Red Ed wins

Wow. 50.65% to 49.35%. And almost all on the union votes. Is that a mandate to lead? I guess it couldn't be much more different than Brown's coronation! They'll hope it'l end differently as well...

BBC Labour Election Video

Compelling...

Political Top Trumps

Sky have unveiled a set of top trumps for the 2010 political conference season. The five categories are Majority, Years in Parliament, Potential, Storm Warning, and Fanciability. You can download the full set here. 

Rap of the year?

This is great.

Hat-tip Political Scrapbook.

Press Perspective

Headlines are great, aren't they. One can make you feel good and another can make you feel crap. Even when they are about the same thing. Today we had new data out from the Office of National Statistics about unemployment, which was given very different treatment by the BBC and the Guardian:

Continuous Nuclear Deterrent

Is the ability to launch a strike against any target at any time the same thing as having a nuclear deterrent? No, it is not.

Currently, we have one Trident submarine on patrol somewhere in the world at all times. It is the expensive basis for our nuclear deterrent at the moment. But it needn't be. We could just as easily have periods where there were no subs out at sea and continue to have an effective deterrent. We wouldn't be able to strike any target at any time but, providing our subs' movements remained secret, our enemies would never know at what time we had subs at sea or at home. Furthermore, one submarine would always be ready to put to sea, so that at times of increased risk our deterrent would retain its ability to strike any target at any time.

This might seem flawed, and it is certainly open to the accusation that our opponents would simply wait until our subs were at port and then launch a nuclear attack. While that has some merit from a theoretical perspective, realistically it has none. At most there is a very slight risk of nuclear attack on the UK. And even then, the threat is from a small scale dirty bomb not some Cold War-era missile. Faced with this terrorist nuclear threat Trident would be of precisely no use anyway, as we'd have no-one to fire the thing at.

If you then consider that a British government is supremely unlikely to ever actually launch a nuclear strike - given that it's a wholly unethical thing to do and could escalate conflict into all-out nuclear war - then cutting back on the ability to launch at any target at any time is a very sensible, practical cost-cutting measure. It also has the benefit of signalling to the world that we are not a nuclear threat - it's not hard to feel uneasy when a country you don't trust has this capacity, and not everyone trusts us - while maintaining our nuclear deterrent and our 'prestige' as a nuclear power.

In the end, we wouldn't really be sunk if our enemies discovered our subs were all in port, because we'd always retain the ability to quickly put to sea. Most importantly, by not scrapping Trident outright and instead scaling it back slightly we can retain our nuclear capabilities so that if a new Cold War emerges we can rapidly return to a permanent any-target-any-time deterrent. The funds freed would also allow Liam Fox and the MoD to focus on the type of threat we face now, which is not nuclear but low-tech, low-intensity conflict in places like Afghanistan.

Afghan democracy

Just had an excellent example on the BBC 6 o'clock news of why we have to include the Taliban in any political settlement. Covering the Afghan election, Ian Pannell states that the MP he's following needs a security guard in order to go out and talk to the voters. Apparently it's worth it though - the tribal elder can guarantee the vote of every adult in the village. That's what Afghan democracy is. And there is no reason why the Taliban can't be part of it. 

Now we're taking over their estates...

Here is a little culture instead of the usual politics:

News International plan to sponsor Academy causes concern... at the Guardian.

And that's because they don't have any money to sponsor one of their own.

Here's a really well-informed and completely impartial account by the Observer/Guardian on how this plan by Murdoch represents a bold grab for our children's souls. Teaching material will include the Sun, the News of the World, the Times, and, for an international perspective, students will spend all of Wednesday afternoon watching FOX News.

Well, not really. But here are some choice quotes from the article:

"The plan will alarm Murdoch's critics who claim the tycoon's media empire, which spans broadcasting, publishing and internet interests around the world, already wields formidable influence over the UK's political system and society." Unlike theirs :-(

"Concerns about Murdoch's dominance resurfaced at the last general election when all four of his UK newspapers came out in favour of the Tories, an event that represented a considerable blow to Labour's hopes of clinging to power." Just like the Guardian coming in behind the Lib Dems then...

