BoJo pretends to be a liberal Conservative. He’s transparently not; first, he banned alcohol on public transport, and now he wants to restrict access by under-21s to it. Thus:

Young adults will be banned from buying alcohol in shops under a scheme being backed by Mayor Boris Johnson.

Off-licence owners are to be asked to stop selling drink to under-21s, even though they are legally entitled to buy it at 18.

The voluntary scheme will start in Croydon and is likely to be rolled out across London.

Mr Johnson said that it was the type of solution that Londoners would welcome to the “huge problem” of binge-drinking by the young.

Let’s explore what this actually means. BoJo wants the state to encourage shops to actively discriminate against a group of adults on the basis of a factor beyond their control. That group has the legal rights of every other age-group - and potentially has done for three years.

And, of course, it won’t work. 18-21 year olds have been drinking for as long as can be remembered, and show no desire to stop. They’ve quite possibly been drinking since before their 18th birthday, and most will know how to get alcohol without the state’s consent. So, it won’t eliminate drinking; it’ll simply drive it underground, beyond any reasonable hope of regulation.

So - discriminatory, ineffective and generally illiberal. 18-21 year old are adults with full legal rights and who pay taxes - and yet BoJo wants to treat them like children. He’s not a liberal. He’s a disgusting paternalist willing to sacrifice the rights of a minority for populism’s sake.

This floated my way through an e-mail. Via, I’m told, a site I wouldn’t approve of:

Does Eden remind you of anyone, I wonder?

Contrast Lucas’ mature campaign launch with the behaviour of Derek Wall. Derek, currently the party’s other Principal “Speaker” possibly fancies himself as a rival for the post. And so, he ponders into the debate. With invective, and little else.

A discontented Green Left activist forwarded the following from their e-mail list:

Caroline can spend £2,700 and employ an army of phone canvassers to win and
will get a Guardian editorial, no doubt singing her praises...
the new elction rules are very very damaging for internal democracy in our party.

Likewise while Caroline is a superb Principal Speaker, my opinion is that she
will be a very poor leader, if this latest episode is anything to go on..
I fear that we face a very difficult couple of years

Excuse me, Derek? There are some very bold claims there, with little to support them. Where’s Caroline going to get £2700 for an army of phone-canvassers, or indeed that army? And, indeed, where’s the evidence she wants them? He provides no grounds for his invective, and no evidence.

And likewise the other accusations. Caroline might get a Guardian editorial; so what? There’s no use implying something nefarious without actually supporting it. And, again, he doesn’t actually point out how the new rules damage the party, or how Caroline would be a poor leader - or how the next years might be difficult. Does he want to be ignored?

Presumably not, as he develops his whinge on Socialist Unity:

I am not posting this to say how wonderful my own political party is, in fact I am quite anxious about how the new leader/deputy leader structure will play out…my fear is it will take us down the European Green Party route of ‘nu green’.

Again, note the general lack of evidence anywhere. It’s frustrating; how can you have an argument with someone, when they provide no substance to argue with? Perhaps he’s trying to raise concerns about how having a leader will affect party democracy.

Fine. I’ll have that argument anyway, and put across my own view. Wall feels that a leader will be bad for party democracy; he led (hah…) the campaign against leadership so flattened in last year’s referendum. In evidence of this, he cites the centrism and centralism of European Green Parties entering coalitions with convervatives, against the howls of activists. He never cites reasons why we’d follow suit if we had a leader.

Or, indeed, that it’s leaders who are the problem. The Germans have co-leaders who function in much the same fashion as the current co-speakers over here - and they’re in coalition with the CDU. On the other hand, the countries where the Greens have allied with right-wing parties are function on PR, to an extent; and the parties were rarely as radical as the English and Welsh Greens as it was. They aren’t automatically comparable with the situation here. There’s no positive evidence to suggest Wall’s fears are justified.

