The big man is back and with him comes a big new idea for getting criminals. He plans to get them while they're young. Right from the age of... 0.

0? As in... zero?

Yep, the big new idea is to identify those who are likely to have delinquent children (teenage mothers for a start) and presumably intervene during the foetal stage of the little menace's development.
His video interview at BBC News (available midway down the page here) is really quite astonishing to watch, as he idenfies pre-birth as the best time to identify little blighters and the ages of 3, 4 and 5 as the time at which symptoms of future antisocialism can be diagnosed. He also says that those who refuse government 'help' (and the government gets to choose who 'need it', incidently) will be subject to sanctions and that the reason we have such a problem with antisocial youth is because the government don't interfere enough in peoples' lives. (I do like the moment when the interviewer says - around 3:23 - that "people will be worried about this", and Blair sighs really heavily and fixes him with a glaring stare. It just says it all really.)

Pretty scary stuff. Honestly, watching him bluster on despite all the obvious contradictions of his position, you really do have to wonder what on earth is going on in his mind.

And just to inject my own viewpoint on this for a second, when I was 5 I was a damned little hellion and always getting into trouble. I wouldn't describe myself as a menace to society nowadays though. Had I been that age currently would I have been condemned to government scrutiny and taken away from my mother - who was a single parent by then - for my stupid antics in Blair's Britain?

Blair makes it clear in the interview that he's pretty confident his sucessor will follow this up. Since chances are it will be Gordon Brown, the man who wants to sell the biometric ID Cards' database to High Street stores, I actually believe him on that.

Ah crud, Strange Stuff tagged me with that book meme that's going around. I guess I'd better go for it.

1. One book that changed your life - the hardest question first.
That is a hard one. I wouldn't say any one book as really changed my life too much. Just about every book I've read has given me an insight into something and helped shape my view of the world as it now stands.

2. One book that you've read more than once
Pride and Prejudice. Mr Darcy never gets old. I always imagine him as Colin Firth I admit.

3. One book that you'd want on a desert island
Castaway. Because the irony would at least keep me laughing.

4. One book that made you laugh
I'm sure there have been many but the most recent would be 'Tony and Me by Georg Bush, as Told to Dr. Parsons'. Juvenile yet great.

5. One book that made you cry
Stephen King's 'The Stand' extended edition. I cried when it finished, flipped to the front and started reading again. Although generally I don't like books which are heavy on religion, the characters were amazingly well drawn and they really got me into it. Tom and Nick's journey moved me especially.

6. One book that you wish you had written
'Fight Club' by Chuck Palahniuk. Amazing depth of expression and I do have an abiding love of the subversive I must admit.

7. One book you wish had never been written
There are many lofty answers that could be put in here. The ones the world could have done without like the Bible, Mein Kampff, that stupid Left Behind series and most books by Ian McEwan but I think I'll be fatuous instead; I could well have done without 'John Prescott's Karma Sutra'.

8. One book that you are reading at the moment
'The Curious Incident of the WMD in Iraq' by Rohan Candappa

9. One book that you've been meaning to read
I keep meaning to get deep and philosophical with Hayak's 'The Road to Serfdom', since I'm aware that just reading the reader's digest picture version is probably a cop out. I also need to read everything ever written by Richard Dawkins as a matter of urgency.

10. Five others that you’d like to do this
Beware of the Dogma, Political Crossroads, the Twenty-Something, My Boyfriend is a Twat (with apologies to all) and definitely President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran

"Men and women who are comfortably heterosexual aren't obsessed with stamping out homosexuality. Normal, non-neurotic people don't care what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. Normal heterosexual men don't spend their Saturday nights hanging around gay bars to beat up gays--they're out with women. It is by no means coincidental that so many homophobes are also misogynists..."

I came across this article by Philip Slater in The Huffington Post today expounding the old "methinks he doth protest too much" theory regarding homophobia. It's not a perfect piece - I do take issue with his assertion that the conversion of atheist to believer is equal to the conversion of homophobe to out and out gay rights activist. If anything it is the opposite way round, since atheism is a rational belief and his other examples of communism and homophobia are irrational beliefs. Otherwise, it does raise a smile. And it gives me an excuse to post some beautiful scantily clad eye candy - with apologies to straight male visitors! - which I have to admit, does make me happy. What can I say? except meow

Also on this subject: there is no way I can miss this opportunity to post one of my favourite Daily Show clips ever, which is very much related to Slater's article...

Today's mac cartoon in the Daily Mail, on the so-called "eternal youth drug" reported about yesterday, gave me quite a chuckle. Very nicely done.

Ian Laws, a former party candidate who was suspended for a plot to deselect another candidate on the basis of his sexuality, has been put back on the candidates list.

There has been all kinds of whining going on at ConservativeHome about local party autonomy. So much so that David Cameron actually stepped in with an article explaining his position. This re-admittance of the sort of person that will inevitably undermine the party's agenda of modernisation just smacks of petty revenge to me on the part of the Falmouth & Camborne local association. I could be wrong of course...

Laws maintains that the original selection of Ashley Crossley (pictured) was all a plot by CCHQ, even though it was decided in a secret ballot amongst the association's members. He also claims he wasn't involved in his "difficulties" - which I must say I find hard to believe since he was actually suspended.

I've read around for the details, but no one expresses what happened more eloquently than Angela over at Political Betting, HERE;

A local councillor called Crossley a "sanctimonious sh*t"…at a local meeting, a local farmer was defending Crossley and another man present asked him who he was. At that point always the same councillor shouted "One of Ashley'’s boyfriends"” (many people present apparently laughed). Crossley stood up asking an apology because he thought the comment was out of order. The acting chair from Conservative central office shouted at Mr Crossley to "sit down and shut up".

Another party official called Crossley's mother and told her "“people like her son should be put in a dustbin and pissed on"”.

Clearly unacceptable behaviour. And as Commentator suggests on the same thread, if the Times picked up on the story when he was not even selected to the A-List, just imagine the press frenzy if he were to actually oust Ashley Crossley. It would inevitably lead to questions about whether David Cameron's modernisation program was for real and there would be accusations made that the party was still the choice party for the bigoted (that the MP for the area at that time, Labour MP Cathy Atherton, also allegedly targetted Crossley and asked an assistant to dig up dirt with regards to his sexuality will not come into it). In short, nothing but bad news.

If this is, as I suspect, an attempt to stick one to Dave for his giving CCHQ more say in local association selections it's a pretty stupid way of going about it. Or perhaps Laws just has friends in a position to help him. There are certain to be some who have a deep axe to grind with Crossley (just check out the comments made at the end of this article). Either way this can't possibly end well whatever way you try to spin it.

This reminds me very much of an activity I and my classmates were given to do last year at University. We had to rank all of the British Prime Ministers of the 20th century and justify our position.

Francis Beckett's assessment of Prime Ministers from Sainsbury through to Blair actually runs quite similar to our findings. In my class there was a fair consensus of opinion in most areas, discounting the rogue socialist Thatcher-haters. Thatcher and Attlee invariably were in the top two, with Churchill not far behind. The main differences are that Tony Blair tended to come higher up on our lists and John Major was nowhere near so far down. (As a demographic my class was mostly Labour, three or four Tories and one Liberal Democrat.) Otherwise, very similar findings.

Here are Beckett's rankings based on his points system of societal change;

5 points - Margaret Thatcher and Clement Attlee

4 points - Edward Heath, Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan and Henry Campbell-Bannerman

3 points - Robert Gascoyne- Cecil (later Lord Salisbury), Herbert Asquith, David Lloyd George, Stanley Baldwin, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair

2 points - James Callaghan and Arthur Balfour

1 point - Andrew Bonar Law, Ramsay MacDonald, Sir Alec Douglas-Home and John Major

Zero - Anthony Eden and Neville Chamberlain

BUSH: Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

[Journalist] What did Iraq have to do with... the attack on the World Trade Center?
BUSH: Nothing.

The European Union's push into Communism is finally reaching its final stages. That John Reid, a former Communist Party activist is the one carrying Great Britain into this last great push towards a superstate, comes as no surprise.

Still feeling cynical? Read this interesting article by Daniel Hannan:

"So it was more or less inevitable that Brussels would respond to the recent security alert by awarding itself new powers. And, sure enough, John Reid and his fellow interior ministers have rushed to announce the further harmonisation of aviation and policing. Never mind that the liquid bomb plot was thwarted by the system currently in place. Never mind that, as far as we can tell, the countries chiefly involved were Britain, Pakistan and the United States, and that collaboration among the intelligence agencies of these three states would be unaffected by any new EU rules..."

Inevitable indeed. So finally the European Union believes that, following the recent terrorist plane plot, we are all scared enough to accept the last great push towards their undemocratic superstate; giving up our veto on Justice and Home Affairs. In fact there is a meeting on the 22nd of September when the matter will be imposed discused, which John Reid will attend.

The effect of losing our veto and the subsequent "harmonisation" of laws across the EU? For as start, the abolishment of Trial by Jury. Oh yes. Still not worried?


And in other news guaranteed to make my blood boil, Angela Merkel and the Pope are colluding to try and put God and Christianity into the European Constitution. Cranmer reports on the debace on his blog here.

Certainly this does depart a little from the communist ideal the EU is attempting to emolate, but that's only because it is coming from individual forces; the German government and the Vatican. That it is the German Chancellor attempting to have this imposed I will not comment upon, because then I'd be tempted to make some unfair comparisons to anotherperson who attempted to stamp s0-called "Christian values" on Europe. To gain some insight into why the matter disturbs me so much, continue reading...

"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
— Adolf Hitler, Berlin, 1933, first radio address after coming to power

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . We need believing people."
— Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
— Adolf Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941.

Food for thought anybody?

I felt an almost physical pain reading that Top Up Fees could possibly go up to £5000 a year in the next three or four years. The idea of £3000 is awful enough.

It's all very telling as to the state of Universities in our country and as to the rotten heart of this Labour government. And before someone says, oh but it's a stolen Tory Party policy really, don't bother. There were a lot of issues I couldn't agree with Michael Howard on but I did respect him for his honesty and personal integrity. He could see what would happen if Universities had a standard fee they could impose; those from poorer backgrounds losing out.

The Conservatives gave me a chance for a good education despite my circumstances. Yet, even knowing the value of higher education from this experience, I still had deep reservations about going to University simply due to the money factor. I can't think about the debt looming over me without jitters, having no parental aid whatsoever to fall back on. My story is certainly not an isolated perspective.

Had I been set to enter this year with Top Up Fees coming into force I would not have gone to University. It's as simple as that. I feel for all of the people from less well-off families who won't risk going now, since despite the lessening worth of degrees, some are still very much worthwhile and many highly-paid sectors simply require them. Perhaps if there were vocational alternatives I might feel a little better. However the focus has been so much on academia and pushing everybody into Higher Education, apprenticeships and learn-while-you-earn opportunities have grown scarce. In many ways, they're even frowned upon. I remember joking with peers about those who weren't going... oh to be a stupid kid again. Still it's not cool to be the one who doesn't go to University so everybody's trying to get there, no matter what their talent or aptitude or how useless the course they end up on turns out to be.

This government has presided over a widening of the gap between rich and poor, not a lessening. Are they ashamed of this? Not a bit of it. Will they think twice about pushing Top Up Fees to £5000 or even more? I seriously doubt it. Will the second contribute even more to the first? You betcha.

No, not actual resignation resignation, whereby you leave your job for sake of the party or the public. That remains an elusive concept in the Labour Party. I mean resignation as in sitting back and sighing, bemoaning the end. Interesting how deceptive titles can be.

"The game is up. After more than a decade of new Labour, David Cameron will enter Downing Street in 2009 or 2010. The majority will be slender enough to give Labour hopes of an early return. But Gordon Brown, assuming he has inherited Tony Blair's mantle, will go to run the World Bank or something of the sort, making way for a younger leader who can remake the Labour brand.

That is roughly what I see happening over the next few years. There is no reason why you should pay any attention, though my views echo those held by some of New Labour's more thoughtful loyalists since well before the 2005 election. I have a poor record of political prediction, having completely failed, for example, to foresee the Tory victory of 1970."

Hmmm. Nope, I don't buy it. A rather fatuous piece of double bluff on the part of that particular Labourite. A false positive as it were. The article is overwhelmingly in a "Labour have excelled at this... but the Tories will probably still win" format, with a little "oooo Black Wednesday" thrown in for good measure. I don't believe for a second that he actually believes the Tories are in for a win, that was just headline fodder.

The time has come my friends. I think we're beginning to see the last-legs tactic. Feigning resignation is a time-honoured tradition of governments and party activists who can see their end on the horizon because it has the effect of goading those who might otherwise sit back into action.

Obviously he's been reading the same articles as I have, which generally agree that the only way the Labour vote will come out in force is if there is a real threat from the Tories. Only the anyone-but-Tory vote can save them now. Just as the Major government hoped that the anyone-but-Labour vote would save them. Hmm, lessons of history, eh.

Posting that the Tories are on route to Number 10 in the Guardian is akin to dropping a red flag in front of a bull - even though at the end of it he rescinds that statement anyway and implies that Labour will lose because of a generation gap in the ranks rather than the cold plain fact that they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. Still it got the anyone-but-Tory crowd tapping away furiously at their computers (amongst the usual anti-Blair anti-Cam whiners). Some people were even fooled by it. ("Middle-class leftie looks forward to Tory government". What a surprise. I have been thinking of cancelling my 5-year subscription to the New Statesman for a while now, and this has finally made up my mind.")

I wonder if there will more of this sort of tactic coming out in the future. Nah, scrap that. Of course there will.


EXTRA NOTE: Prize for the most deluded statement of the week goes to Zalmoxis in the Comments section, for this doozy:

"The chickens that you are counting on to hatch require that this be a two horse race. You count out the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems are the preferred party of choice of disillusioned Labour voters. Not the conservatives. The Conservatives are just a protest vote."

The Lib Dems are mainstream and the Conservatives are for protest voters... *wipes the tears of laughter from eyes*!

"I feel helpless," she says. "Part of my body, my DNA, is stuck inside a person who's going to hell."

Here's an amusing anecdote. What do you do if you're a Fundamentalist Christian but the recipient of your organ donation decides to become a "pagan'"? Definitely one of those you just can't make it up stories. Seriously, the line about mistaking God's will for a triple-espresso high is priceless.

I would never criticise anyone for donating a kidney but it does rather underline the problem I have with people being good merely to curry favour with their chosen deity, rather than because they actually mean it. It's like someone only returning a lost pet because there is a reward, not to actually help the pet or its owners. Pretty sad.

Then again the article does betray the extreme ignorance of the Christian woman involved. If she thinks exploring Hindu and Pagan beliefs equates to "drinking pig's blood and witch doctor brews" then her reaction makes sense. Poor deluded idiot.

Proof positive that there is nothing on this planet that George Bush doesn't screw up.

Although yes, I am still technically on holiday, I've had a little time to get some reading in. Apparently I can't seem to go without checking out some articles around and about the place. So here's a very quick little roundup before I'm hounded off this computer.


THE GOOD
"This democratic impotence is a world away from 1997" by Jon Trickett, writing at Comment is Free
An interesting piece of writing which sums up the democratic deficit in this country currently being felt by about 100 MPs wondering just what the hell they're there for, and asking where it all went wrong considering all the promise of New Labour circa 1997. Now if only they'd grow the cahones to stage the call of a motion of no confidence in the government. Yeah right.

THE BAD
"Europe's universities must start considering innovative new methods of raising money if they want to stay competitive" by Tony Blair, writing for Newsweek International
An article which feels somewhat akin to eating really cold iced-cream really fast, as your brain freezes and locks up (and not just because of the author). It's all very 6th-form and the punctuation use in places is frankly disappointing for an ex-pupil of Fettes. Basically this article just a list of excuses for his U-turn on tuition fees and explaining away why it's vital for young people to get ear-high in a debt it could take decades to pay off. Still, it's interesting to see Tony writing for an American magazine. He's clearly flexing his muscles ready for his future ambitions as a high earner on the US lecture circuit.

THE UGLY
"We should be skeptical about this alleged plot, and wary of politicians who seek to benefit" by Craig Murray, writing on Comment is Free
Not ugly for the content, which is interesting and well written, but for the connotations of it all. I disagree entirely about what he says of David Cameron (if anything, the exact opposite is true), however his assessment of John Reid is spot on. I won't buy into the conspiracy angle over the recent alleged terrorist plot to destroy 10 passenger jets just yet - far too early for that - but I do believe the timing of the Met's actions were entirely politically motivated. And not in the good doing-it-for-the-people way either.

I'm galavanting off again. I'll be away until next week staying with a friend, and it's hugely unlikely I'll have either the time or the inclination to update the blog. Henceforth I plan to spend the week watching old sci-fi reruns, visiting the beach and if I'm really lucky... Butlins may be on cards. Oh yes.

So cheerio folks, have a nice week. I'll be back soon.

I've uploaded some clips of Armando Ianucci's Time Trumpet onto YouTube, from the second episode. Although it is very mean towards politicians it's pure genius all the way. For anybody missing the show, it's on BBC2, Thursdays at 10pm.

• David Cameron on Donkey Monkey Question Time
• Parallel Prime Ministers, Blair and Brown
• Blair's Resignation, April 9th 2008

Also, look out for the clips people have uploaded from the first episode, where Blair goes mad and thinks he can see ghosts, and where they mix Blair and Cameron's speeches together to the tune of "Changes" by David Bowie. Very cleverly done.

I've actually realised something today. Every time I hear something of one of David Cameron's new schemes, my initial reaction is to tense up and think, uh oh this is going to be a bad idea. That's always just from the title though. Then I actually read into it and I find myself slowly grow more and more impressed, until finally I'm won over. This has been happening a lot to me lately. I wonder if it's the same for others; could this be why some are intent on heaping scorn on Dave? They read a title and don't read the idea.

Hmmm. Just a thought. Anyway, here's the latest idea which had me nodding in appreciation for what is being said:

"The characterless dormitories of the suburbs, with their postage-stamp-sized lawns and ostentatious garages, should be transformed into vibrant modern villages where families can live and work, according to a Tory blueprint for transforming suburban Britain."

"People want to know how their estate can be changed for the better. They don't like the standard 'little boxes' and they feel cut off in their cul-de-sac. Their shopping parade is decaying and all the essentials of life are only accessible by car. And they admire the community spirit and local character of their nearest village. Why, they wonder, can't it be the same on our estate?"

"We need to change how we develop our suburbs. We need to renew these estates by changing them into living, working communities," says the report. "New suburbs, it adds, should "incorporate a range of uses" to enable people to work near their home. "It must comprise a mix of building types and tenures; and it must be designed and built to a master plan, which reflects the locality."

See now I'm liking this. The typical rows of identical houses compacted together, surrounded by closed down shops, do kill the soul it has to be said. There is a deficit of new homes being built in this country which will certainly reach crunch point at some time in the near future. New estates will have to be built and old ones regenerated. But, as this report suggests, why just clone a bunch of houses and drop them in an area where there are no decent shops or places to work when we know we can do so much better in every respect. The Poundbury model is a great way to move forwards. Having lived in both the cloned-houses type and the well-designed type of estate in the past, I can vouch for the incredible morale boost living in an area where thought has been put into the architecture and surrounding environment gives, compared to that gained by living in a squalid maze of identical terraces with one run down corner shop. It's a world apart.

I'm sure that come tomorrow somebody somewhere will have found a way to overly criticise this report and, who knows, maybe there'll be some New Labour sloganising. I thought I'd try to get in first tonight and say it's a good idea. If the Conservatives were to win the next General Election ideas such as this really could change Britain for the better, so long as they were implemented properly. Ah if only.

You know, I do like all this talk of things which make me feel positive about the future. Much nicer than when we start blustering on about immigration and Europe, which generally just gets me hopping mad at all the injustice! I hope that's not just me either.

It's so rare that I come upon an article that makes me grin, but I finally found one today. Very reassuring to know that I am not the only one in thinking the desperate far-righters of the Tory Party are only getting the press ear because they're wailing loudest, and basically amount to our very own Kamakaze Squad. I agree very much with Piotr C. Brzezinski's position, especially about US politics and the differences between our left and right parties and theirs (actually, if I were American I think I would consider myself a Democrat since my liberal secularism is a thing far stronger than my Toryism).

This is a very intuitive, warmly written piece filled with good humour and things to think about. Definitely worth flagging up for a read. Here are some of my favourite bits;

“Death and glory,” cry kamikaze conservatives, thundering about taxes, immigration and crime... Not in the U.S., of course—our right-wing fundamentalists win elections, and neither party has the imagination, conviction, and party coherence necessary for a clash of ideas. In the United Kingdom, however, the kamikazes are doing their best to sink the new moderate Conservative leader, David Cameron.

This makeover has led to the Conservatives’ resurgence in the polls. But that’s not enough for some hard-right Tories. The party’s suicidal revolutionaries prefer ideological purity to victory.

Back in the real world, the harsh criticism of David Cameron coming from right-wing dailies is distant sound of gunfire from lost battles. When a right-wing berserker like Simon Heffer claims that “Mr. Cameron says very little because he has very little to say…many natural Tories feel entirely unrepresented,” he really means “Cameron has failed to patronize the xenophobic, backward looking paleo-conservative branch of the party.”

Couldn't agree more. Actually, that is why Simon Heffer comes in at number 2. (to Polly Toynbee's Dr. Evil) on my list of most disliked commentators. I like what David Cameron says just fine, and I like that he delegates to other members of his cabinet to make the noise sometimes and doesn't act like a one-man-band á la Blair (for example, David Davies took the lead on condemning the immigration mess, and William Hague did almost all the writing and press appearances about the Lebanon/Israel crisis). Personally, I love that the Tory party dinosaurs are disgrunted but that's just a vicarious pleasure I suppose.

Now if only Cam would quit with the Blair-esque hand motions he might just be able to dig humself out of the "Blair-clone" hole he's got himself into by being family-friendly and cute enough to cuddle. After all, image is nine tenths of the law nowadays (unfortunately). Nice will only get one so far.

Once more we have evidence that the Christian Evangelicals of whatever nationality have way too much time on their hands.

You might have thought they'd devote their energies to raising aid funds for disaster victims or helping the disadvantaged in their communities, but no. They have far more important things to be doing. Such as attempting to force a museam in Kenya to hide its world famous display of hominid bones which provide the most conclusive links ever found between man and ape.

"The Christian community here is very uncomfortable that Leakey and his group want their theories presented as fact," said Bishop Bonifes Adoyo, the head of Christ is the Answer Ministries, the largest Pentecostal church in Kenya.

"Our doctrine is not that we evolved from apes, and we have grave concerns that the museum wants to enhance the prominence of something presented as fact which is just one theory."

Bishop Adoyo said all the country's churches would unite to force the museum to change its focus when it reopens after 18 months of renovations in June next year.

"We will write to them, we will call them, we will make sure our people know about this and we will see what we can do to make our voice known," he said.

It would be hilarious if they weren't being serious - "something presented as fact which is just one theory"... Those bones exist. They're on display. How much more factual can you get than existing? You can dispute the science but you can't dispute the physical presence.

Basically they seem to think that, if they bury these bones, then they don't exist. Their belief system will no longer be troubled with that tiresome opponent, truth. Who cares if they are some of the most important discoveries ever made? They're well over a million years old, and these people want them removed from display just because they conflict with their imbecilic fantasies. Unbelievable.

And even if their doctrine was at least logical in some measure, they would still not have the right to interfere. These are matters of science and discovery; the very things having faith encourages people to deny. They should damned well butt out of it and go sing some hymns or something. Or better yet, go help the poor and the sick. That would make a nice change.

Mr Prescott was said to be 'incandescent with rage' about claims that he had been sidelined by Mr Reid...

Incandescent? As in... glowing like a lightbulb?

So in other words John Prescott is refulgent with ferment! - he's lambent with furor! - he's vivid with asperity! - he's effulgent with vehemence! - he's beaming with indignation! - he's illuminated with ire! This... is an angry, shiny man!

Thesaurus antics aside, I can see why our beloved Deputy Prime Minister is upset that John Reid is stealing his thunder. First the Home Secretary gets to brief COBRA, a job traditionally reserved for the PM or the DPM, and something Prescott has boasted about being able to do in times past. Then he gets all the airtime with regards to the recent code red terrorist plot and leaves Prescott off the list of important Ministers to be briefed. Now we discover John Reid was specially asked by Blair to delay his holiday to keep an eye on things, which is somewhat akin to jabbing a thumb in John Prescott's eye.

Dontya just love government p*ssing contests? I certainly do.

Made by MyPetGoat. This more or less sums up how I feel about our glorious leader and the failed experiment that is New Labour; why I will never in my life vote for Labour.

I downloaded the new album by Muse today, Black Holes and Revelations. It's pretty marvellous - a bit more techno-poppy than usual though still pretty good. Doesn't top Absolution or Origin of Symmetry I don't think, but what could?

Anyway, I was very much struck by track one, "Take a Bow"... now maybe it's because I have politics on the brain, but it sounded so much like an anthem for either George W. Bush or Tony Blair, or both. Seriously, it's perfect! Here are some of the lyrics;
See what I mean? I wonder if they intended it to be about a certain few politicians we all know. Muse have poked fun at politics in the past, as anyone who's seen the music video for the excellent "Time is Running Out" will know. Aaaah, if only I could find enough Blair clips I could make such a great music video with this about our esteemed leader! Darned media-unfriendly Labour homesite. Ah well.

"Tax increases totalling £15bn on "baby boomers" who profited from post-war prosperity are to be a cornerstone of the Liberal Democrats' campaign for power at the next general election..."

I don't write about the Lib Dems too often I admit. Generally, I just can't get interested in them, sans scandal. However their new tax initiatives which are being unveiled today did make me chuckle incredulously.

Same old same old from our modern day Robin Hoods. Trying to rob the rich to give to the poor. Thing is, back in the days of Robin Hood, the rich tended to be so through hereditary lines or by operating unfairly. Nowadays, we have more of a meritocratic system, and the fact is that the sort of people who manage to earn high sums are, well, the most intelligent people in our society. It's not easy getting to that level. Quite often it takes hard work and guts and we should support our entrepreneurs and high earners (even the cursed lawyers). Otherwise, what's the incentive to work hard in order to try and be one some day (a high earner - not a lawyer)?

Oh Lib Dems give it up, for goodness sake. Have a sensible tax policy for once. You'll feel refreshed. Honest!

... with Lebanon burning, Israel advancing, general terrorist plots unsettling the world, and all of that, the EU have found something important to divert their attention.

Car lights. On or off in the daytime? Ooo tough one. That'll take some heavy thought. I'm glad they're on it!

Okay, so some countries already have legislation in that area and well, many people generally don't care too much about it in the face of, ya know, all the wars going around lately. That should never stop the EU from sticking its nose in and finding a way to "harmonise" the rule of law across the land(s), right?

And now, excuse me while I run outside, scream, "you f***ing morons!" into the night, compose myself, and come back inside.

While our own newspapers and news broadcasts seem to be focusing more on the inconveniences for passengers at airports (seriously guys, suck it up), the ABC news blotter is giving out some intriguing details about the alleged terrorist plot thwarted in the early hours of the morning. Here's some of the information coming out:

• 24 people have now been arrested, but 5 suspects are still at large
• While all are home-grown, 22 are believed to be of Pakistani descent, 1 of Bangladeshi descent and 1 of Iranian descent
• The three ringleaders have been identified as Rashid Rauf, Mohammed al-Ghandra and Ahmed al Khan
• The reason the arrests occured today, despite the plot being known about for several months, was those being watched had booked flights to the US in the next few days, apparently to do trial runs
• Money for carrying out the plot was wired to London from Karachi in Pakistan
• Matiur Rehman, an Al-Qaeda commander with links to Pakistan, is being considered a suspect and is wanted by the police

ABC have also included, for reasons best known to themselves, a handy guide for would-be terrorists based on what the people in this near-miss were planning. Apparently, they were going to smuggle explosive liquids in the false bottoms of fizzy drinks and then detonate using the flash components of a disposable camera. Hence all of the rules about no liquids or gels to be carried onto planes today.