There's no evidence in the piece of course, because all of this is just simply common knowledge, and therefore it's beyond doubt. Just in case you were skeptical, however, here are some incontrovertible quotes from some impartial commentators:

"Some people will say they are not telling people what they should think through their newspaper but teaching our children what to think in our schools." Tom Watson, Labour MP.

Paul Farrelly, another Labour MP, said: "It would be of considerable concern if the sort of bias we see in the Murdoch press was fed through to our children through the school system."

The best quote came from Denis MacShane, who said "The notion that Rupert Murdoch's values should infect our children is a real horror story. It shows the extent to which the Conservative party is becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of News International."

Wow. "A wholly owned subsidiary." That's not an exaggeration, is it. Now, I know that the Guardian and the Observer don't like Murdoch but this is going a bit far. I mean they're trying to invest in education, which is a worthy thing to do, and Murdoch has a track record of sponsoring schools in deprived areas in the US. So it's probably about time that people at these papers - who pride themselves on their intellectual approach to life - remembered that Murdoch is just a media mogul, not actually the devil reincarnate, and that not everything he does is evil. 

Chris Bryant having some fun with Kay Burley

This video is just brilliant.

Kay Burley: "...you are content to say that on the telly?"
Chris Bryant: "I have just said that, you seem to be a bit dim, if you don't mind me saying."

No Chris, we don't mind one little bit...

The Effects of War

The Imperial War Museum has a new exhibit in its central atrium: the mangled wreckage of an Iraqi's car. As Will Gompertz, the BBC's arts editor, writes, the car is meant to offer a counterweight to the exhilarating effect of seeing masses of high-tech and, it has to be said, pretty fricking cool, weaponry. The message is clear: this is what happens when we use these weapons. 

In the attack on a Baghdad market that destroyed the car in 2007, 38 people were killed and many more were wounded. This kind of attack has been a regular occurrence in Iraq since 2003. For the insurgent, it is irresistible. Maximum damage for minimum effort. 

But is the car the right thing for the IWM's atrium? Most of the weaponry surrounding the wreckage is older stuff, like tanks and mini-submarines from WWII, or machine guns from WWI. Would they not be better off pursuing a full exhibit on the consequences of car bombs, IEDs, suicide attacks etc.? Surely this could more fully investigate the nature of civilian loss in modern warfare. 

Obviously I'm not condemning the piece, and actually I think it's wholly appropriate for the museum. I just want more. It might be controversial, seen as coming too soon after Iraq or inappropriate given our ongoing commitments in Afghanistan, but it is vital that people have the opportunity to see a small piece of what our soldiers are facing. Hopefully this is the first step towards that. 

Khan Academy

I've just come across the Khan Academy, having read about it in September's Prospect Magazine. I have to say: where were you during my GCSEs?! I've just gone through a couple of the short algebra clips and they are superb. If you are bored, need to revise for something, or just want to stretch your mind, why not have a look...

Cracking Hacking

Right. So there is a bit of debate on the internet at the moment over the term 'hacking'. All the papers are calling it 'hacking', but right wing bloggers like Iain Dale and Dizzy are saying that it's not. It is, apparently, 'cracking'. This is because hacking involves getting around security and breaking it, and cracking involves going through it by guessing a password or, in this case, a voicemail pin.

The problem here is clear. By semantically challenging the term hacking right wing bloggers are seeking to influence public opinion and suggest what happened wasn't as bad. They might protest that they are just seeking to uphold the technical definition of the word - Dizzy, in particular, argues strongly for this - but in reality they are seeking to chip away at the consensus that something bad has happened. This is why left wingers like Alan Rusbridger are so determined to keep the word hacking, because to change it disrupts the narrative and makes it seem less illegal. This is true even if, as Dizzy does, they acknowledge that cracking is still illegal and immoral.

