A Right Hunt

Referees who throw matches make strategic decisions to award decisions against the team they want to win. So they send off a player in the last few minutes when the impact will be small or give free-kicks in less advantageous positions for the opposition than the decisions they give their favoured team just so the stats look fair.

Some people might think Jeremy Hunt does this when he uses the defence that he made 4 decisions that made James Murdoch 'furious' when it was quite plain that but for the Milly Dowler affair and resulting furore the BSkyB bid was going to be waved through. Also notice how Rupert 'forgets' meeting PMs and other politicians but remembers other minute details. Does anybody really believe these guys are telling the truth? I wonder.

Ken Needs To Beat Boris's Personality Politics If He Is Going To Win.

Boris has got nothing to offer Londoners in terms of policies. Ken will cut fares by 7%, compete with letting agencies and energy firms to bring down costs for consumers, and generally spend money much more prudently and effectively than Boris because 'Ken does detail'.

Ken has promised to resign by 7th October if he doesn't come good on his fares cut. I don't see how any London commuter can lose by voting for Ken, yet still he trails in the opinion polls. Maybe Ken should promise to run through Trafalgar Square naked if elected - that is the only thing that might get the media and public's attention in this sad excuse for democratic debate.

I Will Not Watch A Film That Glorifies Thatcher.

For good or bad it seems I am now not the number one Thatcher hater on the net six years after I wrote this post. But I have to make a comment about the new film about her. When they make a film that explains why so many people hate her, then i will watch.

How dare they make a film about Thatcher without the politics of what she did to the poor of this country. Worse they depict her alzheimers which is bad taste enough, but some people might end up sympathising with her. Now that is sick.

Unfortunately Meryl Streep has apparently mimicked her to a tee so a lot of people might go just for that reason. I hope not. Meryl's comments about Thatcher being a feminist icon sum up why this film should not be seen. It is both hysterically funny and horrific that anyone might think Thatcher did anything for the cause of "wimmin".

The way the film shows people very angry at Thatcher but never explains why is another depressing feature of the film. This film glorifies Thatcher and to say that because it shows her with alzeimers at the end we on the left are supposed to say it is a balanced film. It is not, worse, the plight of Thatcher in her later years is sad and it is sick that this film makes capital of that. They should have waited until after her death due to respect for her family and better still they should have made a film that explains how much damage she did to this country in respect of the people of Britain.

Just to add, there is a brilliant satirical petition on the government's website about privatising Thatcher's state funeral. Please sign it, it has 27,000 signatures, if we can get to 100,000 they might debate it in parliament. No more taxpayer's money should be wasted on this woman. Her funeral should be privatised preferably sponsored by McDonalds and or British American Tobacco. It is what she would have wanted. .

Riots Are Determined By 'Direction Of Travel', Not Current Level Of Status.

Why do we have widespread rioting/looting e.g 1981, 2011, whenever Tory governments come into power on a cuts agenda? As any criminologist/ social anthropologist/ or even casual observer will tell you - it is not the level of poverty on it's own that makes the looter, but the looter's 'perception' or the general perception of society as to what the potential looter's future holds coupled with their low status in a highly unequal society.

As any rightwinger will tell you, there are plenty of examples of people much more socially deprived than some of the rioters and looters that were about last week across English cities. No, what matters is how these people foresee their future - do they see it getting worse, or better? The current recession coupled with the miserabilist ideology of the current government has combined to set this perception well into the negative. Add the spark of anger and mistrust at establishment and the police with a perceived injustice of police murder and there you have it, the conditions for widespread rioting are created.

So what of the moral debate that the right has set raging in the country? Aren't these looters just morally bankrupt? Well, for a start politicians like David Cameron have one hell of a cheek asking that question when they are happily taking £20k a year off the taxpayer to pay a mortgage they don't need. Are these looters really any worse than the bankers who take millions in bonuses while simultaneously wrecking the balance sheets of both bank and country? Two wrongs don't make a right. Looters are rightly being arrested and prosecuted, it is a shame the same hasn't happened to the elite who created the conditions for riots in the first place. Until we tackle widespread greed at the top that widens inequality, we will continue creating miscreants at the bottom of society as well. Shop windows full of goods that they can't afford are bound to be smashed by people with no hope of ever attaining what the media tells them they must have. Are they really solely to blame for this?

Meltdown In Politics, Banking And Now Media. But What Progress?

My hopes just keep getting raised; a referendum on changing the electoral system (ok, to a system not much better) but.., result - lost; MPs caught with their hands in the till, result - no real change, bankers - ditto.

