Usefully Useless

It’s just before dawn and you’re getting out of bed, ready to shower, make breakfast and go to work.

Just then, government forces with submachine guns break down your door and forcibly bundle you into a vehicle with blacked out windows. You’re taken to jail on suspicion of a crime – They think you’re a subversive, you might believe things the government says you’re not allowed to, but you’re not allowed to know what.

You’re denied bail and you still don’t know what it is you’re supposed to have done. The government considers the evidence to be secret, such that you can’t see it. Your access to a lawyer is only a few minutes a week, even if he was able to prepare a defence for you, which he’s not allowed to do.

Which country are you in? Iran? Zimbabwe? Maybe Orwell’s fictional 1984 dystopia?

No, you’re in Britain. Manchester, to be specific.

It took senior judges to point out the clear injustice and absurdity of what happened when, to two men from Manchester, this ostensibly western government turned on them.

We’re seeing quite a lot of this in the news, but we haven’t had one recently. So what exactly is it?

To start off we need some General Election results, so I’ll use an Ipsos Mori poll, which gives 37% to the Tories, 31% to Labour and 17% to the Lib Dems. Assuming next year’s election has the same result, this would result in a hung parliament.

When parliament is “hung”, it means there is no government. A government is whichever party has control over the House of Commons and at 37%, the Tories would not have control: They could be defeated by the combined 48% of Labour and the Lib Dems.

After an election, the Queen asks the leader of the controlling party to form a government, yet no party would be in control and hence the electoral process is “hung”, it cannot proceed. By “in control”, it’s meant that a single party could unilaterally introduce and pass legislation.

The last time this happened was in 1974, where a re-election happened again in the same year. There are usually three options:

1. A coalition government can be formed. On the continent, this tends to be the norm. Two (or more) parties will agree to work together to form a majority government, subject to certain concessions. If our 2010 election is hung, the balance of power lies in the Liberal Democrats – Whoever they form a coalition with will be the government.

2. A re-election can be issued. There are no guarantees that such an election would result in a clear majority, but they often do.

3. A minority government can be formed. This is the weakest option, as the government would not have control of the House and so could be defeated at any time and an election forced. A minority government is usually the party which has more representation than any other single party, but if the opposition parties were to band together, they could defeat the incumbent, something not possible in a majority government. A minority government can have severe problems passing crucual legislation, such as The Budget and will often have to make serious concessions in order to pass such legislation.

In all likelihood, the Conservatives will win the election outright and Brown will be probably resign as Labour leader but if they don’t, then whoever Nick Clegg decides to work with will be the key question being asked.

After a lunatic who should never have been given a licence in the first place shot up a school (Hamilton, Dunblane), the knee-jerk political reaction was to ban handguns and further tighten firearm laws.

It’s resulted in this. A former soldier is now faced with 5 years in jail for handing a shotgun, which he found laying around outside, handing it in to the police.

The police immediately arrested him for possessing an unlicenced firearm and the judge has no option: The law is very clear that ANYONE, regardless of intent, holding a firearm is guilty with a minimum sentence of five years.

This man served his country as a soldier, then tried to serve his country again as a good citizen. Then they locked him up for no good reason. The Government wants to get firearms off the streets, so why is it that if you hand one in to the police, you’re guilty of a crime carrying a minimum term of five years?

We need a Government able to make laws which do not carry harsh, knee-jerk sentences in emotionally charged times. We do not have one. It’s time for democracy to work for the people rather than against them.

Two more members of the ACMD have resigned over political interference in the scientific process. Alan Johnson, Home Secretary, is increasingly in an ever more beleagured position after his blundering reaction to Prof. Nutt has disturbed a hornet’s nest.

But that’s not why this post is here. This post is for the most hilarious, backwards, reality-denying piece of “journalism” I’ve ever read. Yes, it’s the Daily Mail.

Go on, read it.

It essentially boils down to “The problem with science is that it’s based on facts”.

At no point does the Daily Mail tell us why we shouldn’t trust facts, indeed about half way down it Godwins itself by pointing out that the Nazis used facts too.

