I have already made comment on the new Number 10 website.  It seems as if  the design was stolen from the Themes Database, and badly botched before being put online.  Full comment with outgoing links from the theme’s author.

This just goes to show how monumentally divorced the government is from the real world.  There is no excuse in hiring a company to make a website on an open source platform and then not declaring copyright disclaimers.  If the press released shouted “open source”, even the most technically unaware individual in the Number 10 office should stop and think “wait, that means we didn’t make it ourselves.  Maybe the copyright notice should reflect that”.  It is a disgrace.

It really gets to something when government cannot even deliver a simple Wordpress website without messing up.  I have used loads of Wordpress themes in the past, all with appropriate copyright notices.  It was with a slight smile on my face that the latest theme for this website went live with my name at the bottom, not anyone else’s - I built it from scratch, line by line.  Apparently the Number 10 website cost £100,000, but it is no more technically advanced than this site, and whoever put it together could not be bothered to design it, or even steal a design properly.  I am obviously wasting my time, when I could be making government websites for ludicrous sums.

As a wannabe web nerd, I spend some time browsing professional Wordpress theme designs.  Today I spent some time mocking up a design for my own website, which I will begin building in the next few days.  It was with interest, then, to find that the much-trumpeted Number10 website has been unveiled - built on Wordpress!  Get Gordon, all trendy and open source!  Just today I read an article by a blogger on the problems with pushing Wordpress too far beyond a simple blog format, trying to decide whether the platform can really cope with uses beyond those which it was designed for.  In short, I love Wordpress and am happy to mould it to suit any purpose, but the kind of site at Number10 should really be on a more robust content management system.

(I suspect at this point that most readers will not care greatly about the intricacies of Wordpress as a publishing system, so I shall leave the issue aside.)

The visual identity of the site is remarkably different to the old one.  What was once a practical website that looked as if it was created by a team of civil servants with solid scripting knowledge, but little eye for design, is now reasonably professional but not remotely official-looking.  It feels like the website for a small business, not the gateway to the seat of power.  But the simplicity and closeness is not necessarily a bad thing.  The colour scheme works well, and the use of white space is a stark contrast to the overbearing mass of information dumped by the previous incarnation.

This is genuinely web2.0.  Not only is it open source in software, it fully integrates feeds from Flickr, Twitter and YouTube.  This is, really, everything that WebCameron is not.  Where WebCameron is lacking, Number10 shows the Tories how it is done.  But where WebCameron works, this is too poor a comparison to look like an imitation.  There is no original blog content from the PM himself - why use easy-as-pie Wordpress if nobody is actually blogging?  And why on earth is all of the video contained in a TelegraphTV-style media centre instead of being embedded into articles?  Fundamentally, though, why use blogging software if there is no facility to comment?

This could have been a great break for government to reach into new media.  To get the public’s attention where it is of most value - on the internet.  I have long argued for the internet as being massively more important for government than any other media source, including television and newspapers, and this site relaunch was the perfect opportunity for government to wake up.  But they are still slumbering.

The gesture of using Wordpress is thoroughly unnecessary.  There is no good reason for using a blogging platform for the kind of content the Number10 website hosts.  If the website were to contain blogs, or even comments under articles, Wordpress would be perfect.  But for the kind of use Number10 has, Wordpress is simply the wrong package to choose (even from the open source options available).  The (surely deliberate) attempt to look hip and trendy by straying into WebCameron territory is pointless unless the great benefits of WebCameron are realised.  Most argue that Cameron’s site did not go quite far enough towards interaction, and, fundamentally, failed to keep moving forwards.  Instead, it has stagnated.  The new Number10 has a ready stream of content to keep it fresh, but it is simply press releases and speech transcripts.  I want to see short video clips of Gordon behind his desk telling us “I’ve just got off the phone with Putin, discussing South Ossetia.  We are agreed on…”.  Such content can be put up within minutes, and would give the public at least a nudge towards believing that Gordon is actually serving a purpose behind that shiny black door.

