Lembit: Off the wall but not clinically insane

James Graham has written a very stimulating post on copyright law, which has led to some extensive comments and a further post from David Weber.

The simple answer to James' titular question "Will Lembit have me arrested?" (for re-posting his Daily Sport articles on Prawn Free Lembit) is "No". Lembit might be slightly off the wall, but he is not clinically insane. But I can see the logical extension in James' mind. Lembit spoke up for Madelson's plan to switch off illegal file sharers. It's a logical next step for James to be clamped in irons for copying Lembit's Sporty bon mots.

James makes some interesting points:

The death of the music industry – which is a real possibility – will not mean the death of music. Music existed before copyright laws and it will exist long after them as well. People won’t suddenly stop making music. What it will probably mean is the death of the superstar.

Well yes. The first caveman who came up with an interesting beat with his stick on a pig's bladder didn't get paid. He may have been given a couple of drops of a base intoxicating liquor by an appreciative fellow cave dweller. And did whoever come up with "Greensleeves" get paid? It's been sung billions of times. I am surprised the PRS for Music aren't onto this one.

I would have thought that we'll see a very different music industry emerging the future. I very much doubt whether we'll see its death.

Where I feel somewhat at a tangent from James is that his remarks tend to address the rich end of the music industry spectrum. Perhaps this is not surprising, since the recent examples of copyright dilemmas I've heard of in the media have been at the "top end".

Cliff Richard brought out the violins to complain that he was losing the rights to records he made over 50 years ago. Presumably he was worried that he wouldn't be able to afford another vineyard. Ironically, one of the first of his records to "cop it" and go out of copyright was "Move it", recorded in February 1959 at Abbey Road studios. I say "ironically" because it is, IMHO, the only decent record he has ever made (although I have to give "The Day I met Marie" a bit of a passingly respectful nod). If he deserves the performing proceeds to any of his records it is "Move it", which he doesn't (have the rights to the proceeds anymore, that is).

Then we had the example of Pete Waterman. Not short of a penny, is our Pete, I would have thought (at least if he's wisely invested the spondoolicks from his 'Stock, Aitken and Waterman' years). But he set off a campaign against YouTube on the basis that he had only, allegedly, received only £11 in 2008 for producing Never Gonna Give You up by Rick Astley, which received, he claimed, 100 million plays on YouTube.

On a slightly different note, there have also been unfortunate incidents about royalty payments, which have hit the headlines. Gary Glitter reportedly may have received substantial royalties after a computer company bungled and used a Joan Jett cover version of "Do you wanna touch me" in an ad. They pulled the advert when they realised that Glitter was entitled to royalties because he wrote the song.

And then we had the very unsavoury image of Jonathan King, fresh out of clink, crowing about getting megabucks for the use of "It's Good News week" on a Channel Four series.

So the headlines have not been good on this subject. They've concentrated on the very rich and the dodgy musicians and performers.

So let me name a few names of people I think do deserve royalties and who don't deserve to be ripped off due to internet piracy. Kevin Ayres. Neil Arthur. Sally Oldfield. Sandy Shaw. Gerry Rafferty. Sam Brown. Glenn Gregory. Dan le Sac. Martin Fry. Robert Wyatt. Some of them have been famous for a little while. But they are not stars now. They are certainly not "superstars". Far from it. They are the type of people who rely on royalties, often for songs they wrote or recorded many years ago, to keep on performing, or just live from day to day. (Many of them have posted on this site - Fair Play for Creators).

So it is these sorts of people - and thousands of working musicians like them, that I feel we ought to focus on. Not the "superstars".

So I think Lembit makes a fair point when he says:

Most musicians and and songwriters aren’t loaded, especially if they’re just starting out. If they don’t get paid they can’t make music, it’s as simple as that.

He is also pretty convincing when he says:

With over 20 LEGAL online services in theUK, like iTunes and Spotify, you can download legally without wrecking the industry.

Indeed. You can get most tunes free and legal on Spotify.

Coming back to James, he goes off on one here:

Will it be possible to make money as a musician in the future? It all depends on what your aspirations are. Any halfway successful musician will be able to make several multiples of what I’ll earn in my lifetime, but there’ll be a lot fewer multi-millionaires. You probably won’t ever get that private jet I’m afraid. The simple fact are only so many punters out there and talent is nothing like as hard to come by as Smash Hits and NME led us to believe. They lied.
But is rendering musician to the status of mere vocation such a terrible thing? Money has destroyed so many talents over the years that it is hard to shed a tear for the decline of the superstar. Is it really so wonderful that popular music has become so strongly associated with excess, mental illness, vanity, self-abasement and violence? More musicians earning less money is a scenario in which 99% of us win.

I really think James is seeing the music industry through the wrong end of a telescope. The overwhelming bulk of musicians are scraping a living, if that. This obsession with "multi-millionaires" is really misleading. And starting to bring "superstar" deaths into it is a distraction. Fine, we'll see the decline of the superstar. But that's not the issue. The issue are the thousands of unknowns scraping a living who rely on the proceeds from a few of their songs or records to get by. It's those people who are, quite rightly, motivating the PRS for Music with their campaign against internet piracy.

I should mention that I don't agree with the Mandelson "switch off" plan either. But sooner or later people who illegally share files on a grand scale should expect some form of reckoning.

Lay off poor Prince Eddy

I'm no fan of Prince Edward. I'm a raving Republican and Eddyboy strikes me as one of the less inspiring members of a very uninspiring and, importantly, unnecessary Royal Family.

But I've heard what he said in Australia about the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme:

The sense of adventure, the sense of excitement, that it gave you that sort of risk element, young people are like that still; that sense of adventure, that sense that (death) is possible...Obviously we don't want that to happen, certainly it's not our intention ... It was just that psychology about what makes young people tick.

Well, it's true. He could have phrased it better. It's somewhat offensive to the family of a lad who died in the bush in 2006 while on an DofE award outing. But it's hardly an earth-shattering statement.

If anything, he's probably given much needed and deserved publicity to this fine award scheme of which I am a proud Bronze badge holder. Only the other night, I was recalling how our Chemistry teacher came out when we were on our expedition, some thirty five years ago, to check that we had put our tents up OK and wouldn't get cold overnight. Hardly 'living on the edge'.

Johnson's choice

Think about it. You have a very powerful job but it will end in eight months. Nothing you can do will change that end date; so, you have eight months to do what you want.

So, do you:

1. Follow the agenda of the Daily Mail ?

2. Follow evidence-based scientific advice ?

It's a tricky one, isn't it? .....Not.

Having said that, in fairness to Alan Johnson, he was getting conflicting advice from two professors.

Obama personally honours war dead

In a marked departure with the George W. Bush years, Barack Obama has travelled at dawn to Dover, Delaware to witness the return of the bodies of 18 Americans killed this week in Afghanistan. With his big decision on Afghanistan due soon, this seems like a wise thing to do.

The curious case of Arnold Schwarzeneger and a 1 in 10 billion "coincidence"

I suppose you could say that it is a bit like that infinite number of monkeys and typewriters...

