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.

Drunken MPs

Michael White and Quentin Letts have sought to defend the honour of Mark Reckless and the other MPs who were caught voting in Parliament while legless. White says "it seems a sad state of affairs when folk can't have a drink after work". That's a great point, except they were still at work.

Clearly it was late - around 1.30 in the morning - so it's not the same as turning up to the office drunk at 3pm. The problem is that having a drink after work is different to getting plastered and not being able to open a door because your own foot is the way. Furthermore, it's more than a little hypocritical for MPs - who regularly decry 'Booze Britain' - to get trashed in public.

Gazza Fishing in the Moat

If you only do one thing this evening, listen to this call by Gazza to a local radio station.

In it he tells listeners that he wants to go into the police cordon surrounding Raoul Moat: "I've got a jacket, I've got a dressing gown, some chicken, I've got some bread, I've got a can of lager, I've got a fishing rod, erm... and I'm willing to sit down and shout: Moaty, it's Gazza!"

He then said that he'd like to do some fishing with him, before adding: "I have just been in a car crash, hit a wall at 90mph. I survived that, so I can survive a bullet. Knowing my luck he would probably miss."

His agent, Kenny Shepherd, said: "He's doing what? I'm sitting having an evening meal in Majorca. I'm speechless."

Luis Suarez

Luis Suarez is a cheat.

And not only is he a cheat, but he's an unrepentant one as well. Suarez said:

"This was the end of the World Cup [for us]. I had no choice. I have the 'Hand of God' now. I did it so that my team mates could win the penalty shoot-out. When I saw Gyan miss the penalty, it was great joy."

Is that right? Is it heck. But it's hardly out of character. Suarez also likes to cheat by diving, which was the activity he occupied himself with during the 89 minutes he was on the pitch when he wasn't handling the ball.

It's also very disappointing (though hardly surprising) to see the Uruguayan manager, Oscar Tabarez, come out and defend his player:

"Saying we cheated Ghana is too harsh a word to use. Yes, he stuck his hand out, but it's not cheating. I don't think it's fair to say that."

Not fair?! Not cheating?! Take a look at the picture and decide what's unfair and what's cheating.