They really, really, really want to zig-a-zig-ah!
But they ain't. What a booooring Question Time: Ming, Yvette Cooper, Michael Howard, and Piers Morgan.

The reformation of the Spice Girls is headlining when I arrive in; apparently nothing much else has happened today. The 24 hour news in all its glory.

Before we get onto the Business of the (Shawcross) House may I issue this public service announcement: next week is the interminable "yoof" Question Time edition when Dimbers' annual attempts to get down wiv da kidz brings tears of horror to the eyes of the most hardened viewer. Avoid like the plague.

This week, however, the panel is pretty sparse comprising as it does merely Yvette Cooper (pictured), Piers "It Happened Honest!" Morgan, Mephistopheles, and some bloke who's clearly having trouble with his contact lenses.

This augurs ill, and indeed our worst fears are realised with Dimbers in his patented oh-gosh-I'm-a-national-institution manner attempts to set the narrative. Brown is, apparently, responsible for everything that took place over the last ten years. Got that? Everything. Funny really, because a month ago everyone was arguing that he was a deposed prince in the Tower and now he's the Svengali to Tony Blair's bosomy and helpless Trilby. Whatever.

Oh, and Piers shouts a lot. Loudly and often irrelevantly, presumably in the hope that one of the verbal bullets he's aiming at Blair will hit the target and he will get that, the most coveted acclamations: a round of applause from an a QT audience. The fact that he is unsuccessful in this endeavour (even with an audience that applauded later in the show when all the ills of the Middle East were laid at the feet of dem eeeevil "Israelis") makes me extremely glad he's never asked me to go on a shooting party with him. Like as not, I'd end up with a couple of rounds of misdirected "friendly fire" in the bollocks.

I arrive back from a call of nature to hear a woman from the audience calling for the highly original policy initiative of "troops out". After over four years of this statement recurring every week, even Dimbers is finding it hard to produce a the required look of shocked enlightenment at this predictable weekly advice.

Ming Campbell attempts to address her points: "according to SI 1806/3432...remember it well...legitimate questions...sub-committee on...Government made an announcement in March... and then re-issued it in October but made use of the genitive case with relation to clause 3..."

Audience have no bloody idea what he's on about (and I went for a refill halfway through as well, so mea culpa if I've misunderstood the finer points), but he mustered some half-hearted applause on the basis that he probably said something nasty about the Government. Go Ming! Yeah!

A pair of eyebrows asks when the Government are going to listen to The People(TM). Trying to address the "thoughts" of a man who assumes that because he has an opinion then, necessarily, he's representative of the entirety of The People(TM) is an arrogance to which I can only respond (in the co-opted words of Trilby), "am I bovvered?"

An audience member actually asks a genuine question about Brown's "Cabinet of all the talents", the Liberal's lack of enthusiasm to participate therein, and what did the panel think was Brown's motivation? This approach is ignored by Dimbers: "sorry, sir, that was a genuine question and I can only assume you are requiring an intelligent answer that doesn't deviate into piss-poor attempts at political point scoring. I'm sorry, I can't accept that."

The question is duly rephrased in a far more belligerent manner.

Ming immediately rises to the bait and starts channelling Ian Paisley: the LibDems say NO! This is a policy position which I find somewhat baffling given that they are the only party committed to coalitian governance but are unwilling to form a coalition with any party in Scotland, Wales and, now England. Nevertheless, Ming is determined to win us over with his rhetoric. Over to you, Ming!

Ming: "....inter-party relationship....inapppropriate...Liberal Democrats not doing anything that might involve them being subsequently held to account...Liberty...CCTVs...knickers...er...where was I?"

Yvette asks him a pertinent question relating to where he feels the interests of the country features in his analysis. For a few seconds Ming sounds like he's strangling a cat in his throat and then simply roars the word "ELECTION!"

[Wild applause and honking from the audience]

To be fair, there was an interesting conversation at one point between Ming and Howard which I could have listened to for far longer. Dimbers, however, has other ideas.

Next up is an angry woman who reckons, "right, that like it's BAD not to have viable opposition parties and this is the Liberal Democrats' fault for not being viable. That's why, like, I don't get involved in politics and try and change things, y'know? They're all the same, and I have hair which clearly requires a lot of work so I don't bother engaging so I let other people get on with it but they, like, DON'T y'know? Everyone's selfish apart from me. I'd do it so much better if I wanted to, but I can't be bothered, y'know?"

[More applause]

Howard is asked a question on the recent Tory U-turn on grammar school policy. He chooses to respond to it in the time honoured way:

- "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (Bill Clinton)
- "I did not say that the Government should apologise over Iraq" (Harriet Harman)
- "I did not say that Cameron was talking bollocks over grammar schools, and he absolutely hasn't changed his mind on the issue" (Michael Howard)

Ming then weighs in with his recollection of the debate over the The Housing Renewal Grants (Prescribed Form and Particulars) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 1999. Or something.