So what is it? Cracking or Hacking? Well, to me it's pretty simple: HACKING. Frankly, no-one gives a stuff what the technical definition is. Dizzy's argument that Rusbridger et al have "used their position in the media to weirdly create and morph the use of a term in popular culture inaccurately" takes no account of the wonderful flexibility of English.

If everyone in the country believes that guessing a password and getting into a private account is hacking, then the small community of hackers is just going to have to live with it. The fact is that in English, hacking means to get into someone's account without permission - that's what people think when they see that word. Anyway, there is nothing to say that cracking can not be a subdivision or form of hacking, meaning that hackers can continue to use the word to be more specific about what type of hacking they mean, while the rest of us can go on calling this hacking.

Labour's Legacy

The BBC's main headline today is that the coalition's spending cuts will 'hit the north harder'. I'm sure that comes as a big shock to all of us, especially if taken in conjunction with the Daily Mail's story from yesterday discussing figures that suggest 24 per cent of north eastern households have no inhabitants in work.

The overall UK figure is that there are 3.9 million households where no adult works. In these households there are 5.4 million adults and 1.9 million children. This has led to fears that there are children being brought up knowing nothing other than benefits.

Their reliance on the state will obviously mean that northern areas will suffer the initial brunt of cuts. The problem for the coalition is that while it is rightly seeking to review benefits and to force those wrongly on incapacity benefit back to work there are not enough jobs in these areas to accommodate the current unemployed, let alone the newly unemployed.

Predictably, the Labour party and the unions are condemning the cuts as unfair and ideologically driven. They say that the government is risking the recovery and hitting the poorest hardest. Each attack of this nature is frankly an admission that Labour failed to help the poorest in society, and that it failed to build an economy that would protect the most vulnerable people in the most at risk areas of the country.

It's not that I dislike Labour - indeed it has much to commend it - it's just that they had 13 years of government to make an impact on this. 13 years to make the north and other areas less reliant on the state for jobs and to make people less reliant on the state for welfare. They failed to do that. It was a mistake that was compounded by their economic policies, which were based on faulty underlying assumptions about the cyclical nature of growth and led them to borrow and spend too much money. For them to now sit in opposition and bleat about cuts is not credible. It's too easy in opposition just to be opportunistic, and their party is becoming ever more so as it seeks to redefine itself. I just hope they stop when they eventually elect a new leader.

Tax Phishing

Never missing a trick, it appears that fraudsters have begun to send people emails stating that they are in line for a tax rebate. All they have to do is confirm a few personal details...

Andy Coulson: A Story?

Is this a big deal or not? If you read the Guardian or listen to some Labour MPs you'd get the impression that the heart of government is filled with criminals; read the Murdoch press, Guido Fawkes or Iain Dale and you'd think that nothing untoward has happened. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

Coulson resigned from his post at News of the World in January 2007 when the paper's royal editor, Clive Goodman, was jailed for intercepting the voicemail messages of royal aides. He became the Conservatives' Director of Communications in June 2007, 5 months later.

Coulson had been lined up for an appearance before the Press Complaints Commission but his resignation meant they lost interest. The same is true of the police, who decided not to pursue the question of how many people were involved in similar voicemail interceptions and, importantly, who these people were and how far up the scandal went. This meant that the line drawn under the scandal by Coulson's resignation was a squiggly one.

The story had disappeared until last week, when a piece in the New York Times alleged that the interceptions had been common practice and that Coulson had actively encouraged them. These allegations come from a former NotW hack called Sean Hoare, whose credibility is clouded by the fact he was sacked by the paper for alleged drink and drug problems. The accusations have clearly been timed for maximum political impact, coming just days before the end of the parliamentary recess. Labour are, naturally, seeking to use this issue for political gain.

