The main event was based around a series of stalls, but sadly not as diverse a one as those I witnessed when I covered Love Music Hate Racism. No, this had SWP tents and Stop The War tents and Left List tent and a SWP table and…Well, basically all but three of the set-ups were SWP connected. The first seemed to be some climate change group which the SWP had possibly only let in due to being then impressed at the amount of protesters the Climate Camp and so on were able to mobilise. The other were selling subscriptions to an underground socialist video collection group named News Reel which I didn’t have any money to go along with. I told the man that my money was all going on groceries (the truth) and he told me he knew the feeling well.

The third group were the most interesting by far: Turkish socialists. These types are rather penned in on all sides; struggling alongside the moderate Islamists while repulsed by their neo-liberal policies and incapable of doing anything about the more conservative Islamist movement uprising, while having nothing but disdain for the secularist far-right nationalist movement which seems to have the backing of the anti-democratic Turk generals.

On top of this they suffer, as with almost everywhere, due to a fractured left. They, like the SWP, aspire towards a grouping similar to Die Linke in Germany, which has united the left successfully and enjoyed increasing electoral success. But it seems like they have a good deal of work ahead of them if they wish to manage that. Not, perhaps, as much as the British left…

Speaking of which I got to speak to more people from within Respect. This opportunity was presented to me when I stopped by at the Love Music Hate Racism tent and talked a bit about Bexley’s old school racist nationalism amongst other topics and it turned that (as Londoners) these SWPers were Respect activists. Interestingly one fellow (the second I’ve met who fulfills these credentials) actually was not a member of the SWP and never had been, due to filling the rather unpopular position (at Marxism, at least) of being a reformist socialist instead of a revolutionary. Apparently this is the source of constant arguments between him and his Socialist Worker friends, which I can well imagine but am glad has not prevented them getting along.

He still stated that Respect was now called Left List, but apparently the name “Left Alternative” is also being floated. I hope very strongly that this is not the one they run with as it is truly dire. If they haven’t gotten themselves into a position where they can call themselves “The Left Party” and be done with it then that should be their top priority. A party describing itself as the “Alternative” has never won anything.

In order to try and get my bearings of the place I headed to the entrance of the School of Oriental and Asian Studies (SOAS) where there was a large SWP tent. There I met a lovely middle aged woman who talked to me about the basic socialist stuff. She told me about the local level stuff the SWP get up to, I gave her a rough and weak outline of pragmatic socialism and she told me I should join. I find this an unnervingly frequent (not to mention predictable) occurrence with the SWP, but at least they make you feel wanted.

My response was perhaps not what she had anticipated: I told her that the now century old model of Democratic Centralism left me immensely wary, not only because organising a contemporary party along Leninist structures seemed to be more redolent of an exercise in historical recreationism rather than a serious political project; but also because I was less than keen on being bound in numerous ways by the majority will. She explained how as far as she could the democratic centralist structure was simply a means of getting things done but frankly I consider the continual failure of the SWP to achieve anything much is a testament to the ineffectualness of this argument. I didn’t tell her that, though.

On the upside: they did have free food. This was set up as a picnic in the green, where there was a concentrated crowd of Marxists sitting in circles and a pair of apparently illicit tents. Not a lot of it as I got there pretty late but enough to tide me over until I got home. My gratitude to the Bristol and Manchester SWP branches for the munchables. Much appreciated.

So I headed back through the area to pick up more perspectives. Another Socialist Worker seemed worth a chat so I asked him the time and then struck up conversation. As ever the gregariousness socialism demands of humanity was evident and regardless of their misdeeds as a body upon the left the SWP is characterised by a largely lovely membership. At least offline. This fellow was not from inside London but was the first from the SWP I found who admitted that there was opportunism “On both sides” concerning the Respect debacle. Indeed he went so far as to say that matters were far more complex than a “Left-Right split” and that trying to explain matters in such terms was far too simplistic.

It was now nearing 7 o’clock and I had a decision to make: Tariq Ali or Lenin. The latter was, of course, the blogger Richard Seymour, who was here under that name rather than his provocative nom de plume. The primary factor in my opting for the latter was my total lack of cash. No money to obtain tickets meant that opting for the room with spare seats was unquestionably preferable.

In the event Seymour’s room was pretty packed as well, but there was enough space for me not to be acting as a seat robber. I had a whole spiel planned involving mentioning that I was a victim of sub prime and still seeking employment in this crisis stricken economy (both true) but as it happens I turned up slightly late and the man on the door just waved me through.