This is a typical government Emperor’s New Clothes phenomenon.  You know the story: the Emperor is really proud of his new outfit and shows it off to everyone.  Blinded by the Emperor’s presence and the fact that everyone is enamoured by the outfit, everyone is amazed by this most brilliant set of clothes ever produced.  Until one thoughtful person points out that the Emperor is, in fact, stark naked.  Here is a blog: it’s built on Wordpress, it looks like a blog, it feels like a blog, it quacks like a blog… etc. In fact, though, it is nothing of the sort.  It uses blogging software where a traditional CMS would be more appropriate.  It integrates photos via Flickr instead of directly though the site simply because Flickr sounds trendy.  Likewise video is pumped via YouTube on the front page, because of brand association, and then via a different out-of-the-box system on a the video page because YouTube isn’t actually the best way to show video after all.  As for the use of Twitter: a nonsense gesture, and transparently vacuous.  Everything that makes this website look like a blog is inefficient and wrong: in short, only there to make it look like a blog!

They don’t seem to get it.  The Number 10 website could easily have become a fantastic blog-based hub of accessible government.  It could have featured regular minute-long video pieces from the prime minister, with comment facilities below.  It could have hosted the ability to discuss the vast number of press releases and speeches archived on the site.  It should, at the very least, have hosted a blog from Gordon Brown.  He need not have pretended he had time to log into Wordpress and hit “publish” five times a day, but if he can squeeze out three books while Chancellor and Prime Minister, he can knock off a few blog posts each week.

I do not regularly comment on new government website builds, but this one was different.  It was built up in the press as the dawn of a new era in prime ministerial closeness.  Instead, it is a perfect exercise in appearing to be everything that you want, but actually turning out to be nothing at all.  I am severely disappointed in this squandered opportunity: the Emperor’s clothes may be new, but they are not actually clothes at all.

It looks like I am holding the fort here at Scribo Ergo Sum while my esteemed co-writers are variously engaged away from broadband connections.  Only through such experience can I consider Harriet Harman’s plight at the moment.  Stuck in London while her boss is practicing pilates in a jacket and tie somewhere in East Anglia, Harman is the only senior Cabinet member at home.  Poor woman; I almost feel pity.

To avoid an embarrassing croquet-at-Dorneywood incident, Harman has been cleverly concealed away from the prying eyes of the press.  Smart.  The media machine rumbles on, slowly losing steam over the will-he/won’t-he of a Miliband coup.  The news channels are full of Olympics, taking up as much as half of each bulletin.  The Conservatives are continuing to drip out press releases each day, policy by policy, quietly preparing the ground for an all-out assault at Party Conference.  And we are all blissfully oblivious to the fact that nobody is actually running the country.

The government’s response to South Ossetia is beginning to cause a bit of a stir (proving that journalists will literally write about nothing in August!) in the blogosphere and beyond.  But the problem extends far beyond foreign policy.  The SATs debacle is still on the agenda, and mercifully nobody is trying to brush it under the carpet.  The sad fact is that nobody is even in the building to pick up a broom to begin with!  Ed Balls is nowhere to be seen.  Nobody has adequately explained how the mess was allowed to come about to begin with, nobody is dealing with the consequences, and nobody is taking the flak.

Or take the economy.  Inflation is up to 4.4% today: well above double the government’s own target.  Alistair Darling’s attempt to reassure the public that he was “considering several options” last week was a resounding failure, not least because he indicated that people ought to wait until the Autumn for a better picture of the government’s plans for the housing market.  The result: people decide to sell in a few months, further hitting the ailing industry.  He appeared on radio with no policy to announce or explain, and no timetable for action to set out.  He wanted simply to show people that he was there, doing his best.  But his best was to speed up the property slump: a shocking failure.  After that miserable performance, it seems as if some wise advisers suggested that he should keep quiet for a few weeks, leaving all official Treasury business to be fronted by Yvette Cooper.  Who has done nothing but muddy the waters further.

