David Axelrod, Senior Adviser to Obama:

“He’s going to work closely with the Israelis. They’re a great ally of ours, the most important ally in the region.”

Just when change would have gone down well…

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.

I rarely find myself outright trembling with rage and fear. This, though, managed it:

Could they have found a more unreconstructed example of steaming, greasy excrement? The idiocy on display is commonplace Republicanism; peace through violence, defence through bombing cities full of children to dust, the usual. But the boldness of the hypocrisy took my breath away. Just listen to the smug shitmouth:

Interviewer: Are you worried about the escalating costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, I mean, how would we pay for it?

Delegate: We should plant a flag, take the oil, take the money, we deserve reimbursement.

Reimbursement? Reimbursement for what, precisely? You invade a country citing your own country’s defence from weapons you claim an undemocratic dictator foisted on that people; you also claim you’ll shunt off that dictator. You mercilessly bungle that war, to the tune of some 85,000 civilian deaths and leave it with streets dominated by theocratic militias. In short, you do the job for yourself and you do it badly. You have no right to reimbursement.

And the flow of filth goes on unabated. Schwartz feels that it makes perfect sense to actively bomb Iran - that is, take a step past threatening to bomb - on the grounds that Iran might threaten Israel. Note that he doesn’t even try to frame his viciousness as a defence of the bombed, this time; there’s no mention of brutal theocracy as there is by anti-war projects such as HOPOI. He simply sees people he’s never met and likely doesn’t understand, who happen to have been born on the wrong side of the border, and decees they must be flattened. It’s naked, undisguised jingoism.

Politicians are often more restrained by their partisan supporters than by the electorate themselves. Those supporters put the politicians where they were. In McCain’s case, they nominated him. If not for their support, they wouldn’t even be before the electorate. They have to listen to them, day after day, month after month - a practise they only have to repeat for the voters every four years. So, when McCain’s supporters demand the outright obliteration of the Middle East, we know how little restraint he might face should he win the election; none. Isn’t that terrifying?

(Hat-tip: Mr. Eugenides.)

…this time in Northern Ireland. There, the “Family Education Trust” wants the state to withold a vaccine against STDs and cervical cancer from teenage girls on the grounds that it’ll encourage early sex, and that parents should emphasise abstainence.

The base idiocy of this position is well established. Abstinence only sex-education doesn’t work, and simply encourages the spread of disease through ignorance. The desire for sex is a perfectly natural instinct, and one that won’t be quashed because a collection of pompous prigs stand in front of a class and say that it’s naughty. Teenage experimentation will happen; I speak as a teenager who has experimented, and would’ve done so in most conceivable circumstances.* But, because these teenagers have only been told to abstain, they might not know to wear a condom, or about how syphilis/chlamydia/AIDs/etc are spread; so they don’t take precautions. And then teenage pregnancy and STD infection rates go up.

The case for the vaccine is still more simple. The state exists to preserve and extend the freedom of its citizens; one such freedom is from infectious disease, and from dangerous ignorance. A lack of knowledge of how infectious diseases such as this cervical cancer because you’ve only ever been told to avoid sex counts as dangerous ignorace. Therefore, the state must offer full and detailed sexual education, for the sake of the individual and public health. And if a vaccine exists which can prevent the spread of potentially deadly diseases, that needs to be available too; if they vaccinate against meninghitis in schools, why not cervical cancer?

Ah, but doesn’t all this infringe a parent’s right to raise their child as they wish, you ask? Not so. A child does not exist as an extension of their parent’s will; it exists as an entity in its own right. If a parent plans to put that child at risk of infectious disease for the sake of the parent’s beliefs, then someone else must look to the child’s rights and future. It’s in the teenager’s every interest, both in the present and the future, to be safe from disease and ignorance. If they themselves objected on strong grounds, religious or otherwise (and I note this is an offer of a vaccine), then there’d be grounds to withold its provision. But not otherwise. A child is an individual in its own right, and one that exists in a community as well as a family. If it serves that individual’s interests more, then that community must also play a part in raising them.