Seymour was perhaps not how I’d imagined him but that was largely in the voice, which was a soft Irish one I probably should have anticipated more given he’s mentioned his origins on the blog. I was still expecting something a tad more harsh, firm, clipped and firebrand.

As for content, well it was concerning the pro-war left, who are his targets in “The Liberal Defence of Murder” (although interestingly three of his main subjects, Johann Hari, Nick Cohen and the especially despised Christopher Hitchens are all socialists or social democrats of some sort, although Hitchens seems to have shifted into not calling himself anything yet referencing Marx almost as much as before, if not more).

Both in person and in comments Lenin has described himself as “all over the place” structurally; but if this was truth instead of modesty it certainly didn’t show. There was clearly plenty he’d had planned but couldn’t get in, but this was seemingly because he’d done a vast amount of reading and research and it was to the degree that he couldn’t possibly cram it all in. He’d probably intended to say something about Yugoslavia, I suppose, but I never found that topic immensely interesting anyway so I’m rather glad he failed to. Likewise with Ol*ver K*mm.

As it was he managed to fill forty five minutes and then additional response time with a pleasingly fact dense speech that outlined the nature, power, motivations, methods and follies of the pro-war left. The talk traced how liberal interventionists of the contemporary era had directly borrowed from the colonial tradition (both of the far-right and of thinkers such as Mill and Tocqueville, not to mentioned the much-loathed Reformist Marxist Bernstein) and were now using rhetoric barely adapted from the times when you could get away with phrases such as “Adult race”.

Inbetween these two book-ends there was a discussion point where a surprisingly large number of audience members (including myself) were coaxed on stage to give views or ask questions. This felt pleasingly participative and it’s certainly a tradition I’m glad shows no signs of being abandoned.

Also in attendance was Naadir, former member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and founder of Boris Watch, to which our own Gerry Fenby contributes. I had met him before at the Liberal Conspiracy “Summit” and he kindly bought me a pair of pints while we talked about everything ranging from historical materialism and its importance for Marxists to the Revolutionary Communist Party to Objectivism to the neo-liberal case for a global welfare state.

In all a very pleasing day and one I shall hopefully extend tomorrow by showing up before six o’clock. Given that I’m writing this at nearing half past twelve and haven’t had breakfast yet (let alone got dressed) I suppose that it will not be by all that much…

For those interested Marxism lasts until this Sunday and is held in a variety of venues close to the Goodge Street Nothern line Russell Square Piccadilly line stations. The official website is here.

“The reason I fell out with Ken Livingstone wasn’t his cronyism, waste, or arrogance. The reason I, and I think many other Londoners, parted company with Ken was that he got rid of the Routemaster.”

He hasn’t at all referred to Routemasters as a “wedge issue” with which to batter Ken. No, it’s genuine now, apparently. And always was, oh yes…

Not a Thatcherite.

I trust it’s a momentary lapse. Else, the world will be set out of kilter and the seas shall rise and Labour will win a 4th term…

A couple of predictions, though: should the enquiry exonerate Lewis, he’ll be back. The Tories have invested far too much in his ideas, and his methods, to let such a prime exponent go to waste. And if it finds him guilty and it goes to the police? BoJo can now come out and say that this can’t be his fault, as Lewis admits he lied on his CV - so he couldn’t have known. That’s the tone set by his new statement:

When pressed with a string of unsubstantiated allegations my instinct was to fight and fight hard for Ray. I still hope that he can clear his name. I cannot deny however that my confidence in Ray was shaken by the discovery today that he is not a fully fledged Justice of the Peace and I cannot deny that to be misled on this issue made it harder for me to give Ray the backing necessary to continue in his role as Deputy Mayor.

Dissect that sentence by sentence. You should get;

1. He’s on my side, it’s not my fault I defended him.
2. I still hope he can clear his name, because I want to employ him - and will do if he does.
3. But if he doesn’t, well, I’m shocked, just shocked. Meaning it’s not my fault and please don’t report this too badly.

Notice the, “it’s not my fault,” theme. Or, rather, the damage limitation theme; Boris talked Lewis up to the point that this now becomes embarrassing, so is talking him down just as fast in the hope it all stops. A tactic to expect in the future with other heavily-hyped but unfeasible projects?