I must admit to finding Silly Season a little refreshing.  One is not being constantly bombarded with suit-clad ministers running from studio to studio rubbishing the other guy’s latest lightbulb-above-head moment.  Sport and celebrity weddings take the place of reports and committees.  But there is a catch.

I like to see MPs as like police officers.  When all is well with the world, I don’t want to see them at all.  If the presence of police on a tube platform is slightly unnerving, the sight of MPs in summer is deeply concerning.  But if an attacker is approaching me 100 feet under Central London, I would dearly love a whole battalion of burly hi-vis-wearing coppers to march to my rescue.  Likewise, if everything is going up the spout, I expect to be lead by my government.  They were elected to govern, not have seaside photo-ops in a cat and mouse game of “I’m on a proper holiday”, “No, I’m on a more proper holiday. Look, I’m even wearing a T-shirt!”.  If some idiot contractor has screwed up exam result processing, I want someone to say “sorry: here’s our plan to avoid repeating this farce next year”.  If some idiot Chancellor has screwed up not trying to fix the economy until the Autumn, I expect him to either apoligise and announce a solid plan to save the economy, or to apologise and state firmly that there won’t ever be a plan to save the economy.  And if some idiot not-really-a-deputy prime minister cannot be seen to be taking control of government for fear of looking like she is positioning herself to depose her leader, then the whole sorry Labour party is far too fragile to be allowed anywhere near the corridors of power.

Giving the impression that you are on holiday, and letting the nation take a breather, is a fantastic skill in otherwise driven politicians.  But if you are the captain of a pleasure cruiser, currently heading for some rocks, you don’t grab a poolside sun lounger on the upper deck.  This government is cruising, rudderless, towards a whole series of crises at home an abroad.  And whilst they ostentatiously jump from the diving board boasting about who is on the most “normal” holiday, the cabin is empty and the warning lights are going unheeded.

The Police surrounding Kingsnorth Climate Camp were issued a booklet entitled “Policing Protest” by the sinister sounding National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit. Indymedia brings us a dropped booklet - and very englightening it is too. The pamphlet is very vague in places, with key terms defining what precisely constitutes an offence left to individual judgement and whatever’s considered, “ordinary,” by the office (see p7).

So, are there any dangerous extremists at Kingsnorth? I think it’s time to consult the booklet. Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 states:

An offence is committed:

I if a person uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

II Distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

So, in short - if an individual frightens another individual with the threat of violence. Did that happen at Kingsnorth? Why yes, comrades. You see that snarling man in the centre wearing a fluorescent jacket brandishing what looks to be a blunt object, as though he’d do violence against those unarmed citizens; he looks to be just such a dangerous extremist. And don’t those unarmed civilians look scared?

Note also that provocation to unlawful violence is an offence - one the Police already stand accused of. Baton charges and full riot gear aren’t usually deployed against pacifists and vegans. It’s uneccessary, and smacks of an attempt to intimidate said vegans. So when those baton charges are carried out, they become offences under Section 4A of the same Act:

An offence is committed if with intent to cause a person intentional harassment, alarm or distress, a person:

I uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
II displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Not looking good, is it? Similar offences took place under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Unless, of course, smashing the windows of supply vans and the confiscation of materials essential to basic hygiene isn’t an attempt to harrass protestors.

Perhaps the Kent Police will fare better under Section 12 of the Public Order Act, which deals with public processions. It states that conditions may be imposed on activity if it might result in:

I serious public disorder

II serious damage to property

III serious disruption to the life of the community

IV the purpose of procession is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do.

Let’s treat the columns of police vans that made their way to Kingsnorth as a procession. They’re guilty of all four offences, I’m afraid, thus:

I Baton charges rather count, I think.

II See exhibit A; note also the theft of soap, crayons, board games, essential building materials, etc.

III We can treat the Climate Camp as a community; it has its own food supplies, kitchens, and even neighbourhoods. The Police have surrounded this community, search anyone who wants to enter it, cut off its food supplies and stolen numerous personal possessions (see II). This seems likely to have disrupted the community.

