…please leave the internet alone:

Film-style age ratings could be applied to websites to protect children from harmful and offensive material, Culture Secretary Andy Burnham has said.

They won’t work. Cinema age-ratings work only because cinemas sit employees outside the entrance to check whether those going into a film look old enough. Video age-ratings work sometimes because shop-staff can refuse sale to those who look too young, and sometimes because parents can decide whether or not a child should watch it.

Neither of these can be said of the internet. To enforce website age-ratings, you would either need to sit a particularly patient policeman in front of every computer, ready to pull the plug at first sight of “naughtiness” or simply institute a blanket filter of certain material nation-wide; because, of course, the internet can’t judge the age of those using it.

The former of these options is simply undesirable. Who wants a state-employed busybody sitting in their living room - and who’d be willing to pay for one to sit in every living room? The latter, though, is just as bad. A blanket filter would affect not just children, but adults who have every right to decide what they should read.

So, Mr. Burnham, when you say:

“It’s not about banning or stopping people having that freedom of expression. It’s simply about clearer signposting, more information, so people know where they’re working.”

You are, of course, lying. Any possible attempt to enforce your ratings would require intervention into the lives and choices of every dweller or user of the internet. This is, in itself, an assault on the user’s freedom of expression; control over what you read or watch matters as much as control over what you say. The liberty to do both springs from the same idea that rational individuals have a right to their own minds, and this would clearly impact their ability to use those minds.

Moreover, to set yourself up as the supervisor of the internet further sets you up as moral supervisor to the entire nation. You decide what’s suitable for whom, and at what age individuals are to be judged mature; the clear implication being that they can’t decide this for themselves, and need protection in the meantime. An assault on their independence, at the very least.

Burnham, you’re not my mother. I already have one of those. She’s considerably less controlling than you have apparent aspirations to be, and I love her a great deal more for it. Perhaps you ought to learn from this…

(Hat-tip, as I just hadn’t read the news very well today: Jennie)

The reshuffle is more horrible than I could ever have imagined. Yes, it’s the return of Peter Mandelson, he who starves the poor and says that Brown should hold New Labour to the “Centre” rather than swinging left (when in fact the former would require the latter). John Hutton is moving to a role which will let him arrange killing people and Geoff Hoon, the man who previously did that job so poorly that British troops were fighting without basic body armour, is now in charge of transport. Doubtless a bus sighting will soon become a rarity.

In other words, the ascendency of the Blairites has become total. In this time of economic collapse Brown has found no place for the left. Perhaps he wishes to play the reliable New Labour acolytes off against the more radical Millibandians or perhaps, as usual, he’s just being a damn fool.

The plot for ID Cards trudges on:

The first identity cards from the government’s controversial national scheme have been unveiled.

The biometric card will be issued from November, initially to non-EU students and marriage visa holders.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the cards would allow people to “easily and securely prove their identity”.

So? Smith claims that these cards will make it easier for those here legally to prove that fact yet, if they’re here legally, they shouldn’t have to do so. It requires a lot of work and patience to enter this country legally from outside the EU. They have to prove their identity to do so - and once they have done, shouldn’t have to again. It’s incumbent on the government to enforce its laws without assaulting innocent individual’s liberty, and yet it clearly does so here.

But, there’s more:

“We all want to see our borders more secure, and human trafficking, organised immigration crime, illegal working and benefit fraud tackled. ID cards for foreign nationals, in locking people to one identity, will deliver in all these areas,” she added.

Don’t papers alreeady exist to help there? If the government feels they aren’t detailed enough, perhaps it should simply look into fixing that. It should be enough to add a fingerprint to immigration papers. They cannot be copied, and the need for a centralised database of details is negated by the useful fact that individuals carry their fingers with them and so can produce a fingerprint on demand.

And that possibility rather negates the argument that this is to the benefit of immigrants rather than the government. They don’t need to issue ID Cards, but will do so anyway. Presumably, they have a reason to do so, then; perhaps to accustom the population to the idea that they must justify their legal business at any time by forcing a group which can hardly protest to do so.

It fits with the next segment targetted; students and the young. People this age are, of course, used to proving their identity on a regular basis, softened by years of showing ID to buy alcohol or cigarettes. Like immigrants, the group has no strong political voice, and doesn’t vote in large numbers. So it’s another social division the government can foist ID Cards on with little trouble. The wider population becomes gradually used to the idea that they must carry ID Cards; so when they’re rolled out on a voluntary basis, more take them. And that suits this government.

