their views - and will continue to do so whatever platform they watch us on.

Old Labour Rears Its Ugly Hain

2007-02-11T15:14:00.001Z

You really need to read this interview by Peter Hain in the Daily Telegraph (here). In this imaginative return to the 70s, he calls for City bonuses to be given to the poor and needy.

"I don't believe that people will only work in the City because they get those sort of bonuses. They don't need to offer them. Why don't they give two thirds of that £8.8 billion and invest it in charity or invest it in regeneration schemes for unemployed kids who are living a mile away from the opulence that there is in the City?

"In the interest of the City, particularly if they don't want to invite attacks for greater regulation or changes in taxation, if they don't want to get into that kind of arena, then they have to show a lead.

"Let's work this out on the basis of consensus, let's not have a big fight, because it will come to a big fight otherwise.

"There's a debate starting and either it's done in a self policing way, a way that shows moral and socially responsible leadership, or people will look for other solutions."They may go down the regulation road. It's hard for me to see how that would work, but they may do."

Does Hain honestly believe that large banks and asset managers would be giving such whacking great bonuses if they didn't need to? And if they stopped, would they give it to charity or to shareholders? Hmmm let me think... Nice one Peter, now go and lie down for a while.

My Entry For The £12m Virgin Prize

2007-02-09T13:49:00.000Z

I was reading Daily Pundit's views here on Richard Branson's new £12m prize for the person who can develop the best way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and it gave me a great idea. How about a Spaceballs style Mega Maid? Alright just send me a cheque.

Tough Life For Lounging Royal

2007-02-09T11:49:00.000Z

Looks like The Earl of Wessex is having a particularly exhausting trip to the Caribbean judging by today's Court Circular in The Times (here). He visited a gallery and then went to a Golf Club. This follows a pretty arduous trip that included a quick stop over in Palm Beach, Florida (here). Good to see him still representing the UK on the beaches, sorry major social events of the world. Money well spent in my opinion

February 8: The Earl of Wessex, Trustee, The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award International Foundation, this morning visited the new National Heroes Gallery, Bridge-town, Barbados.
His Royal Highness, Trustee, The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award International Foundation, afterwards attended a Reception for The Duke of Edinburgh’s Golf Cup at Sandy Lane Golf Club, Saint James.
The Earl of Wessex later departed Barbados for the United Kingdom.

Miliband Whacks Brown On Question Time

2007-02-08T23:31:00.000Z

David Miliband made a huge gaffe on Question Time tonight by claiming that the audience would be booing Gordon Brown and demanding Tony Blair back in a year. He realised his mistake and lamely tried to put it right, but perhaps a little too late. Ooops... not sure Gordon is going to be very pleased with that. See the latest episode here. It is close to the end.

Update: Also on the BBC news website here. The exact quote was "I predict that when I come back on this programme in six months or a year's time, people will be saying 'wouldn't it be great to have that Blair back because we can't stand that Gordon Brown'."

Congestion Ken

2007-02-08T16:47:00.000Z

I've just been reading over the form I'll need to fill in for my Congestion Poll Tax when the charging zone expands into my street on February 19th. I started off outraged that I'd be hit with an additional £200 charge, but I suppose in the mini police state that is the UK, it isn't a massive amount of money. In fact, the more I've thought about it the happier I've become. I now qualify for the 90% discount on the overall cost, so I'll be happily driving into the old congestion charge zone on weekdays because it'll make no financial difference. I might not be able to park, but I'm sorry Ken I'll be driving round congesting all day everyday to teach you a lesson.

The western front of the congestion charge zone will cover a massive residential area of people who will probably drive in central London much more than they did before. Please tell me this isn't just a money making scheme.

Conservatives Come Out Strongly Against New Times Poll

2007-02-07T08:19:00.000Z

In a shock reaction to this morning's Times poll showing that David Cameron's support doesn't extend to the Midlands, North of England, Wales and Scotland, the Conservatives have announced that they will begin a huge trench that starts on the west coast and runs the width of the UK. "The North" will then be towed closer to the Arctic Circle enabling northerners to complain even more about how grim things are. Cameron's official spokesman stated, "it's about bloody time. Why didn't we float these people away years ago when we first knew that they didn't like us?"

Good IDea

2007-02-06T14:29:00.000Z

I am incredibly pleased that the Conservatives have come out wholeheartedly against the ID scheme. All they need to do now is pledge to tighten up rules on how information is shared across government departments, scale back the (ab)use of the police DNA database, reduce the number of CCTV cameras and remove a large number of speed cameras and they might have a pretty good freedom platform to run on.

They Can't See The Small Business Bureaucracy For The Trees

2007-02-06T11:07:00.000Z

I have just received a letter from HM Revenue & Customs inviting me to a "London Business Advice Day" to help me deal with government red tape, sorry help me succeed in running my business. There are a ridiculous number of public bodies to meet. Here's the letter:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am delighted to enclose an invitation to a free business advice day being hosted by HM Revenue and Customs on Wednesday 21st March 2007 at The Business Design Centre, 52 Upper Street, Islington, London, N1 0QH.

Over 50 Government Departments, agencies and public sector organisations will be attending the event, providing advice and support to help you succeed in running your business successfully.

There are also free education semnars on a range of isses, to help you make the most of your day.

For further details please see the enclosed flyer or alternatively visit our website at www. businessadviceday.co.uk

I hope you will be able to join us.

Yours faithfully,

Roger Lovell
Business Liaison Team Manager

Over 50 bloody organisations and agencies!!! If this many entities are involved, no wonder small business is suffering. This is a shambles and a good example of unjoined up government. I definitely won't be wasting a day at this thing. I spend enough time filling out the endless forms and complying with the infinite regulations that these people spew out on a daily basis.

Cameron Sinking Lower And Lower This Morning

2007-02-06T10:58:00.000Z

David Cameron has made a major media appearance today on This Morning with Fern and Phil. Incisive questions such as "How do we deal with extremists in our society?" were followed up with "Why's Tony Blair having such a tough time?" Fern clearly fancies herself as a little bit of a serious interviewer and why wouldn't she after her long stint on Ready Steady Cook? I would think that the new host of that programme, Ainsley Harriott, will be in line for the BBC Political Editor role in a year or two.

My favourite part of the interview was Fern's impassioned "Patients just want clean hospitals, with clean sheets and no bugs, with decent food and good nurses". I can just see the letters being written now by Doreen in Whitstable, "Thanks Fern for speaking on behalf of us normal people". The problem with this is that these things don't just appear Fern they need policies and that means talking about other points that are slightly more complicated.

These lightweight interviews play a specific role of reaching an audience that isn't normally interested in politics, but in terms of learning anything new about the Conservative party it was a waste of time. This was a very Blairesque performance and I'm sure the styles will be compared again and again.

To put this edition of This Morning into perspective, the other major guest was Jamie Oliver's dad. Are you kidding me? What the bloody hell? I'm surprised Jamie Oliver's postman hasn't gotten in on the act. All aboard the Cash-In Express.

John F Kennedy 1960 Television Political Ad

2007-02-05T23:08:00.001Z

This blog has been a little too newspaper focused today, so I thought I would balance it a little with a political ad from JFK's 1960 election campaign for President. Priceless.

Guardian Knows Nothing, So Makes Up Headline

2007-02-05T22:47:00.000Z

There's a story on The Guardian website (here) with the headline "Blair will not face third interview". Well there we are. We should assume that Blair is in the clear and that all is right with the world should we? Well er... no actually.

If you bother to read the article you realise that the only evidence they have of "will not" is the word of Blair's official spokesman who is not aware of any contact between No 10 and Scotland Yard regarding a further interview. Indeed, he has "checked with everyone [he] can conceivably check with in Downing Street and in wider government and the answer is no." Well that's a little different from "will not" isn't it. It may be more appropriate to use the headline, "Blair may not face third interview because we can't find someone to tell us he will, but wait a minute they kept it secret from us last time, so we cannot categorically say either way". Not as snappy, but about 100% more accurate.

Times Site Still Not Really Working

2007-02-05T20:40:00.000Z

The redesign is a total disaster. I tried to get on there to give feedback on how bad it is and managed to get my screen to look like this (below) before giving up and moving on. "web 2.0" features like participation in the site only work if the site actually loads.