IV Peaceful Protest is a right guaranteed under the Human Rights Act. The protestors haven’t yet perpetrated violence, so can be assumed to be peaceful; they’ve thus a legal right to do as they have. The Police have interrupted their protest, and so compelled them not to do an act they have a right to do.

Section 14 concerns spontaeneous protest, so we’ll let them off here; the Police have clearly planned this for a while.

We move onto the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 now. Section 42 concerns harrassment of the individual within their home. It states directions may be given should:

I that person is present outside or in the vicinity of any premises that are used by any individual ( “the resident”) as his dwelling;
II that individual believes, on reasonable grounds, that that person is present there for the purpose (by his presence or otherwise) of representing to the resident or another individual (whether or not one who uses the premises as his dwelling), or of persuading the resident or such another individual that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do or
that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do;
III that individual also believes, on reasonable grounds, that the presence of that person (either alone or together with that of any other persons who are also present) amounts to, or is likely to result in, the harassment of the resident; or is likely to cause alarm or distress to the resident.

We’ve already defined the Climate Camp as a settlement; it follows that tents and shelters contained in that settlement should be defined as (temporary) dwellings. The Police have entered into that settlement, patrolled outside the dwellings within, and taken possessions from those dwellings. That smacks of harrassment - and so, another offence against their own rules.

There follow a long string of inapplicable sections, before we reach Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It states an offence is committed if an individual trespasses and, “does anything to intimidate persons on that land,” to deter them from any legal activity. So - how does entry into a private tent and taking soap, with the immediate intent to prevent protestors from engaging in the legal activity of washing, and the wider intent of making legal protest less attractive, sound? Like an offence, that’s what.

The section regarding Offence by Harrassment is obscured. But, given that we’ve already shown harrassment has taken place, we can assume the police are culpable here, too. Likewise Section 4 of the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, which makes it an offence to, “pursue a course of conduct, ” which, “causes fear,” that violence will be used against them; that Baton Charges were threatened and occured incriminates the Police here. Preventing food supplies reaching the camp almost certainly required a public highway to be obscured; an offence under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980.

So, that makes the Police at Kingsnorth guilty (at least) of offences under the Public Order Act 1986; the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997 and the Highways Act 1980. Quite a charge sheet. But where will we keep them all while they’re on trial?

The Police can only justify their existence when they protect liberty. And yet, at Kingsnorth, they’ve demonstrably abused the law - and broken it on numerous occasions. The Climate Camp protestors have exercised their democratic right to protest, and the police have tried to stop them. In a more firebrand mood (or when drunk), I’d denounce them - and their masters at Westminster - as enemies of popular freedoms who fully deserve to be torn apart in a wild and bloody revolution as the people reclaim their rights. As it is, I’ll merely shake my head and say that I really do worry…

(Hat-tips for evidence: Indymedia, JimJay, Coventry Greens, Stuart Jeffrey)

It isn’t a great week for the Home Office, is it? First, overt abuse of police power at Kingsnorth; and now the Lords splatter 42 Days. It’s just a shame it’s in August, where it’s easier for them to ignore the obvious by sitting on a beach…

Brown is clearly at severe risk and when even some of the unions are baying for blood (or at least a Major style “Put up or shut up” confrontation). This is hardly surprising, but what has taken me aback is the pathos extracted from his weary, bloated face.

It is essential that we remind ourselves that this is the man who demanded the state be able to imprison the innocent for six weeks, who allied himself and bribed far-right foul bigots to ensure that the act was past, who demanded cannabis be declassified despite this directly disregarding the conclusions of a panel of experts reporting on the issue, who taxed the poor to give minuscule breaks to the moderately affluent, who now plans benefits reforms reminiscent of prison workforces and who has performed a plethora of other idiotic moves in his short reign.

Brown’s beleaguered state is richly deserved. His “Phantom Election” is much touted as his grandest folly but had the economy which he had been charged with for over a decade as Chancellor been kept in a better state the likelihood of the crash being as severe as the one we have actually experienced is small. Without the economic downturn Brown would be in a far better, perhaps even unassailable, position. Without his constant stream of policy that irks his natural base he would have held far stronger against the Tories than he has.

