Mandelson's Irrelevant Memoirs

Jackie Ashley, in her piece in the Graun this morning that's basically a 1500-word moan about why-oh-why the Labour party is imploding and so many people are 'abusing' the party's record in government, describes Mandelson's new memoirs as "bank-swelling". I'm not sure I agree with her about that. Beyond all the MSM political hacks who must buy it (assuming they're not given free copies), the professional bloggers (one of whom probably helped to publish it), MPs and former ministers, (who'll all be desperate to see if they get a mention from the oily old pocket-liner) I have a sneaking suspicion that very few people will be remotely interested enough to shell out their hard-earned on such an artefact of conceit.

You see, the thing Labour people like Ashley don't seem to grasp is that contempt for the Labour party and all its works has gone well beyond mere abuse now. Try as she and her BBC husband might to talk it up, the fact is that people have moved well on from the Labour narrative and are comfortable with the new, Tory/coalition one. So comments like this from her, let's face it, pretty desperate piece...

Somebody needs to fight back against the hysterical torrent of abuse being poured on Labour's economic record, which after all included a decade of good times, the rebuilding of public services, and successful action to stave off a full-scale collapse in the banking system. It may be too early: the self-righteousness of the Labour-haters now matches the self-righteousness of New Labour in its pomp. But the time will come.

...sort of pretty spectacularly miss the point. The "hysterical torrent of abuse" would not be the relevant thing even if it actually existed (it doesn't), the outcome of the general election is, with millions of people deciding, not as "self-righteous Labour-haters" (a rather feeble example of the sneering hyperbole I've often heard from self-righteous Tory-haters like her), but as ordinary voters, to reject Labour and its pisspoor record. You know, in their self-righteous Tory-hating, which shields them from all conceivable criticism, I think Labour-losers still really haven't understood the fact that they have lost the argument - comprehensively and conclusively - and that they are, consequently and with increasing shrillness, talking to themselves.

The sales of Mandelson's new novel, the serialisation of which is safely hidden behind a Murdoch paywall, should provide a fair measurement of just how irrelevant Labour have quickly become, and just how far the country has moved on from them and their sorry tale of failure in government.

Me? I expect to see it in the bargain bins within weeks, along with Mandelson's memoirs.

Will Heaven On Freedland

I never thought I'd say this because I haven't really 'got' Will Heaven so far in my relatively short blogging journey (maybe I'm jealous of his relative youthfulness and palpable cleverness - I certainly apologise if those are the reasons!), but he's just posted a piece answering that desperate Freedland thing that caused a bit of a stir in the leftwing media today of such dazzling brilliance that I'm afraid I've caved-in to the temptation to cut and paste it here so that you don't have to venture into its natural habitat to read it:

Emails from my Lefty friends have been pinging into my inbox this afternoon.Their subject lines have all been similar: “What do you think about Jonathan Freedland’s article in the Guardian on life under the Tories?” Hardly surprising, since it has been trending on Twitter all day. But I thought I’d take a closer look at what’s really worrying the brilliant Left-wing columnist.

Freedland writes, à la Kinnock: “I warn you that a chance some have waited for all their adult lives will slip away, perhaps taking another generation to come around again: the chance to reform our rotten, broken electoral system.”

But do the voters really want Labour sharing power after 13 years in government? Surely not, judging by recent polls which suggest a Labour collapse worse than one overseen by Michael Foot in 1983. They’ve had enough. And if you won’t listen to the electorate, at least read Boris Johnson on the problems with PR:

With PR, you end up with two types of MP and two types of democratic mandate; you promote the rise of extremist and fringe parties, such as the BNP, which has exploited PR to capture a seat on the London Assembly; and you end up with a system that is not remotely proportional. As Clegg knows full well, the effect of PR is greatly to magnify the influence of the third or fourth or fifth party – at the expense of the first or second. Look at Germany, where the FDP was able to hold the balance of power, and retain the foreign ministry for decades, in spite of winning only 5 per cent of the vote. Look at Israel, and the disproportionate influence of the minority religious parties.