[Audience still don't understand - and neither do I - but they applaud anyway. He's being horrible about Labour. Probably]

An audience member (who the uncharitable might refer to as "Casper the Ghost") asks a hi-lar-i-ous question about whether the Tories should rename themelves and, if so, what the panel felt they should be called?

Jesus wept.

I could feel my will to live slowly draining away so left the room at this point; there is nothing worse than the attempted comedy stylings of politicians and journalists (may the Lord protect me from both). We resume as the subject of the recent rain-storm in the north is raised, a natural disaster in which Piers sees the hand of divine retribution casting His judgement over the legacy of Blair.

By the way, there is nothing on God's earth that would make me dislike Brown other than to hear Piers Morgan praise him; similarly there is nothing that warms me to Blair so much as to witness Yvette Cooper's distinctly uncharitable refusal to acknowledge that the Tonester wasn't the absolute incarnation of all evil.

Damn, that was dull. So, for whoever doesn't want to watch a bunch of Jeremys and Clarissas adding the description "freelance TV maestro" to their Oxbridge application forms next week: Sports at seven?

The eternal return

Ten years have passed since Hamer - then not the whiskey soaked bag-carrier you know today but a bright eyed aspirant determined to change the world - cheered as Tony Blair arrived in Downing Street. Yesterday as t'intern and I watched his final PMQs, "like Niobe, all tears" there was definitely the whiff of history in the air. Not the air in my office, naturally; whilst the chains of office were being exchanged I was writing a briefing on the spacing of pedestrian crossings. O! The glamour of bag carrying.

Still, it's a new dawn, a new day, a new life for us...and I'm feeling good.

The beginning of Brown's premiership ten years after Tony Blair first embarked on his have been marked by lesser eternal recurrances. I am, of course, referring to the reshuffles which grind round with alarming inevitability; as no less a sage than Elton John once sang in the Lion King, it's the "circle of life". Well, political life anyway.

Now not that I'm one to gloat, but frankly if the media are to be believed I think I nearly called it bang-on with my predictions in May but nothing's confirmed as yet. Nearly. I was right about Darling anyway. We'll have to wait and see I suppose.

Thankfully Peter Oborne and his interminable, prolific, and exclusive-to-every-channel "documentaries" about how Brown smells of poo are now off our screens now the succession is complete, and have been replaced by some pretty damn good commentary.

The Times this morning was on top form, particularly this leading article, the witty comparison of Brown's arrival at No10 for the first time with Blair's, and (naturally) Peter Riddell.

Also well worth a listen is yesterday's Today in Parliament on which you can hear Blair's final PMQs again. The south bound Northern line were treated to a distinct eye-misting performance on my part this morning; especially his final words "the end". You can listen again here but I recommend podcasting so you can keep the broadcast to one day bore your grandchildren with it. More entertainingly, when Ann Clwyd yesterday praised Blair's "courage and..." I automatically shouted "INDEFATIGABILITY!" I was pleased to hear that various backbenchers had the same idea although that wasn't how she concluded her assessment of Blair. Thankfully. Nobody wants their political obiturary to hark back to the words of Georgeous George to Saddam Hussein. Well, Georgeous George might I suppose.

To conclude: there has been a lot of talk of school mottos recently. As far as I can remember, the motto of my secondary modern was as follows.

"Shawcross! Do that again and you'll be in detention until the next millennium!"

I've been had!
The Spectator finds its Lynton Charles

This is parody. Right?

"That's it. The end"

I would have sold my soul to Compass to be in the Chamber at Blair's last PMQs and feel that I probably should say something witty about it but, to be honest, I can't think of anything.

The end of an era (copyright media outlets everywhere).

What you missed on the Today programme

The Fourth Estate, the crafters of our political discourse, are a leetle irritated at the moment. You may have noticed from the slew of programmes recently describing our new leader as a "control freak" and similar, which all conclude with the words "we asked Gordon Brown to meet us to discuss this attempted character assassination and counter our allegation that the only reason we're so pissed off is because - for once - no bugger's leaked the details of the reshuffle and we're going to look a bit silly if all our speculation is way off. The control freak."

In keeping with this noble pursuit for the TROOF was today's broadcast from the good people at the Today programme, highlights of which are below for those who missed it.

On the floods
Freak weather submerging everything north of Sheffield would once be put down as force majeure but not in this, the brave new dawn of news reportage. For some reason that was not fully explained, the Heavens opening is David Miliband's fault.

Presumably he should have stationed himself at the Watford Gap service station at the end of last week, hand held aloft like King Canute, and stopped the sea...or in this case, rivers bursting their banks.

Another example, Humpers is all too happy to tell us, of this Government just not planning ahead even though we haven't seen floods like it according to Clive Betts (one of the Sheffield MPs) since the 1860s.

