clawsfour

And then they came for Andrew Gilligan...

..good.

The sanctimonious bitteratti re-emerges in tonight's Standard with the now tired quote from Martin Niemoller. Powerful in its time, Niemoller's vision of the individual standing aside while minority groups are abused had been diluted by the casual repetition by the patronising liberal elite. And Gilligan.

Tonight he is after the collection and collation of information from electronic sources that will allow data mining. Gilligan makes so many errors of judgement in his article - nothing new there - in his desire to unleash another assault on Labour that they are hardly worth commenting upon.

Two points, however, seem worth a second look. Firstly that the collation of electronic information is OK to fight terrorism, but not organized crime. Presumably unless it is your child who is abused by an international paedophile gang. This seems to me to be just wrong headed. If the information is availble then it is resource allocation which drives the priorities not some middle class intellectualisation of personal freedom. If they've caught the terrorists, get after the litter louts say I.

The second point is how to handle the data. Gilligan claims that would just make a bigger haystack in which to find the needle. No wonder people ask themselves what is the point after talking to Mr G.

What Gilligan utterly fails to appreciate or acknowledge is that these haystacks already exist and may be the repository of the missing needle.

I should probably give a brief mention to the third of these two points. Giligan says terrorism is on the wane, not many people are killed anyhow, and in any event most of it happens outside of the civilized west, and you are more likely to die in hospital. There is clearly a rational debate that could be held here but frankly I can't be arsed.

Gilligan, you are a mind-numbing twat.

Oh, but I did enjoy the one comment that "a million leylandii hedges testify how strongly we feel about privacy." That would be only when you don't have a chainsaw to hand.

Not the last post

So the Royal Mail is about to be sold off, and there is a big row in the Labour Party about it and the everyone is very cross.

Well only if they've not read the Bill, which is actually about ensuring a level playing field for Royal Mail; making sure its future in public ownership is secured; and protecting the universal postal service.

Royal Mail is to be enshrined in legislation as a publicly owned company.  No government would be able to change this status without further primary legislation in the future. That doesn't look like privations to me. 

The fact that the Bill will say Post Office Ltd. is to be owned by government in its entirety, and that no government would be able to change this status without further primary legislation, also doesn't seem to be the usual formula for privatisation.   

Now, of course, there has been a muddle over this for all the usual reasons - a hostile press, a lack of clarity from the government and the usual old labourites who can't wait to get back into opposition and are practising.

In addition to the non-privatisation, the unique selling point of the Royal Mail - letters collected and delivered anywhere in the UK for one affordable price - is to be written into the legislation. The primary duty of the regulator will be the maintenance of the universal service.

Attracting private investment in the publicly owned company and transferring the burden of the pension scheme to the taxpayer will also be a much needed boost for the Royal Mail. 

No doubt there will be some last minute deals to be done to make sure it all hangs together properly, but you sometimes wonder that a little more attention to how these proposals are communicated might not go amiss.

Evolution is a one way street

Bugger, bugger, bugger. Bugger.

We don't have kids. Never seen the point of them - although it's tempting to borrow one from time to time to see certain films at the cinema.

And, of course, more recently it is becoming more and more clear that reducing the population of the planet is the only effective way of dealing with climate change and other environmental pressures. It's the one thing where I didn't agree with Tony Blair. Prime Ministers with four kids just don't show the right example.

Anyhow, we feel we are doing our bit for the planet by not creating another tribal demand on resources. And then it dawned. Our preference for no children will die out with us. No chance for the 'population reduction' genes to be passed on. The planet is buggered.

Bugger.

Storm in a coffee cup

Foul-mouthed journalists appear to have awarded Peter Mandelson a prize for the most gratuitous use of the word "fuck" in New York.

Waiting to give a TV interview in the Residence of the British Consul-General, Mandelaon asked "who the fuck is he?" of Howard Schultz within the earshot of dinner guests.

Shultz, seen by Mandelson to be running down the British economy rather than running his own company, is Chairman and Chief Executive of Starbucks.

None of this is any great surprise - for who has not walked into a Starbucks coffee shop and exclaimed, "Fuck me. How much?"

Spend, spend, spend

...just not on your election campaign.

There is a new Political Parties and Elections Bill tip-toeing it's way through parliament at the moment, and it's trying very hard not to scare the horses.

