Gordon Brown's Upcoming Speech

"Ladies and gentlemen, over the last few days, you have heard speculation about a leadership challenge. What is missing from this speculation is consideration for democracy or the British people. Before the 2005 election, Tony Blair promised that he would not serve a full third term. Fulfilling this promise, I took over the leadership in 2007.

"There was, of course, a process in the Labour party for selecting a new leader. Because of this, Tony could promise to step down, but he couldn't make any promise to the British people about who the new leader might be. I think it would be fair to say, though, that most people expected it to be me. The public was not short-changed; they got Tony followed by me, as they expected.

"If my party wants a second change of leader then I will of course step down—but this would not be something the public could have anticipated when deciding who to vote for in 2005. Fairness would therefore demand that we call an immediate general election. To avoid cheating the British people, if the decision is taken to replace me, then on my last day in office I will ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament. Alternatively, people wanting to replace me could simply organise a confidence vote in the House of Commons. If this vote was lost, an election would automatically follow, so the effect would be the same."

So what do you think, Gordon? No one in the Labour party wants a general election at the moment, so this should buy you another couple of years. My agent will be in touch with the price...

(Sorry about the lack of posts at the moment, by the way, I'm horribly busy.)

BNP Admits to "Problems with Oddballs"

The BNP has just published a draft of its "Activists' Handbook". Anyone interested in running a cult should download a copy—the rules of a dodgy political party could easily be adapted to serve the purposes of a dodgy religion. For example, complaints are only to be directed "up the chain of command". If you have a problem with some aspect of the BNP, you are not supposed to take the obvious step of discussing it with your friends. Instead, you are supposed to pass it up the chain of command (whatever that is, in a volunteer organisation) and then presumably your complaint—or you—will be dealt with.

"In any organisation made up of large numbers of volunteers," says the handbook, "there will inevitably be problems with personality clashes and oddballs." Oddballs? In the BNP? Really? Oh yes. There was BNP member Mark Bulman, who set fire to a mosque with a petrol bomb. There was Tony Lecomber, who was injured when his nailbomb detonated unexpectedly. There was Andy McLorie who petrol bombed a policeman's home. There was Paul Thompson who was jailed for six months for his part in a fight after a football match. Need I go on?

"The Internet is also populated by superficially convincing conspiracy theorists. A few of these theories may actually be true," conspires the handbook, "but the general public are unlikely ever to work that out, so for nationalists to accept and publicise them would only allow the media to portray us as cranks." Guess what, though: I don't need an excuse to portray the BNP as a bunch of cranks!

"Every now and then local activists come up with the idea of setting up local BNP websites or blogs. Unfortunately ... Many victims of Britain's lousy education system are totally unaware of the fact that they can't write proper English." Cranks and uneducated. The handbook continues, "This rule [against local websites] may occasionally be waved." I think the word they were looking for was "waived".

"Making a meeting look professional is very important ... Have a carafe or bottle of water and glasses on the top table (not tins of lager!)."

David Davis: It Was All Worthwhile

In his heart, does David Davis wonder if he was right to throw away his career, just to make a stand on civil liberties?

No.

This is the moment when he realised it was all worthwhile. It wasn't Shami Chakrabarti that he did it for, it was Gemma Garrett, otherwise known as Miss Great Britain.


(And yes, this is a joke, so you can only sue me if you make the writ funnier than my article.)

The Post Office Closures that Don't Save Money

We have just heard that our village Post Office is to close. We will then be 2.9 miles from the nearest Post Office, just within the government target of three miles.

Our Post Office will be replaced by an "outreach service" which will be open for the same number of hours, and which will provide essentially the same services. It will, however, be based at one of the village pubs instead of the village shop. The village shop is willing to host the outreach service, but the Post Office doesn't seem to favour that option, perhaps because it would then look as though nothing had changed.

Given that this new service will be a Post Office in all but name, what exactly is the point? There will be a big upheaval moving the Post Office from the building it occupies now, which will cost money and harm the village shop. Once the move is complete, the outreach service will need to be staffed just like the Post Office, so presumably it will cost a similar amount of money.

The Post Office consultation document doesn't seem to be available on line, though they accept responses by email. I suppose it makes a kind of stupid sense that the Post Office uses its own product—the letter—when it communicates with you. However, at the end of the document, it says that they are particularly interested in "local demographics (such as age, sex, disability, race, religion and ethnicity)."

I can understand that elderly people or the disabled might be affected disproportionately by the closure of a Post Office. That makes sense. However, what is the relevance of other factors? Are ethnic minorities more in need of a Post Office than white people? Is there a religion that worships letters? And sex? What can I say? Yes please? Are there actually any villages where the sex ratio isn't approximately 50/50?