On education
Civitas (which is the think tank of choice for the sort of people who think that there are too many comprehensive school bozos at Oxbridge) have come out and said that A-Levels are getting easier. Pity really, as I planned to miss this insufferably tedious annual argument, that has been raging ever since I received the Shawcross O Level results, by departing for warmer climes the day before the pictures of jiggling blonde lovelies waving bits of paper are splashed all over the front pages of our principle organs of record.

At this stage in the proceedings I make a mental deal with myself to start the morning ablutions at the point at which the Education Minister makes the predictable statement that such arguments are an insult to the students and teachers who have worked so hard.

Jim Knight: This is an insult to the students and teachers who have worked so hard.
Hamer: [removes head from under the duvet and departs bedroom to begin the morning hunt for the razor]

On admissions lottery in schools
So here's the deal. Lots of rich people are buying houses near decent schools in order to get their kids into the catchment area. Brighton and Hove council think that possibly this is a tad unfair and have suggested a form of "lottery" on the grounds that just because young Clarissa has wealthy parents this shouldn't automatically entitle her, because of an accident of parentage, to a better education than her counterpart with a poorer mater.

Humpers is outraged at this - after all, he argues, these loving parents have purposefully bought million pound pads near St Benedicts in order that Clarissa wouldn't have to mix with the offspring of mothers who don't have four ponies and probably think that sushi is a type of crystal meth.

"Wouldn't all parents who cared about their children", asks Humpers, presumably excluding those parents in low income jobs who, necessarily, cannot care as they do not even have the money to afford a posh house in a leafy suburb, "do the same?"

On Thought for the Day
Shouty vicar. Hamer leaves the flat for another hard day of bag-carrying.

Heeeeeeeere's Quentin!

Tory MP (he of the quite spectacular eyebrows) Quentin Davies (pictured below) has defected to the comrades!

I am always unsure as to whether such instances of floor crossing are to be celebrated or lamented by the party to whom the recalcitrant MP now pledges allegiance; I have been here long enough to recall the defection of Paul Marsden (our one-time Parliamentary poet) from us to the Muesli Knitters and couldn't honestly tell you which side appeared the more pleased with the result.

Nevertheless, the following lines from Mr Davies in his resignation letter to Shiny Dave and the Eton Hoorays bears repeating in full:

"Under your leadership the Conservative Party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything. It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda."

Let's have that one again, shall we? Yeah, go on then:

"Under your leadership the Conservative Party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything. It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda."

More here.

Entertain yourselves

I have to do all the things today that I failed to do yesterday because I was in the pub.

Overshadowed somewhat by my ramblings about the DL contest was the fact that Brown made a really, really excellent speech; if I were Cameron I'd be seriously worried by the fact that whilst Brown has only been in the role, uh, five minutes he's outlined more policy positions that the shiny faced one has in two years.

"The party I lead must have more than a set of policies - we must have a soul."

Damn right; if there's a criticism of the Blair years (yes, I know there's more than one) to be made it's that it sometimes felt like we were, to misquote, "chucking policy initiatives at problems" without any real sense of why, other than some vague notion that it might get us re-elected. I'm all up for soul.

Having calmed down a bit, I suppose that the Deputy Leadership is not really that important; not least because Brown immediately made it clear that Harman would be stashed safely in a back office somewhere as Party Chair, not chairing the Cabinet committees consequent upon being DPM, and inadvertantly firing Blears in front of the entire Conference in the process.

Talk about adding insult to injury, eh?

Question is, who's going to be DPM? It strikes me that to hold an election for the DL on the tacit assumption that this role will become the DPM at the gift of Gordon, to then make someone else the heir to Prescott is a bit of a kick in the balls for the rank-and-file.

But that said, the Party Chair is quite prestigious as well, there is a case for it (rather than the DPM) being an elected role as the holder needs to use it to engage with and speak on behalf of the membership; the DPM, in contrast, is more of a Parliamentary role and should be appointed in the usual parliamentary way. In a sense, this was what Cruddas was arguing for when he said that he didn't want to have a Cabinet role as Deputy Leader.

Well, I suppose we will have to wait and see.

Harriet Harman is the new Deputy Leader...

...and I'm off to the pub, after which I plan to cancel the small donation I make to the Labour Party whose membership - and according to the back-of-the-fag-packet workings here at Shawcross Towers, it was the membership wot won it - it would appear, is entirely comprised of people who think that being A Woman (what is Blears then?), and having Nice Shoes but an Inexpensive Handbag, is what political discourse needs.

This isn't just sour grapes; even though I supported Johnson I would have been happy with Benn, Blears, Cruddas...I would have even taken Hain over Harman.

Jesus. Wept.