So by now we've all heard sketchy details of a plot to blow up several planes crossing over the atlantic by Islamist terrorists. Obviously, yesterday John Reid knew about it, and that's what he was hinting at by his "biggest threat since WW3" jibe.

Thus far we don't know much about who the 21 men involved in the plot were; only that liquid explosives were likely the method to be used and that the threat might not be over.

And yet, even as I mentally thank the intelligence services and MI5 for doing their job, my heart is already sinking with the foreknowledge of more liberties being stripped away from us the government. After all, Reid already alluded to that his speech yesterday. The small fact that taking away our own citizen's freedoms will do precisely nothing to stop the threat and everything to make the fight not even worthwhile seems to be lost on Reid and Blair.

I was reading some comments over at Iain Dale's Dairy about this, and several people there have really hit the nail on the head. This particular anonymous post is very erudite;

If it were not for Tony Blair's stupid foreign policy which brings us only terrorists and improves our lives or those of others not a jot, we would have NO terrorist threat.

This is Blair's legacy of terror. Let us not forget it. He is fortunate to have his own jet, dozens of bodyguards, etc., and shortly a lucrative career in USA preaching about how we need to piss off more dangerous Islamists.

The rest of us are subject to our trains being blown up, ever more restrictions on our daily lives, massive delays at our airports, plastic cutlery on our planes, severe curtailment of our civil liberties.

And for what? Civil war and mayhem in Iraq.

As it is suggested later on, this is Blair's legacy. It is his doing, and when they are making up new laws and holding us all to ransom with threats of terrorism, we must never forget that. When his shoddy government is long kicked out of office, we must still never forget. When people come to write about this struggle in history books, so must they remember the damage that his and George Bush's actions have caused, which will take generations to heal.

"Sometimes we may have to modify some of our own freedoms in the short term, in order to prevent their misuse and abuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy all of our freedoms in the long term."

The most frightening words a Home Secretary can ever possibly utter.

Mr Reid said while he believed in Britain's values such as education, job opportunities, the chance to travel, and women's rights, people needed to understand the depth and magnitude of the threat posed to the British way of life.

And the most puzzling words a Home Secretary can ever possibly utter. Um... huh? Anyone else sense a strange leap of logic in that article? It's terrorists, terrorists, terrorists... education, jobs, travel and womens rights! BAMN! Betcha didn't see that coming!

So, forgive me if I'm being pedantic here, but is he saying that in order to defeat the terrorist threat, people need to learn less, accept unemployment, avoid travelling and ensure a penis is present at all times? I just... I just geniunely don't see the logic. What on earth can he mean by that?

And isn't it a bit of a bizarre spectacle for John Reid to be going on about how immigration is going to cause a hike in council tax and a crash in the economy yesterday, and then making grandiose statements about the current terrorist threat being the biggest ever faced since WW2, WMDs and all, today? Obviously Chicken Little has found his dream job working in the Home Office.

It's lovely Reid's trying to instill a sense of national terror in the population but, please, isn't it about time he actually did something about these issues instead of just constantly telling us the sky is falling in?

A group of up to 100 MPs, backed by former MPs and 20 seperate aid agencies have sent a letter to Jack Straw demanding Parliament be recalled.

The usual suspects are all signed up, Clare Short and Sir Menzies Campbell to name but a few. What is most significant is that most of the MPs are Labour, which could obviously spell a great deal of trouble for Tony Blair in the future, even if the Speaker does not recall Parliament as requested.

Following his trip to America, during which he was proclaimed a "genius" and a "great leader" (well look at the competition!), Tony Blair decided they were obviously right and came back determined to cling on to power for another year. However if the Labour MPs manage to grow a spine finally and Gordon Brown decides to re-enter our universe from whatever black hole he likes to hide in, they could take steps to de-throne the meglomaniac at the Labour Conference. This could be an important first step towards this eventuality.

Today's letter also accuses the government of adopting a "tacitly active and less than impartial role in the conflict", owing to the US army's controversial use of Prestwick airport for transporting live armaments to Israel.

"Given the massive concern in the country about these matters, we believe that it is right to allow the Commons to meet in order that the government's strategy can be fully discussed," the MPs write.

Well whether you believe Blair is right or wrong on this, whether you think Britain should be taking centre stage in bringing about peace, whether you think a debate is necessary or not, even if nothing comes of this it is at least a little heartening to find that MPs are not just resting on their laurels over recess. They are trying to bring people back for a proper debate on the Middle East crisis on behalf of the disillusioned public. And here we all thought they were in Barbados or staying with Sir Cliff...

Good on you boys and girls. Now here's hoping something comes out of this.