And plenty to suggest they aren’t. Namely, the rules themselves - which don’t set the leader up as some great Uber-fuhrer of the party. They’re heavily accountable, can’t hammer their decisions on local parties, and exist as much to provide a coherent national narrative as to lead.

And, more relevant to the present, there’s no evidence to suggest Caroline would draw all power to herself. JimJay made an excellent point in his post on her launch:

I particularly liked the get involved section of the campaign site, with its focus on signing local members up as national members, and ensuring that supporters are paid up members by July 24th so they can play a full part in this important political decision making process.

For internal democracy to be meaningful it has to be both inclusive and vibrant in a very concrete way - I’ve no doubt some will be sniffy about the idea of any campaigning at all but without reaching out and spreading the discussion executive posts would inevitably go to those best placed to gain profile in the party, or factions within it, rather than allowing the members as whole to make genuinely informed decisions.

A healthy and active internal democracy is also something that attracts those who have not yet joined the party rather than repels them. Personally I don’t give any credit to the idea that internal democracy is something that should held in secret - because this inevitably ends up shielding the members themselves from discussion and does nothing to increase transparency and accountability of the executive to the members and of the party to the public.

The leadership debate fostered a lot of activity within the party, and showed just how healthy internal democracy was. Lucas’s campaign looks as though it’ll build on that - encouraging people to get involved in the party, and make democracy actually function as it should. Far from killing internal democracy, this could give it a great boost.

So, that’s your debate. The cynic in me isn’t convinced Dezpot (as he shall now be known) wants it. He stands little chance in any one-on-one election, and might well lose his position under this system. That’d explain the poor quality arguments on his part, and yet the desperate urge to make them. But I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt - perhaps he’s genuinely paranoid, instead.

Dave Hill carries a selection of key questions for Wednesday’s MQT. Notice in particular John Biggs’ continued attempts to set himself up as a man of cutting wit, with all the elegance of a 14 year old - and the rather more substantial scrutiny from the Green AMs.

But what of Barnbrook? Bananaman doesn’t at all feature in Dave’s post. Perhaps because his oral question is less than cutting:

In light of the metropolitan polices recent figures for knife crime can the Mayor recognise that 42% of knife crime is carried out by the African Caribbean community who only make up 9% of the population and what measures will the Mayor take to address this.

So - a scarcely veiled piece of racism. Barnbrook poses a question ostensibly about a universal issue, and then throws in selectively abused statistics designed to imply it’s all the blacks’ fault. It doesn’t quite say that anyone with dark skin is a blade-wielding thug, but it means it.

And are the written questions any better?

In light of the recent departure of Deputy Mayor Ray Lewis, will the Mayor now start to appoint advisors based on merit and real experience rather than what I personally consider and understand him to be doing, appointing anyone just to make up his racial quotas?

Let’s take that as a definite no then. It’s outright racism now - and it confirms common thoughts on BNP strategy. They keep the public image - and the oral questions - relatively clean. Dogwhistle politics and veiled racism is in; overt attacks on ethnic minorities aren’t. Those get saved for the written questions that fewer people see - like this.

They get stranger, though:

Can the Mayor confirm how he knows Ray Lewis and who recommended his appointment?

What’s he implying? The answer is obvious - the Tories have wanted Lewis for a while, and that’s how he ended up in City Hall. But the implication of wrongdoing inherent in the question strikes me as peculiar. Does Barnbrook want an admission that the two met in a secret multiculturalist underground sect clubbed together to pass Britain into an era of leftist dominion?

In light of the Mayors support for the ban on British National Party members joining the police force, can the Mayor explain the reasons for his opinion?

Perhaps because they’re fascists, who’ve a record of using the police to smash democracy. Oh, and learn to use the apostrophe, Richard.

Can the Mayor confirm what measures he will take to ensure that British culture is preserved and takes priority in London?

Can Richard Barnbrook confirm what measures he will take to inform us all precisely what he means by “British culture” in such a culturally diverse City as London?