After all, there’s the statue of Keith Park, and a no-strike deal with the RMT, and neo-routemasters before 2012…

He talked up Lewis - a “deputy mayor”, no less, despite the agreed definition of the title.  He leaped to his defence at the first sight of trouble.  Now the headlines read “Deputy Mayor resigns” and “Right-Hand man lied”.  Johnson’s judgement was flawed.

For the first time, Johnson can justly be criticised by his many opponants for active stupidity.  Ignorance has been the order of the day so far: now Johnson has bound himself strongly to a marked man.  Lewis’ resignation ruins his own reputation beyond repair, but also leaves Johnson somewhat tarnished.

On this issue, Johnson deserves all the criticism he gets.

- - -
Should it be significant, although I strongly hope it will not, it is worth noting Alan Sugar’s position.  If he does dare to stand in 2012, he cannot use Lewis against Johnson - he hired his apprentice knowing that he had lied on his CV!  The difference, of course, is that Lee McQueen had not been punished by the Church and questioned by police on several occasions for separate incidents.  And he lied about a degree, not, ironically, about being a Magistrate.

These allegations did not stop him from becoming a JP. They did not stop him from becoming an outstanding and respected prison governor. They did not stop him founding a school that has done untold good for East London children and they should not stop him from serving as my deputy Mayor.

In short: “Ray Lewis is a wonderful person who couldn’t have done this because he’s wonderful, and even if he did somehow manage it then, look at everything he’s done since.” And so pinning himself firmly to the, “Ray Lewis is innocent,” crowd. He really needs Lewis to be innocent, now…

Note another interesting parallel with the Lee Jasper case. Quoth the Mayor:

I believe that my deputy Mayor Ray Lewis is being made to suffer now because he has had the guts to serve in this administration and because he has had the courage to speak out against a stifling orthodoxy that has failed too many of our children.

Notice what that is? A diversion, designed to shift attention from the accused to the accuser by smearing their motives. Why the charges have been made has nothing to do with the charges themselves - but it serves as a useful means of ducking them. For Ken and Lee Jasper, it was because Jasper was black. For Boris and Lewis, it’s because Lewis is Boris’.

Noting these diversion tactics, I begin to wonder how honest the enquiry will be. Now he’s so firmly tied to Lewis’ protestations of innocence, it must be tempting for BoJo to make sure the panel is, “sound.” And pack it with primed and paid-up supporters. It wouldn’t be the first time, even in this administration; Forensic Audit Panel, anyone?

But we’ll see. Bet Boris regrets appointing so many important sounding, “Deputy-Mayors,” (with all the closeness the term implies) now…

(Hat-tip to Tory Troll for the quotes)

That’s the parallel that springs most to mind. Allegations of financial and sexual impropriety, as yet unproved, against a senior figure in the Mayor’s administration. And damaging ones at that; to take money from a disabled parishioner and then withold it hardly says good things about the man’s character.

But there comes the major difference - this was more than ten years ago. If Lewis admitted to the charges - if, of course, they’re true - it could be explained away. A lot changes in ten years, and Lewis could point to his record in the community since as evidence of that. It’d stain, but it might not sink him.

He’s denied everything, though. Which is fine, if he’s telling the truth - but simply deadly if it’s not. He’ll be damned as a liar and a cheat, and simply disappear from the face of politics. And it’ll stain the regime, too. Who wants a Mayor who employs a social parasite?

And who wants a Mayor who employs a potential social parasite? Even the allegations smears an unpleasant air of corruption over the administration; one which BoJo needs to eliminate. To cast aside the whole matter, and any parallels with Lee Jasper, he can only follow one course - an immediate, thorough enquiry. Otherwise, it’ll all begin to look even more suspicious…

Notice anything? Yes, that’s right. It’s not very good - again. The actual video is simply dull, visually. Very blocky, dark and far less intelligent than Obama’s. The comparison that springs most readily to mind is a Japanese hybrid car advert, not a brilliant piece of political propaganda. The closest this comes to actual visual or emotional manipulation is the relentless focus on technology and space - signalling a forward looking McCain quite at odds with that white.

White hair McCain seems very reluctant to display, mind. Compare Obama’s presence in his spots - young, smiling and all over the place - with McCain’s gloomy avoidance of the camera. Just two, short appearances in this, and short and sombre at that. It’s almost as if he’s afraid the voters will see him.