But let's face it. With a Governor very much under siege against an antipathetic state assembly and his state in melt-down, how many rejections of bills would there need to be before, by sheer coincidence, the first letters of each line read "F*** YOU" ?

Not many it seems. Is Arnie cracking up under the strain, one wonders?

Ammiano Veto Message

Nick Griffin slapped 20 million times

Oh dear, I missed it. Slap Nick Griffin has now been taken down. But you can still savour something of the experience below.

Dead fly journalism

...An excellent opportunity to wheel out the word "apocryphal" and the phrase "A lie can make it half way around the world before the truth has time to put its boots on" (attributed to Churchill and Twain - and in today's world of the interweb thinget that should be updated to "ten times round the world..").

Gordon Brown was never asked about his favourite biscuit.

And, while we're at it, Samantha Cameron didn't nonchalantly walk into M&S and pick up a £65 dress. Quite the opposite.

Name recognition beats clever debate points-scoring any day of the week

I must say I thoroughly enjoyed "Let's kick the cr*p out of Nick Griffin" night on the BBC. Wonderful fun!

I was rather concerned that Griffin would be comfortably subsumed within the normal format of Question Time with blah-blah-blah about the Mail strike and bleat-bleat-bleat about Afghanistan. I also braced myself for him to be politely applauded by the audience for his reasonableness.

But we must never under-estimate the BBC.

The audience were without doubt the stars of the show. As soon as I heard their first reaction I thought "Crikey the BBC have really stacked that audience!"

Audience selection for these sorts of things is a fine art. They don't just open the doors and let the first load of people in. They don't just ask for interested people over the internet and give tickets on a first come, first served basis. They actually use proper researchers. People with degrees who phone you and ask you a series of questions about your political views and background. I think they normally ask for a photo also. Then they get back to you if you are selected. And they scrupulously select a balanced audience. If Nick Griffin does complain about the audience profile, he'll get a dusty response. He'll be given evidence that the audience numerically reflected how the nation votes. (You will have noticed a couple of BNP supporters shouting "rubbish" at Jack Straw at the end - well two people is about what they are entitled to if you look at how the nation votes overall).

But it was wonderful to see the ire aimed at, and the full-throated condemnation of, Griffin. Truly exhilerating and, I think, vindication (in the short term at least) of the policy of "giving him enough rope and he'll hang himself".

And of course, in the morning, all us Liberals gleefully enjoyed the headline in the Indie: The BBC gave Griffin the oxygen of publicity and he choked. Oh how we gloated!

But I am afraid that what actually happened in the programme will not matter much. The surrounding publicity will give Nick Griffin and the BNP sufficient name recognition to increase their vote anyway. On Friday GMTV was inundated with people saying Griffin had been treated unfairly. The BBC online Have Your Say section was flooded with support for Griffin. OK, some of those would be "put up" jobs, but not all - there was a veritable torrent of comment in that direction. And OK, the YouGov poll saying 25% of people would consider voting for the BNP may be a bit of a blip as is, perhaps, their poll increase from 2% to 3%.

However, like or not, I fear we will have to get used to debating with the BNP. Their vote is likely to increase somewhat.

So I look forward to the debate going a bit deeper. I would have liked to hear Griffin on normal policies, like the Mail strike. I would also like to have gone a stage beyond "Racist!" with the debate on the BNP's policies. A young Asian gentleman asked Griffin where he would like him to go. Griffin said he was happy with him staying in this country. Next time, I'd like to hear discussion of the BNP policy on this matter:

...we call for...the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question.

So in the middle of a recession, with the NHS, schools and police crying out for money, the BNP wants to waste money on "generous financial incentives" to hand out one way tickets to people - turning the government into a sort of Thomas Cook on steroids.

It's discussion of that sort of total madness that I'd like to see next, now we have initially lanced the boil of the BNP's mystique.

Oh and by the way, this article in the The Times nicely puts paid to Griffin's utter rubbish about Britain having an "indigenous race":

A leading geneticist has accused Nick Griffin of misinterpreting his work to claim that Britain has an “indigenous” white population that dates back to the Ice Age.
The BNP leader claimed on BBC One’s Question Time last night that the white English, Welsh, Scots and Irish were “Britain’s Aborigines”, descended from the first people to inhabit the British Isles around 17,000 years ago.
His assertion appeared to be based on research by Professor Stephen Oppenheimer, a geneticist at the University of Oxford, who published his findings in 2006 in a book called The Origins of the British.
Professor Oppenheimer, however, told The Times that Mr Griffin had misinterpreted his science to support his political views.
“I assumed he was misinterpreting me,” Professor Oppenheimer said. “After the programme I went back to look at what I’d written. I wrote quite a bit about issues of racism. I feared some people like Griffin would probably hijack this — I assumed that fascists would cherry-pick different bits from my book to support their views.”

...Mr Griffin decried multiculturalism, which he said had been imposed on the British people. “We are the Aborigines here,” he told the audience. “It is racist to shut white people out of their own country. The majority of the British people are descended from people who have lived here since time immemorial who now feel shut out from their own country.”

Professor Oppenheimer questioned that assertion, saying that all British people were of immigrant descent and that it was impossible to identify an “indigenous” population of the sort claimed by Mr Griffin.

“He’s missed the point of the genetics in terms of his perspective that he can determine who is indigenous British,” he said. “All British people are immigrants.”

Professor Oppenheimer backed an assertion by another panellist, Bonnie Greer, the American-born black writer, that the original Britons were Neanderthals.

The Professor added: "As [Ms Greer] pointed out, the original Britons were Neanderthals. They were exterminated, then the Ice Age left a clean sheet. The modern population is essentially of north Iberian origin. So what’s British?" “The purpose of looking at mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome in this way is not to identify the race of a person. They are just markers representing a tiny fraction of our genome. They do not tell you what someone’s like and pale European skin colour is largely the result of just one mutation, which protects them from getting rickets as infants. He’s using this information to bolster his political views, but genetics can’t do that.”

Royal Mail: Granny Smith doesn't matter anymore

Here's a very illuminating article in the London Review of Books. It's been written by a postman of five years standing. He demolishes the constant refrain from Mail managers and Mandelson that "figures are down":

Mail is delivered to the offices in grey boxes. These are a standard size, big enough to carry a few hundred letters. The mail is sorted from these boxes, put into pigeon-holes representing the separate walks, and from there carried over to the frames. This is what is called ‘internal sorting’ and it is the job of the full-timers, who come into work early to do it. In the past, the volume of mail was estimated by weighing the boxes. These days it is done by averages. There is an estimate for the number of letters that each box contains, decided on by national agreement between the management and the union. That number is 208. This is how the volume of mail passing through each office is worked out: 208 letters per box times the number of boxes. However, within the last year Royal Mail has arbitrarily, and without consultation, reduced the estimate for the number of letters in each box. It was 208: now they say it is 150. This arbitrary reduction more than accounts for the 10 per cent reduction that the Royal Mail claims is happening nationwide.
Doubting the accuracy of these numbers, the union ordered a random manual count to be undertaken over a two-week period in a number of offices across the region. Our office was one of them. On average, those boxes which the Royal Mail claims contain only 150 letters, actually carry 267 items of mail. This, then, explains how the Royal Mail can say that the figures are down, although every postman knows that volume is up. The figures are down all right, but only because they have been manipulated.