All these are grave defects, but there is one final and overwhelming reason why Britain should not and will not adopt PR – that it always tends to erode the sovereign right of the people to kick the b––––––s out. Look at Belgium or Italy and see the disaster of coalition governments, endlessly forced to appease their constituent parts, chronically unable to take the decisions necessary for the country.

Freedland knows this first-hand. The only time I have met him was on a trip to Israel during the last Israeli election, when he explained to me and other students – in crystal clear terms – why Avigdor Lieberman, a Russian Right-wing nut (and former nightclub bouncer), was about to be made the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs despite his extreme party, Yisrael Beiteinu, only receiving about 11 per cent of the popular vote. PR – and a weak coalition government – was to blame.

Freedland continues: “If Cameron wins, he will not only thwart any move to fairer voting, he will act fast to rig the system in his favour. Even neutrals agree that his plan to cut the number of MPs by 10% – presented as a mere cost-cutting measure – will be one of the grossest acts of gerrymandering in British political history.”

The above link – to an Independent story – was a curious one to include. The so-called “neutrals” are David Blunkett, some unnamed “Labour officials”, and – finally – there is some research from the University of Plymouth which concludes: “The geography of each party’s support base is much more important, so changes in the redistribution procedure are unlikely to have a substantial impact and remove the significant disadvantage currently suffered by the Conservative Party.” Right, so that supports Freedland’s argument, does it?

Thirdly, he calls for “reform of our absurd, unelected second chamber” which, he writes, “will be postponed indefinitely, enabling Cameron to pack the Lords with his mates and sugar daddies, including perhaps a few more of those businessmen who so obligingly sided with the Conservatives in condemning Labour’s plans for national insurance.”

Why not acknowledge the fact that the Conservatives have themselves pledged to reform the House of Lords? Here’s the key quote from their manifesto:

We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords, recognising that an efficient and effective second chamber should play an important role in our democracy and requires both legitimacy and public confidence.

Freedland laments the Tory plans for the economy, saying, “I warn you that the economy could slide back into despair… A sudden shut-off of the public spending tap could well send a frail recovery staggering back into recession: the dreaded double-dip. It’s happened elsewhere and could happen here.”

But, as I blogged earlier, the argument that swift debt reduction could endanger the British economy is wearing thin, as Greece’s debt crisis shows worrying signs of impacting Europe as a whole. As one influential financial journlist (who until 48 hours ago was planning to vote Lib Dem) put it to me: “There is only one way for the UK to avoid a Greek-style crisis, and that is to reduce the country’s deficit as quickly as possible. The Tories’ economic plans have been vindicated.” The Economist and the Financial Times – both of which have backed a Conservative government – seem to agree.

Freedland is suspicious of Cameron’s wicked, wicked plan to ringfence NHS spending and of the Tories proposed inheritance tax cut, which is unlikely to happen soon. He is also anxious that single mothers and widows will receive £3 a week less than married women, because the Conservatives believe that the tax system should promote the family.

And he is sceptical about fusty old Tory backbenchers, while failing to note that half of them are about to be elbowed aside by a new intake of younger, more progressive, Conservative MPs. He is worried by David Cameron’s friends in the EU – but I think Daniel Hannan has answered that claim effectively on his blog, pointing out that “the ECR is more respectable than either of the two big blocs, the EPP or the Socialists.”

Finally, Freedland wishes he had time “to make a positive case for Labour, echoing its promises on a living wage and a cap on predatory chargecard interest rates or its plans for green jobs.”

But the truth is that – after 13 years in power – there really is no positive case for Labour. Tomorrow, the electorate will show they know it.

Superb. And here here!

Comment Isn't Free

I kind of wondered what the Grauniad's online moderators would do to all those who dared criticise the railway engineer crook running the IPCC's pisspoor article in their unquestioning organ on why he isn't a crook, why he should keep his job - and why the world really is about to end (no, really, it is). Well, Bishop Hill has had a look for us and has found the predictable, depressing censorship by the zealots continues unchecked:

Not a comprehensive survey, but of the first 50 comments on Pachauri's article in the Guardian, 18 were deleted.
Criticism is forbidden.

When it comes to the left and the climate change scam, comment isn't free, and, as Bishop Hill says, criticism is forbidden. I find that sinister, don't you? No scrutiny, no dissent, just the word of the IPCC and its tame propaganda outlets, such as, of course, the Grauniad.