Still, she'll do as she's told, not cause a fuss, and wear Nice Shoes (but only a reasonably priced handbag). Very handy for some.

Hail Mary, mother of God...

Rumour is that Harriet Harman's won. Dear Lord, NO!

[goes off to pray]

Henry Porter in the Observer
Paraphrased on the BBF, full garglings here

Hello. I am Henry Porter and I like Liberty.

Blair took away Liberty. I don't like Blair.

Brown could be different, but he could be like Blair. And I don't like Blair.

The Conservatives and the Lib Dems don't believe in the State. This is why I like them. Blair believes in the State because he likes using it to Take Away People's Liberty.

We should abolish the State because it is anti-Liberty and go back to the old system of having no State. I don't like the State. Why can't welfare payments, NHS services, education, and care for the elderly be organised by the pixies that live down the bottom of my garden? I like pixies.

If Cameron highlights that Blair likes the Evil State and hates Liberty, then Cameron will win the next election: FACT.

I am Henry Porter.

Don't Panic Mr. Mainwaring!
Welcome to the Labour Party: more Dads' Army than The Project

The day of reckoning is finally here, the day when Tony finally hands over the ol' reins of state to Gordon Brown. Le roi est mort, vive le roi, and so on and so forth.

Naturally, as this is the Labour Party, this historic transition is taking place with the kind of seemless effeciency and meticulous eye to detail for which the comrades are famed, this time including the loss of half the attendees somewhere around the west, the unseemly bitchslapping from current and former comrades, and the arrival of bag-carriers on the Madchester scene, determined to make names for themselves amongst the Brown camp by kissing as much arse as possible.

Classy!

To recap: most of the Labour activists and MPs are stuck on a broken-down train in the Rugby area. Virgin trains: the mode of travel for champions. Nevermind, they'll all be able to listen to what they're missing on the radio, as well as the thoughts and musings of the likes of Billy Bragg, Jeremy Corbyn, Glenda Jackson and other well known fans of the ancien regime who are giving us, the general public, the benefit of their unbiased impressions of the Blair years.

The airwaves have been clogged for the last couple of days with the opinions of Peter Oborne and Clare Short who have been breathlessly legging in between studios in order to variously slag off both Blair and the man who would be king. Short is really something isn't she? For the last ten years she's been attacking Blair and heralding Brown as the "saviour" of the Party; as soon as he gets within sniffing distance of actual power, she unblinkingly whips the knife out of the former's back in order to insert it - along with hypocritical weasel words about "betrayal" - into that for the latter.

If this weren't bad enough, I hear that the turnout for the deputy leadership contest is extremely low. Due to the immensely complicated STV system that the Party's using, this means that anything goes in terms of who might win. I am afeared that Harriet Harman's picked up a lot of second and third preferences with her "I Am a Woman and Like Shoes" balls...please, Lord! No! Anyone, anyone but Harriet!

On a lighter note, on the Sky News coverage I've spotted at least three bag-carriers wandering around, looking important, and trying to get their mugs on the telly. I bet the corridors are ringing with the words, "as I said to Gordon!" as the most sycophantic of them attempt to get in with the in-crowd. Good luck, guys with the old moving and shaking. Where would the Movement be without you?

Still, rather Manchester than Glastonbury, where the Sky News are desperately trying to get the assembled crusties to denounce Brown and Blair...interestingly without much success.

Hot Fuzz

The best, BEST film I have seen in ages is now (delightfully) available on DVD. I am watching as we speak, accompanied by a can of Fosters and a lamb kebab.

I have had fifteen hours sleep on the last twenty-four and am feeling more human than I have all week.

The British Bullshit Foundation will resume normal service on Monday, assuming I get another fifteen hours kip tonight!

Bojo's got his "plain English to posh" Thesaurus out in the Sextator again!

Proof, if e'er further proof were needed, that the Spectator is where semi-famous blondes with rippingly good connections go to retire is found in Boris Johnson's article in this week's edition which manages to combine the worst sort of aloof sneering with the faux I'm-jolly-posh-you-know writing style that is so inexplicably popular with the proles that he obviously privately despises.

Argument: the media smell of roses because they are held to account by the bloggers. Blair smells of poo. Golly gosh, piffle, I'm posh!

Superb stuff.

Can't fault the logic!

Just watching Sky News, which is leading with the item that 12 year old girls will now be routinely vaccinated against cervical cancer.

All good you might think?

Apparently not. Some bloke from the "Christian Institute" is outraged at the news; he thinks that it will send the message that "these girls are sexually available" and that it's "okay to have sex."

Yeah, whatever. Apart from anything else, what teenager with roaring hormones is going to declare, "I tell you what, let's have sex! After all, now I've had my jab I'm not going to develop cervical cancer when I'm in my sixties! Game on!"?

In addition, there was something slightly pervy about his desire to link the most innocuous of activities and life choices to Doing The Sex.