And he reports a disturbing shift in the raison d'etre of the Royal Mail:

Like many businesses, the Royal Mail has a pet name for its customers. The name is ‘Granny Smith’. It’s a deeply affectionate term. Granny Smith is everyone, but particularly every old lady who lives alone and for whom the mail service is a lifeline. When an old lady gives me a Christmas card with a fiver slipped in with it and writes, ‘Thank you for thinking of me every day,’ she means it. I might be the only person in the world who thinks about her every day, even if it’s only for long enough to read her name on an envelope and then put it through her letterbox. There is a tension between the Royal Mail as a profit-making business and the Royal Mail as a public service. For most of the Royal Mail management – who rarely, if ever, come across the public – it is the first. To the delivery officer – to me, and people like me, the postmen who bring the mail to your door – it is more than likely the second.
We had a meeting a while back at which all the proposed changes to the business were laid out. Changes in our hours and working practices. Changes to our priorities. Changes that have led to the current chaos. We were told that the emphasis these days should be on the corporate customer. It was what the corporations wanted that mattered. We were effectively being told that quality of service to the average customer was less important than satisfying the requirements of the big businesses.
Someone piped up in the middle of it. ‘What about Granny Smith?’ he said. He’s an old-fashioned sort of postman, the kind who cares about these things.
‘Granny Smith is not important,’ was the reply. ‘Granny Smith doesn’t matter any more.’
So now you know.

What exactly is the postal strike about?

Most of the time with a strike, you can point to a specific "sticking point" between the employers and employees, which causes the strike and which, when resolved, leads to the end of the strike.

You know the sort of thing. Management propose a pay rise of 0.5%, the unions demand 8% and then they both sit down and agree on 3.73% tapered over 5 years backdated to last January 1st with productivity gains agreed.

Well, OK, what is the "sticking point" in the Royal Mail dispute?

Any thoughts?

I have just listened to Billy Hayes, leader of the Communication Workers Union, on Any Questions? He was asked this specific question. And answer came there none. He went on about job losses in the past and how awful the current management are. But we were left none the wiser as to what is the actual nub of the strike.

I've read an article by Billy Hayes in the Mirror and he presents a smorgasbord of vague grievances, the most specific of which is this:

Royal Mail will not agree to independent experts agreeing what constitutes a fair day's work. At the moment postal workers are being bullied to carry unmanageable workloads and being disciplined when they fail.

The sooner this gets to Acas the better. But I think Acas will find that they need to attempt to knit fog in order to try to settle the dispute. Good luck to them. It is almost seems that the strike is about a very broad topic: "Who runs the Post Office?"

The unions and management need to be careful because the answer may be, in the end, "TNT or DHL", as their business goes elsewhere. Already, Amazon have cancelled their £25million contract with the Royal Mail.

Giant seagull attacks newsreader!

Let's turn on BBC1 at 10:40!

It is interesting how opinion is split about having Nick Griffin on Question Time. Neil Woollcott, for example, says we should turn off BCC1 at 10:40.

I couldn't disagree more! Turn on BBC1 at 10:40!

The more people see Nick Griffin - let alone hear him - the better. He looks absolutely weird. Occasionally one of his eyes looks in a different direction than the other one. Priceless!

And the things he says? Well we only have to look at this week: Comparing distinguished generals to Nazi war criminals. Criticising the British Legion. Calling a Cabinet Minister a former bank robber. Claiming Churchill would vote BNP.

The man is a venomous clown and the more rope we give him the better he'll hang himself.

Words of wisdom on Afghanistan

There's an excellent article on Afghanistan in today's Independent from Paddy Ashdown.

I have also been impressed by the wisdom of US Vice-President Joe Biden as described in Newsweek:

Joe Biden had a question. During a long Sunday meeting with President Obama and top national-security advisers on Sept. 13, the VP interjected, "Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?" The White House Situation Room fell silent. But the questions had their desired effect: those gathered began putting more thought into Pakistan as the key theater in the region.

Relief for Chris Rennard, but the system still stinks and the Fedex needs to pull its finger out

I am personally very happy for Chris Rennard on the news that the Clerk of the Palriaments (presumably someone who wears stockings to work) has cleared him of any wrong-doing over his expenses/allowances. Chris didn’t deserve this cloud hanging over him.

Looking at the Lords situation generally, however, it appears that the expenses/allowances rules are/were even vaguer than those in the Commons. That really is saying something….

As regards the Liberal Democrat party, I think Stephen Tall is right in his LDV piece: "Rennard’s expenses clearance: Party needs to learn some lessons in transparency". The silence of the Fedex was deafening. The party seemed to be just keeping schtum and hoping the problem would go away.

I thought the Fedex commissioned some sort of independent audit of the LibDem Lords’ expenses, didn’t they? In which case what happened to that?

All this has convinced me that no expenses or allowances should be paid to any parliamentarians apart from the normal travel expenses and hotel expenses that would be paid to most employees in business.

We need to completely wipe clean the House of Lords, in terms of membership, and start with an entirely fresh set of senators. A Senate! Crikey! That’s revolutionary isn’t it?!!!! How on earth will the country survive the shock!!!!!!!! Noone’s ever done that before have they????!!! No wigs! How awful! It's just not British! [Stamps little foot]

Those Senators should be elected under the understanding that they will only receive travel and hotel expenses on the production of receipts and that they will not receive allowances. If they don’t like it then they shouldn’t stand for election.

Ditto the Commons. Any accomodation for MPs in London should either be hotel stays reimbursed with the production of a receipt or state-owned accomodation with state-owned furniture. If MPs don’t like it then they can sod off and get another job.

It really is the time to stop faffing around and get on with properly reforming our system pdq.

Daily Mail - getting things into perspective

I've complained twice to the PCC about the Jan Moir article, and complained to the Daily Mail editor. I also strongly believe that now is the time for the PCC to become much more independent. Imagine my shock when I discovered that the person I was complaining to at the Daily Mail - the editor in chief, Paul Dacre - is also chairman of the PCC's Code of Conduct committee! That can't be right. Surely it is not rocket science to have some independent press experts on PCC panels, is it? They don't have to be currently engaged with vested interests in particular newspapers. It's ridiculous.

Having said all that, I do think a couple of things ought to be said to put the Jan Moir article in context; vile and disgusting though it was.

Firstly, I really think that articles in newspapers should be seen in the context of the regular readership of those newspapers. I have no idea how many regular Daily Mail or Mail Online readers complained to the PCC about the article. However, I suspect it was a relatively small proportion of the 25,000 complainants. Why does that matter? Well, regular readers do actually read other articles in the paper over time. The output of a newspaper should not be judged by one article alone (and, yes, I realise that the whole output of the Daily Mail is regularly offensive, but also bear in mind that the vast majority of the Daily Mail's output is actually benign tosh about celebrities and sport. Fred Basset, anyone?)