So, frankly, the “Family Education Trust” can fuck off (preferably wearing condoms, of course.) There are no legitimate grounds to withold a vaccine against a potentially deadly disease from teenagers; especially when it’s an offer rather than a compulsion. Individual and public health must comes before parental sensitivity - and this is no exception.

*Could there be a more unfortunate sentence?

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?

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)

The bill to extend the period of detention without charge to 42 Days passed the Commons.

315 MPs voted for.
306 MPs voted against.

Note that there are 9 DUP MPs. Who, I’m told, voted for.

So now we know. What were they offered to stick with the government? Perhaps Gordon agreed that any homosexuals detained under the bill would be entered for “re-education” while imprisoned…

Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. The DUP has never been known for its attachment to liberalism - or anything approaching it. The government doubtless offered concessions to them, as it was a perfect opportunity to levy something, but had their votes not been so important, they might have gone this way as it is.

Which, of course, says nothing for the DUP.

The Lords will now be crucial. They’ll reject it, I suspect; but will the government use the Parliament Act? It’d be drastic, but it could happen. There’s a lot riding on the Bill, after all. If the government gets defeated on it, they’ll sink from barely treading water to drowning, such is the emphasis they’ve laid on it.

And they might just get away with forcing it through the Lords this time. Their Commons majority was tiny - but it was there. More importantly, they can claim to have the support of the public; that poll showing 80% public support (I worry…) for the measure may see some air again soon.

But would it be in their interests? A devious voice in the back of the mind says the government might not want the bill to pass the Lords. Ministers may well know the bill will have disastrous effects for which they’ll be clobbered in key marginals at the next election. They couldn’t back down from a Commons fight without losing face. But if the Lords reject it, they can blame that for the bill’s defeat and scurry away without as much of a dent to the reputation. I do wonder, at least…

Until then, I’m off to seethe…

Ali suggested yesterday that Labour might privatise itself to avoid bankruptcy. The very possibility of such constitutes an affont to democracy - as it would for any parliamentary party. The danger is summed up well in a paragrph late on in Ali’s piece:

This would only work if assets were available. None currently are, but the party is in government so policy is its biggest asset. Policy could be bid over so, for example, Murdoch might pay £10m to have the abolition of the licence fee in the manifesto. MPs and party members would doubtless object to many proposals, but the alternative is the NEC members becoming collectively bankrupt and party accounts being shut. There goes any election campaign.

The threat is very real. From the New Statesman comes this enlightening admission:

Quite how those who are courting this rapidly declining asset stand to benefit is unclear. Another businessman who is part of the “Syndicate”, as he puts it, is less guarded. If new Labour became a “limited liability party”, it might be possible, he says - not entirely jokingly - to “sell non-core policies, from a customer perspective, as three-to five-year options on implementation in office”. These could include policy sales to the nuclear industry or to the green lobby. “This,” he points out, “could help ensure that national policies achieve the highest returns. And that could only benefit the shareholders - or, as they used to be known, the party members.”

The part is in government. They can therefore hand policy over to whoever will pay. They become shareholders, and run effectively decide what the government does - much as shareholders do to businesses on the market. The NEC is saved from financial doom, the shareholders have their interests seen to, and the voters are forgotten.

It would, after all, be the voters who lose out here. They’re the ones who are meant to pass judgement on government policy, at election time. Whatever NS’ source says on core and non-core policies - already vague, given that at present “core” adds up to a washy commitment to equality for Labour - this system means that manifesto policies voted on at election could simply fly out the window. And with them, the very point of representative government.

“How is this any different to the current system?” you might ask. “Organisations already buy policy from parties, in practise if not theory. The unions and the tycoons for Labour, the tycoons and business for the Tories. It happens.”