So I haven't raised my hopes during Murdochgate. Yes we have some judicial inquiries, yes some resignations (with handsome payoffs no doubt), yes the BskyB bid is defeated (for now), but will any of this really convict the establishment figures up to their neck in it?

My reasons for starting this blog 6 years ago were to highlight how centralised and monopolised our politics, media and finance had become. This breeds a lack of competition. The main solutions seemed simple enough to me - proportional elections, regulated ownership and impartiality rules for the media, and regulating speculation, debt and inequality. All these things could be achieved if only powerful rich vested interests could be defeated. There has been no time better than the present, yet somehow the people have been sidetracked, bamboozled and it remains 'business as usual' for the powered rich elite that form the establishment. I really don't know how they do it.

On MPs expenses, what highlighted just how little had changed was Tories like David Cameron berating large families on benefit for claiming £20k in benefits just so they can pay their exorbitant rents (not their fault). While at the same time Cameron claims £20k from the taxpayer for interest on a mortgage he doesn't even need. While this guy on a taxpayer funded salary in excess of £150k and worth an estimated £30m can get away with this there is little hope (MPs still get 3 times average salary and £100k expenses on top). What real chance has a family on benefit got to change their circumstances when it is obvious to anyone that there are no jobs going to pay them the amount they need to live. Is that their fault? Isn't the solution to make sure work pays, rather than throw them on the street? Of course you would never read any of this in the press. Even if Murdoch is destroyed, would it be better if the Daily Mail or Richard Desmond have even more power? And of course bankers are still getting millions in bonuses.

I was trying to reason that surely Murdoch can't be all bad, but looking at Fox news in the US and hearing Murdoch wailing at the injustice of it all just emphasises we should have no sympathy for this guy (face-pie or no face-pie - I just wish that idiot hadn't done that).

This Is A Post I wrote nearly 6 years ago about the press in this country.

We Will Never Have A Free Press While It Is Run By Reactionary Bigots

How Will Murdoch Get Out Of This One?

I cannot possibly write down all the thoughts I have on this hacking crisis. Nowadays you have to be very careful. Just to say that if you add up all the people who have been in jail in the UK, add in their families and then add all those who deserve to be in jail but got away with it, it probably comes to around 4 million people. Around 4 million people bought the News Of The World on Sunday. Just a thought. In my humble opinion, buying the NOTW (or for that matter any tabloid involved in hacking) after this scandal is like spitting on the graves of murder victims, war dead etc. Provocative I know, but sometimes it needs to be said.

There is a very simple test as to whether Murdoch is going to get away with this hacking scandal - whether or not the BskyB bid goes through. Ed Miliband has forced this issue into a parliamentary debate - he has kept 'punching the bruise' as one Guardian journalist put it and Cameron and the Tories have consequently without Lib Dem support looked very weak and had to back down in their support for Murdoch.

Miliband has been very brave and I hope he reaps the rewards. He will definitely at some point get a payback from the Murdoch press, they will bide their time. The revelation in the Guardian that Miliband received threats from NI sources about this was a turning point for me. Miliband showed he now is willing to take the risk and that is good news for all of us. Without Miliband's intervention (and the Guardian's persistence), Murdoch would have triumphed. Whatever his other lily livered failings, on this Miliband has shown real courage.

I think Murdoch still hopes he can get BskyB in 6 months time, his willingness to go to the competition commission shows he is willing to lose some of his print media to get it. He also knows any diversion from the real issue of 'fit and proper' ownership is welcome. So to answer my question in the title. If public opinion fades on this, like it did with the expenses scandal, if Miliband and Labour lose their nerve, if the Lib Dems are offered policy/media sweeties by Tories/Murdoch to allow it through, don't write off Murdoch yet. He has a knack of getting his way.

Greens Should Organise A Boycott Of The Argus...

...unless the Argus stops its nasty rightwing campaign against them.

I concluded long ago that the Brighton Argus was a rightwing rag. If the Greens tolerate the sort of nasty rightwing headline they were given on Thursday, then there will be plenty more to come - the Argus is leading the Tory fightback with as nasty headlines as it can.

I doubt anyone thinks the headline 'Greens want more sites for travellers' was a helpful promotion of one of the Greens policies.

The truth is this was a small part of a raft of policies the Greens are putting forward. The only reason the Argus put it on their front page and across billposters across Brighton and Hove was to make people think this is the number one priority of the Greens when it is nothing of the sort. Of course most people who saw that are going to think it is the first act of the new Green administration. And whatever the merits of having more sites for travellers this is not going to go down well with a lot of voters and the Brighton Argus knows that.