Bits of it are straightforward and long overdue - like making sure the Electoral Commision has some commissioners with party political experience. The new clause which should be the most contentious - making spending by candidates on their own election more transparent and, at the same time, limiting the arms race - is sliding through without a ripple.

And that is because, in an effort to square the circle of limiting spending whilst retaining all party support, the committee of MPs looking at this have come up with a completely unworkable and complex solution. I won't bore you with the incomprehensible details. Suffice it to say that these rules kick in 5 months before the end of parliament. But only if the parliament runs for a full five years. There are all sorts of pro-rata arrangements for shorter parliaments. Anyhow, you now know enough for my primary point, which is....

This is yet another reason for fixed term parliaments. If the greatest democracy in the world (?) can function by electing a President every four years, the the mother of all parliaments should be able to cope with a regular birthday. There are lots of good reasons for this but in the context of the Political Parties Bill, it would make the control of election spending straightforward for the professional party staff and volunteers to implement and for the regulators to monitor.

So come on Jack Straw.
Wadda we want?
FIXED TERM PARLIAMENTS.
Whenda we want em?
EVERY FOUR YEARS!

Who let the dogs out?

Conservative MP Christopher Chope is flying a kite for Cameron by testing reaction to his idea to scrap the minimum wage. 

Carried in today's Mirror this story is unsurprising given Chope's previous antipathy toward the minimum wage. 

Former minister Christopher Chope told the Commons yesterday that employers and employees should be allowed to "freely negotiate" their own pay.Mr Chope said that ditching the £5.73 an hour minimum rate would help struggling businesses survive and create more jobs. He told the Commons: "Before anyone accuses me of wanting to impose poverty wages, I'm talking about arrangements for freely consenting adults." 

A little more surprising is Tory Leader David Cameron allowing this particular free-market attack dog off the leash now.

Who are you calling a monkey

Today's Times carries a piece (I'll post a link later) which says the Vatican has admitted that "Darwin was on the right track" when "he claimed man was descended from apes".

Either the Vatican or the Times is barking up the wrong tree of evolution - and I put my money on the men with pointy hats. Evolution does not now, and never has, claimed that man is decended from apes. Rather that we shared a common ancestor. This deliberate misunderstanding of Darwin's theory is used in arguments by creationists (and worse) to try to hold onto their belief that life was created by a figment of their imagination.

If people wish to believe in God - then that is a matter for consenting adults in the pirvacy of their own homes. This attempt by the Vatican to show some acknowledgement of Darwin in order to boost their own cause must continue to be challenged.

The euphoria which gripped the world when Obama was elected on a slogan of Hope must surely be tempered when we realise that over 50 per cent of the people who elected him believe the world was created 6000 years ago

In this 200 aniversary of Darwin's birth these lies from the Vatican, creationists, intelligent designers and others must not go unchallenged.

Thou shall not join the BNP

Am I the only one to see the irony of the argument deployed by the person arguing against a ban on clergy joining the BNP.

I am sorry that I didn't catch her name or authority as I shook the sleepy dust from my eyes in disbelief at what I was hearing on the BBC Today programme.

There was the usual batting backwards and forwards of inconsequential debate by a bored jounalist in the 6.50 slot - a slot which makes 'Thought for the day' seems entertaining. The line which finally roused me from my slumber was provided by the person arguing against a ban. "Saying thou shall not will only make people want to do it more."

Looks like God and Moses really fucked up over the 10 commandments then.

Better to travel hopefully

The Labour government has trod a fine line between maintaining national security and individual freedom.

But If we want to continue protecting the country, we will need to get re-elected and the announcement that family holidays will be tracked and stored for ten years is another self-inflicted kick in the ballots.

Of course other countries do it. Of course it makes sense from an international security point of view. But, of course, it also plays into the hands of every headline writer who wants to get the Tories elected (ie all of them).

Someone needs to get a grip. And fast. At this stage of an electoral cycle the old mantra about having to do what is right needs a slight modification. Given the pressures on parliamentary time there is more than enough to do that is right. It would help if for the next few months we concentrated on those which are also popular.

I would post a link but my one major gripe about the iPhone (inability to cut and paste) means you'll need to find it yourself. Any news site.

A blog worth reading

Welcome to the blogosphere Alastair Campbell. Blimey, I wish he was sorting out Labour's message now. We certainly wouldn't have got into the British jobs for British workers mess.

Anyhow, he's just started. You can find him here. 

And here's his latest vlog.