Still, as my ex used to say: the dirty mind is a perpetual feast.

Cut the c£ap
Amazing, isn't it, how these "impartial" campaigners manage to sound remarkably like the Tory Party's ideal scenario on the party funding issue?

I feel much better. I have a beer in hand and two lovely "actresses" from Hollyoaks are wrestling on my TV (go Louise! Go Clare!) and there is at least an hour to go before the tell-tale scraping of the key in the lock heralds the return of Beloved; at which point I'll quickly flick over to BBC News 24 and whip out a my slippers, pipe, and random thick tome from the pen of Brian Brivati.

Perfection.

I don't know whether any of you lot saw the full page advert this morning regarding Hayden Phillips party funding review? It was in the Times, the Graun, and the Beano...I mean, the Independent. Yep, that's right - a full page advert in at least three newspapers; how much is that going to set you back do you reckon?

The advert exhorts readers to "cut the crap" out of politics by introducing a £50,000 cap on individual and company donations.

The proposals put forward by the advert are, naturally a bit of a pisser for the comrades particularly as I take it the £50,000 would apply to trade unions - the collective voice of the working class who wouldn't have much clout otherwise?

Coincidentally, however, this kind of arrangement would suit the Conservative Party very well. What a coincidence, eh?

The adverts are paid for and on behalf of a webiste called Enough's Enough who seem to be mainly environmentals campaiging against flying and run by an ex-banker turned Swampy aspirant called Peter Myers. The site is funded by "donations from individuals" which are not publicly available.

Now, party funding is a pretty odd campaign for an environmental organisation to jump on the back of, don't you think? It's akin to reading a favourable review of a les-bi-gay event in Richard Littlejohn's column in terms of "what the hell?" factor. And for an organisation demanding more transparency in terms of the financial backing of political parties, EnoughsEnough's sources are opaque to say the least. Who provided the money to pay for those full page adverts? And, more importantly, why?

So, we have an environmental activism site suddenly pulling several grand out of nowhere to promote a party funding advert that's favourable to the Tories whose leader has been saying very nice things about green issues recently, and we're expected to take their word on trust that this is coincidence...?

Cut the c£ap.

Wading through treacle

Sorry about the non-posting of recent days, comrades. It's been so busy, I'm so tired I can barely get up in the morning, and frankly I am about to reach the end of my patience with bag-carrying. And life.

I'll try and come up with something mildly entertaining later, but it may be pushing it.

By the way, am I alone in finding this a little bizarre?

Hang 'em and flog 'em moment

Every so often there is a news item that makes me go all Daily Mail on everybody's ass, and it was this story today in the Guardian that did it for me today.

Normal service will resume shortly.

Quiet, isn't it?

Lord, it's like late-night Radio 3 in terms of domestic politics at the moment.

By the way, if anybody fancies doing a guest post on how the Deputy Leadership count is going to work, knock yourself out, and email me at the usual address with a pseudonym if you fancy one.

A lone voice of truth, 'midst those belonging to bad men of evil intent
This is the last post ever on this bilge, I promise*

Well, at least we were warned.

On his blog Chris Atkins, author and director of “Taking Liberties”, tells us that he wrote “a piece for the Daily Mail. Sort of - I ranted and they ghost wrote it for me - I'm not sure if that makes the situation better or worse.”

Oh it's worse, Chris. Much worse. Read "his" musings here.

I would have thought that an organ of record that believes that a combination of “asylum seekers” and "working mums" are behind everything from cancer to falling house prices is a curious choice for a self-professed lefty libertarian to utilise in the name of his cause…but then it’s all publicity isn’t it? Principle be damned!

More suspicious minds than mine have suggested that the anti-Blair agenda of the paper that forms Richard Littlejohn's spiritual home fits in nicely with that of Atkins. I am sure that this isn't the case. Oh no.

In the spirit of George Orwell, whom Atkins is keen on invoking when faced with nothing more sinister than those much-hated, unprincipled, publicity-hungry politicians attempting to prevent potato blight in Northern Ireland (I shit thee not): “and the animals looked from pigs to humans and humans to pigs, but they couldn’t tell which was which.”

[boom boom! Thank you, I'm here all week]

Okay, let's take try and take this seriously. I'm not going to do a line-by-line Fisk because, frankly, life's too short and I'm desperate for a cigarette. So as a compromise measure I will summarise the backing music of the article below, and I'll deal with the substantive points next:

"George Orwell would be shocked...sinister machinations...totalitarian police state...eroding basic civil liberties...we a fast becoming an Orwellian state...freedoms curtailed...self-serving climate of fear this government has perpetuated since the 9/11 attack...age old right of protest within half a mile of Parliament....Walter Wolfgang....thin end of the wedge...Magna Carta...keep tabs on ordinary citizens...tentacles of these networks...state survelliance mechanism....New Labour has an absolute obsession with these devices...soon we'll be living in an open-air prison....Hitler...Rwanda...Stasi....et cetera, et cetera ad tedium."

