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.

Some commentators have criticised Obama for not responding to McCain’s attack ads in kind. He simply doesn’t need to - voters do it for him. Like so:

Obama gets the attack ads; they hit home. And he can claim he’s still the insurgency candidate who’s above the old, negative politics. Rather what he’s looking for, no?

(Hat-tip: Jennie)

Some mainstream media blogs are usually worth reading.  I like the Telegraph’s blog network - the content is thick and fast, but posts are always refreshingly short.  A good balance.  Until this kind of rubbish finds its way onto their webspace.

I am sure Melissa Kite is a journalist of merit (although I can’t say I have every been overwhelmed by one of her articles), but her comment on David Cameron’s suggestions of alcohol leave a lot to be desired.  In an informal atmosphere, Cameron was hypothesising on the role of alcohol in the home - namely that if people drink sensibly in the home, they tend not to drink stupidly outdoors.  The continental model.  It is a common line of thought, and deserves consideration.  To rubbish it as a principle because some deliberately silly hypothetical central government project to promote drinking at home would clearly not work is shoddy journalism.  It is no way to make an argument, even if it is via a blog.

The longer the media take the attitude “I wouldn’t write this for the print media, but it’s fine for the blog”, the longer it will take for them to catch up with the wider blogosphere.

For what it’s worth, I think the cultural attitude to alcohol goes much deeper than whether or not people drink small quantities at home from a reasonably young age, but this is a reasonable approach to take with one’s own kids.  One things I can agree with Melissa Kite on, despite her chronic approach to argument, is that any state attempt to encourage this sensible behaviour would be impossible and equally undesirable.

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?

Just found this:

So very true, too.

(Afraid I can’t provide a hat-tip, as this came to me through a friend on Facebook. Would like to know, though…)

This bears a startling resemblence to a piece of recent euro-legislation. Compare:

The first stage of the campaign will involve hundreds of thousands of letters being sent to net users suspected of illegally sharing music.

The BBC has been told that the firms have agreed to ensure their customers know it is illegal to share copyrighted music.

It is believed that the memorandum also requires net firms to go further in their attempts to tackle illegal file-sharing.

At the same time the government is also expected to start a consultation exercise that could result in laws that force net firms to tackle music piracy.

With:

The legislation would oblige ISPs to disconnect (suspected) filesharers from the internet after two warnings. It wouldn’t matter who’d done the sharing; it wouldn’t matter if it was someone else in the house; it wouldn’t matter if your machine had been assaulted by malware and used without your knowledge. It wouldn’t even matter if filesharing hadn’t taken place - note suspected filesharers.

This clearly isn’t as drastic - largely because it’s thus far just a memo. But the details are similar; an emphasis on attacking suspects, forcing ISPs to do the dirty work, a very clumsy means. That the BBC relate the BPI’s three-strikes policy in the same article worries me even more; implying, surely, it’s what, “go further,” might mean.

So - a similar move, which will receive a similar response. It’s a vague document likely to precipitate an attack on all filesharers regardless of their status, and in a fairly arbitrary fashion. Hardly what the public desires, you’d imagine, given their continued file-sharing. Perhaps the only hope to be salvaged from the article (beyond its embryonic nature) is the line suggesting net-firms will commit to developing legal file-sharing systems - the only way they’ll ever contain the activity.

Until then, though, this doesn’t look to be a very pleasant memo.

On Boris’ plans to criminalise young adults:

“Dear [Assembly Member]

I’m writing to you because I’m very concerned about the Mayor’s scheme to encourage shops not to sell alcohol to those between 18 and 21. You’re my Constituency Assembly Member, so I hope you’ll raise the issue with the Mayor.

The scheme might be voluntary, but the precedent it sets is disturbing. The drinking age is 18, not 21. The young people whom they move discriminates against are adults. If they want to buy alcohol, it’s their right. The GLA shouldn’t make decisions for them - unless they want them to behave like children.

It’s also the right of businesses to sell to whom they want. Many shop-owners are feeling the pinch, at present; some may need these sales to stay in business. And yet, they’ll feel obliged to comply, or be attacked for it. Who wants the editor of a local newspaper, hungry for lurid headlines, denouncing them as soft on yobs? Small businesses face a stark choice; lose money they can ill-afford, or get a bad name.

Nor will the scheme have many tangible benefits. The Mayor believes the drinking culture amongst young people to be deeply ingrained; so how does he think this will help? The move does nothing to address the desire for alcohol which makes binge-drinking happen. It makes it harder for people to get their alcohol - so they try a little harder to get it, and probably look beyond sources where real regulation is possible.

What the move will do is further alienate young adults. The media already demonises youth at every opportunity. This just adds to their social stereotype of young people as incurable monsters. A move against 18-21 year olds to tackle binge drinking, rather than a move against binge drinkers, suggests one thing; that all adults between 18 and 21 years of age are virtually alcoholic. That’s patently untrue, and rejects the vast majority of young adults who comply with the law. Why should they listen to their elders, when those elders just criminalise them? If the Mayor wants to address

I hope you’ll speak to the Mayor about this counter-productive and unjust scheme.