Neat.

Guardian Declares War On Journalism

The Guardian's chief political correspondent, Nicholas Watts, has launched a ludicrous attack on Rupert Murdoch on behalf of Peter Mandelson (who else?) that'll appear in tomorrow's edition. There are some extraordinary claims that suggest a distinct and burgeoning paranoia on the part of the Labour Party - (you remember them, the ones that sucked-up to, erm, Rupert Murdoch for 12 years); a familiar, hypocritical stench surrounding Mandelson; and typically ovine support for any old nonsense from his pet newspaper, the good ol' Graun.

However ridiculous the story, though, it's might (ought to) cause one hell of a row, not least with the Tories.

Here are a couple of the more extraordinary claims (supported by zero evidence in the article itself, as far as I can see):

Lord Mandelson declared war on the Murdoch empire today when he accused News Corporation of maintaining an "iron grip" on pay television and warned that the company wants to import rightwing Fox News-style journalism to Britain.

Um, what? I know News International's just announced that it no longer wants people like me nicking their stories (big deal - and fair enough, they don't belong to me, and they're usually naff anyway) but that hardly amounts to an 'iron grip'. As for wanting to 'import rightwing [sic] Fox News-style to Britain', well, no complaints here. It might at least break the monopoly of the biased BBC - and be interesting, to boot. Again, though, Watts doesn't feel the need to substantiate the claim.

In a sign that Murdoch also faces a fight in Britain, Mandelson turned his fire on a joint Tory-News Corp campaign to dismantle the broadcasting regulator, Ofcom.

Again, no substantiation or evidence, just a repetition of an increasingly shrill Mandelson slur about a joint Tory-News Corp 'campaign'. This is the Guardian at its very, very worst in terms of journalistic standards. Have they seen any documents that support Mandelson's bizarre, shrill charges? Of course not. Do they care? Well, if Watts was a genuine journalist he would. But he doesn't so he's not. He's just a mouthpiece for mad Mandy.

But wait, what's this - further into the article? Evidence?

Cameron pledged to dismantle Ofcom during a speech in July devoted to "cutting back the quango state". The Tory leader said: "With a Conservative government, Ofcom as we know it will cease to exist."

James Murdoch, the chief executive of News Corp in Europe and Asia, accused Ofcom in August of imposing an "astonishing" burden of regulation on Sky.

Sorry folks, 'fraid not. For one thing, Cameron made his speech (about quangos) a month before Murdoch Jnr's machinegun assault on anything not Sky (which is sort of his job, after all - to make daddy proud). But still no 'evidence' there. Just more half-baked accusations and the flimsiest of flimsy circumstantial claptrap bordering on a waking dream. And anyway, James Murdoch was right, too! The burden of regulation on broadcasting generally in Britain is outrageous. Oh, unless you're the Beeb of course. Then you can do whatever they like, editorially and financially, despite being funded by a legally enforced tax.

In the end, of course, this is all about Mandelson who, ably served by his tame Guardian journalist, is pushing his ultra-partisan 'Digital Britain' bill, which is actually designed to do just one thing, and its not to secure Britain's digital future (there's no 'we' in Labour). It's to secure the left's control of the BBC from now until doomsday. Well, Pete, doomsday for you could be coming sooner than you think, with or without Murdoch's (junior or senior) help.

As for the Guardian, well, we've long known that its standards of journalism are basically the lowest in the entire legacy press, at least in terms of giving two hoots about even the pretence of impartiality, but this joke article represents an outright declaration of war on the profession itself. No evidence, just mindlessly parroted Mandelsonian smears; no attempt to qualify those claims, just dutifully reinforced prejudices.

I mean, how can it hope to be taken seriously if it keeps on behaving like the BBC? Obviously, we can expect more of this kind of crap as the general election nears, and it should be criticised for precisely what it is: activism and cynicism, not journalism.

The Graun had better remember that the Tories will probably win that election...and that they have long memories.

Anti-Smoking Fanatics Will Lose

Warning: this is a bit of a boast post.