Which brings me to my second point. They were perhaps closing the stable door after the horse had bolted, but at least the Mail did feature an article yesterday from another of its regular columnists, Janet Street-Porter, who at least provides a small progressive voice within the paper's output. Her article on the Jan Moir article, the Stephen Gately death and "gay bashing" incidents in general is well worth reading. It's called "Being gay killed a man last week - and he wasn't Stephen Gately":

I was astonished to read in Jan Moir's column last Friday that his death 'strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships', and 'under the carapace of glittering hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see'.

What exactly was bothering Jan? The fact Stephen was gay, the fact he was in a civil partnership, or the fact that he or his partner might have enjoyed sex with someone they had just met?

I don't think that gay men all behave in the same way - there are as many varieties of relationships within the gay community as there are in the straight one.

Civil Partnerships are just that - they are not marriages. And let's not forget, whether Jan likes it or not, they have been enshrined in law by our democratically elected parliament.

If Stephen and his partner went to a nightclub and returned to their flat with another man, is it really any of our business?

Fact - Stephen Gately died of natural causes, not from guilt. It's not as if extra-marital sex is unusual in our society.

BNP claims endorsement of someone who died 44 years ago

Yesterday I was privileged to give a lift to a former Royal Marine called Dave from Leicestershire. It all happened in a strange way. Starting on a journey "oop nawth" I was seized with guilt as to when my next MOT is due. So I stopped in a parking lay-by on the A34 to get out the handbook to check on it (typically for me, I was being over-panicky - it's not due until next April). As I drew up to the lay-by I noticed what I thought was a tramp walking along the verge behind (who else walks along the verge?). However, as I went to leave the lay-by I noticed that the fellow was waving one of those trade registration plates and looked clean-cut, so I thought "What the hell?" and gave him a lift.

It turned out that he had got a lift with some people who, on discovering that he had served in the armed forces, had started strongly haranguing him. He then suggested that they drop him at the next junction. However, they then abruptly stopped the car and dropped him unceremoniously on the verge in the middle of nowhere. So I felt a warm feeling on finding out that I had helped this fellow out when he was in quite a predicament.

Anyway, this former Marine Dave did his bit by keeping me alert with a remarkably fascinating commentary on wars, famous figures including Churchill (hero) and Blair (zero - both Ian and Tony). He was particularly passionate and engaging about the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting.

Suffice it to say that I have rarely met such a fair-minded person with such a passion for tolerance and doing things the "right way". He had particular disgust for indiscriminate killings in wars and lies told by politicians.

The reason for regaling my reader with this tale is that Dave's views brought home to me how it is quite wrong to try to generalise the views of the armed forces and therefore both ridiculous and disgusting for the BNP to try to hijack images of the armed forces for its campaigns.

It is even more ridiculous for them to use images of Winston Churchill. - Someone who joined the army in Queen Victoria's reign and who has been dead for 44 years. And they, the BNP, say that he would support them if he was alive today.

They must be desperate.

Put simply, Nick Griffin isn't fit to polish the boots of Winston Churchill.

Well done Jenson Button!

The first Briton to succeed another Briton as Formula 1 World Champion! After all these years struggling down the grid!

From the BBC:

1836: Button takes both hands off the wheel and punches the air in abandoned delight. "Get in there Jenson, well done, awesome job," comes the message from Brawn. The response begins with a song: "We are the champions my friends... Woo-hoo-hoo-hoo. We are world champions. WORLD CHAMPIONS. Woo!"

1836: JENSON BUTTON IS THE 2009 WORLD CHAMPION

VIDEO: Premier League goal scored by a beach ball

A goal scored by a beach ball (which was loose on the pitch) for Sunderland against Liverpool yesterday. It's certainly a first. It seems unbelievable that the referee allowed it. The Guardian comments:

Under the laws of the game the beachball, which bore a Liverpool crest, should have been considered an outside agent, which, whether an errant inflatable, plastic bag or yorkshire terrier, should bring a drop-ball if struck by the match ball. The referee, Mike Jones, despite seemingly having a clear view of the incident, allowed the goal to stand, however.

Sir Ian Blair states the blindingly obvious

Sir Ian Blair offers reflections about the Jean Charles de Menezes killing:

If, as they thought, the officers were dealing with a suicide bomber, they would have deserved the George medal. Instead, tragically for the de Menezes family and for them, they live with the killing of an innocent man.

-A somewhat earth-shattering statement of the blindingly obvious. Surely the whole point of the police force is for them to catch criminals, not innocent people, is it not? That's the trick isn't it? That's their job and it is why Blair and his colleagues were highly trained and rewarded from public funds over many years.

Taking another stab at the Press Complaints Commission over the Daily Mail

My first complaint to the PCC over the Mail Stephen Gately article seemed to be sent into that organisation's wastebasket. I received a reply saying "initial examination" showed that my complaint was probably invalid because I was unrelated to Stephen Gately or his family.

I was absolutely incensed by this reply. The reply was received one minute after I sent the complaint on a Saturday evening. Any "initial examination" must have been conducted by a robot within a few nanu seconds.

How the heck did they know that the complaint was even related to an invasion into the grief of the Gately family, instead of the myriad of other offensive material in and, issues raised by, the article?

Anyway, I have now sent in another complaint. This time I have side-stepped their nonsense about not being related to the Gately family by complaining about two articles of their Code of Conduct not related to intrusion into grief:

1
Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
12
Discrimination
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

My second complaint reads:

Under article 1, (i) this article is totally misleading, using a distorted and highly selective collection of hearsay to come to a disgustingly offensive conclusion based on a person's sexual orientation.
Under 12 (i) this article is, in its entirety, a pejorative attack on gay relationships based on an extremely exaggerated and vilely distorted appraisal of the circumstances of Stephen Gately's death.

I am now writing to the Editor of the Mail to ask him to withdraw the article and apologise for it.

Playgirl preparation - Alaskan style

A quite hilarious sideline in the story of Sarah Palin. The father of her grandchild, Levi Johnston, is preparing to be photographed for Playgirl, which I am informed is now a website, after folding - centrefolding - geddit???!!!! - as a magazine.

So how is he preparing for this arduous assignment?

With a rifle. "Moose meat is very good for you, high in protein and very lean," his trainer, Marvin Jones, tells PEOPLE. "He's an avid hunter, so he has his own."

The 19-year-old father of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's grandchild has adopted a 3,500-calorie low-carb diet as part of a grueling regimen to ready him for next month's photo shoot.

Johnston works out three hours a day in the gym, six days a week, followed by cardio training and then a rest in the sauna, says Jones. "I'm not trying to give him a body builder's look. He's going to be more toned and more defined," says Jones, 46, who plans on training with him until the first or second week of November. "I'd like to see him with rounder and more muscular shoulders, with a fuller chest. We're going to firm his abs up, [and give him a] smaller waist." Jones says Johnston is committed to the training sessions, which even caused Johnston get sick during his second week of working out. "I know that's something he wants to do and we're having fun training," says Jones, who is training him in Anchorage, Alaska. "We're looking forward to revealing all his hard work!"