So then, Daily Mail, if we are not to use facts, then what are we to use? Hunches? Wild guesses? Chicken entrails?

Do people really fall for this blatant propoganda?

When evidence, facts and truth do not fit in with what the Government wants, simply sack those who’re promoting them! Not wanting sound scientific and medical principles clouding his judgement, home secretary Johnson has got rid of the head of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs, Professor Nutt.

The home secretary said that Nutt had been “lobbying for a change in policy”, citing this as his reason. Now I don’t know about you, Mr Johnson, but I thought the entire point of independent scientific advisors is to tell you politicians – and you are politicians, not medical professionals or scientists – what you should be doing. If that’s “lobbying for a change in policy” then the people doing things wrong are the politicians, not the scientists and doctors.

Alan Johnson, home secretary in question, stated “I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy” – yet he did not explain why policy is running contrary to scientific advice and if he thinks that science is at the whim of one man or is in any way belief based, he is sorely mistaken, because Nutt’s successor is going to be telling Johnson (or, more likely, his Conservative replacement) the exact same things based on the same data, the same evidence, the same reality.

This has been coming ever since Brown took office and started spouting nonsense like “Cannabis is lethal” and “Cannabis kills”, to which the Advisory Committee got back to Brown saying “we’ve reviewed the evidence, the medical data and there’s just no support for your claims” – Brown was not happy. How dare reality not respect Brown’s beliefs? It is the hallmark of failed leaders throughout modern history that they ignore independent scientific advice, from Napoleon’s dismissal of the steam ship to Bush’s promotion of “abstinence only” sex education. If a policy is not science based, not reality and truth based, then what exactly is Brown basing his policies on?

For his part, Professor Nutt is predicting that more of the ACMD advisors will be quitting, citing government interference in the scientific process. In this case, it seems the impact of facts and truth with politics has left reality in the worst shape, with politics blundering on as usual.

Nutt in particular believes that politicians wanting to appear “tough on drugs” for simple popularity reasons is undermining the entire purpose of drugs regulation:

There’s no point in having drug laws that are meaningless and arbitrary just because politicians find it useful and expedient occasionally to come down hard on drugs. That’s undermining the whole purpose of the drugs laws.

That’s right folks, Brown and his motley gang have no intention of making useful and working laws, they simply want to hoodwink people into liking them. I can think of another party which does the same, headed by a certain Griffin.

About time!

In the UK, the House of Lords has traditionally been our highest court of appeal (apellate court) where the Law Lords, former judges given peerage for exemplary service, would hear appeals. This separated judicial power from legislative power but did not separate legislative power from judicial power, the disjoin was only one way.

This made many wonder whether the House of Lords was fair under the European Convention on Human Rights. It became a very real danger that the House of Lords couldn’t provide a fair trial under that convention. Our archaic legal system was (and remains) a badly suited mess, Blair wanted to reduce the power of the House of Lords to further the cause of democracy; The House of Commons is elected, the House of Lords is not.

Detractors have claimed that the Supreme Court’s justices could use their power to elevate themselves above the House of Lords committee they’re succeeding, which Lord Phillips said was possible but unlikely.

I suspect the next step will be to a codified constitution, which may well be a dangerous step to take. Constitutions have a habit of becoming obsolete and dated, reflecting the views of their time and being very hard to alter.

For example, a clause (Second Amendment) in the United States Constitution came before the establishment of professional police forces, so provides for a peacekeeping militia, who did this job before police. Nowadays the Second Amendment has been corrupted into a "right to bear arms", a purpose it was never intended for and merely a byproduct – The militia being an amateur "police force", the amateurs would need weapons. The firearms debate goes on (I’m personally on the pro-gun side) but it’s not what the Second Amendment intended to do.

The Irish Constitution identifies the woman’s place as in the home and has numerous references to the Catholic religion, both guaranteeing freedom of faith in one sentence and outlawing it in another. Then again, it WAS written by a crazed bunch of religious terrorists in Fianna Fail who, back then, WERE little short of jihadists in all but name.