A few days ago, the truly horrible Duncan Bannatyne published a truly horrible set of thoughts (it hardly qualifies as an article) on the Grauniad website about why he would "only be happy when smoking was banned" and calling for children to report parents who smoke in their presence to the police. Their own parents! I was so incensed by his fascistic attitude to what is certainly an unhealthy habit, but nowhere near at the apocalyptic, genocidal levels anti-smoking fanatics like him would have us believe, that I posted a few innocuous remarks of my own in response.


The piccy is hard to read unless you click on it. This is what I said:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Another proselytising ex-smoker banging on about his Damascene conversion and the need to treat evil smokers like second class filth. It's not the anti-smoking thing that gets me, it's the sheer hatred masquerading as concern and justified by a dangerous sense of moral superiority.

Stick to making money by exploiting the hard work and creativity of others, mate. That's what you're "good" at.

Next!

Not quite an exocet, I know. Yet a few days later, when glancing at it again, I was pleasantly surprised by the response my gripe had stimulated, complete with 800-odd "recommends", which is pretty high for Cif.

But I was far more impressed by the deluge of other (far better) comments that together nailed Bannatyne comprehensively and deservedly. Old Labour, Brownite brown-nose that he is, too, the ubiquitous condemnation couldn't have happened to a nicer man.

Suffice to say, a far more libertarian, anti-authoritarian mood is definitely emerging in this country, and that is a cause for optimism. There is hope for Britain after all.

Jackie Ashley Comments

I just thought I'd take the opportunity to make a quick note of some of the more entertaining responses to Jackie Ashley's fresh assault on the Conservative government in yesterday's Grauniad. "The what?" The Conservative government. No, not the last one, for that one has gone and can be trashed no more. She speaks of the Conservative government that is to come (she's convinced it's coming then).

This left wing ("leftwing" as the Graun hacks prefer to use, pathetically copying the US media) seer seems to think the the next Tory government will be some sort of dystopic nightmare, a la Nineteen Eighty-Four or Darkness At Noon. You know, just like the last one wasn't and just like this Labour government has more-or-less been. Curious.

To be honest, I'm not especially interested in what this silly cow has to say for herself. She (and her husband) are the journalistic equivalent of soggy toilet tissue as far as I'm concerned. But some of the comments 'below the line' - some from people whom I know have absolutely no love for the Tories - are quite refreshing and, in fact, far more interesting than the original, basically dishonest bit of lefty propaganda penned by the other half of the Marrs show. If you really want to read it then you can find it on the Graun website. I wouldn't recommend it, unless you're very bored, so I haven't bothered to link to it.

A few of the comments...

1. "stevehill":

What are they supposed to do? They're history and they know it.

They can't uninvade the Middle East. They can't credibly repeal reams of legislation like 4,000 new criminal offences and manic control-freak surveillance without looking stupid. They've been well and truly rumbled on the fact that their "investment" in better public services has been at the price of mortgaging my childrens' futures, and probably their children too, while they've studiously ignored the hard questions like public sector pensions.

I'd like to say "the left" faces being out of office for a generation, possibly for ever. But let's be honest, "the left" has already been out of office since 1979. It is not only an ex-parrot, the species is extinct.

The Guardian kindly provides a forum for a few nostalgic old relics to muse and dream about what might have been.

2. "CybilWrights"

Cloud cuckoo land.

a big expansion in further education, F.E has been all but privatised under Labour and the workforce demoralised by new and onerous contracts.

public investment in transport Oh yeah? Where? Most weekends you can't get a train anywhere because they've all been cancelled.

success in containing terrorism The worst terrorist atrocity - the London bombings - took place because of and following Labour's wars of aggression - they caused this terrorism.

You need a reality check, Ms Ashley. I've never voted Tory and probably never will, but I'd rather have them than this bunch of authoritarian, spendthrift, high-taxing, freedom-hating, war-mongering, expense-fiddling liars.

3. "EvilTory"

More scaremongering about a possible Tory government, Jackie?

This country needs a bonfire of its quangos; indeed one could go so far as to say that every single one should be closed down, its senior management and directors banned for life from public office, and their responsibilities passed on to elected MPs and mayors and councillors. Who, let's face it, could hardly do a worse job than the tens of thousands of petty paperpushers we are stuck with now. And that's before the enormous duplication and the total lack of accountability that quangos embody.