Terrible Times Redesign

2007-02-05T10:14:00.000Z

Hurrah for the web consultants. Another website redesigned and ruined. I cannot believe that the new Times website has gone live in what can only be described as an Alpha version of the site. It looks awful. Admittedly the navigation bar has been made simpler than the odd mix of horizontal and vertical that the site used to sport, but this has been done in such an ugly fashion that any navigational benefits are lost as a result. It also loads incredibly slowly for some reason - slower in fact than any of the other UK newspaper sites I visit (Guardian, Telegraph, Daily Mail, The Sun, Mirror, Independent and the NOTW). There are objects floating everywhere and there has been no effort made to streamline the page. It is now a horrible mess of icons, stories, pictures and links. And who chose that awful font size and the shocking colour scheme?

Update: The site is so bad that had to go out and buy a paper version. Is this their cunning secret strategy to drive up circulation?

Protect And Survive

2007-02-05T01:43:00.000Z

There is a brilliant article here in the Guardian by Steve Boggan. He has visited the huge government underground bunker in Wiltshire that was built as a command and control centre in the event of a nuclear war. He has also examined the current civil defense measures in place to protect us today.

His article mentions the old Protect and Survive government instructions and I've found some really interesting old videos on Youtube. Here's one entitled "Action After Warnings".

Blair Drums Up The Usual Suspects For Support

2007-02-04T21:10:00.001Z

Interesting article on the BBC website here that sums up the comments of ministers that came out swinging for Blair today. Unsurprisingly, Blears, Jowell and Hewitt drew the short straws. What was more interesting was who wasn't out defending the Prime Minister. If that's the best they can rustle up then he really must be in trouble.

The key talking points can be summed up as follows:

1. He should be allowed to "get on with the job";
2. He should all be wary of "unattributed" stories;
3. It would be "undemocratic" to drive him from office during the inquiry;
4. "The prime minister is giving outstanding leadership."

As far as number one is concerned it seems pretty clear to me that a Prime Minister who doesn't have control over the Cabinet or his party cannot just "get on with the job." I have a little sympathy with the second point and I do think the Labour politicians who are spinning against Blair should to some extent put up or shut up. I cannot for the life of me work out what is "undemocratic" about his party pushing him from office. That is exactly the way our political system is supposed to work. He cannot be primus inter pares without the support of other MPs. Once this is lost then he should no longer be Prime Minister. This overrides any party systems to elect leaders and so it should. Do I need to say anything about four other than it is patently not the case.

Weak talking points, none of the big gun ministers. How long does Blair have left?

Matthew Parris Spot On Again

2007-02-03T18:28:00.000Z

Here's an excerpt from Matthew Parris' article in today's Times. I think he is absolutely on the money in terms of what Brown should do to bring the Blair "presidency" to an end. I also entirely agree with his analysis that Brown is not a shoo in for Labour leader.

Mr Brown tells himself that he dare not raise a hand against his leader because then he would inherit a sour and cantankerous party. But he will already. Does he not know that the Blairites detest him, that few of them expect him to do well and some of them actively want him to mess things up? These, then, are the two reasons why Mr Brown’s passivity is rotting his inheritance. But there’s a third argument for action. I still believe — in fact my belief is growing — that 10 Downing Street may never be his inheritance. I am not quitting that small band of commentators who (though we have been forced to admit that a Brown premiership is the likelihood) hold stubbornly to our hunch that it is not in the bag.

Like David Davis’s supposed inheritance of the Tory leadership, it could crumble so fast once it began to slip. An overvalued stock, Mr Brown’s crown is a prophecy that most people buy because most other people are buying it. I know of few who — were the bottom to fall out of the Brown market — would not be saying “I always did have my doubts”. Even now, few are confident he can win the next election. So why make him leader? To my disappointment, Alan Johnson seems to have lowered his sights. John Reid is not having a good year. But if David Miliband were to step forward then (Mary Ann Sieghart is right) he would get a positive response not only from the press but from many of his contemporaries. There would be a sense of relief. All at once, people would be asking: “Why does it have to be Brown, anyway?” The Tories, whose picador-attacks on the Chancellor are working well for them and who are looking forward to the matador stuff later, would be in panic: their weaponry and leadership is not designed for a fight with someone like Mr Miliband.

Do They Ever Go Quietly?

2007-02-02T12:29:00.000Z

Ultimately, it was the behind the scenes machinations that led to Thatcher's resignation, despite her desire to stay in the role. I wonder if similar conversations are taking place at Number 10 today. Blair has publicly stated his wish to stay, but the current police inquiry is making this more and more difficult. Anybody brave enough to bet that he'll be gone by the end of next week?

Here is the BBC One evening news from the day of Thatcher's resignation.

Blair On The Ropes

2007-01-31T14:58:00.000Z

Today's attack at Prime Minister's questions from David Cameron was extremely powerful and represents a new tactic from the Opposition. Cameron's new line is "When is he going to realise it is all over? It is time for him to go." The underlying point is that Blair is now damaging Britain by hanging on to power. There's not a great response to this one and it is now only a matter of time...

What Is Truth?

2007-01-30T21:53:00.000Z

Think Progress is carrying new report presented to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project showing 435 instances in which the Bush administration interfered into the global warming work of government scientists over the past five years.

Frank Zappa Debates Censorship

2007-01-30T20:18:00.000Z

Here is a great video that I came across via Digg. It's from an episode of Crossfire from the 1980s. Zappa's responses are absolutely brilliant as he shows the absurdity of government censorship. Novak gets really fired up. "I love it when you froth like that."

How Long Does Reid Have Left?

2007-01-27T17:12:00.000Z

GMTV's Janus

2007-01-25T13:23:00.000Z

Uh that's Janus rather than anus, but you would have been forgiven for assuming the latter if you had watched this morning's show. Caroline Flint, the government minister responsible for getting us all fit, was on the show talking about childhood obesity. This was in response to the fattest seven year old I've ever seen. A more corpulent child would need to be put in a wheelbarrow and this doughboy couldn't stop himself from huffing and puffing like a 70 year old man even when he was sitting down. This was clearly parental irresponsibility on a massive scale and GMTV at least pointed this out. Unfortunately, the very next item was where in Britain you could buy the best fish and chips and there were at least three or four school kids tucking in at this award winning establishment. You couldn't make it up.

A New Arms Race?

2007-01-23T11:13:00.000Z

Great to see that China now has the capability to shoot down satellites (here). That should come as good news to democratic governments and mobile phone companies all over the world.

It must only be a matter of time now before a head-on confrontation with the US occurs. The key reason made for this not happening is the interdependence of their economies and the high level of trade between the two. However, this assumes that the quasi-communist regime in China cares for the well being of its citizens - a big assumption - and that relations with the US are the key to its long-term economic future.

With around a billion people, it dwarfs the United States and makes Britain look like a pimple on a panda's bottom. I for one will be learning Mandarin as soon as possible. Now what's Chinese for "yes sir"!

Bloody Goody and Smelly Kelly

2007-01-22T10:29:00.000Z

This weekend has been all about resetting my body clock after my trip and I'm pleased to say that it's worked. I got up at a normal time this morning despite spending half the night watching the Indianapolis Colts versus the New England Patriots on Sky Sports. To the detractors of American Football, there would not have been a better game to watch. High scoring and full of drama, it was a tale of two quarter backs and the weight of recent history. The Colts won and I can't wait to see Peyton Manning in the Superbowl.

The one "significant" news item I missed on my recent trip overseas was the Jade Goody race row. I cannot believe that this has dominated news headlines for so long. I can't even pretend to find this interesting. This is a pathetically thick woman on a show created for and watched by morons. What does it say about racism in Britain? Absolutely nothing. Now let's move on.

The other person that does continue to attract my negative attention is Ruth Kelly. Where did Nu Labour find this hideous individual. It staggers me that as Communities Minister she can be so opposed to one part of it. Her views on homosexual adoption are questionable at best if held personally, but downright outrageous in the position she's in. The counter argument is that we are all entitled to personal opinions. As I have said here before, specifically in relation to Ruth Kelly's decision to take her "special needs" child out of state schooling, if she wants to have opinions that are diametrically opposed to the manifesto under which she was elected and serves then she should resign. Please resign!