And, last of all, the bugbear:

Can the Mayor confirm how much funding he will be allocating to next years St Georges Day celebrations in London?

He wants a new costume, you see.

So - a series of execrably pointless questions centred on a vile racist paranoia. Par for the course for neo-fascists, then?

Andy Burnham’s spokepuppet today:

“Andy Burnham was making a political point about David Davis’s inconsistent views on capital punishment and civil liberties,” the spokesman said.

“An interpretation has been placed on Andy’s remarks that he did not intend.”

Andy Burnham yesterday:

He said he found it “very curious in the man who was, and still is I believe, an exponent of capital punishment, having late-night, hand-wringing, heart-melting phone calls with Shami Chakrabarti”.

How can, “late-night, hand-wringing, heart-melting phone calls,” be interpreted as anything other than a particularly sordid insinuation? It carries all the imagery of an angsty teenage girl engaged in an entirely meaningless telephone whinge without actually stating it.

Burnham legitimately raised David Davis’ questionable civil libertarian credentials.  But so has most of the leftish blogosphere, and without the absurd slurs masking the point. That Burnham attacks the person rather than the issue, and resorts to playground sneers for that attack surely indicates one thing; that Labour are still afraid to engage on 42 Days, and will resort to anything to avoid it.

So stick it to them?

City Hall’s counter-propaganda over Rise found its way into Comment is Free today. BoJo’s cultural underling, Munira Mirza, claims that removing the anti-racist message means they’re now “Doing anti-racism for real.”

Really, Comrade Mirza? Let’s have a look at her argument:

To give some background: in 1996 the Trades Union Congress and various political groups organised Respect (later renamed Rise), intended as a festival against racism. One of the organisations involved was the National Assembly Against Racism (NAAR). In 2000, the then newly-elected Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, effectively nationalised the event by giving it large sums of public money. Several of Ken’s key aides at City Hall had links to NAAR, including Lee Jasper.

Do I detect the none-too-subtle presence of a strawman or five? Apparently, heavy state funding equals nationalisation. Which is strange, given that nationalisation is usually taken to mean state-ownership and direction of an event - not funding. The NHS is nationalised. The railway network, which receives heavy state subsidisation but is directed by private companies, is not. You’d hope that someone who held public office might know the difference, lest they attempt something risky like allowing vicious asset-strippers into the GLA for a period of public service (Oh. Wait…)

Or could it just possibly be that Mirza wants to associate Rise with nationalisation, and consequently with us bastard socialists? Nothing selective about her use of language, not at all…

Oh - and the same goes for her mention of Lee Jasper. The clear intent is to associate NAAR with Lee Jasper and thus with corruption, despite the rather glaring fact that NAAR isn’t under investigation for such.

Over the years, Rise was proclaimed by Ken & Co as a key weapon in the fight against racism and fascism. In reality, it became an annual jamboree for Ken’s favourite political activist groups, many with no clear link to anti-racism. The Cuba Solidarity Campaign, Socialist Workers Party and CND, among others, brought in their armies of volunteers to man stalls, hand out leaflets, sell newspapers and rattle donation buckets. The “community” area of the festival looked more like Sussex University freshers’ fair circa 1970. Not without good reason did Rise become known as “Kenstock“.

So, Mirza objects to the presence of political groups? Fine. Never mind the fact that those groups weren’t there because Ken asked them (perhaps she should ask the SWP for their views on Ken…), but because they wanted to be. Or that they’ve stalls at a host of other, entirely apolitical events, for much the same reason.

Oh, and the fact that most people simply ignore the stalls and wander straight off to the music - and have the choice to do so.

No, it’s clear that because Ken was a socialist, he allowed these groups in to peddle their pinko-peacenik ideologies on his behalf. Perhaps Mirza’s bitter because the RCP didn’t have a stall?