Smith and the Home Office know there’s little active desire or support for a mass system of ID Cards. They can create that desire - or rather, weaken inbuilt suspicion - by fixing the idea that we should have to prove ourselves to the government. They can do that with less of a fuss by forcing vulnerable groups such as immigrants to do so first. And thus the idea becomes seen as normal; which it most definitely is not.

On the off-chance that anyone would miss me I should mention now that if the rumour of John Hutton being chancellor in David Miliband’s cabinet comes to pass then I am leaving the country.

Edit: I noted shortly after making this post that the “Defence” slot was filled by Jack Straw, meaning that he will leave the nation’s protection in the charge of a man likely to lose his seat in the next election. When I mentioned this to Douglas he pointed out that John Hutton too is present on the “at risk” list. This considered I can but hope that this list was pure Blairite fiction, as in hindsight it does appear to be anyway.

I am forbid by blog policy from naming the subject of one of BenSix’s recent pieces, but it’s well worth a read all the same. I read the article he targets and found it inexplicably agitating. Ben managed to root out the flaws effectively and with finesse.

I’m certainly pleased that he saved me the bother.

(In other news: if I hear the word “Postmodern” uttered again, I may well have to punch someone. Preferably an intellectual.)

A recent quote from a member of cabinet struck me as particularly enraging:

British businesses, and ultimately the British people, would not forgive us if we shirked our responsibility to do what’s right because we wanted an easy ride from green lobby groups.

At the time I was unaware of the identity of the man, but should probably have guessed. It was none other than John Hutton, the arch-Blairite who earlier this year made a speech concerning the rich that set my teeth grinding. Like a true Tory he declared that:

Rather than questioning whether huge salaries are morally justified, we should celebrate the fact that people can be enormously successful in this country… Rather than placing a cap on that success, we should be questioning why it is not available to more people

Because, of course, the cause could not possibly be that if there is a finite amount of money a few people hoarding enough for entire cities to live lifetimes off the consequence is horrifying inequity. How foolish of anyone to suggest as much. And if a couple of connected city boys can make a killing then that’s worth a party.

His latest piece of nonsense is just as repugnant and left me struggling to comprehend the idiocy in much the same way: the green lobby groups he cites are interested in averting the end of mankind as a viable species on a planetary level. In terms of “Responsibility to do what’s right” you would struggle to do much better. He continues, however:

we will continue to show leadership and commitment in advancing the sustainable aviation agenda. We will help make flying greener rather than restricting people’s opportunities to fly altogether.

which is nothing short of baffling. I should clarify: at present the only approach to flying which can make things “greener” is for it to happen less. The damage inflicted upon the environment by releasing vast quantities of CO2 directly into the skies is massive and unless there are less planes doing as much we will continue to have a problem. If Hutton wishes to see less damage inflicted through producing alternative measures then he should announce policies funding the massive costs which any such development would entail. As far as I can tell all that he has done is announce an airport will be expanded.

Furthermore this is clearly not a matter of “restricting” anything. The argument is not over whether or not existing runways should be closed down, it is over whether a new runway should be opened. Therefore Hutton is arguing in entirely the wrong direction: he is not arguing against restriction but in favour of expansion. The two are obviously distinct but with this underhand sophistry he pretends to be acting against forces demanding regression, while in fact making the case for a destructive development.

The reality of the matter is that the effects of the expansion upon both the local and global environment would clearly be disastrous. By focusing upon the fact that there are groups which will give the government a hard time over policies which will inflict such damage rather than the perfectly legitimate arguments which they make Hutton performs a neat but dishonest sidestep. This is, of course, a totally short term approach to the economy: in a globalised economy the impact of large tracts of the planet vanishing beneath the sea and vast areas becoming uninhabitable owing to heat would ineluctably impact Britain. Unpleasant though it undoubtedly is emissions of carbon dioxide must be reduced, both here and everywhere.

If India and China produced as much of the stuff per head as Britain does the planet would be rapidly rendered uninhabitable, and if we do not reduce emissions then what grounds will we have for expecting them to restrain themselves? Hutton, however, does not feel that we should establish ourselves as the example which we could easily become. He is of the view that the British economy here and now, or perhaps for the next few years, is all that matters and that what occurs in a few decades is not a concern. Just as well, given that the consequences of environmental disregard will be economic disintegration.

And this is with restraining myself from even mentioning the narrow-minded callousness of focusing solely upon the “British economy” and disregarding the truly vast amount of suffering caused to vulnerable areas of the planet (Bangladesh, the warmest parts of Africa, need I continue?) by climate change.

What with his calling Labour the “Natural party of business” and vigorous defence of the 10p tax rate debarcle is there any option but to consider this foul man the epitome of all that’s wrong with the New Labour project?