« October 2006 | Main | March 2007 »
February 26, 2007
The pain that was Vista
Daughter's new laptop arrived today, a nice Dell Inspiron 6400 with 2GB of memory, 256MB ATI graphics card, yadda, yadda, yadda. Lovely bit of kit, but the fly in the ointment was Windows Vista. Words fail me. Sure the new interface is prettier than XP, but what good is that when wireless networking is totally and utterly borked? I'm currently rolling back to XP Professional, and I can't see any upgrade to Vista taking place for at least a year. It just fails to deliver in so many areas, reliability being the main one.
Posted by Clive at 9:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 23, 2007
Camelot runs the SOCA
You probably think that headline is a joke, and you'd be correct. But not in the way you were expecting. In fact there's more than one joke in that headline. Firstly, the Press Office at the Office of Fair Trading. They've launched a Scambuster campaign to raise awareness of various matrix and pyramid schemes, 419 scams and fake lottery claims.
As part of the exercise, a fake scam email was sent out, containing a link to the Scambusters campaign page on the OFT website.
The best part comes from the associated press release, under Notes...
2. The deceptive prize draw and lottery scams awareness campaign is also supported by Camelot which runs the National Lottery and the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Case studies of bogus lottery and prize draw victims are also available for media interviews.
See, that's why the Serious Organised Crime Agency is displaying such less than stellar performance. When officers get a break from doing their paperwork, they find themselves polishing "Arthur" or buffing up set of balls number 6.
So there you have it, two jokes for the price of one; the SOCA's performance and the literacy of the OFT's Press Office.
Posted by Clive at 2:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Look it up in a dictionary
Enjoy...
Bloggerheads - Political Blogging for Adults
Posted by Clive at 1:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Michael Who?
Okay, I know it is a pretty cheap shot, but does Michael Meacher really think he is going to achieve anything constructive by standing for leader of the Labour Party. He started his ministerial career serving under Harold Wilson nearly 40 years ago, although in his favour he once failed to recognise the pipe smoker as being his leader.
In all those years, in spite of displaying competance in his role as Minister of State for the Environment, he has failed to make any significant impact with the electorate, many of whom weren't even born when he first entered Parliament.
Now I've been saying for years that Labour needs leadership change, and also expressing my belief that Gordon Brown is yesterday's man (his time was 1992, but he chose to defer to John Smith) and a most unsuitable leader of the party. Yet all Meacher can hope to achieve is to divide the Left, in all likelihood guaranteeing a victory for Brown.
The fundamental problem comes from the hold that Blair and Brown have exercised over the Labour Party for the last 10 years. Gordon has been the defacto successor to Blair for so long that there is now a paucity of choice. Milliband keeps ruling himself out, which is a relief as the last thing Labour needs right now is a new Blair; Meacher is a nowhere man and John McDonnell is still short of the backing of 44 MPs required to force a contest.
What a mess!
And it is all the fault of the Labour Party, from top to bottom. Collectively we let Blair hang on when we should have forced him out. We were happy to see Gordon Brown as Blair's successor. And now the chickens have come home to roost.
Let's take a look at the options, assuming Blair quits in June this year. The likely outcome is that Brown will become Prime Minister and will be faced with a decision. Does he rely on Blair's mandate from 2005 or does he go to the country immediately?
If he hangs on until 2010 then he'd better hope that he can avoid economic issues and other problems, because in 3 years time he'll have to face an electorate that has seen 13 years of Blair/Brown government, and an opposition that can brand him a coward who refused to fight on his own merits. All indications are that the best result he could hope for would be a hung parliament.
Yet the polls indicate that going to the country as soon as he takes over would be political suicide.
What is really needed is a centre-left challenger who could reinvigorate the Labour Party, and at the same time remind both the membership and the public that there is a credible alternative to centre-right policies. So where is this challenger then?
History will, I suspect, look back on this period of Labour government as being a time of squandered opportunities, of further disengagement between government and the electorate and, above all, of the corrupting and dibilitating influence of the Blair-Brown relationship. Maybe it would be better to be out of power sooner and for a shorter period of time, than to struggle on and face a repeat of the wilderness years of 1979 - 1997.
But one thing is for certain, Michael Meacher standing for leader will not improve matters one iota.
Update - 14:15 - Paul Linford reckons John Denham might be a viable alternative.
Posted by Clive at 11:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 21, 2007
Rattled?