On the one hand then, you have those who seem to suggest that this is simply not news. Coulson, they say, did not know about these practices and there is no evidence to suggest that he did aside from the bitter grumblings of a former employee. Furthermore he did the honourable thing in 2007 and resigned from his post as editor of the NotW, and should not be punished twice. They also suggest that the story is being driven by the left wing press, particularly the Guardian, and Labour MPs who all despise the power of Murdoch in British press and who want to hurt his paper, the NotW, and his former protoge, Andy Coulson.

On the other hand, some are alleging that these new revelations give the police cause to reopen their investigation. Moreover, they point out, that initial investigation was deeply unsatisfactory, as the police failed to make any effort to go past the work of Goodman and look at others working for the paper, meaning that Coulson was never actually exonerated.

On a simple level - removing the politics from the situation - this is a big story. It is clear that the original police investigation was not perfect. Whether this was intentional or just a result of the pressure always on the MET is not clear, and probably never will be. There is evidence to suggest that the interceptions were widespread at the NotW, and indeed at other newspapers as well - something which must lead us to lament the spinelessness of the PCC. If the allegations can be proved - and we must remember of course that he's innocent until proven guilty - then he'll have to resign and may well face jail. But that's a big if.

With the politics put back in however, while there is some evidence to suggest that Coulson knew about these practices, what matters is what can be proven in court. I just cannot see Coulson in the dock, unless we are suddenly presented with concrete evidence, for example an email from Coulson approving it. Frankly, I doubt that the police investigation will get anywhere, as they have little to gain but a lot to lose from it. Assistant Commissioner Yates has already said he'll talk to the New York Times, Hoare and Coulson, but I'd be surprised if these discussions went anywhere at all.

What is more realistic is that Coulson will be forced to resign from the government. He has already broken the cardinal spinner's rule and become the story. If this doesn't go away quickly he will be under a lot of pressure. The coalition just does not need this now, as it has big fights on its hands over the next few weeks.

The problem if he goes is that it instantly raises a big question about the judgement of David Cameron, who faced down scepticism at the time from his own backbenchers about Coulson's appointment. Simply because of this I expect him to stay, but this matter will continue to be a headache for the government, and a big story in the press.

The End of Silly Season

Silly season may have come to a close today but I couldn't resist showing a picture of this chap's front garden. You'd be pretty irritated if you lived next door. How does he even get in?

Atomkraft, Ja!

Angela Merkel's coalition government has agreed to extend the lifespans of Germany's nuclear power plants. We should be doing the same.

Nuclear power is not perfect, obviously, but then no power source is. Given the rate that we are using up our gas reserves and the volatility of imported Russian and Central Asian gas, we cannot afford to risk our energy security relying on countries we do not trust. Coal is just too dirty, and we are already over reliant on it as it is. Wind power is a great idea, and we need to seriously invest in large scale off-shore wind farms, but to pretend that this will be able to replace our reliance on gas or coal is to overestimate its current potential. Other renewables like tidal power and solar power are great but just won't generate enough power in their current forms. Oil, like coal, is dirty, and we are again faced with energy security issues not just in that it comes from unreliable and unstable areas but also in that its cost can be prohibitive.

Merkel has increased the amount of money the government invests in renewable energy sources, which is great news as huge investment is needed to turn these useful concepts into real sources of power. For the moment, however, nuclear power is the best way forward. It is very important that in acknowledging the problems of nuclear power and striving to improve the viability of renewables that we don't prematurely decommission our nuclear power stations. Securing energy is one of the fundamental priorities for any government, and it's vital not to put all your resources into one technology.

Rawnsley dissects Labour

This piece by Andrew Rawnsley is the best article I have read on the current course of the Labour Party and its leadership election. Read it!

Oh, and if you have the time, read his book The End of the Party, it is superb.

Quel surprise!

Liam Fox has come out and given a resounding non to the prospect of sharing an aircraft carrier with the French. This is not surprising as it was pretty much a non-starter - the prospect of sharing something of this importance with another country is logistically unworkable and politically suicidal. It has previously been suggested that we share nuclear subs with the French as well, but again that was just much too large an issue to be realistic. What is likely, however, is that less symbolic things, like troop transport planes, could be shared.