Hyperbole-tastic, baby!

Slash away at the frothings and Chris has two basic arguments.

Firstly, there has been an enormous increase in the volume of legislation that passes through Parliament, as well as an increase in security apparatus such as CCTV cameras.

Unfortunately, Atkins is either ignorant of Parliamentary procedure or is being purposefully disengenous. One "law" he holds up in his article as hilariously control-freakish is the Polish Potato Order 2004. Gawd, these politicians wrote a law...making the eating of Polish potatoes a criminal offence? POLICE STATE! POLICE STATE!

Well, not exactly. Ten minutes on the Delegated Legislation page of the Parliament website presents us with the provisons of the Polish Potatoes (Notification) (England) Order 2004 in their full tedium. This horrific bit of legislation is actually a statutory instrument outlining temporary measures to stop a potato blight prevalent in Polish potatoes at the time spreading to the English and Northern Irish crop. Not big, exciting, clever, and doesn't explicitly affect Chris and his north London mates so is, consequently, not necessary. Sadly, most of the work of Parliament is of this type rather than of the pseudo-intellectual grandstanding that Chris is so fond of...which explains why he never makes any effort to fully understand how our system of Government works. Like, too boring, man!

Next up is the increase in the use of CCTV cameras and the like, along with the use of data collected to "help track down criminals even though many thousands of those on record are totally innocent".

Because Chris is so fond of extrapolating potato regulations to equate Hitler at the point of Kristalnacht, allow me to indulge in one of my own: how about never arresting anybody ever, because "many thousands" of them will be innocent? Ridiculous, isn't it Chris, to take things to such stupid extremes?

Hmm. The situation with CCTVs and DNA databases isn't ideal, I'll admit. Okay, I'm open to persuasion, Chris, so...persuade me!

The case for the defence: statistics on the dreaded CCTVs and DNA databases: in the year 2005/06 there were 45,000 crimes with DNA matches including 422 homicides (murder and manslaughter), 645 rapes, 256 other sex offences, 1,974 other violent crimes, and over 9,000 domestic burglary offences. So whilst I am concerned about the liberty aspect of retention of DNA data, I have to admit that those figures are pretty impressive. And – in a question posed by Atkins himself – why should the innocent worry?

The case for the prosecution: because, says Atkins, "to surrender our identity and privacy so comprehensively is to give up something we will never get back."

Er...am I alone in thinking that this, the core of Chris' argument, is a little on the weak side?

You’re going to have to come up with something better than that if you’re going to offset the net benefit to society by convicting a bunch of sex-offenders, murders, and violent criminals. And none of your arguments come up with anything more substantial than vague rantings about Winston Churchill (himself a curious choice of hero for a libertarian. You are aware that he introduced conscription in WWI?).

If your agenda is to convince people of your point of view, you might want to have a little think about what your fundamental point is: why is "liberty" (which is never defined) more important than catching law-breakers and affording people peace of mind and a feeling of security? Because it sounds like, underneath all the outraged frothing, that Chris doesn't really know.

Chris' second point is that:

"...liberty and security aren't balanced on some delicate equilibrium as John Reid, the Home Secretary would have us believe. History has shown us that it is precisely when you undermine people's basic rights that they mobilise towards radical groups."

So, liberty exists as an unchanging concept whose existence must trump any attempt at social progress or security considerations...even though others believe that liberty is a made by man, not God and whose definition is subject to the frailty of man? For example, think about some of those treasured, basic rights that have been destroyed by those self-serving politicians:

- the freedom to rape your wife;
- the right to incite racial hatred under the auspices of the freedom of speech;
- the right to bring up a woman's sexual history in a rape trial;
- the right to refuse someone a service or employment on the basis of their race or sexual orientation.

Ah, the good old days when a chap's liberty actually meant something. If there is no equilibrium, according to Atkins, just whose liberty are we protecting here? That of rich, white men - like Chris Atkins - alone?

In addition - and call me an old authoritarian - but there is strong evidence to suggest that there are a bunch of loons with entitlement complexes out there who are quite keen on blowing us up. Should we just, in order to protect "liberty", let them get on with it?

Sorry, I can't be bothered with this clap-trap any more. Once again the pro-liberty lobby have scored a spectacular own-goal by both simultaneously only preaching the the already converted and allowing the Government to dismiss their arguments and those associated with them as those belonging to conspiracy nutters and self-important drama students.

Nice going.

*may not be true.

All We Are Saying, Is Give Tea A Chance

The depressing news about the violence in Gaza is enough to make anybody despair of ever finding a peaceful solution to this complex dispute...but fear not, for help is at hand!