So Nick Boles is leaving the Conservative Policy Exchange think-tank to concentrate on his campaign to become Mayor of London. At the same time, Iain Dale has announced in a footnote that he is standing down as a trustee of the charity.
I'm sure it will come as a great disappointment to all the conspiracy theorists out there, but I haven't actually been able to attend a single Policy Exchange Trustees meeting for eighteen months due to diary clashes.
See, still the implication that everyone on the left who raised the issue of the Policy Exchange's charitable status is some sort of lunatic conspiracy theorist.
Personally I'd be more critical of a trustee who took eighteen months to realise that they couldn't commit to the necessary levels of support. That seems to be like the behaviour of someone who either places their image ahead of the charity's wellbeing
Posted by Clive at 5:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Ugly Rumours
This Saturday, if you are opposed to Trident replacement and can get to Hyde Park in London, then join the demonstration for troops out of Iraq and no to Trident replacement. Kick-off is 12 noon at Speakers Corner.
If you can't make it, but want to support the peace movement, then why not buy Ugly Rumours cover version of Edwin Starr's "War - what is it good for". All profits go to support the Stop the War Coalition.
For more clicky goodness, try this for a laugh.
And even more, you lucky people.
Posted by Clive at 12:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 19, 2007
What future for Labour
Last year Sheffield District Labour Party held a conference, What Future For Labour, to discuss the future of the Labour Party (obviously). The event attracted about 200 attendees who listed to such speakers as Derek Simpson and Neal Lawson. The event was considered such a success that it is being held again on Saturday March 17th.
More details are available from the website. Topics on the agenda include Labour Foreign Policy after Iraq, Poverty and with declining membership, what is the future of the Labour Party. Speakers include Hilary Benn, Jon Crudas and Hazel Blears and the day looks to be both interesting and rewarding. If you live in the South Yorkshire area and are interested in just where Labour goes from here, then I'd recommend attending. Registration is only £5 and lunch and refreshments are included.
Posted by Clive at 8:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 16, 2007
It isn't rocket science
Blair once again showed a complete disconnect from reality over replacing Trident. A CND press release today highlighted the fact.
Speaking at a Young Labour conference in Glasgow today, Tony Blair said that he ‘doesn’t really know’ why there has not been a debate on Trident replacement in the Labour Party.
After Blair’s speech in front of hundreds of Young Labour members at today’s conference, the press were asked to leave the room prior to the question and answer session.
During the Q&A, a delegate asked the Prime Minister why there has not been a debate and vote in the Labour Party on Trident. Mr Blair, visibly caught off-guard by the question, replied:
‘I don’t really know the answer to be frank. I think in the end there will be a vote in the Commons. There should be a very lively debate in the party and elsewhere. The trouble is we need to take a decision at some point…In terms of the process I honestly don’t know the answer. I know it was an issue at the National Policy Forum and so on but I don’t have a problem with people voting on it at all. Let the party express their view on this but we will need to take a decision on this as a government.’
Seventeen motions on Trident replacement from Constituency Labour Party groups were ruled out of order before the Labour Party conference in 2006. In January 2007 three motions on Trident from members of the Labour National Executive Committee, including CND Vice President Walter Wolfgang, were again ruled out of order.
An ICM poll last June showed that 81% of the British Public believe that Parliament should decide the matter.
In another poll a month later 59% of the public said that Trident should not be replaced if the cost were to exceed £25bn.
Yet 20 motions calling for the Labour Party to debate the matter have been overruled, Blair has expressed his intention to use the Whip to ensure the PLP toes the line and Brown is backing him.
And he doesn't know why the Party hasn't debated the matter. It's very simple Tony. The Party hasn't held a debate because you and Gordon won't let them. It isn't rocket science (well alright, it is in one way I suppose.)
Posted by Clive at 9:40 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
For those in the know
If you are going to give your target the nickname of "The Sith Institute", some reasons why you probably shouldn't liken yourself to Obi Wan Kenobi.
In Episode 1 you whinge a lot, ask dumb questions, watch your tutor die and only kill the bad guy because he gets too cocky.
In Episode 2 you make empty bluffs, get your a*se handed to you on a plate, fail to spot the real villain and need rescuing by a bloody great army.
In Episode 3 you finally discover that you're a crap teacher, nearly all your mates die, your apprentice betrays you, by acting callously you indirectly cause a whole parcel of grief for the next 20 years before running away and hiding in a complete dump.