I think it was probably mooted to give traction to two other points. First, that the government will make big cuts in defence spending, and secondly that Fox wants more European cooperation on defence issues.

One person, one vote?

I guess it's up to the Labour Party to decide exactly how it runs its leadership election, but its strange voting system is getting a bit of flack in the papers today.

It seems as though many individuals have more than one vote for leader. This is possible because the vote is split between unions and socialist societies, who have 1/3 of the vote, MPs and MEPs, who have another 1/3, and party members, who have the final 1/3.

So if you are a party member, who's in a union and also a socialist society, then you've got 3 votes. According to the BBC, some people have as many as seven votes.

When Mandelson and the other modernisers got rid of the union block vote back in 1993 they did it under the banner of 'one member one vote', or its catchy acronym, OMOV. I'm not sure that this was what they intended.

I understand the system, but I worry that it looks corrupt. Perception is everything in politics. That people can vote more than once in the same election will give the public the impression that the result isn't even a fair reflection of the views of the Labour Party. It would be much better if they simply divided the vote up between MPs and MEPs on the one hand and party members on the other. If they are desperate to keep the unions, then give the leaders of the major ones votes equivalent to those of MPs and MEPs.

It's not about tolerance

The Guardian has an editorial this morning questioning the media storm around Hague and his aide. While it's a very noble plea for tolerance in society, with regards to this particular story it misses the point. It says:

"While suggestions that the foreign secretary is anything other than straight are no more than gossip, in a truly tolerant society there would be nothing to gossip about."

I don't care if a politician is gay. It has no bearing on their ability to do their jobs and it is healthy that we have some diversity in government. But that is not what this story is about. The allegation that Hague was having a relationship with Myers does not just mean he's gay, it also means he's cheating on his wife. And it means that when he appointed Myers he did it on the strength of their extramarital affair, not because he would be good at the job.

This is why Guido Fawkes has been chasing the story. It would be equally good gossip if he'd appointed a woman, because he'd still be cheating on his wife and hiring people for the wrong reasons. These stories are traditional newspaper fodder - remember Prescott's affair and Robin Cook leaving his wife? They don't have to cost you your career and they certainly don't require statements detailing the personal tragedies he and his wife have faced.

The same applies to the outing of Crispin Blunt last week. 'Minister is gay' is not news. 'Minister leaves wife and kids after realising he's gay' is news. Anyway, what's important here is the outcome. While papers will continue - rightly - to report these stories, these ministers are not losing their jobs or being deselected. Once the initial story has broken, it dies down.

I don't believe the rumours about Hague and Myers, although I do believe that Myers was supremely unqualified for his job. That he resigned was not unexpected. What is most concerning is that Hague has shown poor political judgement - both in originally hiring Myers above more qualified competition, and in releasing this statement to the press. I have no doubts he'll get through it though.

Some choice quotes from Marr/Blair

Foxhunting is "more complicated than a bunch of toffs running around chasing foxes". "I reproach myself" for not "getting" the countryside.

"The big lesson that I learnt in that first term was that, actually, today's politics is a lot more to do with structural change, project management, and delivery, than it is to do with ideological fixations, left versus right or the notion that you can, by edict from government, change things."

"I had far more trouble with union leaders demanding something back than I ever did with donors."

"Even though people lost faith with me at certain points, I actually never lost faith with the British people."

"Creative ambiguity was our friend" in N.Ireland.

"I would never... allow Iran to attain nuclear weapons capability." "I think we've got to be prepared to confront them, if necessarily militarily."

On Iraq: "I take responsibility for it but I can't regret the decision [to go to war]."

"The state has to come in to stabilise the economy, but it's not the state or government that's going to bring us back to high levels of growth."

"I'm not a conservative, I'm a progressive."

"It's not about right and left, it's about right and wrong."