But, apparently, these bearded commies are a serious problem:

The deterrent effect of this highly politicised atmosphere should not be underestimated. Although the event was supposed to be inclusive and attract people from ethnic minorities, the GLA’s own research (conducted while Ken was mayor) shows that 65%-70% of attendees in the last two years were white. That is disproportionately whiter than the population of London.

Yes, very true. Unfortunately, Mirza then leaps to:

It seems reasonable to conclude that the political baggage and relentless sloganeering was actually putting people off. And no doubt many individuals and families who did come on the day were there primarily for the music or a nice day out.

No, it’s not reasonable to conclude that a few ill-attended stalls on the fringe of an event should drive down attendence by ethnic minorities. Where’s the evidence to suggest that? None. The GLA’s research did not report that potential concert-goers were put off because a few deranged Trotskyites might waggle their beards at them. There’s no evidence for that, or any other hypothesis as to why attendence isn’t very mixed - because the GLA didn’t ask.

It could easily be the previous choice of artists, or the weather in different part of London, or any number of factors. We can’t know, as we haven’t got anything to base our assertions off. But that hasn’t stopped Mirza…

Londoners deserve a great, free music festival with excellent bands from around the world. They don’t need to be hectored about why racism is bad or accosted by activists explaining why Castro is a hero. We don’t have anti-racist fireworks on New Year’s Eve and we don’t need to organise an anti-paedophile concert to prove our moral credentials on the issue.

Who mentioned paedophiles? Mirza looks to be playing games with language to make false associations again. Perhaps to compensate for her inability to make a consistent or logical argument. She’s entirely missed the point, here; Rise is, and always has been, about anti-racism. That’s why it exists. The concert is a means to communicate that message. The other groups that fund the event - particularly Unison and the TUC - know that and are committed to it.

If Mirza wants Londoners to have another free concert, then that’s great. But when she wants to cut the anti-racist elements out of an anti-racist festival with music attached - that’s not.

Sectarian political festivals are not the way Londoners want their money to be spent.

Anti-racism’s sectarian? The last person I heard make that argument was Richard Barnbrook.

Most of us, I suspect, just want to be trusted to get on with other people and not be instructed by activists about the dangers of racism.

Tell that to Barnbrook, and all of the 128 609 fascists who voted for him.

That’s why the GLA has decided to go ahead with Rise this summer, but to change the emphasis. We are stressing the cultural aspects of the festival and keeping the vibe positive. We are also bringing in grassroots ethnic and community organisations that have not previously been involved. Above all we are making Rise fun. As a result, the festival will hopefully attract a more diverse audience.

Let me translate that “keeping the vibe positive”: We’re going to ignore racism in public from now on. That’s what she means, as borne out by the total excision of Rise’s original purpose. And it won’t work. I hope Vamp won’t mind me quoting his original comment on this, but he has it exactly right:

Defeating racism is not purely a matter of dissuading those with such views but also mobilising those in opposition to it. I would refer you also to my write-up of Love Music Hate Racism: there is nothing more disastrous for the far-right than a gathering which loses them any of the young and I reckon that the sight, for instance, of Skream and Benga annihilating any notion of cross-racial incompatibility during their collaboration could well have such an impact. If you know of a better way to get a horde of youths together than a free music concert then be sure to let me know, as well as Richard Barnbrook who seems to have been struggling lately.

Mirza is absolutely correct that a concert is a great way of getting everyone together; that’s the original organisaers chose a concert in the first place. What she misses is that many are unaware of just how pervasive the problem is, and the fact that it needs challenged. Not everyone will come to the concert itself, mix with each other and solve the problem magically, as she wants - simply because not everyone will make it to the gig. It won’t have the desired effect.

But a festival combined with an anti-racist message will. Those who turn up will hopefully wake up to the danger of racism; they might become involved, and will certainly tell their friends. And so people become aware of racism, and something actually gets done.

Londoners voted for change on May 1 and the new Rise is part of that change. Out will go the political sloganeering and heavy-handed propaganda but by bringing Londoners from different backgrounds together to share their love of music Rise will be doing anti-racism for real.