Politics American style! Doncha just luvvit?

Iain Dale fails to win open primary in Bracknell

Update #2: 19:21: Iain has just tweeted:

Many many congratulations to Philip Lee. And I mean that. He is a worthy winner. Naturally I'm gutted, but there can only be one winner

Update: A few seconds after I published the post below, Iain tweeted:

I'm out in the fourth ballot. Rory Stewart and Philip Lee now in final ballot

Oh dear, dear,dear. He's never going to be an MP is he? Oh well ho hum, he can continue to do things he's actually good at, instead. Being an MP is an utterly pants job anyway

Iain Dale won't win the Bracknell primary

- That is my prediction about the Conservative Bracknell Primary. It is probably wrong. But hey - what the hell.

They are now into the fourth ballot (why bother - just use STV for goodness sake. The Tories use this damn silly repeated ballot farce simply because they are so stubborn that they refuse to accept that they should just use STV in the first place! What utter nitwits!) and there are three contenders left, including Iain.

Good luck Iain, anyway.

Iain says today:

it's time to mug up on all the things I have learnt about the constituency over the last month.

Time to "mug up". He just doesn't get this: "try to pretend you haven't parachuted yourself in" idea, does he?

Can you get elected by pointing out that your opponent is overweight or has a beard?

A fascinating little campaign for the New Jersey Governorship in the US. The sitting governor has been letting it be known that his opponent is.....er.......overweight. His opponent, Chris Christie, is here.

Christie has hit back with this priceless quote:

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. I know most of you didn't know this -- but the governor's been whispering this to the press for months and months and months, and now he's trying to be a little cute about talking about it too through his TV ads. I want to make sure you're all seated and you're OK before I let you in on a secret: I'm overweight.

(To be fair, the main example of the ads in question mainly drew attention to legal-type allegations and one wonders whether the weight issue has been raised as a smokescreen.)

Attention has also been drawn attention to the governor's beard. Yes, you read it right. Beard:

"If we talk about Christie's weight, we have to talk about Corzine's beard," said Sharon Schulman, executive director of Richard Stockton College's Hughes Center for Public Policy.

You can see said facial hair here.

Lembit builds up his employers beyond credulity

We must be most grateful to James Graham's little sideline, Prawn Free Lembit for bringing us dear Lembo's weekly Daily Sport column. This week's column contains this classic:

ON Wednesday, the Prime Minister committed yet more troops to Afghanistan. In my view, and this paper’s view, that’s the wrong policy.

Crikey. Do you see what he did there? That's Lembit really building up his employers, isn't it? He smuggled that in, so we hardly noticed it, didn't he? The Daily Sport (lead story today "Corrie girls get rude"), he reckons, actually has a view on the Afghanistan conflict! Astonishing! They have actually used their little grey cells to actually think through the evidence and then come to what could loosely be called "a conclusion"!

Staggering!

I need a stiff drink.

Autumn woodland magic

As we often do, we went for a walk on Snelsmore Common, near Newbury, this afternoon. We went down a path I'd never walked along before. The ferns looked exceptional - a combination of autumn brown and greens with the trees in the background and the sun playing on them. It was wonderful. My sneaky piccy, below, hopefully captures some of the magic.

What do the PCC call an "examination"?

Fascinating stuff. I mailed a complaint about the Daily Mail Stephen Gately article at 17:33 on a Saturday. At 17:34 I received a reply which included this utter gem:

On initial examination, it would appear that you are, therefore, a third party to the complaint, and we may not be able to pursue your concerns further.

"On initial examination"?! Who are they trying to kid?! It was an automatic reply.

David Beckham and pants "beards"

The world seems to have gone beard crazy. It is a subject on which I can speak with a little authority, having worn a beard for twenty years (I grew it to look older when I was 20-odd and shaved it off when I wanted to younger at 40).

BBC News 24 went particularly beard crazy this morning. David Beckham has grown what could, perhaps, loosely be described as a "beard". In fact, it just looks like he hasn't bothered to shave for two weeks. It is really one of the most ludicrous so-called "beards" I have ever seen. I speak with some knowledge. I think my beard looked that ridiculous in the early years in as well.

When interviewed about said "beard", he said that he simply couldn't be bothered to shave. Correct. In time, if he decides to carry on down the beard route, he will realise that he'll have to buy a trimmer and trim it and shave underneath it about once every two days. Otherwise it will look complete pants, just like it does at the moment.

The parallel universe of the Daily Mail

Oh Good Lord. I did think that it was only a matter of time before the mention of the word "cannabis" would cause the Daily Mail to jump out of its tree about the death of Stephen Gately, and, indeed, they have done so - with knobs on. One of those columnists they hire who has a picture above her column which looks as though it required about three months of airbrushing and make-up on-slapping, has had a go:

The ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see.

And what might that 'dangerous lifestyle' be, we ask ourselves? Having a few drinks and a spliff in a country where it is legal, and then putting on one's pyjamas to sleep on the sofa. Crikey that's really dangerous living isn't it? Real living on the edge. Nobody at the Daily Mail does anything remotely like that, do they?

She then tries to build up a massive thesis on this wafer-thin basis, even dragging in the quite separate circumstances of the tragic death of Matt Lucas's estranged partner:

Another real sadness (note the 'kerching' crocodile tears) about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.
Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual.

You know, I've read this and the whole article several times. It is very hard not to come away with the conclusion that the author is actually suggesting that "heterosexual" relationships are "happy-ever-after" ones and that people in "heterosexual" relationships never die tragically after estrangement or drink a bit, smoke the odd spliff in a country where it is legal, indulge in the odd bit of bed-swopping and then suffer what has been described as "sudden adult death syndrome" (which kills about two people a day in the UK alone). Oh no, of course, those things never ever happen in "heterosexual" relationships, do they? Of course, not. Perish the thought.

I have complained to the Press Complaints Commission about this article and would urge others to do the same using these handy hints from Mark Pack.

Hilarious folding of Ross Kemp's face

It sounds like a random and pointless activity: Fold photos of Ross Kemp to make him look funny.

But it results in an hilarious and strangely compelling blog: Kemp folds - Ross Kemp's face folded.

Well done Dave Hodgson, Mayor of Bedford!

Many congratulations to Dave Hodgson for a stonking result in Bedford. I know Dave from my days as a membership secretary. He is a very solid, affable and, above all, hard working fellow. He'll make an excellent Mayor of Bedford.

politics.co.uk

I am probably very slow on the uptake but I have just discovered this excellent web site http://www.politics.co.uk/ . It's well worth visiting regularly if you're not already doing so.

Oh gawd

Oh look. Dear Mr Speaker. Dear Johnny Bercow says he tried to stop dear Tommy Legg and his retrospective elements.

Hello?! Earth calling Commons! Just pay up OK? He's independent. If you agreed with his rulings he wouldn't be independent. Do I have to do this in semaphore?