"Whoever is elected leader, even if it's Diane, they'll have my 100 per cent support."

"The people who do the blogs and whatever and come on the protests, it's not the whole of people."

The quotes are very interesting, but as the arguments around them all are old and tired I will leave them here without comment.

Labour 'leadership' contest

Viewers were offered the choice last night between the future and the past. Not by any of the 'leadership' candidates, but by BBC and Channel 4, who respectively ran Marr's interview of Blair and a 5-way debate, at 7pm. It was a bit of a false choice to be honest, as you can happily watch and re-watch them both on the internet.

I did a poll (which you can find here) and the results are opposite. I am shocked that it thinks I agree with Balls so much. Going to go upstairs now and take a long hard look at myself in the mirror. Hopefully it won't break...

More seriously (not that the campaign is particularly serious) I thought that David Miliband was the star performer last night. His body language was better, and he has a natural authority when he talks. His policies are also much saner. He also didn't bicker as much as the others, which was a pretty lame sight - I know they have to get their points across but if they all talk at once they all look petty.

I felt sorry for Andy Burnham though, because he was side on to the camera, which did him a great disservice. I don't know how the seating arrangement was decided, but it favoured Balls and the Milibands, as they were face on to the camera.

More crap wordplay

Forgot to add 'Zanulabour' to the list of crap yesterday.

Oona King makes you sick?

Political Scrapbook has a ridiculous youtube video by David Schneider, of The Day Today and I'm Alan Partridge fame. It's a campaign video for Oona King's mayoral challenge. I can't say that it really appeals to me.

Fawkes 'ruins holiday', and other things...

Well, with Guido Fawkes' wife reporting that he's 'ruined their holidays again' you can sleep sound in your beds in the knowledge that the world is still in its correct order. Fawkes is currently being accused by Iain Dale of hounding Christopher Myers, the now former SpAd the William Hague, out of his job.

That this story really became news is primarily down to the media's obsession with gays in politics. From the start, when that picture of Hague and Myers walking along together was published in the Mail, this story has been full of innuendo.

Fawkes was chasing the story, and was the first to report that during the recent election campaign, when Myers was Hague's driver, the two had shared a hotel room. More reasonably, Fawkes pointed out that Myers is almost totally unqualified for the job of SpAd, and (probably accurately) claimed that he got it by being close to Hague. The question was how close.

Now, I expected Myers to take a hit and resign, but I am a bit confused by Hague's response. While a personal defence of his relationship with Myers and his marriage was inevitable, such candour about his wife's miscarriages was not. Why so much detail? Does it offer any defence against accusations he's slept with Myers? No it doesn't. It's all a bit strange. Whatever the reason though, the coalition will be very eager to get away from this story and to come back next week reinvigorated.

Crap wordplay

New Liebour

Tony Bliar

EUSSR

$ky TV

Londonistan

I keep seeing these on newspaper comments. It's partly my own fault for reading newspaper comment sections but surely I can't be alone in thinking these are pathetic?! Oh bravo, you got the word LIE into Labour because you don't like the war in Iraq. You're a hero. EUSSR?! Honestly, are people really comparing the role of the EU with the iron rule of the Communists during the cold war? Shock, horror, London has immigrants! aaaaaaah!! Whatever shall we do?! Come up with a witty pun by putting 'istan' on the end of London? Yeah, now I feel better.

TB phones home!

I'm looking forward to seeing the 'leadership' contenders on C4 news tonight, it's going to be a jolly affair I'm sure. Especially with Tony Blair's autobiography out today! I only hope it's as good as Mandelson's.

Possibly the saddest thing I've seen today was on the Guardian website, where poor Andrew Sparrow is blogging live as he reads A Journey. I worry about the Guardian sometimes, and I'm not really sure they have the cash to just pay people to do this.

They paid THREE journalists to blog about the last day of the transfer window yesterday, and all they managed to do was prattle on about how much hype Sky were putting into their coverage.