But perhaps that’s the point. The video’s underlying message is far more concerning. On the surface rides the usual bumpf; America is wonderful, McCain wants to keep it that way, he’s a patriot. To summarise: Blah. But underneath that comes the real message.

Observe the constant emphasis in the script:

American technology protected the world. We went to the moon, not because it was easy, but because it was hard.

John McCain will call America to our next national purpose: Energy Security. A comprehensive bipartisan plan to: Lower prices at the pump; Reduce dependence on foreign oil through domestic drilling; And champion energy alternatives for better choices and lower costs.

Putting country first. McCain.

Emphasis, as usual, mine. Just look at it; over and over, a focus on resolution and security. McCain will provide a, “purpose,” for America. He’ll, “reduce dependence,” on foreign oil, and so increase America’s economic security. And he’ll cross boundaries as a, “bipartisan,” leader.

The final picture: a strong, resolute leader who’ll work across traditional boundaries for the nations’ good. A uniter, not a divider (sound familiar?). And completely uncontroversial, and not a right wingnut you need to worry about.

And, unfortunately for McCain, it’ll flop. The claims he makes can be scotched in easy terms. The ad says he’s a resolute man who’ll keep at a task until it’s done; which, naturally, explains why this is his third slogan in as many ads. He’s an uncontroversial bipartisan - whose last spot was an attack ad. He isn’t a rightist loon, the ad implies - just one who wouldn’t be averse to, say, bombing Iran.

Oh, and the “uniter not a divider” bit. Already gone, I’m afraid. Change and unity have been Obama’s message from the start, articulated in soaring rhetoric; McCain is a member of the (conservative) Republican Party. That he’s been forced to snatch the meme for himself suggests one thing only - that he’s already lost the election on his own views, and must find someone else’s.

So, he’ll lose?

Note the careful imagery again: Barack in shirt-sleeves, because he’s not a stuffy office boy but a man of the people. Barack as a young man, because he’s not a 71 year old who won’t see his second term. Barack at a community meeting, because he’s a man of the people. Barack on the phone (at 3AM?), concentrating - because he’s a hard worker, who’ll never let you down. Barack signing a law, because he’s got some experience in Washington and isn’t the callow youth of Republican propaganda. Barack with workers, smiling, because he’s a man of the people. Barack with children, because he loves them as much as you. Barack talking to workers, because he’s a man of the people. Barack shaking hands with more workers, because he’s a man of the people. Barack hugging an old (working) lady, because he’s a caring and happy man of the people who everyone loves.

Conclusion: Barack Obama is a kind, friendly, hard-working man of the people, and not at all the aloof, inexperienced elitist of Clintonite agitprop.

And so on. And the message of the script? Much the same:

Obama: I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.
Announcer: He worked his way through college and Harvard Law. Turned down big money offers, and helped lift neighborhoods stung by job loss.

Fought for workers’ rights. He passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by eighty percent. Passed tax cuts for workers; health care for kids. As president, he’ll end tax breaks for companies that export jobs, reward those that create jobs in America. And never forget the dignity that comes from work.

Emphasis mine. The message boils down to:

Barack Obama is a hard-working, ordinary guy. He worked his way through college; hard-working. And he’d rather work hard for others; turned down big money.

He’s a man of the people. He gave them what they wanted; but didn’t let them lounge on the dole like that nasty quasi-socialist the Malkinites claim he’d be. No, he protects American workers, and loves children. A Man of the People, and a Patriot.

So, a message totally consistent with his last ad. There, he talked to camera, espoused mainstream values, and painted himself a man of the people. Here, he protects workers, works hard, loves his countrymen - and paints himself as a man of the people. And rebuffs accusations of cold, unpatriotic, middle-class elitism from Malkin et al.

It’s pure political positioning. Obama needs to erect a break against shit slung by Republicans who smear him as foreign, aloof and socialist; so he emphasises hard work, “American values” and his populism. Vacuous? Mostly. Lacking in a policy message? Certainly. Dull? For anyone across the Atlantic, very probably.

But that’s not the point. 30 seconds isn’t enough to preach a sermon, but it’s enough to give an impression - and that’s what Obama’s doing. And it looks like he’s hit the right (hah…) spots so far…

Hello to all from Chennai, Hyderabad, Bhubaneswar, Mumbai, Mahape, Iwade, Kaizuka, Osaka, Higashiosaka, Sakai, Izumisano, Naniwa & Yuasa. We hope you enjoyed the blog.

