I've been away from this blog for a long time, mostly working and saving up for my move to London. I'm starting work in Parliament in the next few weeks, which should be exciting. However, I have come to the decision that it would be best to drop the blogging completely, even though I had intended to take it up again around about now.

Mostly it's the time factor, but it's also that I just don't think it's a good idea to blog on my experiences in Parliament, for obvious reasons - discretion is the better part of valour, after all, and my work would end up being the inevitable subject matter.

This blog has been a great experience and I hope it was worth reading once or twice. But now I intend to focus my energy on savouring my time in London, and on developing my music, my art and my writing; if I can't get inspired whilst working there, there's no hope for me!

Of course, I have enjoyed meeting other bloggers and networking a great deal, so I hope to keep in touch. Thanks to all who have had an influence and impact on this blog. Don't be strangers, folks. I intend to leave this blog up for a little while before using this domain for other purposes. Then it'll be no more. So do take note of my email or facebook addresses.

And so... good afternoon, good evening and good night. It has been a pleasure.

There's nothing like taking exams in a subject to disrupt one's interest in it! Currently I'm going through an intense period of apathy when it comes to politics. Blogging is far from my mind. So, after some careful consideration, I have decided to suspend this blog for a while, and concentrate on the more mundane aspects of life; mainly attempting to save up some money for my impending move to London to work in Parliament for a year.

My year group is, unfortunately, going in the last year MPs are not obliged to pay their interns even a minimum wage. As I have no idea if I'll be one of the lucky ones, and get some pin money despite this, I have to assume the worst for now. And since a number of my fellow future-interns are only being given half loans by the Student Loans Company, I'll admit I'm having nightmares about my future cash situation.

So all my energy is now going to go into getting another job and selling all my worldly possessions on eBay. Blogging just can't come into it. This radio silence may last weeks, or it may last months (unless a miracle occurs and I get some big scoop of course). I'll definitely be back before joining the Westminster crowd at least. I hasten to add that, this blog certainly isn't going anywhere, but I'll understand if anyone wants to remove me from their blogroll for a while, since it's going to be inactive.

Toodle pipski folks. I'll definitely be back.

*The top graphic is from the rather excellent gapingvoid

Today it has been revealed that our outgoing Prime Minister is leaving us a hanging stink bomb in the proverbial air - the Church taking control of 100 City Academies. Gee, great. So with a new Prime Minister with an avowedly Christian "moral compass" and the Conservatives pledging to expand the Academies programme once in power, it looks like we're saved if we do, saved if we don't.

Faith schools may have a reputation for academic excellence, but at what cost? Parents will do anything to get their children a good education, we all know that, but in my opinion the faith element is neither here nor there. It's the funding and support, not the ethics, that makes faith schools so good and makes parents so eager to enroll their kids. The discipline found in them can certainly be replicated without the dimension of morning sermons. Indeed, if Tony Blair was leaving us with 200 new City Academies funded by Tesco Academies Services Ltd, they would be just as good (actually I'd rather have a generation of compulsive shoppers than religious fundamentalists come out of this scheme... though maybe that's just me).

Of course I have little objection to privately funded faith schools on a libertarian principle. If the demand is there, it should be an option with the proviso that there remains some standardised curriculum control. I simply disagree that state-run schools should be allowed to be "bought" by the highest bidder - too often those with a vested interest in warping the minds of children - and then funded by the taxpayer forevermore. If the Church wants to run schools, it should do so entirely out of its own pocket. If rich old evangelical fundamentalists want to buy schools and to teach creationism in them, why on earth should we be both facilitating them and then footing the bill?

Tony Blair has a lot to answer for. And if the Conservatives carry on this ludicrous angle to the scheme, so will we.

I'm afraid the blog is going to have to take a backseat for a little while, as I wrestle with exams and a new job. So stay tuned and I'll be back in a little while.

EDIT: Or, ya know, back intermittently!

... as 282 Labour MPs decide to back an uncontestable Gordon Brown...

It's probably not fashionable to say it, but I've been appalled by the media reaction to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Iain Dale has lead the way today by vocalising something that has been bothering me, and probably many others. He rightly points out that splashing the face and name of the suspect all over the papers today, even though no charge has been made, goes right to the heart of everything that's wrong with our national press. Perhaps Robert Murat will turn out to be guilty. But perhaps he won't. The fact is, we don't know. So whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Trial by media is no way to decide guilt. Too often it is used in such a manner nowadays.

Then there is the part which has been bugging me since the story broke; the endless parade of celebrities attaching their faces (Ronaldo, Beckham, Gordon Brown, Wayne Rooney) or at least their names to the story. That really does reek to me. No doubt they're saddened by what has happened, but why do they need to say so on television? It has nothing to do with them. Ergo their appearances can be nothing more than self-publicity and I find that sick. By all means, they're welcome to give their money to the campaign, but the moment their goodwill becomes a saintly badge in the public domain, they're not doing it for Madeleine or her family, they're doing it for themselves. That's just plain wrong.

When Gordon Brown went on the news to do his condolence/publicity-stunt for the Madeleine story, my first thought was that there was no way David Cameron would do that. Just like the Big Brother racism debate, Gordon was first to comment and Dave the first to criticise the celebrity scrum for a spot on the news. So far I'm glad to see I'm right about David Cameron in that he has said nothing on this story. He has more sense and principle than many give him credit for.

My point is, we need to examine the reaction of the media to these types of stories. It is always too frenzied, too hysterical and has too much emphasis on the reaction of "those that matter", ie celebrities and politicians. This is not conducive to the campaign to find Madeleine and, as Iain Dale points out, it can lead to the potential ruination of lives, as demonstrated by the Steve Wright incident.

I'm taking the opportunity to catch up on some reading before exams get underway. At the moment I'm reading 'Parliamentary Socialism' by Ralph Miliband (father of current governmeet Ministers Ed and young David), and it really does bring the current struggles in the Labour Party into perspective.

The challenge of John McDonnell for the leadership against Gordon Brown is symptomatic of an age old struggle in the party that has existed since its inception. It's often said that Tony Blair broke the party's links to the trade unions. Certainly, he did, to some extent. But I would argue that the way some of the trade unions have decided to throw themselves behind John McDonnell is a vivid demonstration of the age-old split between the far left and moderate left in the party.

"This left-wing activist element in the Labour Party and the trade unions has always been in a minority. It has seldom been able to post effective challenge to the Labour leaders and it has never come near to capturing the Labour movement's commanding heights. Even so, organised or unorganised, it has been a force with which the Labour leaders have always had to reckon, and to which they have often been forced to make concessions; in various ways, the Left within the Labour Party has at least reduced the leaders' freedom of action."

Now this book was written in 1961, so it's hardly an up to date look at the dynamics within the Labour Party. But it remains as true as ever. Gordon Brown most certainly embodies the statist "extra-parliamentary Left" as Miliband categorises it, and John McDonnell the historically undertrodden far-left wing, which must always influence rather than rule. Miliband states the adaptation to external factors, such as the interference of historical, economic and social events, as well as the ability to respond to what the other parties are doing, which comes naturally to the less dogmatic and more moderate left, have always kept the far-left from making serious strides into the leadership.

I personally don't think McDonnell stands a chance against Gordon Brown. The the desire for an adaptive leadership which will appeal to the maximum number of voters will prevent him from getting far, just as it always has. It's just interesting to frame his inevitable failure into a historic perspective to explain why it is simply not possible for the far-left to ever really get a grip on the party, however hard McDonnell tries.

I continue to read...

Here's an interesting story. A potential Gordon Brown initiative I actually like? Wow. Hold the phone.

Rumours abound that Gordon Brown is going to alter convention to make the Church of England's appointment of Bishops and Archbishops independent:

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told senior colleagues that he intends to give the church control over its own senior appointments. At the moment the Prime Minister plays a major role in the appointment of diocesan bishops and has the sole right to nominate deans of most English cathedrals. Mr Brown himself hinted at lifting control of the ecclesiastical appointments in a speech to the Fabian Society last year. Until 1976 the church had no formal role in the appointment of bishops at all, although it was consulted as a matter of courtesy. Thirty years ago, however, James Callaghan then Prime Minister established the Crown Appointments Commission, now renamed the Crown Nominations Commission, which draws up a shortlist of two names which it may offer in order of preference. The Prime Minister chooses either of the names or seeks other names from the Commission. Tony Blair used this veto at least once in 1997 to turn down both candidates proposed for the diocese of Liverpool.