Clemency Burton-Hill, as BBF-ers may remember, is a journalist played by actress Barbie Cholmondley-Warner who works at the Sextator (dahhhhling) and in this capacity is every day more fulsomely proving herself to be the thinking man's Nadine Dorries.

In this printed article dated 16th June, Clemency points out that even though her Hamas interviewee is, like, sooooooo CONTROVERSIAL, his deportment is tip-top and he bally well drinks his tea like a gentleman. Good show!

Unfortunately, Clemency's published mustings were somewhat overtaken by events and in this Sextator blog post she expresses her distress and frustration at the breakdown of the fragile peace in Palestine:

"I don't understand. I have met people in Hamas, people in Fatah, and I know they want peace - with each other, and with Israel. My Palestinian friends and acquaintances are some of the most intelligent, reasonable and hopeful people I know. How is this happening? And what can we do about it? What can anyone do about it?"

Poor love. All those complexities and so little tea. Maybe a relief package of Earl Grey and a book on Etiquette In High Society are in order?

Make it stop! Make it stop!
And get Dimbers back on the Sanatogen. Just how long are the Beeb going to let him dine out on Daddy's reputation?

Jesus wept, is anyone watching the Question Time Deputy Leader special? Dirty linen...washing...public...The audience are comprised entirely of smug teenagers from various factions within the Labour Party, and the most chinless members of the Bristol University Conservative Assocation. Because balance is important in a QT audience. Apparently.

Not forgetting, of course, the usual honkers and hooters. Ha, some vicar has just informed the panel that they are there to "serve" him; to think that I sometimes forget why I am an athiest.

To sum up:

Harman thinks that what is needed in a leadership team is a Man and a Woman. A Woman with Nice Shoes. Because lots of women like Women. And Nice Shoes. But not expensive Handbags. Harriet has firm views on the issue of expenditure on Handbags.

Blears is doing well - looks tired - but is doggedly pressing on.

Cruddas doesn't like Trident. Right. Good.

Hain is doing okay, but his heart doesn't seem to be in it.

Naturally I think Johnson is the most impressive, but then I'm biased.

Benn comes across very well: earnest, dedicated, and knows his stuff.

And is everybody spotting who the various candidates are edging their supporters to vote for as their second preference in the hope of a reciprocal arrangement? Classy!

Meanwhile, Dimbleby's wandering around with a microphone like a low-rent Tom Jones impersonator occasionally barking incomprehensible attempts at political insight at the panel. My money's on him breaking into Delilah any minute now. Lord knows, doing so wouldn't be any more irrelevant than the "points" he's attempted to make hitherto.

Car crash television.

The Apprentice

Sorry comrades for the lack of posting; whilst domestic politics is just a tad boring at the moment, it doesn't mean that the casework doesn't keep coming in. I've even taken to doing it at home which - take note fresh-faced recent employees - sets a bad precedent. Anyway, I hope to have something a bit more substantial for you later.

In the meantime: last night's Apprentice, eh? I have to confess I was shocked, SHOCKED that Sralan went for Simon "I Went To Cambridge You Know" Ambrose over Kristina. She was clearly the better candidate and I have so far been unimpressed by Simon's so-called "flashes of brilliance". When were those then?

I also think it was slightly unfair to give Simon all the credit for his (oddly arousing) building design when he spent most of his time buggering around with Tre whilst the architect and surveyor on his team came up with the designs and did the work. And - hilariously - organised the dancing girls. Kristina was the safer, more experienced bet, but I guess Sralan wanted to surprise us.

First Party Animals goes, and now the Apprentice has finished. What am I going to do on Wednesday night now?

[ignores calls of "get a life?" from BBF-ers]

Miscellania
And on taking pot-shots at Sacred Cows whilst an array of farmers with big guns look on belligerently

According to Iain Dale, Chris Atkins of "Taking Liberties" fame is on Dullty Street tonight; unfortunately I cannae watch it as I have something on (unusual, I know) but for once I think it might be worth tuning in.

I also note that once again, having poked my moustaches up from the trenches, I am on the receiving end of some not-so-friendly fire from the praetorian guard of the liberal orthodoxy on such matters. Hmmm. Take it from me, Freedom Fighters, I'm just a tiny blog with a small readership and I when I do get a chance to do my moderation it's not edifying to have to wade through scores of posts accusing me of colluding in this country's alleged descent into Nazism.

Honestly, I just make the tea and - occasionally - have an opinion.

Anyway, did anyone see the debate on Newsnight yesterday on Blair's speech regarding the "feral" media? I thought John Lloyd was pretty good (but I guess I would), Peter Oborne was largely incomprehensible, and the reasons behind the falling circulation of the Independent became abundantly clear from the musings of it's Commander-in-Chief.

British Spin has an excellent post on Blair's speech and the future of political reporting here.

The Amazing Ms Blears?