That you support such organisations is not surprising; you are after all a 'big government' social democrat judging from your writings. Personally I think government is by and large the problem, not the solution, but I suppose we can disagree on that.

However I do have to ask you, do you honestly believe that an incoming Tory government can be worse than the current one? Could waste more of our money? Fail to replace more of our power stations? Send more of our troops into battle inadequately supplied and equipped?

Cameron has his faults, but he's not Hitler, and he'd pretty much have to be to outdo brown in the civil liberties destruction stakes. Or don't they count either?

Yes, a Tory government will do things people on the centre left and left will hate. Tough. We've had to put up with the current bastards for more than a decade. At least a Tory government will be moderately fair and reasonably competent.

Who knows, maybe a Tory government will do something really liberal, such as scrap ID cards and ASBOs. Or perhaps junk the entire government funding for multiculturalism that has fucked up race relations in this country for forty years and more. Seeing Trevor Phillips and his whole cretinous and racist organisation on the dole would certainly make me happier than seeing another battalion of soldiers come home to P45s.

Sorry jackie, but I can't agree with this article; Labour have done far more harm than the minimal good they have achieved. Why don't all you Labour supporters vote libdem instead? They can't be worse, and will likely be much better, than your current loyalty.

4. "1nn1t"

I'll start the list of what's not going so well:

Social Services - broken
Lots of new graduates - no jobs
Banks - broken
Housing - unaffordable
Army - inadequately equipped
Immigration Controls - broken
Unemployment - lots, and rising
Power cuts - due soon
Prisons - full, and getting fuller
Railways - trains only run on Sundays if someone feels like driving one
University Science Departments - fewer than ever
Pubs - illegal to sing in them
Smoking ban - closing pubs
Teenagers - drinking more heavily than ever
Illegal Drugs - universally available
Income Tax - collected from people on benefits

and someone else please continue the list..

And so it goes on. And on and on and on. Ashley getting comprehensively trashed by her own readership. Not quite on the scale of the regular monstering Polly gets, but very entertaining nonetheless. At least we know what the Graun (and the Beeb) will be whingeing about in the coming years. "Tory cuts" will be the main theme, even though they absolutely know that what they will be attacking will be policies the Labour Party would have had to follow too, anyway - or finally destroy the economy for good. The Tories will have to cut spending to clear up Labour's monumental, catastrophic mismanagement of the economy, which has left us in the icy wastes of the deepest recession since WWII.

So what's new?

The World Turned Upside Down

It's mad. They said (no they didn't) it could never happen, but it has. I agree with Polly Toynbee! She is in "it's all Brown's fault" mode this week - (instead of her default setting, which is "Labour has abolished poverty and made the country healthier, cleverer and fairer", fantasy mode). She says:

Brown's greatest political skill is sending out his men to crush rebellion while banishing rivals abroad to the foreign office or sending them to their political death in the home office. His people warn that a leadership election will split the party. They frighten MPs with the myth that electing a new leader would require an instant election. All this ignores the one big fact: Labour is about to lose so badly they may not live to fight another day. Brown is such an overwhelming electoral albatross that virtually anyone else would give Labour a lift. In such depths where even the best Labour policies are not noticed or heard, a leadership election would give Labour a chance to recapture public attention with a genuine debate on what matters. At 18.2%, there is nothing left to lose. So why won't this happen? I don't know. It's a mystery, but it almost certainly won't.

She wants, above all, Brown gone. And so do I. So we're agreed, Polly and me. From now until he's out out OUT!, nothing and no one will distract us from our campaign to have this criminally incompetent political chancer removed from the office for which he is so unfit. I look forward to our joint efforts bearing fruit. We shall go forth and multiply.

Whoa! Hold the horses there. Slow down. Before this unholy union is consummated, perhaps I'd better check just with whom exactly I'm jumping into bed, I hear you say. And sure enough, you're dead right. Read on...

I have never been tribal about parties when it is policies that count. But whatever punishment Labour deserves, the country does not deserve a Conservative government that looks set to impose economic policies that will damage too many lives. Brown's worst failing is letting them win the argument with the public that deep cuts are necessary and inevitable.