She’s spelled those last two words wrong. What she means is we’re “doing anti-racism to death.” The original concerts brought people together and achieved the soft-power affect desired; the overt anti-racist message capitalised on that and actually drove the message home. The new festival will lack that extra impact, and so may well simply be wasted as an opportunity to challenge division and hate.

Perhaps turnout may be higher or more diverse this year. But that won’t be because the political message died, as Mirza suggests. Her assertion that this put people off was just that; an assertions with no reasonable basis. It’ll probably have more to do with the presence of truly excellent artists like CSS - or maybe just a decent weather forecast.

One thing’s for certain, though: it just won’t be the same.

EDIT: And, oh look! Barnbrook welcomes the move.

Bensix provided a valuable link in the comments section, which I consider well worthy of repetition. Quite simply David Davis lacks any credentials to the title of “Libertarian” which has seemingly been constantly heaped upon him by all sides of the media. That link evidences as much even without mentioning his standard reactionary stance upon drugs {the outright idiocy included in Ian Duncan Smith’s report on the topic received not a whisper}. He failed to attack Section 28, a vile law with just as little evidence for necessity as 28 days. He voted against gay adoption, he only avoided voting against civil partnerships seemingly through his absence as there is little to suggest he would support such a measure given past form.

I respect David Davis for taking this risk {it fails to surprise me that a challenger has appeared who should pose a threat even in the absence of a Labour campaign, an event of such high profile was bound to attract such attention}. I think that the argument of him supporting 28 days is a weak one as this compromise was the only one which stood any chance of defeating the government. It is much along the same reasoning as that outlined to me by Ann Widdecombe while giving a speech at my school whereby she explained that her opposition to abortion was not expressed in votes for outright bans but for whichever proposals it seemed the pro-life MPs could muster enough supports to turn out a decent showing for. David Davis is clearly as opposed to 42 Day Detention as Widdecombe foeticide and claiming otherwise is unfair. That he is willing to stand the chance of sacrificing career for conviction is a striking and valuable move that should earn him considerable respect and sets him apart from the professional politicians who now dominate the Commons.

But the man is no libertarian; and to state as much is a grotesque distortion of that flawed but noble political position.

MadNad Dorries excelled herself in the drivel stakes today. Observe this post. The tone is set by the opening line, informing us that “it has not been a nice weekend.” Now, jump on board for the “Help! I’m under attack by hordes of bitter lefties, and couldn’t possibly be wrong” express which became so familiar over the course of the HFE debates…

The frenzied attack against Conservative MPs and MEPs, orchestrated by and emanating from the left wing BBC and press has equalled that of an animal in its death throes. The more terminal the position looks for Labour, the more desperate the BBC and the left wing press become.

It’s an achievement to parody oneself in an opening statement, I think. It takes true skill to take your earlier ravings about a grand conspiracy against you and twist them into something even more laughable. Apparently, the BBC, in the very act of reporting important allegations of political corruption, become biased.

And it is reportage, rather than story-breaking: Guido was the first to dish the dirt on the MEPs. And he so typifies the “left-wing bias” of the press and media, doesn’t he? Not that he doesn’t spend half of his time railing against it, not at all…

Onwards, though:

Are we all to believe that Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs and MEPs don’t make mistakes or are so different as human beings? I do not condone any misuse of allowance, however what we saw over the weekend was the equivalent of a McCarthy style witch hunt.

Again with the victim-complex, eh? You’d almost think she feared attack herself, and had something to hide…

No-one is pretending that Labour or LibDem MPs haven’t made mistakes - or lied - before. And, guess what? The media reported that too. Let’s have a look at the BBC reports on Peter Hain from earlier in the year: here and here and here and here and here and elsewhere too. That was just the coverage of his resignation, let alone the lead-up to it.