And we had Radio Five Live wheeling out Sir General Mrs (Retired) Anthony Scrivener QC and Bar (mine's a treble) yesterday who said that MPs "barred from standing for parliament" could successfully legally challenge such a ruling. Kerching.

Look! Noone is stopping them from standing for parliament, OK? Anyone can do it. They just won't win, or face an enormous uphill struggle, without the support of a party (which is not legally challengeable as much as the Scrivs would have us believe - as long as they have gone through due process i.e. "You're fired!").

Stephen Gately mystery - making some sense at last

From the acres of speculation about the cause of Stephen Gately's death, here's one golden nugget from his mother, via her lawyer and the Mirror. It appears to make sense of the tragedy:

Stephen Gately's shattered mum believes he died from a previously undetected heart condition that has plagued his family.
Margaret Gately told the family's lawyer Gerald Kean: "As soon as I heard he had died I knew it was a heart problem. It has lifted a huge burden off our family's shoulders."
A postmortem yesterday revealed Stephen died from natural causes due to acute pulmonary oedema, a build-up of fluid on his lungs. Most cases are related to heart failure or the early stages of heart disease.
Stephen's father Martin has seen several relatives die prematurely from heart trouble.
The rest of the Gately family will have medical checks to see if they are at risk.
Mr Kean said: "Margaret felt all along Stephen died from a heart-related problem.
"There is a heart condition on his dad Martin's side of the family. Stephen would have had no idea he had this condition."

Wonderful! Geert Wilders to be allowed into this country

Geert Wilders has won his appeal to be allowed into the UK. I am delighted. By keeping him out, the government gave him an air of matrydom and a sheen of mystique. By letting him, we can all plainly see what a preening idiot he is.

Hallejujah! Snowe melts!

In the US Olympia Snowe (R-ME) has said she will vote for the health care reform bill in the Senate Finance Committee today. This is a mega epoch-making event. The Democrats have persuaded a single Republican senator to vote for the bill!

It ought to be noted that Olympia Snowe represents a state which contains 0.43% of the population of the United States. Maine. "Murder she wrote" was based there - remember? They catch a lot of lobster there, too.

In fact, the significance of Snowe's vote is not so much to give the reform plan a sort of "bipartisan" sheen as to help persuade some of the doubting Democrats to get on board.

Stephen Gately

Update 13/10/09: The post-mortem declared the cause of the death of Stephen Gately as pulmonary oedema. See explanation here. Inhalation of vomit was ruled out by a court official.

One is constantly reminded of the fragility of life. At least 25 people were killed in car bombings in Anbur province, Iraq on Sunday. The same day we heard news of poor Stephen Gately. From reports, he seems a remarkably blameless chap. A very talented musician and 'a beautiful person both inside and out'.

One is left once again reflecting on the binary nature of life. We are lucky enough to be in the "1" position. But it just so easy for us to flip into the "0" position. Let's enjoy the "1" while we can!

Whingeing MPs deserve a bloody good kicking

I really cannot believe that some MPs are stupid enough to want to inflame this whole expense mess again. Thank goodness that Sir Thomas Legg has come in as an independent person and made a call - quite briskly for the size of the task involved. If MPs now start carping on about moving goalposts, they will just reignite the near-revolutionary public anger wave which consumed us all for about two months before the summer. The fact is that the implementation of Commons rules were corrupt, as I said at the time. - A systemic conspiracy of nods, winks and unspoken "if you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" which had allowed an illegitimate source of untaxed perks for MPs for many years.

Legge has come in and made a call based on how the real world operates. He has based his calls on the very rules the MPs were supposed to be obeying all along: Expenses should only be paid when "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purposes of carrying out their duties as an MP." The whole point of having an independent person making a review is that not everyone is going to like all the conclusions. Tough. The alternative is going back to rules essentially written and administered by the MPs themselves and risk a revolution.

MPs who start whingeing about Legge's judgments really do deserve a bloody good kicking.

Is this a blott on the landscape?

I had a wonderful little mosey around Hype Park and the Albert Hall in London today.

My first photo is of the Albert memorial. I first saw this when I was about ten years old and was stunned by it. Now it has been refurbished, it is even more stunning. I notice that tourists continue to be mesmerised by it also. It is a most wonderful example of Victorian extravagance. Having watched "Young Victoria" last night, I already had the context in my head.

(I should say that I have digitally altered all but the first of these photos, because the light was rather pants when I took them.)

And here's a shot of the Albert Hall from the Royal Academy of Music end. I have "warmified" this image because I was feeling a bit soppy.

Here's some players of American Football practising their game in front of the Albert Memorial.

And here is......well I don't know. Can you tell me? I've looked it up under "tower", pillar" and "obelisk" "near Albert Hall", "in Kensington Gore", "in front of Queen Alexandra House" etc etc and found nothing. I could find nothing on maps or in various guides to London. There was no inscription on it or around it. In itself, it is an interesting example of a brick monument. However, right next door to one of the finest examples of Victorian architecture in the country, it looks rather incongruous, being charitable. Let's just say that I might not be the first person to think, on seeing it: "Where is Fred Dibner when you need him?"

The Duke of Edinburgh lying on the floor with a torch in his teeth...

It's quite a vision. Some classic stuff and a fascinating insight into the mundane side of royal life from Prince Philip on the anniversary of the Design Council. I put him in the same category of Boris Johnson. The nation would be a duller place without him.

The Duke of Edinburgh has attacked the complexity of television sets and remote controls, giving a rare glimpse of life inside the Windsor household.
Prince Philip said the quality of design had in some areas declined, and he picked televisions as an example.
Harking back to an age when televisions were simple, he said: "To work out how to operate a TV set you practically have to make love to the thing."
You had to lie on the floor with a torch and magnifying glass, he said.
..."They put the [TV] controls on the bottom so you had to lie on the floor, and then if you wanted to record something the recorder was underneath, so you ended up lying on the floor with a torch in your teeth, a magnifying glass and an instruction book.
"Either that or you had to employ a grandson of age 10 to do it for you."
He added: "And why can't you have a handset that people who are not 10 years old can actually read?"

One hell of a speech

I strongly recommend watching this speech in the US Congress by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL).

At last, it's good to see some real passion in the voices of those in favour of the US Health Care Reform proposal.

Bottom line on Obama peace prize

-Gives us a sense of momentum when the United States has accolades tossed its way rather than shoes.

US State department spokesperson quoted by CNN.

VIDEO: Government Climate change advert

A hard-hitting public service ad, aired last night for the first time during Coronation Street.

Cameron: Conservative balls - nothing else matters

We're all in this together (again)

I should have known Steve Bell would have been onto this...

Those crazy Norwegians surprise us all....

Crikey.

Even as an Obama cheerleader, I must confess to utter bafflement (at first) at his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. "What for?" I asked myself. Well he's set old Georgie Mitchell off to the Middle East to try to start talks. He announced the scrapping of the planned Polish missiles. And he's made conciliatory noises to the Muslim world, not least with his visit to Turkey and his video broadcast to Iran.

But perhaps this bold move by those crazy Norwegians is mostly motivated by the simple fact that Barack Obama, someone with a bit of knowledge of the world outside the 50 States, is President Barack Obama and George Bush is now a librarian in Texas.