UPDATE: The number of MPs backing the petition are said to be surpassing 130 now, and we have our first protest resignation! Labour MP Jim Sheriden is outta there.

I take back everything I ever said about New Labour Ministers not having a sense of humour!

Somebody at LHQ must be laughing their socks off at this. Not only because John Prescott has been given the non-position of some sort of Minister for Hot Air, but because the poor b*stard is taking the job seriously!

Dear John, the clues are all there. You have been put in charge of AIR. You're being cut out of the Labour conference. Your diary is empty. Now might be a very good time to take a hint and GET OUT!

As both parties did in the 80s to try and revamp their images, so the Conservatives seem set to do again now. Is the old torch logo about to be laid to rest?

My initial reaction was to think, no! You can't do that! But the more I think about it, the more the idea grows on me. The fact is, the disembodied arm holding the torch does look very old-fashioned and it carries the weight of Thatcher wherever it goes. I don't like the particular logo used here in the Daily Mail's picture; too much green, not enough blue, and just far too wooly for my liking. However, for all its unoriginality, I do like the idea of an oak tree.

Perhaps it's the blurriness of the image that makes it look like something a toddler has scribbled on your wall in crayon. I'm not sure. The design just looks wrong to me. If they are going to use an oak tree it should be be sharper, more defined and have a lot more blue in the design.

Something like this perhaps:
(They can have that one from me free of charge!) Of course, at the end of the day the logo is a very small detail. As Norman Tebbit suggests, it's not going to make a tremendous difference really. Yet the old flame is a cumbersome image for a party trying to start afresh. That's why I'm behind the idea, so long as the replacement looks better than a crayon smudge.

Now this piece of news is just too beautiful. It's poetic almost. I do so love David versus Goliath stories...


LABOUR
Candidates: Owen Smith and John Hopkins
Spent: £113,000 (or £5.82 per vote)

INDEPENDENT
Candidates: Trish Law and Dai Davies
Spent: £13,000 (or 51p per vote)


So what does this mean for the Labour Party?

"Tribal loyalties have broken down, people have looked at the manifestos of the different parties, they have said we don't want Labour in a community which used to be rock solid for them. They have lost in their heartland."

"This is just as damaging to Gordon Brown as it is to Tony Blair because it was about the popularity of the Labour Party as a whole... This is hugely damaging to the Labour Party because there are no safe seats left in south Wales."

I love the sour grapes coming from the Welsh Assembly's First Minister Rhodri Morgan, who called the Independents and Lib Dems "a dustbin for the disaffected".

Nice one Rhodri. Describing the people who just kicked your party out of the bay as equivallent to voting for a rubbish container will really win the people back on your side.

I loved the reaction to this Comment Is Free article by Tom Bently in the Guardian yesterday. The piece is patently absurd but it has stimulated some marvellous comments. The thread is more caustic than a bowl of lemonjuice and that's saying something I'm sure.

This is what happens when you try to put a spin on reality and assert that our present government has done a good job over the last 9 years...

kimpatsu: Britain is better because of Nu Labour? tell that to Milan Rai and Maya Evans, arrested for peacefully reading the names of the Iraqi war dead-- free speech being a crime in Blair's Britain...

piginclover: I am so glad that the world in your ivory tower seen through your rose tinted glasses is better, but outside it is not.

Davy1983: Britain is better? Try saying that down the pub, you'll get laughed at.

simster: Who pays Tom Bentley to write this unsubstantiated 6th form slush?

macles: What kind of deluded prat writes this fatuous drivel?

bobdoney: Spinning with spinacious spindly spin.

getconnected: This is an unbelievably smug piece.

FidelCastro: I was going to write how I was better paid but worse off, then everyone else beat me to it.

WeybridgeBill: Words escape me (almost) - Tom Bentley’s article is just the normal unprincipled New Labour spin rubbish.

hairypaws: This article has without doubt to be the biggest steaming heap of sh*t ever to appear on "Ccomment is free". That is really saying something too.

Davidfletcher26: Most people are much better off says young tom well i say you are talking a load of old rubbish.

tomguard: A good government? B*ll*cks.

joelle: Please, where does the Guardian find these ludicrous columnists?

Of course there are some apologists popping up to defend New Labour as well. However the consensus of bald anger is good to see. Not even Guardian readers are subscribing to New Labour spin often anymore (aside from Polly Toynbee's vacuous commentary of course). Personally I'd say the article had some good-ish points to make but did so very badly, and came to no satisfactory conclusion other than the "I'm well off and carefree therefore everybody must be"; a position guaranteed to get peoples' backs up.

Possibly most telling is the final entry into the comments section (as it now stands);

DesertRat: This must be a good day to bury bad news you know those type of days supported by Nu Lab how else do you explain a new thread mysteriously missing from the previous threads link? The only way you can find this gem of a rats ass article is to look up the contributer in the list. Strange.