Also: hello to our lone reader in St. Helier.

In his piece on the matter last month Douglas argued that the schism was a cause for joy amongst athiests. This is of course untrue and instead appropriate for anti-clericists and anti-theists, a largely inter-locking pair of factions who the Anglican Church have perhaps done more than any other Christian denomination to consider the criticisms of. I can think of no mainstream Christian Church closer to harmless.

This Church being torn in two and half of it being now utterly unrestrained in its bigotry {which is rather formidable in places} is perhaps not the most pleasing state of affairs imaginable. We can but hope that the importance of all religion fades and that the division within the Church weakens its resources and causes both sects to die away. Rather like happened to failed political project, Respect. Not to mention a plethora of other political parties.

Sadly a protracted demise does not tend to happen to Churches for a while longer. Or at least has a far lengthier duration. At least mild amusement is resulting from this one. For instance not the phrase “Protestant sect” being used against the Conservatives, with a claim that this is all that they amount to. As opposed to the Anglican Church, which…?

Worth a read is Ali’s response, which is, as ever on these matters, so well informed and heavily considered I feel like an amateurish ignorant when approaching this issue by comparison. In it he opines that a split was “Inevitable”. I imagine so but articles such as this were doubtless unhelpful. Rational analyses of the institution of marriage were doubtless highly provocative, although not least because it left the conservative case entirely in shreds.

It also makes it pretty clear that considered thinkers such as Chane can not co-exist in a Church also including deranged reactionaries such as Akinola, especially not while both fill prominent positions. Of the two it would cause far more numerical damage to lose the latter, but intellectually I have little doubt as to which would be better to collaborate with.

So it was the position no leader of any organisation would want to place himself in: compromise quality and lose the masses or cede to fierceness and be forced to purge some of the finest thinkers the Church has? An unenviable position for any man, so perhaps for Williams, someone without a doubt a man with the air of the ditherer about him, the reactionary wing forcing his hand is something of a relief.

At any rate, we can only hope that the manner he has adopted in relation to this issue {if anything one too soft} is sustained. Whether I actually desire reconciliation between the two factions is somthing I am presently uncertain over.

Emphasising both the total collapse of the increasing failed New Labour project and the unacceptability of the primary alternative {albeit not to my satisfaction with the latter, but to be fair this wasn’t meant to be a rant} Clegg does his best to set out why the Liberal Democrats are the only viable party for the disenchanted leftists of which there are so many. And what language! “A home for progressives”, why, we clearly have here a man atuned to his audience. Homelessness is unquestionably the sensation overcoming British left-wingers who see their intuitive party of choice demanding six weeks of imprisonment for the potentially without a charge or trial. Who read of alarmingly blatant references to “coercion” in internal government documents. Who plunged us into a pointless war that left our forces mangled and fingers blood-drenched then refused to apologise or retreat. Who seemed to pluck the very worst of statism and harness none of the best.

And that fidgeting, incessant longing for change that wafts across the Atlantic, where it seems that earnest leftism of some sort has become unstoppable. While here that momentum is perversely ridden upon by an institution that bears the word Conservative in its very name. That seems delightful if listened to absently but upon closer inspection reveals itself to be almost as foul as it has always been. Just as reactionary, if not more so. Serving the affluent instead of those with any real needs not provided for by the family estates. Threatening to set about fining those that live in family arrangements which displease it. Eying what little good their opponents have done while fingering an ill-concealed blade.

Yes, Clegg has us pinned down far better than even Cameron and judging by this display his ability to make the correct noises is even more skilled at making the right noises to coax our ear. The extent to which he is actually saying anything different to the Conservatives is questionable (see especially the references to the “Top-down NHS” he wishes to reform and cries for further localism) but there is the advantage that Clegg actually seems to be a man in possession of an earnest bone and thus we can expect these to be his genuine views, rather than merely what is expedient.

However if the Tories talking like him can be forgiven, him talking like a Tory can not be. Any politician who uses the phrase “ordinary families” runs the immediate risk of me slapping down the paper in disgust. There is no such structure and has never been. To exacerbate matters he brings tax cuts into it and thus begins basing his economic policy upon fantasy. Hardly a novel criticism to level at the Liberal Democrats, I am well aware, but when considering them as a viable party of power such matters must come under consideration.