Heaven And Earth Is The BBC At Its Worst

2007-01-21T10:23:00.000Z

I got back from my trip to New Zealand yesterday and although I was away for just three weeks I feel like I've been away for months. My body clock is in turmoil, but I'm hoping to get it back in the right time zone over the next couple of days.

Normally I'm tucked up asleep in bed at 10:35am on Sundays but due to the trip I've been up since 6am. Imagine how excited I was to discover Gloria Hunniford's BBC programme "Heaven and Earth". It's a bit of a grab bag of a show, featuring celebrity interviews, debates on hot religious topics and news style reporting. The phrases "low brow" and "dumbing down" would be a kind way to describe a show that looks at some of the greatest philosophical questions in a truly facile and pointless manner.

Today's show featured the top guest line-up of David Blunkett and Englebert Humperdinck. However, it wasn't their searing religious insights that got me fired up enough to write a blog entry, it was their ridiculous segment on the teaching of intelligent design in British schools. The main focus of the segment was Dr Alastair Noble, an "expert" in intelligent design and a scientist who wanted to see it taught in science lessons. I wanted to find out more about this chap as there aren't many credible scientists that support ID. What I found with a quick Google search came as no surprise. He is not an expert on this topic and actually works as the Scottish Education Officer for the Christian charity CARE (Christian Action Research and Education). You can see a little bit more about him here. This was not ever pointed out on the programme and is either classic BBC sloppiness or something a little more dangerous. Interestingly, that small description of him points out that he has also worked for the BBC. This lack of information on his background left viewers with the sense that he was coming from a purely scientific perspective, rather than a Christian one. I don't have a problem with a range of views, but we should definitely ensure that we know who is talking and why.

Suffice to say I will not be watching this crappy programme again. Good to see our TV tax being spent on low quality sunday morning rubbish.

Barack On Track

2007-01-17T05:45:00.000Z

So, no surprise to learn that Barack Obama is forming a committee to formally explore a run for President. This has been on the cards since he spoke extremely well during the 2004 campaign. Many are describing this as Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare, but there are a number of reasons (highlighted here in October by Our American Cousin) that make it unlikely that Obama will win:

1) Senators never get elected, so it's a pointless discussion (the only one in the past hundred years was Kennedy, and his dad called in a few favours for that one). This applies equally to Hillary and was almost certainly at the root of John Kerry's problems at the last election.

2) Not proud to say it, but how does a guy whose last name is one letter away from Osama and whose middle name is Hussein get elected in a post-9/11 invading Iraq America? Forget black-white issues--will this country be enlightened enough to elect a man with an Arabic name (even if he happens to be a Christian raised in Hawaii and a descendent of Jeff Davis)? I'd like to think so, but we are talking about the same electorate who was easily convinced that a winner of the silver star and three purple hearts was a coward while a draft-dodger who didn't even complete his service in the Texas Air National Guard was some kind of war hero.

3) Everyone gets very excited about the chance to have the first African-American president, but, racial labels aside, I don't think that distinction really counts until the direct descendant of a slave is elected. As Thomas Sowell, among others has pointed out, basing racism on the color of skin alone often overlooks a cultural bias against "American" blacks in favor of relatively recent Caribbean and African origin. So in a country where a black kid is six times more likely than a white kid to go to jail for the same crime (and with the same record), we ought to be very careful about what is real racial progress and what only appears to be racial progress. Interesting also to note that the typical civil rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson have pointedly chosen not to support Obama with much gusto.

Harry Training For Iraq

2007-01-15T11:46:00.000Z

It is interesting to see (here) that Prince Harry is training to go to Iraq and it says a great deal about his character that he seems keen to go with the guys he's trained with. It is likely that in the next few months, Prince William could be put in the same position. I cannot understand those who say that the second and third in line for the throne should not be heading out there in case they come to harm. Do we still believe in the 21st century that royal lives are worth more or less than any other? I will be disgusted if the MOD decide that either of them shouldn't go. I certainly hope that no harm comes to either, but I feel the same way about everyone that we have out there, from the cooks to the generals.

TV Predictions 2007

2007-01-15T11:17:00.000Z

I am still in New Zealand, but heading back this week. Before I reconnect fully with the UK political landscape, I thought I might fill you in on two of my favourite television shows that are currently running in the US.

The first is 'Friday Night Lights' an amazing show based on the movie released in 2004 and the 1990 book by Bissinger. Ostensibly it is about a football team in a small Texas town, but for anyone wise enough to track it down, it is much, much more. It really showcases American TV at its best - terrific acting, great writing and superb cinematography. I have been glued to it all season and although I haven't seen anything about it being picked up in the UK, I urge you to hunt it out. It has had great reviews from critics although the US public hasn't quite warmed to it in the same way. I just hope they get into it soon and ensure that more episodes are made.

The second is 'Heroes'. I don't feel quite as well placed to comment on this one having only seen the first episode, but it is off to a great start. The premise is that there are a group of people brought together by newly found special powers. It is very similar to X-Men, but is done incredibly well and is focused on normal people rather than a breed of mutants. I think it is being picked up by the Sci-Fi channel in the UK and I will be tuning in regularly. It really deserves a wider reach and could end up being bigger than Lost. It was the most talked about US series on the internet last year.

Both of these programmes are from NBC and represent really exciting investments by this US TV channel. If only we had a true market based media in the UK...

Everybody Loves Lego

2007-01-08T14:36:00.000Z

Watch the amazing video below of a Lego Mindstorms creation. It's an automated Lego car builder made out of Lego. Simply amazing. It takes the Lego pieces that you input and turns them into a tiny vehicle.

Education, Education, Education - Resign, Resign, Resign

2007-01-08T13:25:00.000Z

I haven't blogged here in a little while as I'm in New Zealand attending a friend's wedding, but one story has really caught my attention and made me angry enough to search out internet access. That story is the breaking news about Ruth Kelly's decision to send her son to a private school because her own local schools are not suitable to educate his "special needs" (here).

Other blogs (notably Guido's and Iain Dale's) have rather let the minister off the hook. I for one believe that this is a fundamental issue and that she should resign. I don't fall for all this crap about her having to make a decision in the best interest of her child. She was elected and subsequently became part of a government that promised to improve education for all children. This has patently not happened and this former education minister shares a great deal of the blame. In my view she has two choices: 1) agree that the government has failed, send her child to a private school and resign; or 2) send him to a local state school and keep her job. What she cannot be allowed to do is admit failure and retain her role.

The press gave Tony Blair an easy ride over the choice of education for his own children and unfortunately that set a terrible precedent. How long are we going to stomach ministers who tell us, "do as we say, not as we do"? The argument could have been made that Tony Blair had to make his decision about his own kids before being given an opportunity to improve the lot of his local schools. These bastards have now had almost 10 years to make their changes, so this argument will simply not fly any more.

Iain Dale says "I won't be calling for Ruth Kelly's head", but then goes on to say "But she should answer this question: what would someone do if they didn't have the financial resources to pay £15,000 to a prep school?" There is no suitable answer to that question and that's why she must resign. Come on Iain, I would have expected more from you.

This is a government on the brink of collapse and cabinet ministers are behaving with a complete lack of collective responsibility. Has the country gone mad? When did it become alright to stay in a government and then publicly argue against it? First it was health and local hospital closures and now it is education. When will somebody resign on a matter of principle?

The Labour cabinet has become a morally bankrupt collection of individuals that are positioning themselves for life post Tony. Shame on them.

Robots Are Not Going To Demand Legal Rights

2006-12-24T17:14:00.000Z

There are some government sponsored reports that really make you laugh. Unfortunately you then realise that we are bloody paying for them. This article from the BBC gives a prime example.

"Robots could one day demand the same citizen's rights as humans, according to a study by the British government. If granted, countries would be obligated to provide social benefits including housing and even 'robo-healthcare', the report says."

This idea is pure, unadulterated rubbish. Robots will not be demanding rights in 20-50 years if ever. As one internet commentator put it "My roomba can barely find it's way out from under a chair, much less petition for a revised Emancipation Proclamation." In any event, if robots demand rights then we can deal with it at the time. What is the government possibly going to put in place in case this happens?

