Boris claims his freeze on council tax precepts will save Londoners valuable money. Quite. In fact, had it been bought in this year, it could’ve saved the average household a very useful 11p a week. That adds up to a staggering £5.72 for the year. Just enough to pay off daily Boris’ bus fare rises next year; and not nearly enough to pay for one daily travelcard from the edge of London. Any Londoner reliant on public transport for work or otherwise faces a large fare hike for a small tax cut.

Perhaps his “Economic Recovery Action Plan” should be renamed the “Boris Johnson Recovery fund”…

(Hat-tip for the sums: Tory Troll)

And piles it on with a shovel:

Hardly subtle, is it? Virtually every sentence acts as a dogwhistle for Republicans; Obama is a, “liberal,” who’ll bring forth, “massive government,” and, “skyrocketing taxes.” The same is true of any and all imagery. Or rather, the imagery; a giant, sleeping baby, just to remind you who’s the candidate for families.

The message is simply mendacious. McCain claims big government hurts in a financial crisis - when, of course, the ideology of small government and light financial regulation allowed banks to make this mess in the first place. Likewise, McCain’s claims that Obama would raise, “painful,” taxes. Obama’s tax plans would, at most, inconvenience the wealthy slightly, allowing him to cut taxes on those who can’t afford them. There’d be spending increases, yes. Coming from the man who wants to fight (expensively) in Iraq to the bitter end, though, any condemnation for such is the purest hypocrisy.

But it plays to every Republican prejudice about Democrats - and so plays right into McCain’s strategy. He isn’t looking for new voters, only to get every registered Republican out and voting against Obama. He picked Palin partially to reassure that conservative base, and now he’ll issue dubious ads to rally them. In short, just what Bush tried in 2000 and 2004; negative politics designed to win 50.1% of the population, and no more. If McCain wants anyone to believe his rhetoric on also being a, “candidate of change,” he ought to hope no-one thinks about his ads.

Charles Clarke has taken to the New Statesman in order to…Well, its not clear exactly. The content is muddled and unclear in intent. Knowing Clarke my imagining was that it might live up to the hype which The Guardian dutifully gave it. In reality it seems not to be about the future of Labour, but rather an attempt at apologism for Blairitism. He segues between arguing that we shouldn’t be blathering on about the past (Blair), blathering on about the past (Blair), pinning down precisely what he thinks the term means and pretending that he thinks the term is meaningless.

There are some snipes at Gordon Brown though, described as, in reference to Blair, “His Chancellor” and blamed for Britain not joining with the Euro. There is also a spot of self-analysis that is amusing when the context is considered:

The rise of terrorist atrocities, including London in 2005, identified Tony Blair with tough efforts to strengthen security, sometimes at a perceived cost to liberty.

“Perceived”, yes. Because house arrest does not constitute a true breach of liberty, its just that people might see it that way. I would suggest that Taking Liberties be viewed by anyone fooled even for a moment that Clarke is some form of cuddly teddly bear. The scenes with the fellow locked inside his house and restricted to an entirely arbitary section of his surroundings especially.

But if there is some actual point to the article its that we all have to stop being mean to the Blairites which ruined the party. Otherwise Labour will face oblivion. One can not help but think that perhaps Clarke’s position on his party’s future is inspired by his own position. Come the next election is seems increasingly unlikely that Clarke will be unseated by no other than a Green Party candidate. Yes, the unreconstructed leftist Greens with their plans to nationalise and set up people’s banks.

So the notion of this unrepentant rightist tossing in his hat to any forthcoming leadership race, or even triggering one, is surely one which can only be met with wry amusement. Brown’s position does seem dire but he, at least, looks set to retain his seat. I suppose in this respect, though, he is not representative of the average Labour MP, and thus Clarke may have the edge within the PLP purely on grounds of empathy.

Clarke describes the suggestion that “Labour under Blair became a party of the centre right” is “deceitful nonsense”. It seems only fitting that he, as the man who served as Blunkett’s follow-through and actually appeared to have done his (futile) best to outdo the raging reactionary adulterer that he should lose his seat to some genuine socialists. This article demonstrates exactly why he deserves what is (hopefully) coming to him.

And, for today’s dose of religiously inspired insanity:

Representatives for a gallery in Gateshead appeared in court yesterday charged with outraging public decency, after featuring a statue of Jesus with an erection.