If there was one thing I would like the award to be for, it would be the scrapping of the Polish missile plan. If there was anything that George Bush did which was downright stupid, needlessly belligerent and completely counter-productive ('fighting the last war' on steroids, I'd call it), that was it. And if there is one thing which Obama has done which I am genuinely pleased about, which makes the world a safer place, it is that move. It is a very important totemic action. But, of course, the reasons he did it, with the support of Robert Gates who proposed the original plan, included changes in technology and the situation visa vis Iran. As such the move doesn't seem to have caused Obama any unpopularity in the States. That makes it doubly brilliant.

I hope this award counters some of the bad press Obama got last week for a similar Scandinavian surprise when he went to Copenhagen and left with his tail between his legs after Chicago was turned down as the next Olympics site after London.

Best wishes to Betsy Duncan-Smith

One occasionally peruses Iain Dale's Diary. Someone's got to. I noticed today this piece about Betsy Duncan-Smith, who is undergoing chemotherapy to treat cancer. My best wishes for a speedy recovery to Mrs Duncan-Smith and best wishes to her family as they support her.

We are all in this together

Congratulations to Jonathan Calder and Nich Starling for pictorially highlighting George Osborne's utter hypocrisy.

Bubbly pickle

I have a confession to make. When the LibDem conference agenda has arrived at our humble household in the past, a highlighter pen has been rapidly withdrawn from its sheath for the specific purpose of highlighting those fringe events with the magic words "free supper" or "Free bar".

The NUT event was always an absolute must, with the promise of free bangers and mash and a free bar.

And, oh my goodness, the rapture of managing to blag ones' way into the Tesco reception, where attractive young women and men came round and refilled your glass with champagne at the merest hint of one reaching even the middle of one's glass.

And tales of the Friends of Israel's generosity, of beautifully fortified wines and of friends stumbling into the afternoon light from their lunchtime events, are legendary.

...and that was at a LibDem conference.

So, Eric Pickles really is as daft as a brush to suggest that champagne-quaffing should cease at this year's Tory conference. By doing so he was just drawing attention to the breach of his suggestion. And, by the way, I read that Mr Pickles is a real ale enthusiast anyway. So he doesn't have to worry about a champers ban, he can go "under the wire".

EXCLUSIVE UPDATE: Risking Independentisation....

a.k.a 'no deceased equine creature left knowlingly unflogged....'

Update: Through the wonders of 4OD I have pinpointed the mathematical conundrum, described by host Jeff Stelling as "another tough one" which beat both contestants and Rachel Riley (who has a upper second class honours mathematics degree from Oriel College, Oxford) on yesterday's 'Countdown'.

The number to aim for was: 394.

The numbers given to use to aim for that number were 4,9,8,7,9,1.

Isn't it obvious?

9+1=10

10 x 4 = 400

9-7 = 2

8-2= 6

400-6= 394.

Or have I somehow breached the rules? Are you not allowed interrupted concatenations or something?!

I just happened to watch a bit of Countdown today. All I would say is that Rachel Riley is in grave danger of making a few senior gentlemen extremely happy over their Earl Grey and Pattum Peperium on toast, as she sticks up her consonants.

-Not sure about the standard of maths on the programme though... Today I managed to work out the maths conundrum to the exact number, while both contestants and Rachel couldn't manage it. Now that wouldn't have happened in Carole Vorderman's day....

The identikit US President

In-depth historical research has shown the profile of the most likely candidate to win the Presidency in the USA. The model used predicted the winner correctly in 25 or 28 past elections, missing in only very tight races.

So, if someone wants to maximise their chances of being President they should:

-be called John Smith (i.e the more common name wins)
-be heavy
-be very tall
-have an ancestor who was President
-have a father who held high political office
-Be an only child
-have lost at least one parent before the age of 30
-Be married (not divorced) with children, including at least one adopted child
-have lost one or more children
-have lost one or more siblings
-have lost a spouse
-have gone to an Ivy League college, graduated in law, with a master's and PhD and have been a professor
-have been in the military with honours
-have been in a fraternity
-have been a City mayor, Governor, Judge, Public Attorney, State representative, state senator, US Representative or US Senator and US Vice-President
-have been a famous actor, an athlete and authored several books
-have survived a major life-threatening disease
-have a "competent" face
-come from Texas, California or New York (i.e states with lots of electoral college votes)
-have a high IQ
-be "physically attractive"
-be affiliated with a large religion (the bigger the better)

Interestingly and perhaps predictably, the research also concludes that you have an especially good chance of being President if you are......wait for it.....already President (once).

The mobile goalpost generation

I seem to be part of that. Just as I approach the 65 year retirement age it'll move to 66, if George Osbourne has his way. Then, according to Will Hutton (one of the three people in the world who understands this stuff) interviewed on BBC Breakfast this morning, the retirement age will go up to 67 in 2021 - again slipping frustratingly out of my reach.

What did us Baby Boomers (or perhaps 'Generation Joneses') to deserve all this?

Tories: Fighting the 2014 election four years early

It's almost as if the Conservatives take for granted that they will be elected next May/June and are now working to ensure they get re-elected four years later.

Why else would they set out to so unpopular? Medicial Examinations for the sake of 25 quid a week, a public pay freeze and moving the retirement age to 66. They know how to make themselves unpopular.

Why is it that they suddenly think people will find cutting public spending a good thing? Financial prudence - since when was that a vote winner? Perhaps if it was demonstrated to people that their taxes are being spent inordinately towards paying off interest on loans, but the Tories haven't done that. They seem to think people will vote for financial constraints sort of naturally. It is highly unlikely, especially given the shop-soiled, ramshackle policies they are (at last) offering.

They seem to be fast forwarding to fight the 2014 election in 2010. "We've had to act tough because of the mess Labour left us in".

Polly Toynbee brilliantly deconstructs the first couple of "phoney" policies from Cameron's Conservatives here. An example:

...the 2.6 million people on incapacity benefit would face tough medical tests and benefit cuts of £25 a week. The Sun loved this "shirk attack" on "loafers".
Leave aside the callousness of cutting off sick and depressed people's weekly benefits by £25 to make savings. To make the sums work, at least 500,000 registered sick would need to fail tougher medical tests for benefit cuts to pay for the £600m cost of getting them back to work. Let's stick with the numbers: there aren't 500,000 on the top sickness benefit to take £25 from, even if you cut them all. Then ask how you can find all these jobs, with unemployment at 3 million next year? The unlikelihood is mind-boggling.

A Boris classic

There was classic evidence that Boris is a jewel in the pantheon of British characters on last night's ITN News at Ten. He was interviewed at length about the Lisbon Treaty referendum by Tom Bradby outside the Manchester conference centre. There were a lot of wordy answers from Boris, who was obviously having to perform quite terrifying intellectual gymnastics. ....Trying to prove that he was not out of line with David Cameron previously when in fact he seemed to be.