Brown has served as his own gravedigger.

But as for the alternatives? Cameron speaks sense in places but is about as worthy of trust with power as a ferret with a rabbit den. So far as can be determined none save the Blairites (Clarke & Co) are willing to step into the actual position of Prime Minister (and given the conditions surrounding that chalice can they be blamed?) At least one other writer for this blog agrees with me over backing Miliband to the hilt, but he has proven (understandably) wary of the prospect. It would take a politician of nothing short of Messianic proportions to redeem the Labour Party now.

But there can be only so much waiting: at the present rate of erosion it seems likely that there will be precious little Labour Party left to inherit for whoever takes over after Brown. If it were to be done then it would be better that it were done quickly. Each day which the present order remains in place appears to be another step by the Labour Party towards oblivion.

I’ve had to wait a few years for it but finally there’s another proper exchange between two of my favourite writers. Further to what I had to say on the matter they’ve both said their piece here and here. Riddled with reformism though it unforgivably is Seymour is easily the victor here. This is because Hari suffers from his usual, crippling flaw: rather than argue critically each point as it comes he constantly references his thoughts to the looming and increasingly inevitable prospect of what the Conservatives would do. So his view of Labour policy is only condemnatory to an extent sharply restrained by his disdain towards the Tories. This is a highly limiting constraint for any writer. Consider this:

In the Labour model, you will never be cut off, provided you are willing to work. In Wisconsin, you can only receive benefits for two years in your entire life, and every week you claim, the clock is ticking. Once you hit your two years, that’s it: your benefits are severed forever…In the Labour proposals, you don’t have to go to work until your youngest child is seven. In the Wisconsin model, you are forced to leave your baby at three months old.

This does indeed demonstrate that the Wisconsin system is horrific in terms of impact and folly to consider worthy of an introduction. But it is in no way a defence of the Labour system to say that it doesn’t go horribly awry in the way that the American model Cameron wishes to adopt would. A piece of public policy should not be doing such perverse things anyway and the fact that it doesn’t is what we should expect.

As I have said before what this policy amounts to is a low-cost version of social democracy, that has the unfortunate end result of a model more akin to prison earning than state employment. If this is the sort of relationship which wariness towards statism left unchecked leads to then we are left with scanty improvement on outright opposition to the welfare state. So long as you are willing to work as the near slaves of the government, runs the line, you shall continue to be granted state cash.

A perverse outcome, and what a pity that Hari’s binary vision has him so distracted with the outright hostility towards the poor on offer from the Tories that he can not witness the idiocy being planned and plotted by the present party of power.

The Some unions want Hutton out:

Gordon Brown is coming under pressure from the unions to remove John Hutton from his post as Business Secretary, The Times has learnt.

Union leaders say there has been a complete breakdown in relations with the leading Blairite minister and are demanding his scalp in an autumn reshuffle.

Mr Hutton’s future is set to become a trial of strength for the Prime Minister after colleagues and business organisations made it clear that they would be unhappy at his removal in such circumstances.

However, one senior trade union official said: “Some of the trade unions can’t sit in the same room as Hutton. There has been an absolute breakdown in relations.”

About bloody time. How can anyone who even claims a vague affiliation to socialism or social democracy cope with that man? He’s the absolute caricature of a closet Tory.

(Hat-tip: New Direction)

Quoth First Deputy Mayor Bastard Tim Parker:

“We are in an age where there is a lot of pressure on funding and I know the attitude of the current mayor is to make sure that we properly fund Transport for London,” Mr Parker told BBC One’s Politics Show on Sunday.

“If that means following the inflationary increase in costs then it’s only responsible to see what the impact should be on fares.”

Translated: I’ll put your fares up. Parker’s missed the crucial point of public transport - it’s for the public. And is consequently isn’t serving its purpose if members of the public can’t afford it on a day to day basis. His vaunted customer value is useless if the customers (who, strangely, used to be known as passengers) can’t afford it.