The artwork was part of the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art’s September 2007-January 2008 exhibition Gone, Yet Still, by the controversial Chinese artist Terence Koh, which featured dozens of plaster figures including Mickey Mouse and ET - all in some state of arousal.

What? There are no grounds on which the Baltic Centre can legitimately be persecuted. They’ve exercised a simple freedom of speech; they own a building, they’ve displayed art there, and they’ve offered the public the choice to view it.

And that’s what the public have; a choice. They do not have to visit art galleries. If it offends them, they’re at perfect liberty to walk out the door and complain all they like. If it offends enough people, they’ll collectively ignore the gallery; the gallery may then notice a significant drop in its takings, and pull the exhibit.

You have a right as absolute as the freedom of speech to be offended - but you don’t have the right to demand that freedom of speech be curtailed for the sake of the offence. Unless, of course, you accept that the principle applies universally, and your freedom might also be limited for the sake of offence. Which might get dangerously reciprocal, given how offensive this aggressive bigotry is to myself, at least.

Better, then, that everyone accepts free expression for all? Not according to this particular collection of theocrats:

But the Christian Legal Centre - an organisation that aims to “promote and protect the biblical freedoms of Christian believers in the United Kingdom” - agreed to pay her legal costs. The CLC also funded the case brought by Stephen Green against the BBC over Jerry Springer - The Opera. A CLC spokesman said Mapfuwa believed in freedom of expression, but “this statue served no other purpose than to offend Christians and to denigrate Christ”.

At Gateshead magistrates court yesterday, a solicitor for The Baltic Flour Mills Visual Arts Trust, the charitable body which runs the Baltic, indicated a plea of not guilty. The case was adjourned until September 23. Mapfuwa intends to cite a case from 1990 in which an artist and shop owner in London were convicted of outraging public decency over showing a sculpture made of foetuses.

So; they intend to force their convictions upon the gallery owners and general public, citing an obscure case from a period when a significant portion of that public couldn’t vote and so influence the law. If the case isn’t hammered out of the court at the first opportunity as a waste of everyone’s time, I’ll worry. God might be dead; but the fundies are still alive and howling.

The police ban Babyshambles from Moonfest:

The decision came after police asked an intelligence officer to research Doherty’s band, Babyshambles, who were booked to headline Moonfest festival in Westbury, Wiltshire, next week. They concluded that the band’s tendency to “speed up and then slow down the music” could create a “whirlpool effect” and spark disorder.

A horrific phenomenon also known as “Putting on a good show”. Apparently Superintendent Paul Williams would prefer “Cliff Richard or Bucks Fizz” to play.

Doherty is reportedly “absolutely devastated and furious”, which suggests that this was one of the shows which he actually intended to turn up to. A day was shortened, a festival pretty much ruined (the amount of Babyshambles fans who came there just for Pete was doubtless substantial) and the puritans win in their efforts to stamp out some fun once more.

Don’t push it.

BoJo appears to enjoy abandoning election promises. Today, one on the living wage:

London Mayor Boris Johnson has reneged on a pre-election promise that only hotels and restaurants paying a ‘London living wage’ would be promoted by Visit London ahead of the 2012 Olympics.

Johnson, who increased the London living wage from £7.20 to £7.45 an hour earlier this month, made the vow at an election debate held by campaign group London Citizens in Westminster on 9 April.

The Mayor initially denied making the promise in a letter to Caterersearch, but when we presented his press office with video proof, he then sent an updated letter, in which he claimed a partnership with businesses would be a more effective way of implementing a London-wide living wage.

In the updated letter, Johnson said: “During my election campaign, I supported a list of proposals on the living wage that included this idea. However, further work in this area has made it clear that a positive approach of partnership with business to promote the London living wage is more appropriate, and likely to be more effective in achieving the key goal of the wider implementation of the living wage.”

Emphasis mine. Let’s translate that statement:

“I broke a pledge made during the election, probably because I can’t be bothered to implement it. Because to do so, I’d need to put the squeeze on tight employers and make sure they paid decent wages. Instead, I’d prefer a few dinners - sorry, partnership- building exercises - with them. Thus, I can claim all of the credit while delivering nothing myself.”

If, of course, he ever meant it. The Mayor made that pledge, you may recall, at the London Citizens’ hustings while under intense abuse from the audience for his original opposition to the minimum wage. Who wouldn’t say a few shallow words at the start of the evening to silence the hecklers for the night?