In both cases, the highest apellate courts have the power to strike down a law as unconstitutional, that is, running contrary to the protections afforded by the respective constitutions. Without a constitution and with merely codified law and case law, our highest appellate court has traditionally been somewhat underpowered. The best a Supreme Court can do is call a law "illegal" or "inconsistent" with other laws, but then it’s up to Parliament to change it or to change what it’s inconsistent with.

Some of the more authoritarian laws Blair enacted, such as warrantless searching ("Stop and Search") as well as the incredible and widely abused powers given to police and local councils by the Terrorism Act could use this kind of oversight as they are an abomination in the face of liberty.

I’d be quite pleased if the Supreme Court were to elevate itself above the puny committee of the House of Lords it replaced.

With all the news about Murdoch’s “The Sun” daily tabloid shifting its support to the Conservatives, it’s about time for a look at who’s suppirting who. After all a good lot of people vote how they’re told to vote by the newspapers rather than do any reading into party manifesto statements.

The Sun (Aug 2009: 3.1 million daily)
Part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, The Sun has a long history of seeing which way the wind is blowing and following suit. Tory fanboys all the way through the 1980s (and hugely critical of the miners in 1985) and famously ran a huge smear campaign against Neil Kinnock personally for the 1992 election. Almost apologetically after the horrors of John Major’s 1992-1997 power, The Sun switched to Labour in 1997 when it became clear that the Tories had extremely little support. They supported Labour in 2001 and 2005, though the latter was with some reservations.

The Sun hasn’t been without its share of idiocy. It was well ridiculed for running a headline decrying the paedophilia of a teacher who sexed up a 17 year old student, then two pages later it printed a topless shot of a 16 year old on its famous “Page 3″.

The Sun, as with most tabloids, does not publish under its own name on Sunday. Instead the sleaze-basket “News of the World” takes over, which is almost entirely concerned with scandals – And has been embroiled in them itself, quite often on the business end of a libel case or two. It was most noted lately for illegally hacking phones and placing illegal phone-taps and bugs, which drew the resignation of its editor and charges.

Support: Conservative Party

Daily Mail (Aug 2009: 2.1 million daily)
The Daily Mail has long been a supporter of “middle Britain”, though what the Mail defines as “middle Britain” is “right-wing nationalists”. The Daily Mail tends not to unambiguously support one party, but instead prefers authoritarian strong-arm politics no matter who’s championing them. For the Mails many failings, they’re at least consistent in this (It is much like the Financial Times and Independent). The tabloid is likely to support David Cameron’s Tory party in the next election, though it does back many of Brown’s policies, such as his hard stance on gambling and alcohol, for example. The Daily Mail supported “New Labour” as it correctly identified their policies as conservative (lower-case “c”) in nature, most notably at the 2001 election. This earned the tabloid the support of many disillusioned Daily Mirror readers and it took the second place spot from under The Sun.

In recent years, the Mail’s penchant for far-right extremism has drawn attention to it and earned it the nickname “Daily Fail” for some of its more absurd stories, one of the most amusing was using an extremely badly doctored picture of its own on the opposite sheet to a “scandalous” exposé of photo doctoring! The Daily Mail is the only popular newspaper to have come out in support of the British National Party.

The Mail’s Sunday publication “The Mail on Sunday” is much of the same, but more op-ed columns (usually decrying the fall of “family values”, much to the chagrin of women’s rights groups) and a rather unhealthy fascination with cancer.

Support: Conservative Party, British National Party, UK Independence Party

Daily Mirror(Aug 2009: 1.3 million daily)
Like a sycophantic office clerk, the Daily Mirror (before it’s rebranding to “The Mirror” then back again) has always supported Labour and likely always will. This does not mean the paper hasn’t attacked Labour when necessary: The paper famously came out against the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.

The Daily Mirror felt betrayed by Blair’s conservative policies as “New Labour” and were a little lukewarm in their support while Blair’s popularity was at a peak, losing readers to the Daily Mail in this instance. It’ll likely be the only national newspaper supporting Labour in the 2010 election and mocking the Tories, though The Guardian will join in the Tory mocking, it is unlikely to be a strong supporter of Labour.