If that needs more money, then campaign for taxes on those that can afford them. Say perhaps, very wealthy asset-strippers. Don’t kick those who can afford it least, and those who use public transport most, by ratcheting up their fares.

Wait - did I mention very wealthy asset-strippers? Oops. Parker will get upset if we remind him of his past. Must remember to keep quiet about it in future.

Quite why am I reading Robespierre? Specifically, his Justification of the Use of Terror. It’s terrifying (hah…):

It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government. Does your government therefore resemble despotism? Yes, as the sword that gleams in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles that with which the henchmen of tyranny are armed. Let the despot govern by terror his brutalized subjects; he is right, as a despot. Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty’s despotism against tyranny. Is force made only to protect crime? And is the thunderbolt not destined to strike the heads of the proud?

Emphasis mine. The doublethink inherent here boggles the mind. State-terror is justified should it be directed at enemies of liberty, he cries. That this terror requires a basic negation of liberalism appears beyond him. If some people are legitimate target of oppression, and others are not, then clearly freedom from that oppression cannot be a universal value. If that freedom isn’t a universal value, then we clearly aren’t born equal or free - and so on. Robespierre’s words are those of a tyrant.

They represent an extreme perversion; the enabling state gone bad. He posits that we must rid ourselves of tyrants to be free. True enough. But here he falters, with crashing rhetoric demanding an outright tyranny against tyrants. That requires a universal negation of liberty - and a restoration of tyranny. The enabling state exists to make basic freedoms viable for all. When, in order to create liberty, those basic freedoms are cut off - very literally, in Robespierre’s case - that concept ceases to make sense.

Now, let’s put this arcane rambling into a modern context. Quoth Robespierre:

Society owes protection only to peaceable citizens; the only citizens in the Republic are the republicans. For it, the royalists, the conspirators are only strangers or, rather, enemies. This terrible war waged by liberty against tyranny- is it not indivisible? Are the enemies within not the allies of the enemies without? The assassins who tear our country apart, the intriguers who buy the consciences that hold the people’s mandate; the traitors who sell them; the mercenary pamphleteers hired to dishonour the people’s cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fire of civil discord, and to prepare political counterrevolution by moral counterrevolution-are all those men less guilty or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?

Emphasis mine. The same principles abound as before; some are permissible targets for Terror, and so liberty isn’t a universal value. We can kill some of you to make the rest free, and you’d better appreciate it or you’ll be next.

And guess where that logic crops up today? Substitute, “terrorism,” or, “anti-social behaviour,” for, “counterrevolution,” and it becomes clear. The same clear logic of the, “Justification of the Use of Terror,” runs through virtually all modern counter-terrorist thought.

Even the rhetoric matches, give or take the linguistic drift of 214 years and translation. Take that last question - on whether the servants of tyrants are as guilty as those tyrants. Doesn’t that sound just like Bush’s axiom that, “if you feed a terrorist, or fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist?” It’s exactly the same principle; if you’ve any connection with terrorism/counter-revolution, you are a terrorist or counter-revolutionary.

Thus, Melanie Phillip’s, “terrorist nation.”  A wall around the West Bank because Hamas exists there, regardless of the blameless children who also happen to exist there. Because, in this system, they’re not blameless.

And it goes beyond that. The enabling state and the values of positive liberty again become perverted. The 42 Days detention farce serves as the perfect example. Labour claims it protects the basic freedoms of life and liberty by introducing the measures; but effectively jeopardises those basic freedoms by allowing the police to grab a citizen off the street and hide them away for 6 weeks without telling them why. In a perverse twist of illogic whereby liberty becomes tyranny for liberty’s sake, liberty loses. And so do we.

It’s absurd to equate Revolutionary Terror with the present situation. But it’s the same thought that underlies both; freedom must be restricted for its own sake. It’s a perverse step which attacks the real purpose of the Enabling State. Certain intervention can make greater liberty available to all - but not when that liberty is undermined at a basic level. Modern politicians would do well to learn that, or face the consequences of their own petty tyranny.