Worse still he has bought into the rather peculiar notion of “Choice” being what the state should aim for above all in public services, rather than doing its utmost to ensure that it offers that service well. For instance in the example Clegg uses of emphasising the parental role in deciding schooling the value of assigning further “choice” is surely highly limited: a parent will wish their child to achieve and to be happy. If educational establishments provided by the state allow for as much then there will be nothing to choose. It is only the failures of the system which parents will attempt to swerve around and unless it can be outlined exactly how this will help resolve them this is in no way a solution.

But besides these irksome raw notes {which are what you get when dealing with even the most charming of liberals} there is salvation: Clegg had this reader almost salivating at his utterly unexpected ressurection of the term “Ethical foreign policy”. I once was posted on a parlimentary placement with a member of the Labour Party who, when I questioned him upon the dissappearance of this promise, curtly replied “Robin Cook is dead.” But in Clegg, it seems, his spirit lives on. A glorious piece of knowledge to possess, if not something we can be certain would become manifest were he to take power.

The pledge alone, though, gives me hope and pleasure. I had imagined the concept lost in an ocean of Saudi oil and the cash-for-firearms dollars of a thousand tyrants.

Clegg described it in the print edition as

lost on the road to Mesopatania

but that he at least has found it gives me some spark of desire for once not entirely futile that Cook’s vision be realised.

Something, then, for everyone here. From the easing of the tax burden (as the cutters would have it) on certain families to the statistical ruminations upon the poor to please poverty warriors to the anti-central talk that pleasures localisers to the aforementioned glee it brought about in me concerning matters abroad. It seems that he has gathered the foundation stones for an electoral coalition, here. Certainly enough for a studier structure than the rapidly crumbling edifice of the Labour Party.

Let us see what he builds.

Oh excellent, I’ll- wait. Ah, I see. Oh well.

• Absolute unique visitors: 1010
• Pageviews: 3580
• Time on site: 00.04.41
• New / returning visitors: 57.27 / 42.73

Breakdown

The most popular post this month was Doug’s comment on the economic disparity between Johnson and Livingstone voters.  We have benefited somewhat from links through from Liberal Conspiracy and Tory Troll.  We are confident such things are mutual

It would seem that Boris intends to ban the evening papers due to them generating too much mess and hassle. Exactly how likely this actually is to occur is uncertain owing to us not being certain whether it is actually his idea (seemingly those that aren’t get priority, perhaps that’s for the best) and how likely it is merely another “Release the River Fleet” is unclear.

Assuming, however, that he does do as much this would annoy Murdoch but relieve the Daily Mail group. This is because The London Paper runs at a mild loss while The London Lite runs at a major one. The former exists to establish itself as its own brand, however, while the latter exists only to serve as a challenger to ensure that the Paper can not, as well as a flimsy and rather poor grade advert to the slightly less low quality Evening Standard. To be honest this shows; the Lite is little more than an even more awful of the Standard and accordingly is truly dire.

However, if what has been claimed will come to pass does then it will have served its function. With The London Paper no longer in existence the Lite could be shut down quite happily, and would in fact save the DMG a good deal of cash. In short, mutual destruction suits them just find.

Less pleasing for them is the woe which The Evening Standard has encountered. Admittedely a fair proportion of this must be due to the free dailies but the newspaper being well to the right of the average Londoner {the only socialist writer they have is a neo-conservative chap so loathsome I won’t even honour with a naming} and also of very low content quality and production values.

{You may well note that it tried to suspend reality by claiming to be a “Quality newspaper”. I find this the height of irony as every newspaper possesses “Quality”, be it high/good quality or low/bad quality. It is rather akin to saying that a film “Contains language”, only more inane because they are trying to assert themselves as a valauble product while displaying that the editor is incapable of using the English language properly.}

But regardless of my view of the rag the numbers suggest that it will be gone in five years. I find this news pleasing but I’m not sure if I can wait that long. Of interest is that this will leave the DMG in control of a pair of outfits, one The Daily Fail and the other The Fail on Sunday. This will seemingly seriously curtail their influence, albeit after the 2012 election, where they will receive one last chance to offer hard-line support for the right.

There is a chance, of course, that this Boris ban turns out to be just another lie {see: amnesty for immigrants} and that the sales of the Evening Standard pick up {doubtful} but this certainly creates an interesting vision for the future. Not to mention a pleasing one; few of the downfalls would I regret. It would only be a pity to see the only paper Murdoch has failed in ruining outlawed.