The Greens need to counter this distortion as quickly as possible to limit any damage to their reputation. They need to do at least one of two things (and preferably both). 1. They need to argue why more official sites will ease the problem of travellers on unofficial sites. and 2. They need to make clear in no uncertain terms that if the Argus continues along this line (which is of course entirely up to the owners of the Argus) then the Greens will publicise exactly who owns and is pulling the strings of the Brighton Argus and why they might have a particular political bias. Also the Greens should tell people to boycott the paper because it is so distorted.

Now, a lot of people might think this an over-reaction, but if the Greens want to avoid the plight of Labour who were pilloried and bullied by the owners of the press into being completely pathetic on socialist principles, then they had better act and act quick.

Some Greens may think they can ignore the Argus as it only has less than 30,000 readers, but they must also remember that virtually everyone in Brighton and Hove reads their billposters. This is a powerful weapon as Ken Livingstone can attest to in London when 6 months of Evening Standard bilge helped remove him from being Mayor.

Murdoch Must Be Laughing His Head Off

Oh dear, it seems Mr Cable's heart was in the right place after all. He has told a female constituent or so he thought, that he had 'secretly' declared war on the Murdoch empire, now thanks to this Daily Telegraph undercover reporter, the Tories have the excuse they need to allow Murdoch to expand unhindered. Ironically the Telegraph as a Murdoch rival tried to bury the story...apparently.

Umm..I wonder. Maybe because I read the net too much, I am starting to see conspiracies everywhere. Tory paper helps Tories help right wing mogul...well you never do say.

Who to choose for Labour leader?

Ed Balls would be a disaster, so would David Miliband. How do I know? Well I predicted Brown would lose us votes even before he became PM. Image matters whether we like it not. Balls is fat and comes across as pompous.

I would pick the best looking person with good communication skills - which, of the limited choices available, leaves Jon Cruddas and Ed Miliband. I am on the left, so Jon would be my choice.

Sadly Labour members are likely to choose neither because the party has become so hollowed out only neanderthal tribalists, charlatans and nerds are left in the party. And none of these have got a clue about public opinion.

It's the image stupid!

In 1974, Labour was elected because people were sick of the 3 day week under the Tories and thought Labour better able to control the unions. Thatcher was elected in 1979 because Labour had failed to control the unions. In 1997 new Labour was elected because people were sick of 3m unemployed and sleaze.

...In 2010 Cameron was elected because he could look straight at the camera better than the other two. Sad times indeed.

Have The Leader Debates Been Good For Our Democracy?

In the sense that people now know a lot more about the Lib Dems and some of their policies, then yes. The debates have also got people who usually don't vote to think about politics and maybe turnout will be up by 5% or so this time. So that also has been a success. But there is a down side. The focus of the debates was very narrow and now the novelty has worn off, people will very quickly get bored of them. Also it seems the whole general election campaign has suffered. Coverage has focused far more on how the leaders 'performed' and on their personalities than on party's policies which can only be bad for democracy.

In the long run, I happen to think that unless the format is changed quite considerably to be more like the Question Time format, with a wider range of party leaders involved over the three or more debates, then this new Americanisation of our politics can only be bad. Party's will even more have to think of image and good looks when they chose a leader. Policies will become even less relevant and of course policies really should be the only thing that matters not the least important thing. This can only help the right-wing in the long run. These debates were focussed on three very posh white men 'slugging' it out like a boxing match. It marginalised women and minorities - it was like a first-past-the-post debate. We need to see a wider range of people and politics if we are to engage the widest possible sections of society and make them feel they have a say in our democracy. If the Tories get a majority of seats in this election from just, say 36% of the vote - it will be a travesty of democracy and with the changes the Tories are planning for boundaries, our chance of getting electoral reform might be even further away. Saying that I am more positive about getting a referendum on PR and winning it than I was a month ago.

YouGov distort poll for Murdoch's Sun. What A Surprise!

Via Craig Murray, YouGov have admitted suggesting Clegg takes money from criminals but not apparently before asking their polling question. it would be a clear breach of polling rules and a clear attempt to suppress Lib Dem support if it was.

We couldn't really expect anything else from the Tories and their papers. Despicable. This country's media gets more like North Korea every day. What with the Evening Standard's bias in getting Boris elected in London. We now have this. We are heading for a bunch of Tories that endorse this kind of thing, running the country. It is a terrifying prospect.