Support: Labour

Daily Star(Aug 2009: 887 thousand daily)
About as sleazy a tabloid as possible with little to offer other than sensationalist nonsense. During the 2005 election, they gave out a window sticker proclaiming one’s house as “A CANDIDATE-FREE ZONE” to promote apathy, yet another day they told voters to go vote regardless of their choice.

The Daily Star is the low-market sister publication of the Daily Telegraph, so will probably sway to the Tories before the 2010 election.

Daily Telegraph(Aug 2009: 810 thousand daily)
The charter opposite of the Daily Mirror: Known as the “Daily Torygraph”, they’re Conservative to the bone. The Telegraph stayed loyal during the mid and late 1990s when others abandoned Major’s sinking ship and Hague’s patchwork pony. Many moons ago, it was a fierce Liberal supporter. The Telegraph’s response to Labour’s huge victory in the 1997 elections earned them some well-deserved ridicule.

The Telegraph prints little that isn’t scathing of Labour, even somehow managing to blame Labour for the failings of Conservative-controlled councils in many instances!

Support: Conservative (but sympathetic to the UK Independence Party)

Daily Express (Aug 2009: 730 thousand daily)
A yo-yo of a political supporter, as it bounced from one owner to another so did its support. Recently has been extremely critical of Labour and particularly Gordon Brown. It was largely on the fence in 2005 with half-hearted support for the Conservatives, but is gearing up for a much stronger Tory support in 2010.

Support: Conservative

The Times(Aug 2009: 576 thousand)
One of the older papers and of higher quality than the above tabloids, it typically caters for a more educated and wealthy audience, so has to stand more middle of the line, the educated typically leaning left, the wealthy leaning right. Like The Sun, The Times is a product of Rupert Murdoch’s media machine and so it is forced to give support along Murdoch’s whim: Labour in 2001, 2005, but recently critical of them and supported the Tories in the recent European elections. Just like The Sun.

Support: Conservative

The Financial Times (Aug 2009: 396 thousand)
Typically supportive of liberal economic policies, which in the UK are distinctly part of conservativism (as opposed to the US, where the Republicans are the conservatives and generally oppose market freedom, via such measures as tariffs, corporate welfare and government bail-outs). Following this line, the Financial Times backed Thatcher’s extensive privatisation reforms in the 1980s and the conservative (lower case “c”) policies of Blair’s “New Labour” in the 1997-2005 timeframe.

The FT has not yet come out in favour of either of the two major parties, largely because both have near identical economic policies while it is never going to support the Liberal Democrats due to their leftish economic position.

Support: Neutral

The Guardian(Aug 2009: 311 thousand)
Strongly leftist, The Guardian is one of the few national papers of notable circulation to support the Liberal Democrats, though it reserves some areas of support for Labour. Traditionally it has supported Labour, but recently wanted Brown to step down. The Guardian’s 2005 support was Labour, but not at all very convincing and much space was given to the Lib Dems.

Support: Liberal Democrat, Labour

The Independent(Aug 2009: 188 thousand)
The paper itself takes a position slightly left of centre, but (like the Daily Mail and Financial Times) supports whatever party happens to agree with its centre-left position. With both Labour and the Conservatives very much right of centre, if the Independent supports anyone, it’ll be the Liberal Democrats.

Support: None, Liberal Democrats

The BNP have always had a policy of misdirection, this is the root of all right-wing populist parties, especially the fascist ones. That is, they’ll lie and say whatever the hell it takes to win votes when their true motives are often the opposite.

One such fraud was unmasked as the liar he is. In a propoganda video he made, he spoke of three murders in the Barking and Dagenham area.

The only problem was that the “three murders” were entirely made up. Trying to patch the sinking ship, the BNP member in question (Richard Barnbrook, London Assembly), says his words “came out wrong” for one of the invented murders and he spoke “too soon” for the other two.

Expect more of this in the coming months as the general election looms. It’s a policy of the BNP to say what needs to be said and create what “truths” need to be created in order to defraud the vote from the public.

They never did sit well with the idea of democracy (they intend to outlaw elections) so this latest example of their hostility against core British values should come as no surprise from a party which, after all, is deeply rooted in very German and very anti-British ideals.