Would you join Labour for a penny?

So Labour are offering a 1p membership to anyone under 27. I started writing a post on this the other day but couldn't really be arsed to finish it. And it seems that I wasn't the only one lacking any enthusiasm, because today the Guardian revealed that the offer had brought in just 400 new members.

400 people paid a penny to join Labour, so they could have the honour of having Ed Miliband voice their concerns to the nation. Now, I'm pretty confident that the admin on 400 new members is going to cost more than the £4.00 that Labour have made this week. And that these bargain hunters may prove fickle when they get asked for the full £39.00 next year. It's also made me more certain than ever that Labour's claim to have had 50,000 new members since the election is likely to prove an exaggeration.

I wonder why people didn't take up the offer? Maybe it's because although the 'young' are perceived to be against some of the coalition's policies, they still realise that Labour are not yet a credible alternative. These young people also aren't quite young enough to have missed the fact that Labour were the ones that introduced tuition fees in the first place. And they won't have missed that Labour itself has absolutely no credible policy for higher education. They will also be suspicious that having Ed Miliband as a spokesman isn't necessarily the best thing, given that he can't seem to get any media coverage at the moment and the PLP thinks he's useless.

Which begs the question: why now? A reduced membership rate is a great one-off gimmick that has the very real potential to raise membership numbers. But you have to already have forward momentum. A cheap membership rate when you've no policies, have just been beaten in an election and have a weak new leader will not turn things around. Now they're in an even worse situation, because this poor response has just confirmed to the public that no-one wants to join their party. If they'd done it in three years' time then it could have been hugely successful. But I really think they've jumped the gun. 

British Press: That Italian mini-skirt ban in full

It was like A-Level results day had come twice this year. The banning of mini-skirts in a small Italian town in order to improve moral decency (and according to a local dinosaur Priest, to help stop women being sexually attacked) gave the honourable British media a chance to remind us all of what we gain from our freedoms. By plastering women in miniskirts all over their pages. Here are some examples from the Mail, the BBC, the Express, the Telegraph and the Guardian.

Top marks have to go to the Telegraph for the fruitiest and most provocative picture...

Government Spending

In the run up to the Spending Review on Wednesday the Guardian have created a spending cloud. It's well worth taking a look at:

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:

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.