Churnalism And BBC Bashing

Great article in this week's Private Eye:-

"Comic tearaway Dennis the Menace has been turned into Walter the Softy by politically correct BBC bosses", roared the Sun in a fit of silly-season rage last week. "Dennis is no longer slippered by his dad as a punishment".
"The Beano character has been 're-imagined' for a new politically correct series," thundered the equally outraged Mail.
This Dennis the Menace was presumably unrelated to the Dennis the Menace who the Daily Mail reported in July 2008 had "swapped corporal punishment for political correctness", or the one who the Sun noted in October 2007 was "returning to TV after a decade - with a politically correct image". Or even the one who appeared in what the Sun claimed was "The Beano: New and Seriously Politically Correct" in July 2003. Or even the 58 year old character who has not received a slippering from his father since the Beano removed corporal punishment from its pages in, er, the early 1980s.

An American NHS Would Mean A Cut In Their Tax Bill AND Better Healthcare.

Amazingly, the American taxpayer pays MORE than the UK taxpayer does for state funded healthcare.

Americans spend around 15% of GDP on health in total - $2.2 trillion (about 7.5% of GDP is spent by US taxpayers ($1.1 trillion).

In comparison, UK taxpayers now spend around 8% of UK GDP on health ($155 billion).

This works out as $3,200 per capita in England, and $3,700 per capita in the US. In England this provides 100% of the population with care, while only 28% of US citizens are provided with care.

This is a US rip off healthcare scam, thank heaven for the NHS over here.

We can see why Republicans funded by health insurance companies are being so hysterical - they would lose a lot of money if the US had an NHS because it is clearly far more efficient and less bureaucratic than having to access EVERY single claimant and decide a premium (or deny them care altogether as often happnes in the US).

Of course the ironic thing is that President Obama is not (sadly) even proposing an NHS, just providing direct government insurance for the 50m Americans currently uninsured. This is enough though to elicit the following lies:-

"NHS breeds terrorists" screams FOX (ironically the SUN has now called for Americans to stop their 'vicious slurs' on the NHS - if only they would tell their owner Murdoch, who of course also owns Fox).

"Death panels" screams Palin and NHS is 'Evil and Orwellian' when precisely the opposite is true - unless you are fabulously wealthy most Americans cannot access care when they really need it. Those in real need are denied insurance - there is no more a 'death panel' than that.

"Nobody over 59 would get healthcare" - laughable!

"Stephen Hawking would be dead under the NHS". Hawking was surprised to hear this, as he has lived his whole life in the UK using the NHS.

These outrageous lies have finally caught up with the Tories over here who spout them, if not yet the Republicans - whose hysterical campaign is sadly having some success despite 20,000 twitter users defending the NHS.

How Murdoch Will Charge For Content.

Ironically for someone billed as the staunchest defender of 'free markets', Rupert Murdoch has largely made his money from doing the opposite - creating mini-monopolies and shutting out competition - from monopolies on football and films to loss leading prices to drive out competitors in the newspaper market.

Whether it is his vicious opposition to the European Union regulators which open up competition, or his manipulation of governments to combat unions, restrict the BBC, allow him to buy into ITV or own 40% of the newspaper market, Murdoch is a clever operator.

So, my guess, is that his latest wheeze - charging for internet content, will follow the same pattern.

There is speculation and actually some admiration for this attempt to make serious money from internet news. A lot of commentators think it cannot be done, but none are willing to write Murdoch off, as every other venture he touches as eventually turned to gold. Plus he is now too big to fail - just as the banks had to lend him money in the 1990s when he was on the brink, they will have to again - he owes them too much to do otherwise.

Murdoch has tentatively announced that from June next year he will start charging. Why June, well my guess is that we will have the Tories in power by then, who have probably already promised him some legislation to help him out - maybe a selling off of the BBC website to private hands - maybe even his, though I doubt they will be that obvious.

I think Murdoch will use his vast business empire to tie in subcriptions to the Sun and Times websites. So expect Sky subscribers (both TV and broadband) to get 'free' access thrown in (at least initially), maybe even link access to buying the paper version in some way. Pay-per-view and monthly/yearly subscriptions will not allow Murdoch to create the monopoly he wants or to cross-promote so easily (something he successfully lobbied government to stop the BBC doing).

One way or another, Murdoch will probably have one more trick up his dirty digger sleeves. We shall soon see. I hope he fails, obviously.