Best Regards,

[Concerned of London]“

Thoughts? I’ve an increasingly large facebook group protesting, and nothing to do with them. There’s little use in gathering an angry e-mob unless you mobilise them…

Jim has a perhaps more balanced view of Caroline Lucas’ launch at the Daily (Maybe). Still fairly complimentary, though:

From my perspective members need to base their decisions in this election on a number of factors;

• whether they trust the candidate will do a good job. I think the vast majority of members will agree Caroline will certainly do that.
• whether the Candidate is strategically placed in a way that, by electing them as leader, they advance the party as a whole. In terms of giving Brighton Pavilion an edge at the general election this is clearly an important element in Caroline’s favour.
• whether Caroline’s politics and tactical vision encapsulate the views of Party members. I think this would be the area that anyone seeking to take Caroline on would have to target if they were to stand any chance of making a credible challenge. For me the message of a radical vision combined with no nonsense professionalism is extremely attractive, but I’m certain there are other points, both political and strategic, that can be made that members will have sympathy with, we’ll have to wait and see if anyone chooses to make those arguments.

Caroline would be, and is, an excellent leader for the Greens but I’m waiting until all the names are in the hat and the arguments have been made before I make my choice of who to support. I’m looking forward to seeing what others can come up with as Caroline has clearly set the bar extremely high.

Seems fair.

We’ve been rather behind on this one. Originally, I’d ignored the whole fuss as another tabloid celebrity sales-orgy - until this excellent post by Jim Jepps. So, time to rectify my silence, I think.

It’s not a matter of free speech, as the News of the World claims. Very few claim that the paper shouldn’t be allowed to publish the story - if it’s true. What’s at stake here is privacy; which, as usual, the paper has very little respect for. To infiltrate someone’s house (or £35,000 dungeon, as the case may be…) and film them without permission represents a blatant invasion of that individual’s private space.

Nor does the story fall in the category of public interest usually used to justify such invasions. What an individual does behind closed doors, in private, is just that - a private activity. If that private activity happens to involve whips, chains and dangling pricks, then who else can judge? There’s little evidence to suggest that Mosley’s particular private predeliction affected his performance in public. And so, little evidence to suggest either the public or his employers had a desperate need to know of it.

Indeed, the fact Mosley can afford his £35,000 private spanking parlour perhaps suggests he’s doing perfectly well in his job, thankyouverymuch. (And, of course, that income tax isn’t progressive enough yet…)

So it’s not a matter of free speech or public interest - which is what’s concerning. The direction of media coverage throughout the case has been a tad depressing. As Hari asks - hadn’t we got over this sort of thing? Most people manage a, “none-of-my-business” shrug for an increasing number of sexual preferences. Why not BDSM? And, likewise, the very possible (and probably more relevant) discussion that could be had on prostitution has been conspicuously absent.

A very interesting discussion (which, unfortunately, I don’t have time to engage in tonight. Should do at some point though…) could be had on the ethics of power exchange in sex. I imagine the very phrase would have as a divisive an effect on a crowd of feminists as pornography. Is it a simple projection of patriarchal power structures, or a matter of sexual freedom? Or, indeed, possibly both at different times, in different circumstances…

But, of course, the real world finds itself stuck with a tabloid induced celebrity sales-orgy. Could there be an apter demonstration of the internet’s superiority that the contrast between the wood-pulp mush and Jim’s post?

I hate to fearmonger, but:

Could Europe be drafting a new law to disconnect suspected filesharers from the internet? MEPs have already signalled their condemnation of this approach. But last-minute amendments to telecommunications legislation could bring the so-called “3 strikes” approach in by the backdoor. If you want your MEP to stick to their guns on 3 strikes, write to them today to voice your concerns.

The legislation would oblige ISPs to disconnect (suspected) filesharers from the internet after two warnings. It wouldn’t matter who’d done the sharing; it wouldn’t matter if it was someone else in the house; it wouldn’t matter if your machine had been assaulted by malware and used without your knowledge. It wouldn’t even matter if filesharing hadn’t taken place - note suspected filesharers.

And that wouldn’t be all, would it? A vague section of the legislation might give rightsholders the right (hah…) to demand personal information about subscribers from ISPs without reference to a court. Other amendments give rightsholders similar powers to leech information retained to fight terrorism.

Now, let’s summarise. A sweeping assault on all filesharing; complete disregard for users’ privacy; an arbitrary system whereby users’ can be struck off as suspects; and a blatant ignorance of what the public actually wants, as evidenced by their continued filesharing. And all this contained in a document as long and obscurantist as most EU legislation, tucked away as a few amendments few were likely to read. In short; a vile piece of legislation which threatens to tip me into outright euroscepticism, and whose sponsors deserve to be torn apart on the vicious rocks of electoral catastrophe.

Oh, and did I mention the vote was tomorrow? Get writing.

(Hat-tips: Jennie at Yorksher Gob, whence the story came to my attention; and panGloss for a highly informative post on the matter)