And the BBC reported other Labour funding scandals earlier this year too! Can you imagine that? They even broke their liberal programming (clearly they’re commie robots, you see…) to report on allegations of corruption against Alan Johnson, Wendy Alexander and Harriet Harman. And then there was Lord Levy - and so another story they reported of corruption in the Labour Party.

So - all clear evidence of a dastardly leftist campaign to bring down the Conservatives, by focusing for a weekend on corrupt Tories rather than Lord Levy’s memoirs? No? Well, I’m sure if you wait, Dorries will find the logic for you…

(or not…)

And it’s funny that she should mention Senator McCarthy, while we’re there. The ravingly paranoid, conservative anti-abortion Senator McCarthy, that is…

The attack against Caroline Spelman was particularly sickening.

Surely, her lying in the first place was the sickening part?

To take an MP, who ten years previously sought a meeting with the Chief Whip to query whether or not her arrangements were within the rules, which they obviously were, and then to be vilified before any inquiry has been held in the way the National Press, TV and bloggers have, has been appalling.

So - the arrangements were perfectly within the rules, which was naturally why Spelman ended them shortly after the meeting. Yes. No contradictions there. Not at all…

I note a distinct lack of counter-evidence provided by Ms. Dorries. The arrangements were “obviously” within the rules - and yet Spelman lied about them in her expenses. She hired the woman as a nanny and employed her as such. Occasionally, she answered the phone as she was around the house - so Spelman, rather than legitimately petitioning for nannies to be counted on expenses, took the short cut and put her down as a secretary instead.

So, she lied about who the nanny was. And that’s “obviously” within the rules for Dorries.

Perhaps someone should check her expenses after all…

But wait! First, Dorries wants to provide us with some top-notch, well researched evidence against the claims of her own:

As my postman said, “Ten years ago? Is this news?”

Yes, comrades. Anecdotal evidence is the correct way to respond to allegations of corruption, and not at all unreliable or possibly made up.

Am I pushing the pseudo-naive (attempts at) sarcasm a little too far, do you think?

I hope that when this is sorted, her innocence will be declared by the BBC all day long just as it declared her guilty without proof or substantial investigation on Saturday.

Wait - the testimony of the nanny doesn’t count as proof anymore? Funny, because that’s what sparked this all off…

And now it’s time for some more vague anecdotes:

The week before the vote on abortion, I was contacted by my local press to inform me that that the Labour spokesman for the area had made a complaint about my expenses to the Commissioner for standards.

The complaint was entirely inaccurate, without foundation and thrown out by the Commissioner, but that wasn’t the point. It was made in an attempt to destabilise me during the most important week of my career. Desperate left wing tactics.

Mysteriously, she hasn’t provided any solid proof for this claim. Not, of course, that it constitutes hypocrisy in the light of her demanding solid proof of the allegations against Spelman…

If the left think this kind of behaviour endears them to the public, then I think it simply serves to epitomise how out of touch they are.

If MadNad think this kind of behaviour endears her to the public, then I think it simply serves to epitomise how out of touch she is. Shallow defences of the indefensible rammed home by hypocrisy and ad hominem are just what they expect from politicians these days - along, of course, with the corruption she fails to defend.

The public can see right through this witch hunt, in a way they couldn’t see through cash for peerages.

Wait, was that an admission that the cash for peerages investigation was a witch hunt which tricked the public? I must have misread something…

The incoming Conservative government has many big dragons to slay, the BBC has to be the biggest.

No, Nadine. You’re a greater danger to the Conservative Party than the BBC. You present a challenge to the Nu-Con agitprop which paints the party as a new, socially liberal force. The BBC has never quite managed that. So, if anyone needs to be slain…

EDIT: Just seen this. Maybe she does have something to hide after all…

Boris’ Forensic Audit Panel published its interim hatchet job report today. For the uninformed, this is the bastard lovechild of Andrew Gilligan and BoJo, tasked with weeding out corruption in the LDA.