Oh and one last thing, before anyone says he is 'self-made' remember he inherited a newspaper and had his rich dad get him into Oxford. Hardly poor.

Media Lies And Unemployment Figures: Unemployment Still Half Of Tory Years.

Rupert Murdoch's Sky News feed yahoo and most other media and along with the tabloids they are lying through their teeth about unemployment figures.

They claim the following:-

"[at 2.4m] Unemployment in the UK is now at its highest level since the summer of 1995".

and even more shamelessly lie that:-

"It is predicted that dole queues will stretch past the three million mark next year.
But an even gloomier forecast from the Centre for Economics and Business Research says there could be as many as four million out of work.
This would be far worse than the 1980s peak under Margaret Thatcher."

These Tory cronies are just loving it. There is no mention that the LABOUR FORCE SURVEY figures they quote only started being used by this Labour government in 1997 and that they are DELIBERATELY (because there can be no other reason) not comparing like with like by comparing these LFS figures with the CLAIMANT COUNT figures (see graph above) which were the only measure under the Tories. The figures above are independently recognised as comparable and go back to 1971.

There is only a brief mention of the claimant count figures hidden (as usual) near the end of the SKY article and these lies are repeated everywhere from the usual suspects MAIL/EXPRESS/STAR/SUN/TIMES/STANDARD and Daily Mail owned METRO, to even the BBC and MIRROR. People will actually believe unemployment is as bad as the Tory years when in fact it is still better than 1997 when Labour came to power.

The truth is shown in the graph above - as you can see, unemployment is still FAR BELOW the Tory highs when 3.1m were on the CLAIMANT COUNT as opposed to 1.58m today. So the truth is unemployment is still HALF WHAT IT WAS UNDER THE TORIES.

Of course, nobody reads my blog, so it is a bit of an unequal fight between me and the facts and the Tory media lies which are read by just about everyone. C'est La Vie!

"Evil And Orwellian NHS"

Welcome to the world of the US media, soon to be brought over here by the Tories as they scrap regulation that keeps our broadcast media within at least some standards of decency and honesty. You have been warned!

Worth The Licence Fee On Its Own

Gone are the days of trying to second guess the graveyard scheduling of ITV to watch or set the video for your team's game in the football league, or be disappointed as they scrap highlights at the last minute or show a pepsi ad and miss the winning goal. Gone are the days of sitting through endless adverts.

Yes, the BBC have bought the rights - we now have 2 HOURS AND 40 MINS of football on Saturday night on BBC1 covering all four divisions, premier league and football league. Then a further ten live games of football league and 60 mins on Sunday of more Premier league highlights.

But best of all, the BBC have put all the football league on the iplayer and you can even easily find the highlights for your particular club - brilliant.

Sport coverage and politics on five live and radio 4 are enough to fork out £11 a month as far as I am concerned, but all this and BBC1,2,3 & 4 and BBC News and childrens TV as well. Funding for film and culture, numerous radio stations all FOR LESS THAN THE PRICE OF A DAILY NEWSPAPER.

And people moan about the BBC. They must be mad, it is extravagantly good value for money. Pay five times more for SKY and a load of imports and adverts if you want, but don't wreck the BBC.

Phillip Blond

So this is the new face of 'progressive Conservatism' - Phillip Blond. He started his interview in the Daily Mail with the following:-

"Gay couples should not be able to adopt" and "abortion should be made illegal".

I don't think most progressives would recognise these policies as progress. Not a surprise to also hear that Blond is an evangelical 'born again' Christian. I don't know about born again, but they must think we were born yesterday to believe this guy is a progressive!

So where is the 'red' in this guys self proclaimed 'red' Toryism?

Well apparently he 'cares for the lot of poor people' and once was 'poor' himself. Whoopee doo! But what actual policies do he propose?

Well as this blog argues, there is little more than just regurgitated window dressed old Tory policies in Blond's bold talk. Effectively he just argues for cutting taxes for those who already have money. In short, nothing progressive at all, in fact the opposite in some cases.

So what is the point of Phillip Blond? Why have the Tories enthusiastically embraced him?

Well, apparently, unlike Blair and his mentor Anthony Giddens, Cameron lacked the intellectual bullshit... er sorry - ballast, to guide his non-existent philosophy.

Just like Blair before him offered bastardised Labour-Thatcherism, Cameron is likely to offer a bog standard version of Tory-Thatcherism. No main party seems willing to accept that private-debt and unregulated banking led us into this recession. For that reason expect a lot more bust than boom from Cameron and his friends, no matter where they got their MA.