In Epsiode 4 you're past your best, you lie to the most important person in your life, then die.
In Episode 5 you spend your (brief) time as a pontificating ghost, your previous lie comes home to roost and you nearly screw the pooch.
In Episode 6 your ghost gets to share in the victory celebrations, a serenely smug smile decorating your face, secure in the knowledge that victory was achieved in spite of your continual cockups and misjudgements.
Really, when battling the Sith, Yoda is a far better role model albeit less macho or good looking.
Posted by Clive at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 14, 2007
The Ethic of Reciprocity
It's a fundamental principle that young people do stupid things. Today you'll find our youth drinking themselves into the gutter or recklessly driving customised cars, but while the former has been the case for many years, the latter is a relatively new occurence.
Back in the 1980s there was another opportunity for outpourings of youthful stupidity; politics. By 1986 we'd had 7 years of Thatcher and the Tories; the continued decline of the Labour Party following the longest suicide note in history; the Miners Strike; Cruise, Pershing and the Peace Movement. Student politics was radically polarised, between a bitter Left and a jubilent and ascendent Right.
After a Damascene conversion a young Paul Staines eventually ended up a member of the Federation of Conservative Students in Hull. So far, so normal, but as an active member of the FCS he, possibly in a moment of naivety, wrote in 1986 an ill-advised letter to another political body. A journalist picked up on this letter, and published an article about the activities of young Staines. Only Paul knows how it was received; perhaps with dismay or perhaps with a modicum of glee that a young student had made the media sit up and take notice.
Skip ahead to 1990 and, by means known only to himself and David Rose (the journalist), Paul obtains a concilliatory letter, apologising for the tenor if not the content of the original article.
And that ought to be the end to the story. David Rose continued his journalistic career and Paul Staines followed the pursuits of raves, Mammon and Libertarianism.
Which brings us to the present day. Paul's blog is feted by the Right as the number one political blog in the UK. Gossip, rumours and smears abound and a flippant, cocksure attitude to the repercussions is displayed.
Guido Fawkes - So Rosie, Where is Guido's Writ? Guido has a mini-corporation behind him, Global & General Nominees LLC of Nevis. If you want to sue the publishers go ahead, the office for service is properly registered in accordance with the law. The laws of the island require that the plaintiff first deposits US$25,000 with the court before commencing action.
Which brings us neatly to the events of last weekend, when a copy of the original article was found in LexisNexis. The body of the article was published by Tim Ireland, Justin Keating, Tom Watson and Sunny Hundal, followed rapidly by the threat of libel action from Staines who apparently had a retraction of the original article. Subsequent events showed that the "retraction" was nothing more than the letter from David Rose written in 1990.
Now the Guardian is safe, as the statute of limitations for libel long sinced expired on the original publication. However the nature of libel is such that any defence would rest on provability, and in all likelihood the necessary evidence has been recycled as firelighters by now. Throw in a 150 year old precedent - Brunswick vs Harmer - and the necessity to have deep pockets to defend a libel action and you won't see a copy of the article on any blogs.
For now.
The bottom line is that the article was not retracted. It is still out there and careful searching will find it.
What this has shown is the breathtaking hypocrisy of Paul Staines. Here is a man who, when the going gets tough, reaches not for his Libertarian principles, but rather for his lawyer and his wallet. If this whole affair has show one incontravertible truth, it is that Paul can give it, but can't take it.
There is still an interview, which will appear at Pickled Politics, but this is the last time this blog will ever make reference to Paul de Laire Staines AKA Guido Fawkes, hypocrite.
Update - 10:20 - Justin has his final word on the matter.
Update - 11:30 - Tim's position on the matter.
Update - 13:50 - As Unity sees it
Update - 15th Feb 2007 23:30 - Sunny's piece is now online and well worth reading.
Posted by Clive at 10:02 AM
February 13, 2007
It isn't that simple
One thing that has become apparent during the recent blog spat is the tendency of right-leaning bloggers, astroturfers and sock puppets to take a massively simplistic view of peoples motives.
For example, when questions were raised over the charitable status of the Policy Exchange, the response was that it was all a left wing attempt to divert attention from the investigation into the Smith Institute, and that anyone raising such a challenge was an obvious Brownite.
A simple and trite response that was totally wrong.
If people had bothered to read and understand any of the posts on the subject, they would have noticed that no one was defending the Smith Institute. Rather the objective was to highlight another potentially suspect body, and to show that neither side of the political spectrum was above challenge.