The Prime Minister's appointment secretary plays an active role in the whole process and is a non-voting member of the Commission.

Sources close to Mr Brown, who is a member of the Church of Scotland, indicated that he will introduce the change by producing a memorandum of agreement with the Church’s General Synod. One source said: "Brown does not need to introduce any legislation or take up any parliamentary time in this matter. He is simply altering convention."

The plans seem to be a bit muddled at the moment, but overall I like the idea. Then again, any measures to disentangle the church from the state are obviously going to meet with approval from me.

I think it would not only do our political system good to have the church disestablished, it would do the church a great deal of good too. Politics can so easily muddy the waters of a body seeking be a spiritual guardian to the nation. It can tend to make the church seem like little more than just another pressure group and I'm not sure that's healthy. After all, the whole point is that its power is supposed to come from the "divine" so it shouldn't need government patronage to lead. Then there is also the argument that disestablishment in Wales and Scotland hasn't done it any harm, so England should have no fear of following suit.

It does make me wonder for the future of the House of Lords though. Giving the Church power to appoint its own leaders is an obvious step towards getting rid of the Lords Spiritual. Perhaps this means that Gordon Brown intends to go through with plans to create elected Lords. After all, it would be a virtual impossibility to elect Bishops so they would have to be removed from the chamber at some point. That would make it somewhat ludicrous for the vetting process to still go through the Prime Minister in anything other than a cursory fashion.

Looks like Gordon Brown's constitutional wrecking ball is going to be pretty far reaching if everything goes according to plan...

Today's headlines about Gordon Brown's various plans for his Premiership are interesting, if rather dull, since he is only reannouncing plans he announced last September, despite all the fuss.

The worst one has to be, of course, his plans to introduce a written constitution. I can't think of anything more damaging than a new Prime Minister with only a few years (for certain) to make his mark embarking on an ill-advised ego-inspired demolition the UK's constitutional settlement.

As we grow ever nearer the end of the process to separate the Law Lords from the House of Lords, creating a 12-man "Supreme Court", you have to ask, if we're going to have a written Constitution and an elected second chamber as well, why don't we just pledge allegiance to the bloody flag and have done with it?

Having a written constitution, even a bare bones one, is an indisputable mistake. We simply don't need it. Written constitutions are for new countries in need of an operational framework. The U.S. Constitution has shown us many lessons of why we shouldn't have something like that:

• How often does their constitution get amended? It's taken 200 years for the smallest incremental steps to take place. For example, compare the Dunblane Massacre of 1996 over here with the recent mass murder at Virginia Tech University over there. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Here, it took barely a year to have guns banned and, despite not solving all of the problems of gun crime, we haven't had another incident on that scale. It's a simple fact that written constitutions can make passing legislation slower and harder.
• Disproportionate power would be given to the judiciary if our newly made Supreme Court is to be the deciding body on what the constitution does and does not say, as it is in the U.S.
  
• Who gets to write this Constitution? It will inevitably be a document of some controversy and not everyone will agree to its terms. Does any one politician, judge, or indeed Prime Minister, really have the right to be the decider of the entire length and breadth of our values, at a time when the mandate to govern is so flimsy considering how few bother to go out and vote nowadays? This problem is doubly true of an arguably unelected Prime Minister, as Gordon Brown will be. A more unsuitable premier to bring about such a monumental change I can't imagine.
  
• A written constitution safeguards the values of today, not tomorrow. For example, 200 years ago, slavery was perfectly permissible, and hence it was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It took an incredible amount of time and hard work to get that overturned. The scars of this struggle still exist today. My point is, the values of our nation will grow and change as time goes by, and we have no right to straight-jacket future generations.

The only way a written constitution would work here would be to have the process of amendment be made very straightforwards. In which case, what's the point of it? Our current unenshrined constitution is the fluid movement of values, capable of incorporating both precedent and other documents like the Magna Carta's edicts and the Human Rights Act with relative ease.

To force upon us a written constitution would be nothing more than an act of vanity on the part of Gordon Brown; his own little guaranteed footnote in the history books. Quite a selfish start to his premiership, I have to say.