"I've never been tribal...". What? Polly. How could you! Just when I thought you'd changed. Just when I thought we had a chance for happiness, that you'd finally put past foolishness behind you. But no. How wrong I was. You'll never change. You'll always be bonkers and a total stranger not only to economic realities, but to the truth about the hypocrisy on which your whole, privileged life has been built. This marriage is a sham. You've betrayed me just like you've betrayed everyone else in your entire journalistic life. Polly, I'm leaving you. I want a divorce.

Phew. Best decision I've ever made. And she gets worse...

Cameron and Osborne have succeeded in making cuts the test of political virility and honesty: they want to cut and shrink the state anyway. Brown has been left floundering. He could make the Brittan argument loud and clear, but he doesn't, probably because he is a natural fiscal conservative. As a result, he sounds as if he too knows there must be deep cuts but won't admit it – ending up in the worst of all worlds, his perennial resting place.

The irony is that his actions without doubt mitigated the worst effects of the crash, while a Conservative government next year will without doubt exacerbate them dangerously for years to come. Yet Brown cannot or will not articulate a credible economic policy that convinces the public not to vote for Cameron's cuts.

She cleaned out my bank account while we were together, blew all my savings on fake African charities (she'd already burned through her inheritance), remortgaged the house seven times and took-out eighty-two personal loans just to service the debts. Now she's gone back to her house in Tuscany (it's not in her name) and left me here in Britain bankrupt, homeless and humiliated. If only I hadn't listened to her when she said we could spend our way out of debt.

Well, you get the idea folks. I hope. At least the world is the right way up again: Polly's bonkers and Britain's gone bust. Over to Dave and George to clean up the mess.

Polly:

I shall probably die before the last of the 92 hereditaries passes into ancestry. But the Labour party may well be dead before then.

Two silver linings.

The Egg All Over The Grauniad's Face

Nice to catch on Sky News just now that Coulson came-out fighting at his Select Committee "grilling" (as yours truly was hoping) and killed the phone-hack story stone dead once and for all, leaving the Grauniad's motly collection of pseudo-journos and Labour's halfwit, spinning goons with egg all over their sneering chops.

Suits me. And suits them. The Speccy has covered this pathetic non-event as well as anyone.

So far, so good for Andy Coulson and the Tories. The former News of the World editor’s appearance before the Culture Select committee earlier today passed without further revelations. And, despite the efforts of Labour spin doctors, this remains a media scandal, not a political one.

The first session overran by nearly an hour, perhaps this left the MPs mentally drained when it came to grilling Coulson. He swanned through the session, straight-batting everything with the very reasonable observation that at no point has he been implicated in any skulduggery. The only awkward moment arose when Plaid MP Adam Price forced Coulson to admit that he never queried Clive Goodman’s sources, and that he no recollection of a story about Prince William mimicking Prince Harry’s then girlfriend Chelsey Davey, ripped by Goodman from the Princes’ phones. But the demob-happy MPs did not take the opportunity to question Coulson’s judgement, and proceedings became more and more sedate. Even the usually bullish Tom Watson did not attempt to draw Coulson’s blood; in fact, Coulson drew Watson’s, comparing his ignorance of Goodman’s activities to Watson’s innocence in Damian McBride’s connivances.

The session ended - the committee neither wiser nor better informed. How could they be anything other? No evidence suggesting that Coulson or any other NotW journalist were aware of tapping has emerged. As Pete has said, unless that changes Coulson is safe. The Tory leadership will certainly be relieved.

Safe? Relieved? Even this is hyperbole. That the Labour goons and their slavish supporters at their tame newspaper who launched this limp attack on the Tories imagined that this could be some sort of payback for McBride is dim enough. That they were unsure of their facts before they launched it is simply risible. It's amateur night at Labour HQ - again.

It's pretty clear they have no inkling of just how much of a laughing stock they have become in the country. The only thing I'm really surprised about is that Coulson, in the thick of the fug of ignorant Labour bluster, managed to keep a straight face. Hey, Tom Watson! And hey, Grauniad! You've both just scored a massive own goal for Labour. Everyone knows the real motivation behind this nonsense (revenge!)- and everyone is giggling away merrily about how pathetic your hopeless handling of this whole mess has been from start to finish.

As far as the Tories should be concerned? Back of the net!

Guardian Caught Making Sh*t Up

There was rather a nice symmetry to my commute today. On the way into work, various BBC noisemakers were getting all het-up on the Today programme over the Grauniad's non-scoop about the News of the World being, well, the News of the World, complete with Andrew Neil suffering what sounded like an early-morning bout of moral outrage. It was enough to make one feel a little dyspeptic. A little.

Fast forward to the homeward journey and Five Live had Derek Jameson (I thought he was dead) telling everyone to grow-up and that the Graun had got the whole thing completely wrong - hypocritically, stupidly wrong. Good on the old bugger.

Sure enough, a few minutes later, a senior bobby called Yates announced that there would be no further investigation into the matter, despite the Graun's hysterical allegations, because there was no new evidence of phone "hacking" beyond the stuff already dealt with in court a couple of years ago. (See Guido for excellent techy explanations and superior coverage generally of this, a very dreary tea-cup squall.)

Story dead, then. A nice, round trip. Not quite. Grotbag Brown waded in earlier this afternoon claiming that there are "serious questions" to answer over this, er, non-scandal. Well, not according to the Yard, Gordo. Seems you got that one wrong, too. Consistent. But it does demonstrate from how high up the political energy for this desperate straw-clutching is coming.

So it appears the dull lefty knives are out for Andy Coulson, regardless of the fact that they are now blunted. Guido has just wondered aloud whether or not this Coulson bloke will survive a Select Committee bashing by Labour woodentops. Not only will he survive it, Fawkes, I reckon he will come out with all guns blazing and take the fight to them. They are long-overdue a streetfight arse-whooping. This could well be the making of the man.

I mean, the standards of journalism of the Left media have never been more smeary, rotten, deceitful and slapdash have they? They're out of control, aren't they? So sure, there is a job going at The Sun, GF. And Alan bloody Rusbridger should be applying for it.

I doubt they would have him.

Guardianistas

1819: Organ's Original Offices


There is one thing I love about the Guardian, and it's the Comment Is Free forum. To be fair, their editors are, in fact, gradually wising up to how deeply moribund the Labour Party now is but they remain hamstrung by their own tradition of loyalty to something that was once called 'The Labour Movement'. The problem for them, but maybe not for us, is that that phenomenon no longer exists in any way, shape or form. Whatever the relatively complex socio-political reasons for its demise, there is no 'Labour Movement' in this country any more.

So what's next for the Guardian? Well, if they keep producing editorial copy like this, there might be hope that it will not sink with the terminally holed Labour ship on which it has been transported for so many years. Can it finally jump ship and rescue itself? Well, it does have a potential lifeboat: CiF.

CiF is surely one of the best ever open forum-type innovations on the web. It provides, uniquely, a smooth-flowing junction between the MSM and the blogosphere that no other broadsheet - or tabloid - has managed to reproduce. The swift and open flow of ideas from one medium to the other has no parallel or equal anywhere else on the web - in the world - (including the horribly over-moderated, bullying BBC effort). It must surely be - or should have been - regarded as the exemplar for other newspapers attempting to develop their own new/old media idea-exchange with the right balance and chemistry. That it does not or has not been is their and our loss.

Cif encourages, through strict but often deft and conspicuously disinterested moderation (depending upon the topic - I should note that comments on AGW & Israel articles and essays penned by serving Labour ministers are occasionally mercilessly mutilated), open and serious debate from contributors who have something to say and passionately wish paid-up members of the (left-leaning) Fourth Estate might hear them say it, whether they like or not (usually not).

Because people are treated like free agents and grown-ups, by and large they behave that way. The site self-moderates like no other I have seen. The traffic flows without the need for a police car on every corner of the intersection. For this reason, the comments are often interesting; occasionally, they are simply brilliant - depending upon your point of view, naturally.

Below the editorial linked above, which was headlined "Labour Running on Empty", there was a pair of comments by one contributor that fall comfortably into the 'simply brilliant' category. For one thing, among many other great things, they contain some pretty radical, sound advice for the Guardian itself, advice with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Comment 1:

BrotherBig wrote:

How many times does it have to be told – the Labour Party is dead, killed by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

• Six years ago, the party died because of the Iraq war and the dodgy dossier.