Another case. Apparently the challenge Tim Ireland presented to Paul de Laire Staines which then, as a consequence of Iain Dale's naivety or culpability (delete as appropriate) spread to his blog, was an effort to boost "ratings".
A simple and trite response that was totally wrong.
Tim's concerns were that a set of consensual guides to online conduct (or rules/laws as the astroturfers would have it) were not merely being eroded, but actively destroyed without thought for the consequences. This form of online moral code evolved over many years in an effort to resolve an issue affecting most forms of online engagement, the lack of direct interaction and the consequent removal of non-verbal indicators. These "rules" aren't published anywhere and try as you like, you want find them writ large on tablets of stone. But they served the online communities well back in the days when 2400 baud was a fast connection. Sure, they may need updating, but an evolutionary approach has served well in many situations, and you don't ignore to destroy something without heed to the consequences.
Now fools such as Caroline Hunt may feel happy with their fun-loving stance regarding online conduct, but they're generally the first to shout when the consequences of their actions turn and bite them. If you want the freedom to attack people then you shouldn't be surprised if other people exercise the same freedom, but directed at you. This is something Paul de Laire Staines discovered this weekend.
Anyway, there is a point to all this. If Conservatives expect to be the next party of government (though looking at the consequences of current polls and boundary changes, there'll be a lot of horsetrading and compromise first), then they should learn the fundamental lesson that New Labour failed to grasp. Put your own house in order first, or the mauling given - justifiably - to New Labour may look like a picnic compared to the attacks you may receive. The electorate have been deceived and misled by one leopard that claimed to have changed its spots, they probably won't be so tolerant of another. If you want to avoid accusations of authoritarianism, engage in open and honest debate; don't resort to simplistic smears and trite arguments founded on dubious evidence.
In other words, grow up and get real.
Posted by Clive at 8:44 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 12, 2007
Cripes
Just spotted that it is 4 months to the day since I last blogged here. Last year was pretty cr*p for me; Blair carried on as if the 2005 General Election had been nothing more than a student debate and Labour failed to do anything substantial about his leadership. Then in May my Mother died with a summer influenced by all that entailed. By the end of October my business had been well and truly kicked in the balls financially by a slack-paying client, leaving Christmas as a less than stellar occasion.
None of the above necessarily constitute good excuses, but after nearly 4 years of blogging I ought to do better.
Posted by Clive at 10:39 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Glasshouse Lessons
So a sort of peace has broken out in the recent "blog war". Whether it is a temporary peace or something more enduring has yet to be seen. In all honesty such an outbreak of hostilities was inevitable. The Labour Party and this Government have so mired themselves in failed policies and the stench of corruption that to be a left of centre blogger has been to place oneself between a rock and a hard place. Meanwhile the right has delighted in tabloid sleaze and massive, almost masturbatory, ego stroking.
Eventually enough was enough, and the so-called war broke out simply because Tim Ireland decided to call Paul de Laire Staines on it. Out of the woodwork rushed a multitude of Tory astroturfers and sock puppets, a tide which Staines and Dale were more than happy to give free rein to, whilst in the same breath accusing left-leaning bloggers of the very same.
The stench of hypocrisy reached a peak this weekend when Staines attempted to bully a group of bloggers with the threat of libel action over a 20 year old article which was, in itself, not in the slightest libellous. This from someone who has repeatedly bemoaned this country's libel laws, registered his own blog through a company based in Nevis and who has been more than happy to spread smears and innuendo. More details on the weekends outburst of rank hypocrisywill come to light shortly.
In all this people Iain Dale and his ilk have failed to learn the lesson of New Labour. If you are going to place yourself on a pedestal before attacking your opposition, make damn sure that you have a secure defence. One reason for the intensity of venom directed at New Labour is the stupidity of Blair in making such ill-founded pronouncements as "I'm a pretty straight sort of guy", being "whiter than white" and "tough on sleaze". All this without first having put his own house in order.
Iain Dale claims that he wants more open, transparent and accountable politics; and bemoans the public's lack of political engagement. Yet as long as he and others like him continue with disengenius attacks and evasions then the public's disillusionment will continue.
There are lessons to be learned, and if the right doesn't learn them, then the chances of the Conservatives enjoying the sort of honeymoon period that New Labour experienced are slim to non-existant.
You have been warned.
Posted by Clive at 9:38 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack