Voting TaKtiX

So, Two Shags Prescott is apparently a “serial adulterer“, and hints are being dropped all over the place about links to health minister Rosie Winterton. You know what?

I don’t care!

I agree with Recess Monkey:

why now? A cynical part of Recess Monkey suspects this is a well-timed distraction from Charles Clarke’s current worries.

Charles Clarke is the target, ignore Prescott

It’s good to know that not everyone is distracted by what people get up to in bed. Rachel:

I personally think you should resign. You’ve let us all down. I don’t expect that we will meet again in May, but you never know. If we do meet again, I will want to know what you are actually doing to keep people safe. Rehetoric is one thing, deliverables another. You knew there was an almighty disaster waiting to happen, you were warned and warned and you still let almost 300 dangerous people out anyway, and then lost them.

Lifejacket:

The key words and phrases being “Charles Clarke”, “Home Office”, and “regrettable mistake”. I would add a fourth and fifth, “unforgiveable incompetence”, and “thumbs up their arses”, and possibly a sixth, seventh, eighth … but it would take all day.

Charles Clarke must go.

I doubt I’m far wrong in saying that this will go down in history as one of Labour’s worst days ever.

So let’s get this straight; two of them are incompetent, and Prescott is just stupid. I am amazed that Clarke has not already resigned, I would be quite surprised if he doesn’t go at some point over the next few days. We’ll have to wait and see, but I think that mounting pressure will probably be too much.

Hewitt’s decline seems to be a slower one, dying bit by bit at each conference she attends. Her treatment today at a conference for the Royal College of Nursing, out of the ordinary as it was, probably wont be the last time she has to listen to it. From the clips I’ve seen on TV this evening though, Hewitt came across as nothing but annoying and patronising, completely unwilling to listen to any of the criticisms levelled at her. Thick skin might be a good political trait, but there comes a point where even Patricia Hewitt must realise that with so many people seriously opposed to her views on the NHS, it might be time to admit the system is in chaos.

And then there’s Prezza. Now personally, I don’t care whether he’s had an affair or not, and I doubt it’s effected his ability to do his job or anything like that. I also don’t care whether he ferried his secretary around in his car - it’s just not that important as far as I’m concerned. However, considering that Prescott has been anti Tory sleaze for the last decade or so, admitting to an affair doesn’t look too good. Whilst some have suggested it might be a good time to bury the bad news, in my opinion it has only added to the pressure on the Labour party at the worst possible time. In eight days a sizeable portion of the country goes to the polls for the local elections, and there’s no way that today’s events are not going to have an effect on that.

And of course, it is just another day in the life of the slow steady decline of the Labour Party, eerily reminiscent of the Tories before 1997. It’s hard to believe that it wasn’t quite a year ago that Labour won an historic third term with a pretty safe majority and a reform agenda for the next five years. That looks to be in tatters now, with the party pretty much set to limp home: the local elections surely to be the first indicator of this.

We will wait and see. However, there is one question that has arisen today which will surely plague British politics for longer than any other. Why would anyone want to sleep with John Prescott?

Update: Chris Lightfoot gives it a more thorough going over here, Bloggerheads has more here, and Justin is as eloquent as ever. Also Longrider Murky and Qwglhm.

Well, she’s now 80. Everyone is making a fuss about it, the BBC is running specials all over the place, the book(s) of the week are a series of biographies, etc. As I’ve covered before, I’m a convert tot eh idea of a proper, ceremonial monarch.

The current fudge, where most of the powers of the Prime Minister are really Crown Prerogative powers, and no one is really sure what she can (or cannot) do is, well, messy. Still, at least our lot get the whole point of being Head of State, not Head of Government.

Defining (and limiting) the powers of the Executive as exercised by and on behalf of the Monarch has to be a central objective of constitutional reform. But this former republican is now utterly convinced that it is reform that is needed. Besides, Starkey thinks Blair is the modern Charles II.

who “never said a foolish thing and never did a wise one”. For Starkey, Blair has, “the same slipperiness, the same duplicity, the same ability to tell utterly convincing lies”.

It was Charles I that got his head chopped off. Maybe we could just chop Blair?

Still, let’s not be cynical. Wait, she appointed him. She could fire him as well. Ma’am? Give the nation a gift on your birthday?

I wanted to rant about this at length. But, it appears, I don’t need to. Language warning. No, not for DK’s post, you already know about his language. It’s Tim’s post that needs the warning. Yup, Tim Worstall is angry enough to title a post “fuck him”. More here and here, and doubtless in other places as well.

Message for Mr Clarke

You want to compensate the “victims of crime”? Good. Don’t you think the innocent locked away for a crime they didn’t commit is just as much a victim as the crimed against*?

You’ll save £5 million quid a year. Why not save much more money than that by scrapping the White Elephant National Identity Register? Oh, I forgot, that’s needed so the contract can be given to a nice Labour donating company like Crapita, right?

If we as a society get things wrong and imprison the innocent it is our duty, as that very society, to both say sorry and to compensate them as best we can.

*Obviously, context is all here, but the point stands

People may be interested to see NO2ID’s latest campaign against ID cards. They are asking all those opposed to the introduction of ID cards to Renew For Freedom by renewing their passports in May. Hopefully this will create a surge in the number of passport applications big enough to highlight the number of people who are against compulsory ID cards.

Or it might fall flat on it’s face, as I’m sure the government will claim support for ID cards if the number renewing isn’t particularly high…

Hopefully though, it will provide the catalyst for people who have said “I better renew my passport before then” to actually get around to doing it. Me included.

So 25% of voters “might vote” for the BNP. So what?

The media have obviously had a field day with this story over the weekend - any story where the media can draw comparisons with the Nazi’s and foresee the demise of British politics is obviously going to be too big an opportunity to miss. Cue plenty of commentators rallying against the BNP, and pointing out that it probably shouldn’t be blown out of proportion.
(more…)

Via this by Garry I come to this by Sunny (and I really must add PP to my main feedreader). They’re both, tangentially, discussing this.

It’s been reasonably well shredded already, my main problem with it is that it tries to do too much, lumps many different issues together, many of which I agree with, others I distinctly do not, and, well, it’s a bit verbose.
(more…)

Hmm, I’d never heard of the site before, but Silicon.Com has an excellent series of articles on ID cards, the NIR, the potential commercial uses for the scheme, what will happen in the event of serious disturbance, etc.

In addition to this, John Pilger (a journalist I only sometimes agree with) has an excellent, if hyperbolic, article on the implications of ID, the NIR and the Leg/Reg Bill in this weeks New Statesman.

The dying of freedom in Britain is not news. The pirouettes of the Prime Minister and his political twin, the Chancellor, are news, though of minimal public interest. Looking back to the 1930s, when social democracies were distracted and powerful cliques imposed their totalitarian ways by stealth and silence, the warning is clear. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has already passed its second parliamentary reading without interest to most Labour MPs and court journalists; yet it is utterly totalitarian in scope.
—
Those who fail to hear these steps on the road to dictatorship should look at the government’s plans for ID cards, described in its manifesto as “voluntary”. They will be compulsory and worse. An ID card will be different from a driving licence or passport. It will be connected to a database called the NIR (National Identity Register), where your personal details will be stored. These will include your fingerprints, a scan of your iris, your residence status and unlimited other details about your life. If you fail to keep an appointment to be photographed and fingerprinted, you can be fined up to £2,500.

Every place that sells alcohol or cigarettes, every post office, every pharmacy and every bank will have an NIR terminal where you can be asked to “prove who you are”. Each time you swipe the card, a record will be made at the NIR - so, for instance, the government will know every time you withdraw more than £99 from your bank account. Restaurants and off-licences will demand that the card be swiped so that they are indemnified from prosecution. Private business will have full access to the NIR. If you apply for a job, your card will have to be swiped. If you want a London Underground Oyster card, or a supermarket loyalty card, or a telephone line or a mobile phone or an internet account, your ID card will have to be swiped.

In other words, there will be a record of your movements, your phone calls and shopping habits, even the kind of medication you take.

—
Like the constitution-hijacking bill now reaching its final stages, and the criminalising of peaceful protest, ID cards are designed to control the lives of ordinary citizens (as well as enrich the new Labour-favoured companies that will build the computer systems). A small, determined and profoundly undemocratic group is killing freedom in Britain.

The facts are correct. The conclusions? I’m not sure I even disagree with them either.

Terrorism, glorification and Peter Hain

OK, it came into force. As Garry observes, that means it’s now illegal to say nice things about, for example, this guy. In addition, Peter Hain will now have problems writing his memoirs (if/when he finally leaves office), as he’s also guilty of acts now defined as terrorist under laws he voted for.

NuLab changing the electoral rules in Wales - they got it wrong last time, they don’t win

Of course, Hain’s an arse anyway, his current wheeze is an attack on the idea of Regional top-up AMs in Wales. Well, yes Peter, we know they’re a crap idea. We told you that at the time. We said use a system that kept a constituency link, but oh no, NuLab had to adopt a system that (supposedly) gave it the advantage. Create a system, then decide it’s not working, so blame those that were forced to work within it instead of the system itself. Useless terrorist fool. Peter Black has more; he doesn’t like how he was elected, but you do what’s needed, right?

Italy, Berlusconi, cheating and stability

On the subject of Governments changing electoral systems in an attempt to give their own party an advantage, isn’t Italy watching fun? At least, it would be, if the media were actually covering the story properly. The best coverage I’ve found hasn’t been the BBC, nor any boradsheets, but blogs. The media is simply regurgitating cliches, and lying (or, to be charitable, simply not understanding) the way Italians vote. There’s an excellent description, including regional breakdown, here. Silvio tried to rig the system, owns most of the broadcast media, controlled a lot of the rest via the Govt, and still they voted him out (just).

Who would chose a list PR system?

The Italian electoral system, now I’ve read about it, is even more crazy than the Israeli system. It says something when two countries have system that are actually as bad, if not worse, than ours. Or, are they?

I’d have said yes, but look at those turnout numbers in Italy. Everyone voted, everyone took it seriously, it mattered. More parties than I can count, but everyone gets to vote for what they care about. You most certainly can’t say that all Italian politicians are the same. It’s still a daft system, but it does show how the “western malaise” supposedly affectig democracy doesn’t, necessarily, apply. Friend of mine was at a big trade fair show in Bologna over the weekend. Major stall holders were shutting up and leaving early, from their biggest annual event, in order to get home and vote.

Would us Brits bother doing that? The Italian electoral system (especially the new one that Berlusconi created) is unstable, and no one is seriously suggesting it for the UK. Instead, we want a reformed constituency system. I’ve gone on about it before, plenty of times, but Peter Blacks post above gives another good series of reasons why list systems are wrong.

The new Liberal Review, and NLE is moving soon

Life is busy, I’m busy, and light blogging mode is on. New project in the works, we’ll be moving soon, details to follow when I’ve got everything sorted out. In the meantime, on the subject of revamped blogs, take a good look at the new Liberal Review. I’ve been asked to write a bit onconstitutional refor (sorry Rob, swamped), in the meantime, it’s taken onboard the Apollo Project team, and taking guest columns, including a pretty good one from Tim.

G’night all.

Very interesting discussion over on Strange Stuff on party funding and the Power report, one I’ve been planning to write about but, as usual, not got around to finishing reading the damned report.

Essentially, I’m not sold on state funding of parties, and prefer instead a mixture of campaign spending caps and free access to more media in a less regulated manner; “party election broadcasts” are dull as ditchwater, but at least they’re equitable, let’s update and improve upon that model so that parties don’t need to spend as much on gimicky adverts, posters, etc.

Alternately, don’t give the money to parties directly, book the advertising space centrally, pay for it centrally, and share it out as per PEBs (which are determined by number of candidates fielded and thus fairly allotted to new parties as well).

If we go for state finance directly to parties (and I’d prefer we didn’t), it has to be on something similar to the POWER model, wherein we, when voting, also tick a box to allot £3 or similar to a particular party, not necessarily the one we’re voting for.

Better that than dodgy loans and party treasurers begging the rich for cash. But better to change the system such that they don’t need to send out the begging bowl, in any form.

So, they’ve made good on their promise to “park their tank on David Cameron’s abandoned lawn”

Well, sort of. Guys? It’s not a tank. Even the Telegraph puts ‘tank’ in quotes. (more…)

Vote for this guy:

Really pissed off about the vomitous, turdridden herd of diseased bloodsucking rat-swine that masquerades as our government?

Because, let’s face it, that has to be the best opening election address I’ve seen yet. Even better:

while you’re here, why not contribute to the campaign? I can spend, I think, up to £600. If there’s more I promise to spend the surplus on beer. Now there’s a political promise you can rely on.

So John Reid is calling for changes to the way that the ‘rules of war’ deal with

a deliberate regression towards barbaric terrorism by our opponents.

Well fair enough, it’s certainly an area that needs looking at. Problem is, Mr. Reid has decided to stick with the Blairite line and refer to Guantanamo as an ‘anomaly’, when of course what he actually means is ‘absolute bloody disgrace’. It’s a simple mistake, granted, but one which I feel will somehow colour the conclusions that Mr. Reid finally comes to.

Without wishing to state the bleeding obvious, the problems with Guantanamo have absolutely nothing to do with International Law or the Geneva Convention, and just about everything to do with the simple application of power. Petty word games and semantics about ‘unlawful combatants’ quite frankly wouldn’t fly if they were being banded about by anybody else. What we have here is simple Foucault - Power, in that the US can create and maintain such a facility which the international community can do little to oppose, and Control, in that it has spent the last five years trying its level best to convince everybody that terrorism is such a huge and ultimately different threat than before that we are perfectly justified in throwing the rulebook out the window and treating terrorists suspects however we damn well please.

Thing is, we all know that this happens; that in the excise of power the rules don’t always mean too much. Not a lot we can do about it sometimes, other than highlight the abuses and see if they make a difference. Which is why it has surprised me about the extent to which the US (and, especially over Iraq, the UK) have tried to apply a sheen of legality to their actions. I mean, would anybody actually be convinced if the Supreme Court actually turned around and said ‘yep, all above board’? But equally, why do they need to bother? Guantanamo obviously isn’t going anywhere soon, regardless of whether it proves to be legal in the long-run or not. The only suggestion I can make is that the legal cases are just another attempt to Control - but this time aimed at those who may prove less resistant if they believe the action to be legal after all.

Which is why, to be perfectly honest, I think the whole reappraisal of the rules of war is a complete con; misdirection at it’s very best.