And yes, it does happen. But nothing now could be as direct or as forceful as a shareholder system in subverting democracy. There’s at least a semblence of internal democracy in the political parties: members vote on major positions and changes. If a politician has taken cash from a donor and made a decision they oppose, they’ve the opportunity to pressure them and reverse the policy. And it’s relatively fair and equal: one member, one vote.

But there’s a very different semblence of democracy in shareholder-based organisations. Shareholders too can hold their appointees to account, with one, important difference. Where political parties give a vote per membership, and only allow you one membership, shaeholder systems allocate votes per share.

And you can own more than one share. So if you’re rich and interested and buy a majority holding, you can in effect force whatever you want through. One share, one vote - and lots of shares if you can afford it.

Rich shareholders would thus force policies on a party far more reliably than rich donors do at present. The Statesman’s source’s example of the nuclear lobby and the green lobby is a good example. The nuclear lobby tends to be far better funded than its opposition - energy companies versus concerned citizens. They could buy up a large quantity of shares and swamp the smaller, but more numerous, bulk of members. It potentially wouldn’t matter if there was a massive grassroots movement in the party against nuclear development - if the nuclear lobby had enough shares, they could outvote them. And we’d have nuclear power, whether we’d voted for it or not.

Major national decisions would end up in the hand of those that can pay. Very democratic.

If you want a taste of what this might lead to, see this chilling statement from another interested party:

“We have been watching how Silvio Berlusconi created Forza Italia in parallel to his business interests, and we believe that our idea offers a fascinating adaptation to British conditions.”

Silvio Berlusconi is a massive media tycoon who bought into politics with his wallet and his right wing populism. Look at where he is now, and what he’s done.

Rupert Murdoch is a massive media tycoon. Look at what he could do if he bought into politics…

It could happen. And democracy would be dead.

This is vile. Businesses have decided it’s about time that they introduced their own version of the criminal record. The National Staff Dismissals Register, an online database going live later this month, will contain the details of all employees of signed up companies dismissed for simple allegations of certain offences. There doesn’t need to have been any proof, or criminal conviction - merely allegations.

These details will remain on the database for five years. They will be available to any company signed up to the site. That already means Harrods, Selfridges and Reed Managed Services, amongst others.

Presence on the Register is likely to scupper chances of employment entirely. Who’d employ someone who might be guilty of theft, forgery or fraud, if they even suspected them of it? No-one who valued their money, certainly…

They say it’s not a blacklist.

How?

The system is so open to abuse it’s frightening. People have been falsely accused of offences before.  They’ve been sacked for them. They’d lose their job, but they wouldn’t get a criminal record. It’d be unpleasant, but at least they could move on.

This destroys any chance of that. Once an employee is on the database, rightfully or not, they’re on it - and have less of a chance of getting a job. In a case where an employee is wrongly dismissed, that’s simply unfair. You can imagine it. Some lecherous old fart of an employer, as is known to happen, makes advances at an employee. Wisely cautious of flabby middle aged flesh and rampantly under-sexed bosses, they reject them. The boss gets offended, concocts a vague tale of misplaced paper-clips and laptops, and the employee is fired.

And now that goes on their record as theft. For five years.

So, that’s gross injustice number 1. But what about gross injustice number 2? This database utterly dismisses the notion that people can change. Yes, an employee might commit a crime at an early stage, and rightly be dismissed for it. But why can’t they change? Dismissal might be the very spur to drive them back into obeying the law.

If a greasy speck like Jonathan Aitken could do it…

There are reasons employers aren’t allowed to share details of employees. If a crime’s committed, and there’s enough evidence to collar someone, then they’ll get a criminal record. Future employers can judge them on that. If not, then past employers have no right to tar their future with semi-substantiated accusations so weak that they couldn’t even take them to the police.

If a government collected a database like this, there’d be (rightful) outrage. “Statist tyranny!” would go up the cry. “Evil socialists coming to steal your freedom, evil, evil…”

So why is there no outcry when the private sector does it?