I know I've already come out for St Alan of Johnson for Deputy Leader, but there's quite a lot I like about Hazel Blears as well. Not least of all because - unlike some of the candidates - she's roundly defended the Government's legacy of which she forms a part, whilst other Cabinet colleagues have claimed that they were on holiday/washing their hair at the time of [insert policy decision that has proven to be unpopular with grass-roots comrades here].

Nevertheless, I cannot help but feel that her recent decision to describe herself as "Mrs Pritchard with politics" is going to do little to endear her to me as a possible beneficiary of my second preference.

Firstly, describing oneself as "Mrs Pritchard with politics" is like saying "Paris Hilton with a brain" or "Ted Bundy without the mentalism". It doesn't actually mean anything, does it?

Secondly, a fictional character (Mrs Pritchard) whose skills extend only as far as having a "kooky" accent, a shaky grasp of basic economics, no grasp of political realities, and a daughter who cracks out her bangers for the tabloids on demand is not quite what I had in mind for the Deputy Leader. Hmmm...then again...just kidding ladies!

La Blears is still in with the chance of my (doubtless much coveted) second preference but let's leave the Pritchard stylings alone, shall we?

"We never see you outside elections"
Just kidding!

The Shawcross household was almost buried, buried I tell you! in bumf last week. The Fabian guide is a much recommended read...although I was somewhat perplexed by the pencil illustrations; four Lawnmower Men and two deranged Lulus.

On Liberty
"Taking Liberties" by Chris Atkins; just when you thought the debate couldn't plumb new depths of intellectual vacuity...it does just that!

"In Britain today," Atkins tells us, "...absurdities are becoming more commonplace. In fact - and we'd have to check this with our legal people - the book you are currently reading may well amount to a subversive document, evidence pointing to criminal intent if found on your person!"

This is page 14 of "Taking Liberties" by Chris Atkins. I have got no further than this. I was intending to read the entire thing and do a critique on what I hoped I would find a disturbing and challenging book, but I fear I am unable to continue because this book is bad. It's worse than bad. It's utter and total bullshit, written in what is meant to be (according to the reems of breathless adulation in the meedja) an "exhilarating" and "casual" manner which actually comes over in the style of your least trendy uncle attempting to be down wid da kidz.

On the understanding (and in the immortal words of Christoper Hitchens) that Atkins' tome "doesn't turn into Tolstoy" on page 15, I shall continue with my plan to write a post about the contemporary debates on liberty. I've flicked through the rest of the book and think I get the general idea...in fact I think I got the general idea from the blurb which confidently states that "icing the word "peace" on a Victoria sponge cake can have you arrested". Oh, that and the fact that Henry Porter did the introduction. Nonetheless I will attempt to read the rest of it in the weeks that follow (see what I do for you lot?) and will inform you subsequently if I think that I've been unfair in my comments.

Now, if I were writing a book on liberty, I'd start first with a definition, but both Atkins and Porter resolutely refuse to do this. Nonetheless, without explicitly saying it, they give the impression that there is a solid concept - that of "liberty" - that is, like the sun and moon eternal and unchanging even if those two orbs are variously obscured by light and darkness. Liberty exists - like the sun and moon - whole, separate, universal and omnipresent. Move asunder Phoebe and Apollo, for Atkins has made a god out of Liberty - worships her! He laments anything done to harm her gracious and beautiful form, reverently prostrates himself at her altar, viciously attacks her detractors, and offers up bollocks (and probably untrue) anecdotes of the crimes committed against her as evidence of his devotion. But the obsession he shares with Porter, Chakrabati, Benn, North and the array of usual suspects that comprise Atkins' sect (and the contributors to this book) doesn't make her any more real than the gods of ancient Rome; fanatical worship and conviction is no substitute for adequately made arguments and sound philosophy. Sorry Chris, you're just worshipping a graven image my friend.

Any undergraduate with an above shoe-size IQ could have made this argument without too much difficulty, but it's obviously too difficult for Atkins because he ignores it. And this, in my view, is the problem with contemporary debates on our liberty or lack thereof: in short, what are we dealing with here people? What is "liberty"? The short answer is that from the dawn of political discourse nobody could agree on what liberty actually was. Are we debating here Rousseau's authoritarian approach to such matters in which he argued that people could be "forced to be free" (no swooning please Atkins)? Or J. S. Mill's idea of personal freedom as long as it doesn't damage anyone else in society (itself, a problematic definition and requiring further thought as to what "damage" actually constitutes). Isaiah Berlin's positive liberty? His negative liberty? What about Marx, who explained liberty in terms of the economic? Where do feminist discourses come in...that sometimes a man's right to liberty is responsible for the enslavement of women? There's no shortage of wildly differing theories as to what "liberty" actually constitutes and the debate has raged about what rights the individual has in relation to the s