But before we read the report, let’s have a look at today’s press on it, shall we? From the Tool:

INVESTIGATORS ordered in by Boris Johnson, the new mayor of London, have found endemic waste in the way millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was spent by the former regime of Ken Livingstone.

Huge sums are unaccounted for, have gone missing or were spent with little tangible benefit, according to the audit. And as the accountants got to work, Johnson discovered 39 bottles of fine wine, including Château-neuf-du-Pape, left in the mayor’s office by his predecessor.

Patience Wheatcroft, head of the panel, is “horrified.” Corruption was, the panel has decided, rife. Boris, in the words of the Tool, has uncovered, “Ken’s Wasted Millions.”

That’s the word in the press. Pretty big, eh? And new news too. That’s certainly the implication of all the huge headlines and hyperbolic rhetoric about unbound corruption and Trotskyite racialist cliques.

Now, let’s look at the Panel’s report. All three pages of it.

That’s right; 3 pages. These 3 pages took the Panel a month to pull together, and contain - absolutely nothing that we didn’t know before, and possibly less. The most specific detail is this:

We are, for instance, looking at how a project such as
Caribbean Showcase, which took place in Hyde Park on the same day as the Notting
Hill Carnival, funded largely by the GLA and LDA, came into being. This project has
this week become the subject of a police investigation.

And we knew about that already - and more - from Gilligan. Beyond that, the vague, careful prose of the report goes no further. In fact, they’re forced to make hints of a withdrawal in places:

We are investigating the extent to which the Mayor’s advisors exerted pressure on the
LDA for various decisions to be made and what the consequences of this may have
been. However, it appears that they would have been within their rights to do so.
They are employed to help the Mayor achieve his objectives and the LDA is charged
with delivering on those objectives.

Emphasis mine. The pressure was there, sure; but they were allowed to make that pressure, perhaps.

So, the statements to the press should more accurately have read:

“Well, we’ve had a good, hard look - that’s why we had a month, we assumed - and found that there may have been some mispending at City Hall, which probably wasn’t directly connected to the Mayor, and that there was certainly overspending, again which may or may not have had anything to do with the Mayor, but it was all legally fine anyway, and the problem may well be more to do with the set-up itself, not those involved. Oh, and did we mention that we only know this because we read Andrew Gilligan’s articles? We cite him on page 3, and provide a nice summary of them afterwards for you.”

Oh, and did they mention they spent a full month on public money putting this paltry document together? Not that such a display of incompetence and waste would be hypocritical at all…

The Panel’s report was a short document saying nothing new in very weak terms. The press reportage of the Panel’s Report was a shitstorm of overblown headlines which made out that serious dirt had been dug and Boris was the shining knight in armour who’d done that digging.

Notice the difference between the two? Perhaps it’s time for an interim judgement on the Forensic Audit Panel: they’re the first place to look when they want to get on with “rationalising” operations at City Hall.

EDIT: I should remember, hat tip to Mr. Stop Boris for reminding me the report was out today and that the press coverage this morning wasn’t just more baseless propaganda. Except, of course, it was…

A relief but not by a margin large enough to leave me comfortable.

Once again Ian Duncan Smith establishes himself as a useless imbecile by declaring that his proposal is

“It’s just pure common sense.”

A standard line used by the Tories when lacking in evidence. All of the studies {y’know, with empirical evidence and the stuff conservatives traditionally used to rely on back in the day?} have shown none of the “Need” proclaimed by this shoddy example of a Conservative and this rather leaves me with the impression that the entire thing was nonsense on stilts, an unsubstantiated proposal reliant upon pure prejudice to sustain it. That it was not thrashed more thoroughly is something I consider to be a consequence of the ascendancy of idiocy and something we must recall will increase along with the rise of the right.

Best quote comes from Tory MP Patrick Cormack, who says:

We should not, out of a misguided concept of equality or fairness, pretend that there is an automatic right for anyone to have a child, regardless of sex.

Whether it is the male or female sex he considers to be lacking this automatic right is not made clear.