After the interview was over but the camera was still rolling (words which may send a shiver down most politicians' spines) Boris became very candid and said to Bradby with some exasperation (and I remembering these words from last night because I cannot find video of the encounter): "I'm not sure I got this bloody referendum thing right. The trouble is there is nothing you can actually say about it"

California faces termination

Poor old Arnold Schwarzenegger. He replaced a previously unpopular Californian Governor, Gray Davis, after a recall election. Now Arnie is as unpopular as Davis. Californian state staff are being paid in IOUs, unemployment is at its highest in 70 years and teachers are on hunger strike. It's being seriously suggested that California may become the USA's first failed state.

Oh dear.

Is there a psychiatrist in the house?

You are just coming up to your 50th birthday. Naturally, you pen a 3,500 word letter to your (younger) self and have it published in the Daily Mail.

Naturellement. Doesn't everybody?

-All part of the unending entertainment with which Simon Cowell provides us. We must be most grateful.

Well done Ireland!

While being somewhat dubious about "second stab" referendums, I am delighted by the result of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. 67% yes! Wooh-hoo! Well done Ireland!

Iain Dale, presaging this result, said this would be a "Sad Day for Democracy", mumbling about "vested interests" issuing "dire warnings". What total cobblers!

How can the majority of those who bother to vote, making up their minds to vote a certain way be a "Sad Day for Democracy"?

As the BBC correspondent in Dublin said the change of heart is mostly down to the dramatic change in the economic fortunes of Ireland over the last year or so.

David Letterman's bombshell

There's been a quite extraordinary episode regarding David Letterman in the US, summarised beautifully by the Guardian today on page 11 of their print edition (but I am danged if I can find it on the internet, so here is an earlier summary they published).

There's footage of Letterman's stunning confession and revelation on air below.

Once again, for my money, Letterman demonstrates why is the Master of the Talkshow. One slight worry though, Ed Pilkington in the Guardian suggests that Letterman's future now lies in the hands of, amongst others, (oh dear) Sarah Palin.

Peter Kaplan, a former editor of the New York Observer and an essayist on Letterman, said the comic's future now rested in the hands of advertisers, CBS affiliate stations that have the power to cut off the show - and Sarah Palin. Letterman was recently forced to apologise to last year's Republican vice-Presidential candidate over a sexual joke he made about her daughter. "If ever the Palin crew had the chance of exacting revenge, this is it," Kaplan said.

Well whatever happens on that score will depend, I suspect, on whether the promoters of Sarah Palin's new book reckon there is any publicity mileage in this. There probably is.

Big Brother Mandelson?

Congratulations to Frank Riley of Hexham for this fantastic letter in the Guardian today:

Compare and contrast: "The Labour party has finally learned to love Peter Mandelson. It took a long time but we finally got there" (Chris Mullin MP, How deep is your love, 29 September). "Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache … But it was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother" (George Orwell, 1984).

Changing places

I don't like writing these sorts of admin posts but I ought to do this one. (So far, in over 3 years of blogging, I have managed to avoid the dreaded "Blogging ** l***t" post, so be thankful for small mercies).

It's been a whirlwind couple of days. For reasons which will eventually become apparent, I have been shifting around domains. Suffice it to say, I am now more familiar with terms like "CNAME" and "DNS" than I ever wanted to be.

I am now the proud owner of a new domain called http://www.liberalburblings.org/ and that is what I am publishing Liberal Burblings on now and in the future.

I have stuck a couple of, admittedly cack-handed and amateurish, redirection codes for this new domain on my previous domains, paulwalter.blogspot.com and http://www.liberalburblings.com/.

Apologies for any disruption this has caused.

As part of preparations for a formatting refinement I have deleted most of the history of this blog. Sorry about that. If I had thought it through properly I would have avoided that. But now my history is residing on a massive xml file on my hard drive which I am finding it difficult to use in anyway.

"Que sera sera" as Doris Von Kappelhoff once said.

Article on LibDem Voice

Many thanks to LibDem Voice for publishing an article I submitted to them on the Tory party: "A frightening party of selfishness and reactionism".

Politicshome prediction: Tory majority now down to 70

Politicshome have done another massive study of marginal seats to predict that the Tories will win the next election with a majority of 70. In 2008 they predicted 398 seats for the Tories. This year they predict 360. The LibDems will get 55 seats they say, including Oxford East and OXWAB, I notice. They reckon we'll lose Eastleigh and not win Chippenham while holding the golden suburban belt around Kingston etc. They reckon Labour will hold Wavertree. Fwah! They reckon the Tories will win Reading West.

Health warning: Politicshome was founded by Stefan Shakespeare who used to be Jeffrey Archer's spokesperson and is a former Conservative candidate. YouGov did the polling. They were also founded by Stefan Shakespeare and are often known as "Whatever You say, Gov". And of course, Lord Ashcroft, key investor in Tory marginal campaigns, is now a major investor in Politicshome.

Cameron's tail is firmly between his legs on the Lisbon treaty

I was struck by the latest language being used by the Tories about the Lisbon treaty. It's "pretty shabby" for the UK not to hold a referendum on the issue, says Greg Clark. While agreeing, the language is obviously being toned down in the expectation of a climb down. "Pretty shabby" is not up there with "constitutional outrage" is it?

With the Irish set to vote "yes", Mr Cameron has his tail between his legs on this one, as Mark Littlewood on Liberal Vision says.

The Guardian reports that he has finally bowed to the inevitable:

David Cameron indicated today that a Tory government would have to reconsider its promised referendum on the European Union's Lisbon treaty if it had been ratified by the rest of the EU by the time the Conservatives came to power.

The disgusting Daily Mail misses the point

I'd like to add my voice to the others to condemn the Daily Mail for the disgusting little piece on Iain Dale in today's Ephraim Hardcastle column. What the heck do the Mail think they are doing publishing such bile in this day and age? Do they not want progressive people to read their paper at all?

It drives me crazy to have this highlighting of Iain's sexuality in this way. It is much better for him to be judged on his skills, record and arguments. Quite frankly, as someone who works in Bracknell, the question "Why Bracknell" (?), on Iain's campaign website, is the chief one to be asked here. I was aware that Iain spends a lot of time in Kent, London and Norfolk - but Berkshire? Ah. He spent a couple of summers in the 1980s teaching at Wellington College apparently. Crikey:

I remember taking the kids on a nature walk one day and thinking to myself: “I can imagine living here”.

This is one of his main reasons stated for wanting to represent Bracknell in parliament. - Not patronising at all then. (And by the way, the last thing Bracknell needs, I would suggest, is another potentially geographically trigonometrical MP).

Iain is an excellent writer and publisher. I don't rate him as a candidate. He is a very skilled speaker in terms of arguing his case, but he comes across as not a particularly strong speaker in the vocal sense. But then again, I come from a background where you have to heard above bellowing the cattle to be regarded as a good speaker.

And yes, Iain will no doubt whip up a lot of sound and fury and put out loads of outstanding websites, blogposts and Twitters but very often this in itself does not actually butter any parsnips. Often the candidate with the softly-softly 'slowly, slowly catchy monkey' approach wins the day.