To put the current state of robotics into perspective, the Toyota robot (shown above) fell over at a recent public event. Unfortunately, it isn't able to get back up again on its own. I suppose it could be offered the same rights as the morbidly obese - they suffer from similar issues.

A Disgraceful Waste of Money

2006-12-14T17:50:00.000Z

Good to see that the television licence ~~tax~~ fee is being put to good use. A story in The London Paper reads as follows:

The wild Radio 1 Christmas party left bosses with a sore head as they paid a £30,000 bar bill for DJs and staff last night.

The likes of Vernon Kay, Fearne Cotton and Pete Tong all gathered at the three-floor Sound club in Leicester Square, which has recently undergone a multi-million pound refurbishment, enjoying the fresh sushi and huge amounts of alcohol.

I hope they enjoyed their sushi and alcohol paid for by 228 hardworking houses. I cannot take the BBC's demands for a licence fee increase above the rate of inflation seriously while they waste money on events like this. Privatise it.

Monster Raving Boring

2006-12-12T03:19:00.000Z

I know that the Monster Raving Looney Party is supposed to be pointless, but for many there has always been a little sense of affection for their lightening of the democratic dialogue. Unfortunately, I think their time and any possible relevance has passed, even though party leader, Alan Hope, looks remarkably like Boss Hogg.

A recent stunt (reported here at the BBC) was an effort to drum up publicity. The big idea: make Mondays part of the weekend. What a crazy, mad cap idea. I would love to meet the comic genius that came up with that one. Surely there were a million better ideas. In fact, why did they choose an idea that has already been adopted by most socialist governments in the EU?

The sad part of all of this is that Ian Duncan Smith will probably be forced to announce this idea as part of a Tory policy review next week.

Please Send Cash

2006-12-09T01:07:00.000Z

Hazel Blears has apparently "spilled the beans" about the potential for a snap general election. In a letter to Labour Party activists she is quoted as writing, "In the New Year we face real challenges, the election of a new leader, local elections and the need to prepare for the forthcoming General election, which may be less than 16 months away." That would put the next election at around March 2008. The Mirror chides her for revealing this top secret knowledge, but I can't be the only one that sees it as a transparent cash call ahead of loan repayments. There is a distinct smell of desperation here...

Best To Think Again On This One

2006-12-05T03:03:00.000Z

A Department for Work and Pensions press release has revealed an unfortunate acronym. The press release here refers to the fact that all public sector bodies had to set out how they plan to promote equality for disabled people by December 4th. Unfortunately, this initiative is known as the Disability Equality Duty or D.E.D. How did that pass the scrutiny of a raft of consultants?

The Harsh Hand Of History

2006-12-05T01:28:00.000Z

We aren't the only ones that think George W. Bush might be the worst President that the US has ever had. An article from the Washington Post entitled 'He's The Worst Ever' concludes the following:

"Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history."

Jesus Camp

2006-12-04T17:52:00.000Z

Watch the complete movie of Jesus Camp, the controversial documentary that follows an evangelical Christian summer camp for children to learn and practice their "prophetic gifts" and prepare to "take back America for Christ."

This really is quite scary...

Cameron's First 12 Months

2006-12-03T17:27:00.001Z

I thought it might be interesting to give a roundup of the articles written about Cameron's first year in office. It seems to be much more of a theme in the mainstream media than it is in blogs. I may have missed a whole bunch though, so if I have and you would like me to link to them below, then please just write in the comments.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA
The Guardian - David Cameron Still Has A Mountain To Climb
The Guardian - 'David's Brain' Changes The Tory Brand
The Observer - Cameron Faces Barrage of 'Friendly' Fire
The BBC - Tories 'Have Mountain To Climb'
The Telegraph - Verdict: Not Bad For Year One
The Telegraph - Memorandum To Cameron
News Of The World - Poll Blow: Readers Don't Want Cameron For PM
The Mail - Not A Bad Start Dave, But Could Do Better
The Mail - Project Cameron One Year On
The Times - Year One: Is Better Good Enough For Cameron?

BLOGS
Cassilis - David Cameron: One Year On...
Oxford Liberal - In his own words: a year in the life of Dave
Daily Pundit - Cameron Alienating The Great Undecided

Fellow Blogger Highlights BBC Music Monopoly

2006-12-02T07:55:00.000Z

This is a couple of days late, but I wanted to highlight some research for the ERC conducted by fellow blogger Andrew Ian Dodge (Dodgeblogium). I personally think he has this point absolutely spot on. It's not surprising that the effective State monopoly on music distribution has ruined its competitiveness in the same way as it has other British industries in the past.

CREATIVE DESTRUCTION IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY - THE WAY AHEAD

Background
Britain's music industry is is in crisis; sales of singles and albums are collapsing while digital downloads - often illegal - are exploding. Meanwhile UK artists are failing to exploit the new technologies and sales channels that could give them a competitive edge and the record companies continue to work on a pre-digital redundant business model - one where they have a monopoly of recording, releasing and distributing music.

The Economic Research Council, Britain's oldest economic think-tank,has commissioned music technology expert Andrew Ian Dodge, and a published author, blogger and rock musician to explore how the UK could regain its past glory in the music industry. Jo-Anne Nadler, former Radio 1 producer and now an established political commentator and author has written the foreword. The paper describes the current crisis, how artists and the recording labels could adjust to the new digital era and what policy changes government should enact to make this possible.

Please find below a quote from Dodge based on his paper, which is entitled, "Creative Destruction in the Music Industry - THE WAY AHEAD"

Dodge, highly critical of the BBC's monopoly of the airwaves which has stymied musical innovation says; "Still top-quality British music is ignored in favour of BBC-approved bland pap."

Furthermore, Dodge bemoans the music industry's failure to adjust to the new digital era.

"Choice for consumers to access music and for bands to promote and produce their wares continues at an impressive rate. The music business continues to stare at the oncoming future like a deer in headlamps."

Poor Losers

2006-12-02T01:13:00.000Z

There is a great article in the LA Times that discusses the underlying reasons for the hardening of US public opinion in relation to Iraq. This short excerpt gives you a taste of the author's view:

"Indeed, when partisans claim that the American people are fed up and want our troops home, they're deliberately muddying the waters. The American people have never objected to far-flung deployments of our troops. We've had soldiers stationed all over the world for decades.

"What the American people don't like is losing — lives or wars. After all, you don't hear many people complaining that we still have troops in Japan and Germany more than 20,000 days later."

Deluded About Delusion

2006-12-02T00:18:00.000Z

I am increasingly using Political Opinions to sift through the mountain of political commentary posted daily on UK blogs. Every now and again I come across a posting that is either brilliant and deserves praise or terrible and deserves ridicule. I came across one at Chris Whiteside's blog that unfortunately falls into the latter category.

Chris describes himself in the third person as "a Conservative activist, living in Cumbria with his wife and young family. He has held a wide range of posts both in the Conservative Party and as a councillor and school governor, and is currently a Vice President of Copeland Conservatives."

Chris posted an entry a few hours ago that left me Engaged and Angry rather than Disillusioned and Bored. I tried picking out pieces of the article here, but I felt that I was doing him a disservice and that I could be accused of taking him out of context. So regrettably, here is the entire text:

The Dawkins Delusion

Professor Richard Dawkins is brilliant at explaining biology in a way which many people can understand. However, his objection to religion sometimes verges on the unhinged.

Ironically, both his recent book, "The God Delusion" and his plans, if correctly reported in the press, to send rationalist material to schools, are open to exactly the same charge which he has brought with some justice against the supporters of so-called "Creation Science" and those who want "Intelligent Design" taught in schools.

From now on, I shall use the expression "The Dawkins Delusion" to refer to the fallacy that science can either prove or indeed disprove the existence of God.

Science is a means of testing how the physical world works. It is a very effective method, and nobody who is interested in the truth has anything to fear from it.

The scientific method consists of putting forward a hypothesis which is capable of being tested and disproved by real world evidence, and checking that hypothesis against the evidence. If the facts line up with the hypothesis, you stick with it: if repeated tests fail to reject the hypothesis, it is promoted to a theory. But if the facts disprove a hypothesis or theory, it has to be discarded, and replaced either with a completely new idea, or a new, modified version which can explain the new data: and which has itself to be tested against the facts.

However, only ideas which are capable of being disproved have anything to do with science. In the past, various religions used to put forward ideas about how the real world works which were indeed capable of such checking: for example, the idea that Heaven and Earth were created on 26th October 4004BC at 9 o'clock in the morning, or the idea that Winter is caused because the daughter of the Goddess of the Harvest had to spend six months of the year in the underworld. We now have very strong evidence suggesting the likelihood that the origin of the earth is closer to 4000 million BC than 4004 BC, and we can explain Summer and Winter because the axis on which the earth spins is tilted towards the sun for part of the year at any given latitude, and away from the sun at other times.

But while some ideas or religious origin are capable of being scientifically tested, others are not. For example, the structure of ethics which is associated with any religion, and also fundamental to the running of human society, can be assessed using logic, but is not subject to science. How could you devise a scientific test of the principle that murder is wrong, for instance ?

Further, both belief and disbelief in a God are philosopical and religious positions, but not scientific ones. I do not believe that any human test could possible be devised which could prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists, or that He doesn't. Both the Theist and the Atheist have to make a leap of faith.

"Intelligent Design" does not belong in a science class, because there is no way you could conclusively disprove it. Neither do Professor Dawkins's atheist views for exactly the same reason. His belief that this religious position is scientific is The Dawkins Delusion.

I'm glad that Chris bothered to write the article because it will be clear to any reader that he doesn't understand a word of The God Delusion. Has he even read the book? It might be a good start.

The examples Chris gives in his article of scientific progress are not really cases of "putting forward a hypothesis which is capable of being tested and disproved by real world evidence". They are in fact examples of evidence backing up a hypothesis. The balance of this evidence is then used to discredit views based on weaker or no evidence. His penultimate paragraph sums up his misunderstanding when he says "Both the theist and atheist have to make a leap of faith." Wrong, wrong, wrong! The point is that there is NO leap of faith. Rational decisions based on the balance of evidence are made, rather than blind judgments based on dogma. These views will then be adjusted when new or better evidence comes along. This is the strength of a rational, scientific point of view, not a weakness. Intelligent design doesn't belong in a classroom because there is no evidence to support it, not because it cannot be conclusively disproved. Darwin's theory does, because there is.

There is no requirement for the atheist to prove that god does not exist, the burden rightly falls on Chris to prove that he does. He should try proving that a tennis ball that I insist is invisible and untouchable doesn't exist. Hard isn't it? Does this put it beyond the scope of science? No, it probably puts me in a loony bin!

In his book, which incidentally I do have on my desk, Dawkins quotes the following from Bertrand Russell who puts it far more eloquently:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than the dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Dawkins also covers Chris' points on intelligent design and ethics, but I'm afraid this post has gone on far too long already. Maybe he should buy the book here.

Update: I just wanted to add the following from Wired on Dawkins' view of the disproval approach to science that Chris is so fond of:

"Dawkins' style of debate is as maddening as it is reasonable. A few months earlier, in front of an audience of graduate students from around the world, Dawkins took on a famous geneticist and a renowned neurosurgeon on the question of whether God was real. The geneticist and the neurosurgeon advanced their best theistic arguments: Human consciousness is too remarkable to have evolved; our moral sense defies the selfish imperatives of nature; the laws of science themselves display an order divine; the existence of God can never be disproved by purely empirical means.

"Dawkins rejected all these claims, but the last one – that science could never disprove God – provoked him to sarcasm. "There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove," he said. "You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it."

"Science, after all, is an empirical endeavor that traffics in probabilities. The probability of God, Dawkins says, while not zero, is vanishingly small. He is confident that no Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Why should the notion of some deity that we inherited from the Bronze Age get more respectful treatment?"

Time For A Shake Up

2006-12-01T10:36:00.000Z

Over at The Appalling Strangeness, the newly named(?) Nameless One has had an epiphany about the Conservative party. In his own words:

"Fuck the fucking fucks who are in charge of the Tory Party. I have had enough. Fuck 'em. I didn't vote for Cameron, and thought he was a bad idea as party leader. But I never realised he would be this bad. I never realised he would sell the soul of the party for a cheap headline over and over and over again. And I never thought that the likes of Hague would join the crappy Cameron revolution, but it turns out I was really wrong. Really very wrong. The entire Conservative leadership has dropped everything and started panting like a teenage boy on heat at the first glimpse of the pussy lips of electoral success."

He goes on to say:

"I have no idea what the Tory party stands for anymore, but they sure as fuck do not stand for what I believe in."

And herein lies the essential problem with the British political system. Put simply, the first past the post system has led real political debate to the lowest common denominator. It is like the old economic example of ice cream sellers on the beach. In this tale, two ice cream sellers start at opposite ends and get 50% each of the potential business. One guy has the bright idea that if he moves to the middle then he can take all of his half and half the other guy's business as well. So, where does that leave the other seller? Well, he has to move to the middle as well in order to get his business back.

The razor thin difference between the Labour Party and the Conservatives is the political equivalent of the ice cream sellers. In purely rational terms, Cameron is in exactly the right place, but in terms of a vibrant, relevant democracy we are falling very short. A system that is supposed to be representative at its heart is anything but.

Now I'm no fan of ideology and ideological difference. It is ideology that led us into two world wars and that shaped the second half of the twentieth century through the cold war. Let's face it, we don't want a return to the rabid left/right politics that leaves no area for understanding and consensus, but neither do we want watered down political choices. In my view this points us in the direction of a true multi-party system in which the political framework serves to aggregate views rather than the failing, over-mighty party structures. In essence, a more proportional system in which voters can choose a political party that more closely maps their views. These would be parties with a real chance of power sharing and an ability to shape government if they were part of a ruling coalition. This would be in sharp contrast to today's minority parties that make shrill, niche demands knowing that they will never have to deliver.

Many people will throw their hands up at this concept and use the old adage that a proportional system of government is a weak one. My response to that is four-fold:

1) This need not necessarily be the case and there are examples of countries in which single parties do get a majority of the electorate to support them;

2) The way in which a more proportional multi-party system is implemented will have a major impact on the government's strength and weakness (more on this below);

3) Arguing purely for strong government rather than a truly representative democracy is a little like arguing that certain people shouldn't vote. As a democrat, I am happy to bow to the will of the people and would rather that is expressed truthfully rather than filtered through the FPTP system; and

4) Do we really want or need strong government? One lesson from both the Labour and Conservative periods in office is that strong government does not necessarily mean good government. I am not opposed to gridlock and I'm certainly happier with gridlock than the ever tightening grip of a government elected by a minority of people. It is this "strong government" that enables the passing of countless additional laws.

So how should a more proportional system be implemented? One of the major criticisms of proportional systems is that we would lose the link with constituencies. This need not be the case. Why not have a model that increases the size of constituencies from the existing 60-65,000 to 600-650,000 electors. Have 10 seats for each constituency and award these proportionally on a constituency basis. I'm no mathematician, but this would much better reflect the desires of voters than first past the post in which a majority of votes can effectively count for nothing. At the same time, this system would enable smaller parties, of many different shades, to campaign on local and national issues and gain representation if enough of the electorate shared their views. I see no problem with that.

While no system would be perfect, it is likely to address the issues highlighted by the Nameless One. He would be free to set up a party with other like-minded souls and, if enough people shared their views, they could get representation. I for one would feel less Disillusioned and Bored.

P.S. I am not a Liberal Democrat and please don't confuse me with one.

Well Done Britain!

2006-12-01T01:21:00.000Z

A regular column from Our American Cousin...

As I have written before, we Americans frankly pay very little attention to your politics over there. True to that, this is not about Tories, Whigs or the Queen's marmalade and whatsuch.

Rather, a recent study by two Welsh professors has caused quite a stir over here. I am referring of course to the Antikythera mechanism recently "decoded."

It raises real questions, namely, how does the material record go from no "part" calculators to a full blown lunar calculator? Didn't someone start with a Jr. version that could at least predict the phase of the moon for the next day? I mean, 82 pieces is a lot for being the only one.

But those musings aside, I just wanted to say well done by Wales! Glad to see Cardiff in the news, reminding us Yanks that Britain isn't just London, but a big country with a lot going on, even "two hours and a million miles away."

Leave The Kids Alone

2006-11-30T08:16:00.000Z

We are obsessed with sick children in this country. If you were as unfortunate as I was to watch little Nikkita on GMTV this morning you will have probably been as disgusted with the show as it made me. A patently miserable child was paraded in front of the British viewing public to try on wigs to cover her alopecia. The cooing by the presenter Kate Garraway (yes, the one married to New Labourite Derek Draper) when the eight year old put on her wig probably reinforced the inner views of the child that she looked terrible without it. On the contrary, Nikkita looked like a perfectly sweet child without the wig and very uncomfortable with it on. GMTV describes this as making a child's Christmas wish come true. That's a fantastic, somewhat gimmicky goal, if true, but does she really need to be paraded on national television to "earn" this wish?

GMTV also led their news with footage of Gordon Brown. Now I'm sure we all feel terribly for any parent who has a child with an illness and this certainly extends to Gordon Brown, but have we become such an emotional wreck of a country that these stories need to be front page and headline news? What has happened to a respectful silence and distance on these issues?

Update: I have been linked to by Team Alopecia and wanted to welcome visitors from that site and invite any thoughts or comments on this story.

Adoption Of The Voluntary Code Free Zone Badge

2006-11-29T10:23:00.000Z

So far I have received confirmation from the following sites that they are using one of the Voluntary Code Free Zone badges on their sites. Please comment below if you have added and would like to be listed here.

Self-Confirmed Badge Adopters
Musings of an Owl
Tygerland.net
The Appalling Strangeness
Right Links
Corporate Presenter
Looking For A V oice
Danvers Baillieu
Saxon Times
The Select Society
Hackery
The Chosen Man
The Last Ditch
Longrider
Prague Tory
I'm About To Be Brilliant
The Thunder Dragon
Not Saussure
Famous For 15 Megapixels
Robert Sharp
Islamophobic
Eurealist
Out From Under
Dodgeblogium
The Morningstar
Nourishing Obscurity

Update: A brilliant article at The Select Society comparing the blogosphere with mainstream media.

I Will NEVER Sign A Voluntary Blogging Code

2006-11-28T23:16:00.000Z

If there weren't already too many intrusions into our daily lives, with CCTV cameras on every corner and substantial data mining of our every digital activity, the Press Complaints Commission Director Tim Toulmin has today called for a voluntary code of conduct for blogs (here). I have never heard of a more ridiculous concept and any suggestion of this in the United States would be shot down in seconds.

Alastair Campbell was quoted as saying that "some of the most offensive stuff" comes from blogs. Well I suppose he'd know, but so what? Why is nothing allowed to be offensive anymore. Here's something offensive for them: I think Alastair Campbell and Tim Toulmin are shitheads and parasites, sucking the life out of the country.

There are two main reasons that I will NEVER sign a voluntary code:
1) Existing laws of libel cover everything written on this site
2) I believe in the internet as a free speech zone. This blog should not have to be answerable to a Quango

I'm sure that there will be some that look at a voluntary code as a way of preventing legislation. This is not a reason to sign. We should also fight legislation above and beyond existing laws. Now is a time to campaign forcefully against this before it builds a head of steam.

The New Cold War

2006-11-28T13:45:00.000Z

Great commentary here from a fellow blogger at The Appalling Strangeness on the recent killing of Litvinenko. I agree that this was probably a state sponsored killing designed to send a message to other critics of Putin's regime.

Like something out of a spy thriller, another leading Russian and 72nd Richest man in the world was critically ill after "crashing" his Ferrari Enzo in Italy (here). The plot thickens...

Tough Times Ahead At The Beeb

2006-11-28T13:01:00.000Z

With Michael Grade's departure to ITV, the BBC looks like it is going to have more trouble getting through the proposed licence fee increase above the cost of inflation. It now seems as though getting an increase even in line with inflation will be tough.

I'm a fan of the BBC. I like some of their programming and enjoy both the news website and their radio content. However, as a firm believer in free markets, I think the BBC distorts and disrupts the UK media market. I can fully understand the desire to cater to niche markets, sports and areas of public life that we feel need to be protected, but why on earth does the BBC need to chase ratings with programmes like Eastenders. That is a show that could be entirely funded by third party advertisers and certainly needs no public subsidy. The same could be said of the extremely funny and extremely overpaid Mr Ross. Of course he does a great job with his chat show, but this raises the same questions about what the BBC exists to provide. There are many top UK business executives (Michael Grade might now be among them) who would be hauled over the coals for receiving a pay packet this large. How on earth can it be justified for a man who is effectively a civil servant?

The BBC should be stripped back to core programming. There is no need for it to have four or five digital channels. The website should take advertising revenue and a smaller core should be refocused on high quality, public interest programming. The rest can and should be provided by the private sector.

Arguments for retaining the BBC typically turn on the quality of the shows produced. I would understand this argument if I saw shows that lived up to this promise - Celebrity Scissorhands certainly doesn't. The US model proves that when media companies are left to their own devices they produce great output. Think of ER, The West Wing, The Sopranos etc., etc. Where are the UK equivalents? ITV is in their current position precisely because they let quality deteriorate. The market has spoken and ITV now has to lift its game.

The BBC is the second largest public body after the NHS. Is this really appropriate in a modern western democracy?

Triangulating The CBI

2006-11-28T01:54:00.000Z

There has been a massive amount written in the last few months about the triangulation tactics of David Cameron. His decision to miss the CBI conference and head to Iraq instead is the next move in his repositioning of the Conservative Party. James Harding, writing in The Times, states:

"The conservative leader has been an energetic advocate of the peripheral, if valuable, role of corporate social responsibility. He has been a champion of the climate change agenda, which may be a global good but is still a cost to business. He has talked more about work-life balance than the balance of payments; he has called on people to look beyond GDP to GWB, general well-being. He has not yet shown himself to be comfortable with capitalism, a champion of British companies committed to the grubby but essential business of wealth and job creation.

"The mistake will only add to the growing doubts about the Tory leader in British boardrooms, stoking the perception that he has an unreliable and ambivalent attitude to business."

He totally misses the point. There is no doubt in my mind that Cameron is as pro business as previous Conservative leaders. The difference here is that Cameron understands the value of symbolic gestures. It is entirely in his interest for the CBI to be up in arms about him missing the conference and the more public this spat becomes the better. The image that it plants in the mind of the electorate is that he's pro the little guy rather than big business. This is in sharp contrast to Tony Blair who was at the conference this week giving advice to British Airways on their religious obligations.

What surprises me is that there are many in the media who are sucked in by these blatant political tactics. I suppose it proves that you can still fool some of the people all of the time.

From The Streets of Cuba

2006-11-28T01:30:00.000Z

From dig4beats at Flickr. The guy on the right is Luis Posada Carriles: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

The Full Monty

2006-11-28T00:26:00.000Z

The first test of the Ashes series was a huge disappointment. England didn't look as though they could bowl the Australian cricket team out once, let alone the twice that will be needed to win a test. So, the first change England need to make is the substitution of James Anderson for Monty Panesar. More late nights and miserable mornings to come.

BA At A Cross Roads

2006-11-27T20:28:00.000Z

I have read with interest the debate about whether British Airways employee Nadia Eweida should be able to wear her cross to work. Setting aside the fact that television interviews show that she is clearly barking mad, I still believe that BA has every right to ask her to remove this religious item.

Tony Blair weighed into the debate today at the CBI with the following, "If you want my really frank advice on this: one of the things I have learnt in politics is there are battles really, really worth fighting and there are battles really, really not worth fighting. All I would say to you is get the right side of the line on that one. That's my honest advice." An interesting view of the world from a man who claims to be a conviction politician, but not surprising given Tony Blair's own religious beliefs.

The battle lines have been drawn on this issue and I am a firm believer that it should become a wider debate about the role of religion in society. For those of you that have not read Sam Harris' excellent book "The End of Faith", he makes a strong case for taking the debate to religious moderates. I have attached a video below of a talk he gave in 2005. Well worth a watch (just skip the first minute).

Great Political Ad

2006-11-27T15:55:00.000Z

This is a terrific political ad from Argentina. Much better than the usual bad mouthing and negativity.

Crimethink On The Rise

2006-11-27T09:20:00.000Z

The police are putting together a database of men who are most likely to commit crimes in the future (here). In an extraordinary step, this will allow the police to single out people who fit a profile of potential criminals. In the words of Laura Richards, a senior criminal psychologist with the Met's Homicide Prevention Unit, "“My vision is that we know across London who the top 100 people are. We need to know who we are targeting... There are some pretty dangerous people out there, so you need these risk models to wheedle them out, separate the wheat from the chaff". Why am I not surprised? One more step on the road to totalitarianism. It all sounds very reasonable, sensible even, until they're knocking at your door.

"The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed—would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper—the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you."
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 1

Why Should We Apologise

2006-11-27T09:10:00.000Z

Tony Blair has come under pressure today to issue a formal apology for Britain's role in the slave trade (here). While he's apologising for that, he might also want to apologise for the numerous deaths that occurred in the Tudor period. Many innocent people were killed in the religious and political struggle to keep one family in power. In particular, the Prime Minister should issue an apology to the family of Richard III, a man who was cut down in his golden years by a future head of state. Alternatively, we could realise that apologies for the sins and events of generations past mean little and achieve less.

Defending The Right To Cause Offence

2006-11-27T08:52:00.000Z

More calls from the police to curb our freedoms (here). This time, it isn't the burning of flags that's an issue, but it is coming from the same source, the Met's Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur. The Met is now calling for powers to crack down on protesters that are causing offence. A recent report states, "there must be a clear message that we will not allow any extremist group to display banners or make public statements that clearly cause offence within the existing law".

I'm disgusted by these continued attempts to curtail our rights. We must defend the ability to cause offence. As despicable as many of these protesters are, they must be able to put forward their views. We can then counter them with our own reasoned arguments if we disagree. What we shouldn't do is put the police in charge of censorship. That road leads to a dangerous and dark place.

Scarier still is this quote from the same document, "The result has been to create an imbalance in public perception that is manifesting itself in passionate responses from elements of the community not traditionally given to publicly protesting. What we are seeing in effect is a rise in the politicisation of middle England and the emergence of a significant challenge for capital city policing." I for one am all for passionate responses and the politicisation of middle England despite misgivings from the police.

Intelligent Education?

2006-11-27T08:42:00.000Z

An extraordinary article here in the Guardian that reports on a number of schools that are teaching Intelligent Design as "a critique of Darwinism". Any teacher that promotes this pseudo-religious nonsense has no place in our schools. It is not part of the curriculum and has no role in a science lesson. If we are going to go down the creationist path in the UK then we will be unravelling hundreds of years of enlightened thinking based on evidence, experiment and peer review. Unfortunately this is the logical next step in our crusade for religious tolerance, with tolerance defined as not being able to question another's unsubstantiated beliefs.

Here is a terrific lecture by Richard Dawkins on his new book "The God Delusion"

Environmental Camouflage

2006-11-22T00:22:00.000Z

A quick read of the Early Day Motions always yields some interesting rubbish. I found this entertaining motion that was submitted by Timothy Farron, Lib Dem MP for Westmorland & Lonsdale:

"That this House notes with concern that the world's largest container ship, Emma Maersk 3, is to land in the UK from China bringing with it 45,000 tonnes of Christmas gifts and foodstuffs, all of which could have been purchased from British manufacturers and farmers; deplores the impact on the environment of transporting halfway around the world items that could have been produced nearer to home; calls upon the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to launch an immediate review into the economic and environmental costs associated with the Emma Maersk 3's cargo and journey; and calls upon the Government to take action to tackle damaging effects of unfettered free trade."

Now let's think about the real motivation for this post. Is it
a) The environmental harm done by shipping goods and services; or
b) No regard for the environment, but a love of protectionism, higher prices for consumers and probably higher inflation?

The environment has become the absolute base case answer now to any issue. Have a problem with the NHS? It's the environment. Have an issue with Christmas shopping? It's the environment. Fell down and scuffed your knee? It's the environment.

At least there aren't many MPs that feel the same way. The only other Member that has signed it is Bob Spink, but hold on he's a Conservative. Does anyone else think this is a case of a Tory going mad?

UPDATE: Bob Spink and Tim Farron have been very busy. Tim submitted nine other Motions at the same time and wow, Bob Spink has signed seven of them. What a lunch that must have been! Bob Spink must be a "renta-signature" as he seems to sign almost any EDM put in front of him. What I don't understand is why Spinkers didn't sign the Public Lavatory Provision Motion below. Maybe he doesn't like public lavatories.

"That this House believes that the provision of public lavatories is a vital public service and notes with regret the closure of public lavatories over recent years, including a quarter of those in South Lakeland; recognises that these closures have a particular impact on older and disabled people and those with young families; also notes the recent National Consumer Council survey of 2,000 adults, which branded Britain's public lavatories a `national disgrace'; and calls upon the Government to make the provision of public lavatories a statutory duty for local authorities and to provide the necessary resources to enable them to do so."

Political Kids

2006-11-21T23:50:00.000Z

Here in the UK we are pretty tame when it comes to the children of politicians. Apart from Euan Blair being found in the gutter drunk underage, there aren't many stories. Not so in the US. There is a fascinating 'blind item' on Wonkette entitled "Guessing Game Results: The Cokehead Daughter". It is from April this year, so I'm a little behind, but I only found it because of this article (here) that discusses New York Governor, George Pataki's daughter Emily. Apparently she failed her New York bar exam. The things you learn on the internet eh.

National Statistics

2006-11-19T22:58:00.000Z

There is a great article by Liam Halligan in today's Sunday Telegraph (here) that examines the current role of official figures and the steps being taken by the Labour government. It makes for pretty grim reading. Here is a snippet:

What concerns me most is a practice called "pre-release" which allows ministers to see official data before it is made public. Most developed countries don't allow this. Of those which do, the United States gives ministers data 30 minutes before publication. In France and Ireland, it's an hour.
In the UK — uniquely — our ministers get to see official numbers at least 40 hours before publication, and in some cases no less than five days in advance.
This allows our rulers to issue their own press release at the same time as the official numbers are published. In other words, they can capture the news agenda — which, as Holt says, means "objective, independent, authoritative analysis of what is happening in our economy and society is simply swept to one side".

A national disgrace.

Big Deal

2006-11-18T20:20:00.000Z

The Iraqis must be ecstatic. Gordon Brown has promised them £100 million to help rebuild their country (here). What a ridiculously small and wasteful offer. The US has spent more than $30 billion on reconstruction, so what's a feeble £100 million between friends other than more taxpayer money wasted.

UPDATE: This is actually over three years!

When Will The BBC Learn?

2006-11-17T00:22:00.001Z

I am genuinely sick and tired of comedians appearing on Question Time. For a program that is billed as the BBC's premiere panel discussion it is simply not good enough. I don't want to hear any more crap answers from people who know less about the topics being discussed than most of the audience. That seat would be better filled by somebody who can add something to the debate.

Channel 4 News Podcast

2006-11-16T17:38:00.000Z

Part of this blog (here) was read out on Iain Dale's Channel 4 political podcast today. You can listen to that podcast here and you can visit Iain Dale's blog right here.

He's Finally Let Them Down...

2006-11-16T08:06:00.000Z

I love the coverage in today's press (here and here) that has criticised Michael Jackson for not performing at the World Music Awards. I'm particularly fond of the fans who are quoted as saying that Michael "let them down". Good to see that this is what finally let them down and not the numerous child abuse court cases. I think some people need to put Michael in perspective. Personally I wouldn't have let him into the UK and certainly wouldn't let him perform. I get the same level of discomfort listening to Michael Jackson as I do hearing anything from Gary Glitter.

Gordon Brown Through The Ages

2006-11-16T00:39:00.000Z

The Times has an interesting article here on how Tony Blair has aged over his time as Prime Minister. I thought it might be interesting to do the same for Gordon Brown. The results are quite scary.

Can you guess which one is the before and which the after?

George H. W. Bush Blames Bloggers For US Political Climate

2006-11-16T00:25:00.000Z

Last night on Fox News, former President George H.W. Bush said the current political climate has “gotten so adversarial that it’s ugly.” Asked to offer an explanation for why there is this “incivility,” Bush pinned the blame on bloggers. Unfortunately, blaming bloggers for the political climate is a little like blaming the clouds for rain. It might seem that they're causing it, but it's a gross simplificaton. Bush Sr. should know better.

You can watch the video here.

Blair Bursts Cameron's Bubble

2006-11-15T23:51:00.000Z

It's amazing how quickly smiling and small talk can turn to cutting and stabbing. If you'd seen Tony Blair and David Cameron walking from the House of Commons to the House of Lords you would have thought that the two of them were best of friends, sharing a laugh a joke and a story about their kids. Fast forward 35 minutes and you'd be forgiven for thinking that they wanted to disembowel each other.

The imminent lifting of a burden can have a liberating effect and that was certainly the case for Tony Blair in his post-Queen's Speech exchange. It was as if the shackles had finally come off. In fairness, Blair was helped by the large number of ridiculous things Cameron said over the course of the summer. In particular, the hideous comment about "sunshine ruling the day" came back to haunt him.

Gordon Brown looked as if he was about to prolapse on the seat next to Blair. I expected to look in the dictionary and see Gordon's face under the phrase "the cat that got the cream". The only problem is that there's an election process to go through. Gordon looks well placed today, but things can change in a heartbeat.

The lesson from today is that Cameron is vulnerable. Blair finally burst the honeymoon bubble and there will have been a lot of nervous Conservative MPs sat behind him. I've said it before, but I think the Labour Party will be full of regrets as they wave goodbye to their best political operator.

Queen's Speech Promises Even Less Freedom And A Little More Interfering

2006-11-15T15:37:00.000Z

What a fascinating Queen's speech. The number of plots and sub-plots playing out were extraordinary. Firstly there was the terrific symmetry of this being Tony's last State Opening of Parliament as leader and it being David Cameron's first. Then there was the fact that Gordon Brown's shadow hung over the affair like Charles Clarke's stomach over a belt. And if that wasn't enough we also had Gordon Brown walking along side Menzies Campbell, his potential partner in a hung parliament. Phew... and that all took place before the Queen even started speaking.

A lame duck Prime Minister is a wonder to behold. The very nature of political power in the UK is such that governing is through the will of your party. John Major learned this to his cost as he saw his majority slowly whittled away and his supporters defect. For Tony Blair, the loss of power has been his own doing. He is definitely now "in office but not in power" and Gordon Brown's fingerprints were all over the speech without being entirely visible.

In terms of content, the speech set out a very busy legislative agenda. The main focus: security, law and order. In other words, how many more ways can we restrict the rights of decent law abiding British citizens without doing a single thing to combat the real causes of terrorism or societal breakdown. Other key areas were the tightening of regulations on estate agents (?), scrapping the Child Support Agency (a good idea) and the extension of road pricing schemes (a bad idea).

Two other areas are of real interest. The first is the extension of powers for the Mayor of London. I simply cannot believe that we need to put more power in the hands of Ken Livingstone. If ever there was a poster child for greater government centralisation it was him. Giving him greater power will just continue London's land grab for more and more tax payer money. If anybody thinks that the congestion charge is about the environment then they need their head examined. The second is the creation of an independent board to monitor government statistics. I have written about the issue of poor government statistics here before. I think that this independent board is a good first step, but why not put it in the hands of the Opposition. At least then it will have political teeth.

So, all in all a pretty interesting day in UK politics, but more for what was going on in the background and behind closed doors than for what was happening in the full glare of the Royal set piece. What is clear, though, is that this Labour government still hasn't learned that less is more as far as legislation is concerned - 29 bills!!!

Gordon Shows His True Colours

2006-11-13T09:46:00.000Z

I am no fan of the BNP and find most of what they say repugnant. However, Gordon Brown has shown an extraordinary contempt for free speech in his latest comments (here). Gordon is quoted as saying "Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country. We have got to do whatever we can to root it out from whatever quarter it comes. And if that means we have got to look at the laws again, we will have to do so."

What on earth has the offence of mainstream opinion got to do with anything? The whole point of speech being free is that it should be allowed to offend. We are searching for truth, not the lowest common denomominator of offence. It is this focus on not offending people that leads to a plethora of subjects being beyond debate in the UK. This is particularly true in the current war against terror.

If we have a problem with what the BNP is saying then we should debate them and win through the strength of our arguments rather than through a banning order. Today, we are not taking on their ridiculous remarks with logic. Instead, we are in danger of turning them into martyrs for freedom.

Charles Bradlaugh, the 19th Century political activist, once said "Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." It is about time we rekindled this spirit.

The Weasel Strikes Again

2006-11-10T07:48:00.000Z

Alan Johnson might be the greasiest of greasy political operators and it comes as a surprise to nobody that he has decided to take himself out of the running for leader of the Labour party. In what can only be described as "careful" language, he has set out his reasons for supporting Brown:

"there was a feeling throughout the party that Gordon Brown is a towering political figure" and "a great intellect"

Why is it a "feeling throughout the party"? Is it not the feeling of Alan Johnson? As always, New Labour statements are more about what they don't say than what they do.

Two Of Britain's Better Political Commentators

2006-11-08T19:38:00.000Z

Unfortunately they both live and work in the US.

The More Things Change...

2006-11-08T19:00:00.000Z

A regular column from our American chum.

Well, big news today from your former colonies. The Democrats have taken control of the House and quite possibly the Senate. I am very excited by it, and not because I think much is likely to change. After all, that's the way the system is meant to work. Outside of a supermajority in Congress like the Republicans had after the Civil War, our system is designed to stifle radical change (our founding fathers took the lesson of Athens and the Mytiline debate to heart). And with the razor-thin majority the Democrats won, I don't expect them to be able to make any significant moves.

Rather, I am excitied today because of the shock I expect this will send through the corridors of the White House. Our executive branch was beginning to fancy itself a little bit too much like your executive branch (e.g., HRH ERII). The idea that referendums can occur more than every four years, that power must be shared among three branches and can be reassessed every two years by the people--this is likely an alien concept to Bush & Co. So what will happen today, as they wake up on Mars? Initial platitudes about bipartisanship, of course, but I expect by March we will see fierce and intractable gridlock and deadlock in Washington. Power is never surrendered easily.

Given all the challenges before us--budget deificits, the war in Iraq, rising healthcare and entitlement costs, education, transportation infrastructure, and clearly divisive social issues--many would argue deadlock is the last thing we need. But I would disagree. I will take checks and balances over imperial presidencies any day. We must always remember that when our government can't get anything done, it is working just the way the founders intended. 200 years later, and the system still works--so a great day indeed!

The Minuteman

The Death Of Privacy - Part 2

2006-11-08T12:14:00.000Z

I didn't have a chance to blog last week, but it was interesting to see the UK Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, come out and state that we are now in a "surveillance society". I wrote the same thing here a week before his announcement and I agree wholeheartedly. My concern remains that politicians and political parties are too spineless to confront these issues. As with so many issues, there is not a clear party choice for those of us that would like the State to mind its own business.

EU Regulation

2006-11-08T12:09:00.000Z

The letter that Iain Dale has received from MEP Christopher Beazley on internet TV regulation (here) is precisely the reason that I cannot stand the European Parliament. What a lame, democratically impotent institution it is, populated by turkeys and idiots.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

2006-11-08T11:45:00.000Z

It comes as no surprise that the government figures given in a question about tattoo removal on the NHS were wrong (see BBC here). It follows a large number of high profile mistakes by a number of departments. The most notable of which was the recent Home Office account of the number of foreign criminals on the loose in the UK. These cases lead to two questions. The first is whether we should take any government statistics at face value and the second is how we ensure suitable oversight. The answer to the first is that all government statistics should be treated with scepticism. The second is more difficult to answer. I think it might be time to put in place a fully funded "Opposition Civil Service". This would be an organisation funded by the tax payer and answerable to Her Majesty's Opposition. They would be experts in their specific fields and would be able to provide the figures that could expose the continually poor data coming from the government. We can no longer leave this oversight role to amateurs and luck.

The Attorney General Must Step Aside

2006-11-08T11:31:00.000Z

There has been much written on this topic on other blogs and in the mainstream media and I wanted to add my voice to the rising volume of discontentment. The Attorney General cannot and must not have an oversight role in the cash for peerages scandal. He is a direct appointment of the Prime Minister, a man who is at the centre of these allegations. He must recuse himself from any involvement in this prosecution.

Read more at Guido. Check out Angus MacNeil's Early Day Motion here.