• One year ago, the party was pronounced dead over the 10p tax issue.

• Six months before that, it was dead because Brown failed to call an election after revving everyone up for one.

• Last summer the economy imploded and, more telling still, David Miliband mounted a leadership challenge, a latter-day party death certificate.

• This time last year, your columnists were having a nervous breakdown, their postings were cries for help, ravings from the depths of bereaved despair. Peter Preston wrote an article on the theme of "with friends like these ..."

Labour's death cannot keep coming as a surprise to you. Not unless you're suffering from Alzheimer's.

Can anyone sincerely maintain that Mr Brown leads a party with an engaging account of why it wants power, impelled by a driving sense of what a fourth term could do for the country?

You know the answer to that.

And you know what has to be done now.

Your support for Labour is support for a party that no longer exists. That party was killed by Its leaders and its NCOs are all complicit. You have documented the death yourselves on the Guardian. Now you need to acknowledge it.

And you need to determine precisely the cause of death.

It is nothing to do with the economy. That is a red herring. Any clot could have messed up the economy. That clot could still have remained human. Flawed. But human.

But Labour have become inhuman. Their mushroom cloud of the UK's civil liberties fails to recognise what it is to be human and is itself recognisably inhuman.

Which suggests the prescription. You need to find a party to support which has maintained the covenant on civil liberties. And you need to promote them.

It doesn't matter that they're untried. Or that they haven't been in power for the best part of a century. All that is important for now may be all that they can do – mend the covenant – but that is essential and it is enough, the rest can follow later.

Think Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Campbell, Blunkett, McBride, Balls, ... You wouldn't sup with these people, would you, not even with a long spoon.

Face up to it. Now. You can't carry on being forever surprised at what's happened to Labour. You have responsibilities.

Comment 2:

1. David Miliband<./a>, 4 April 2008:

Labours success has been built on the Blair/Brown mantra that 'what counts is what works' ... from independence of the Bank of England to ASBOs to nuclear power, Labour ditched dogma and embraced common sense.

... common sense remains essential, but it is not enough ... New Labour is learning the limits of pragmatism and Gordon Brown is driving the Government forward better to define and defend its convictions. It is one thing to ditch dogma; new Labour became expert at that before 1997. It is another to build a coherent ideology that provides a clear sense of direction for the country and speaks to peoples aspirations. That is our challenge today.

There it is. From the horse's mouth. Labour are expert at ditching dogma. Read principle. And filling the gap, replacing it, remains a challenge.

2. There is not a huge choice of other parties. None of them is perfect. At least the Lib Dems say, in the Preamble to their Constitution (and they seem to mean it):

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

3 (a) The Guardian withdrawing support from Labour would be seismic. So it won't happen. Indeed, it can't happen.
3(b) Labour no longer exists. So there is nothing there for the Guardian to support, the withdrawal of their support is inevitable.

Which is it? Impossible? Or inevitable? All we know is that it can't be both. I/we can't dictate to the Guardian.

Are there any indications which way the Guardian's decision might go?

• The Guardian supported the Convention on Modern Liberty.

• They do document Labour's descent into the sewer. They keep hoping that Gordon Brown will change/reveal his true and decent self, but at least they also document the facts. The need to maintain their sanity by adopting a consistent and coherent position might finally require them to acknowledge the facts and give up wishful thinking.

What would happen if the Guardian switched allegiance to the Lib Dems?

• The whole newspaper would feel liberated and be liberated.

• Several unions/financial backers would switch their support, too.

• Those Labour MPs not beyond salvation would switch parties.

• The UK might survive in some recognisable form.

And if they don't?

The big problem is that they will have to continue to believe, against all the evidence, that Labour does not condone torture ...

Apart from that, take your pick from the long list of blind eyes that need to be turned and clothes pegs needed on the nose: Iraq; 28 days detention without charge; eBorders; ID cards; transformational government; MPs' expenses; smear tactics; politicisation of the civil service and the police; government by targets; government by management consultants; postal voting; Erith; Trident; nuclear energy; environmentalism; ...