Although it’s still customary to keep even false promises…

(Hat-tip: Dave Hill)

Somewhere on the Cornish coast this Tuesday, I blearily opened the Guardian to find a comment piece by Miliband (D). I mostly ignored it; the first few lines looked to be mildly vacuous, the rest Mandelsonian Kremlinology in full-flow. Enough to spoil my tea, at any rate.

Somewhere on the Cornish coast this Wednesday, I glanced at the Guardian’s cover. And found minister after minister (and Bob Marshall-Andrews) calling for Miliband’s political testicles on a platter. All over that rather dull article? Imagine my confusion.

Milipede’s statement wasn’t news. He wants to attack the Tories - duh. He wants to talk up the government - duh. He wants to find a new direction - as he did several months ago. Where’s the attack in that? As James points out, Miliband makes more of a case for an offensive against Cameron rather than Brown. A classic storm in a teacup, were such a cliche physically possible.

And yet the storm came. We can assume much from that: the Brownites at least are jittery enough to turn an non-challenge into a challenge, and the newspapers haven’t found much else to savage. Balls&co. saw the article, and instantly assumed Miliband wanted to depose Brown, immediately. Given the politically neutered tone of the article - with all the punch of an undergraduate essay - that says something about the power of their collective imagination. They’re terrified a coup is on the way, and will brief furiously at the first sign of a possible challenge, however marginal it seems.

Miliband’s reaction provides a little more interest. He didn’t make a challenge, but the Brownites presented him with all he needed by briefing that one was imminent; and yet he held back. What does that say? He might be worried that he’ll follow in Heseltine’s footsteps, wielding the knife, but never holding power. He might simply suffer from extreme political cowardice - wasn’t a challenge due last year? And, of course, he might have no ambitions for leadership (hah)…

So - the Brownites are scared of a man who seems unable to justify that fear in the height of the media’s silly season. It’s as simple as that. Isn’t it?

“The Labour party never does mad things.”

David Miliband

That memo I mentioned yesterday turns out to be even worse than suspected. To summarise; it gives the BPI the ability to monitor the internet activity of suspected filesharers. The BPI then passes their details onto ISPs, who first send threatening letters, before slowing and then cutting off internet connections.

That’s a scheme flawed on many levels. The BPI’s powers to monitor internet users and share their details forms an outright assault on their liberties; it’s in effect allowing a private organisation to police behaviour. Their solution, meanwhile, is simply draconian. The move targets suspects rather than the definitely guilty - sound familiar? It then seeks to disconnect them, and anyone else in the same household. That you might have fallen victim to malware or someone else in the house might have done the sharing doesn’t matter. You’re on the same ISP - so they assume you did it.

Nor will any of this actually work. Record companies seem completely blind to the motivation behind filesharing; its ease and speed. It’s the difference between pressing a button and a half-hour bus journey to the nearest music shop and back. That filesharing, much like borrowing a CD, allows consumers to sample entirely new realms of music before splashing out on several albums also gets ignored. Record companies claim filesharing eats into their profits - but it seems unlikely they’d sell as much as they did without this interaction between consumers.

Of course, this blinkered approach to filesharing could well be selective. As Billy Bragg points out, the internet benefits two main ends of the music industry; producers and consumers. Artists can connect directly to listeners through social networking and online stores - and cut out the middle-men of record companies. They’ll retain some power through the offer of improved marketing and better recording facilities, but the internet challenges their grip on the music industry as never before.

Take three examples, from the top and bottom of the scale in terms of size. At its largest extent, bands such as Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have bypassed those middle-men entirely, putting their music online and allowing downloaders to set the value. At the other end, and smashing the myth that the internet only benefits wealthy groups like Radiohead who’ve already made it, come whole genres which developed on and through the internet. Dubstep began in Croydonian basements and spread across the world through the power of filesharing, to the extent that one of its most inspired disciples hails from Japan. It’s only since that electronic rise that solid CDs have begun to appear on shop-shelves and the music made its way into meatspace.

So, when record companies attack filesharing as it is, it’s with a mind to maintaining their corporate power. That certainly looks to be the motive behind the rather measly carrot offered to consumers under the Memo; legal filesharing through passworded monopolies owned by the companies. They keep their cut, and artists and consumers get the same raw deal as before. And the internet loses its most powerful edge of being open to anyone with a connection. Hardly a move, then, born out of the concern for artists Undertones corporate frontman Feargal Sharkey so frequently whines.

This memo serves one purpose; to retain the iron grip of recording companies on the music industry. It fails to exploit the internet at its best, and so fails artists and fans. Do we really want that?