If the Post Office sacked all their diversity consultants, would they be able to afford to keep our branch open?

Socialist Myths Exposed by Ray Lewis

The Guardian sent a list of questions to Ray Lewis, deputy Mayor of London. The most damaging question asked him why he had been dismissed as a church minister in 1999. As a result of these questions, and the fact that he then falsely claimed to be a magistrate, Lewis resigned. (Lewis had been approved for appointment as a magistrate, but he had never taken up a post.)

It is very reminiscent of the period before the Mayoral election, when the Evening Standard was running stories about ex-Mayor Ken Livingstone's policy advisor, Lee Jasper. Jasper was also eventually forced to resign, but politically it was too late, and Livingstone went on to lose the election.

I always supported the Standard's scrutiny of Lee Jasper, as I believe it is important for public officials to be held accountable. However, some people on the left saw a conspiracy against Livingstone by the Standard. In this version of events, the evil capitalist Evening Standard brainwashed the defenceless working class. As a result, the workers elected a right-wing mayor, even though a left-wing mayor would have served their interests better.

I support the Guardian's scrutiny of Lewis, for the same reason I supported the Standard's scrutiny of Jasper. However, I would like to know whether the people who opposed the scrutiny of Jasper will now oppose the scrutiny of Lewis. In other words, is Livingstone allowed to shelter behind socialist conspiracy stories in a way that the new mayor, Boris Johnson, is not?

If socialists are genuine about their wish to help the working class, they have to credit working people with the ability to form independent opinions. It is insulting to suggest that they are brainwashed by the Standard, when in reality they simply find the case for socialism unconvincing.

I think this is a problem for socialism in general. Socialism may use the language of empowerment, but power-hungry socialist politicians just want control over people's lives. In the minds of these politicians, people's lives would be so much better if they lived them in a certain way. Unfortunately, these people are not the mindless proles they read about in Marxism for Dummies, they are human beings with their own priorities for their lives. When the politicians find their patronising offers of help rejected, things start to get more coercive.

If society became socialist enough, we would need Soviet-style coercion to stop people opting out and just living the kinds of lives they want to live. However, even the luke-warm socialism of Blair shows the beginnings of this authoritarianism:

• Blair created academy schools, but parents didn't want them. The government could have changed the programme, to create the kinds of schools that parents and children wanted. Instead, they closed the other local schools, and since school attendance is required by law, people had no choice but to use the academies.
  
  The theory is that state education is about empowerment. The reality is that it has been taken over by socialist do-gooders, who have built the system they think people ought to want. (To add insult to injury, these people often then send their own children to private schools.)
  
  
• The government decided to create a national system for medical records. No one asked for this. Doctors say it isn't necessary, and patients don't want it because it is insecure. We can only assume that it is another socialist project, introduced because someone in government thought it was a good idea, rather than because ordinary people wanted it.
  
  Initially the government was going to place everyone's records on the system, regardless of any objections they might have. The compromise was that people could explicitly object, and their records would not then be transferred. But as with the academies, no one who used the health service was asking for this system. Instead of the health service providing the health care we want, it is now about providing the health care that government do-gooders think we ought to want.
  

If this is socialism, give me capitalism. If I'm paying for something directly, the provider has to make some effort to give me what I want. If the government is paying, I risk some government busybody deciding what I ought to want, and giving me that.

John Simpson's Strange Report from Zimbabwe

Robert Mugabe banned most international news organisations from covering Zimbabwe's recent election. The main exception was al-Jazeera, which often does provide objective coverage in spite of its iffy reputation. However, its coverage of Zimbabwe attracted criticism for being biased in favour of Mugabe. Eventually the network fired its correspondent in Zimbabwe, and the Zimbabwean government promptly revoked its permission to operate there.

John Simpson, meanwhile, managed to slip unnoticed into Zimbabwe, to report for the BBC. He sent this report, entitled "Mugabe's Remarkable Comeback". He describes the "extraordinary turnaround" achieved by Mugabe, and says that his opponent has been "completely outmanoeuvred". Simpson describes a "rather well-made advertisement" which lists opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai with Tony Blair, George W Bush and Gordon Brown as members of the "failures club".

Simpson concludes, "It all adds up to a remarkable sweeping victory for a man who only three months ago seemed to be on the ropes. The moral is clear: never underestimate Robert Mugabe's ferocious determination to stay in power, nor the ability of his political opponents to destroy their own case."

The tone of the article seems outrageously biased, but I will ask just one question: how did Tsvangirai "destroy his own case"? It seems obvious to me that he didn't, and would have easily won a proper election.

Perhaps next time, the BBC will be granted the rights to cover events in Zimbabwe, instead of al-Jazeera.

Royal Family Costs "Less than Two Pints of Milk"

At a time when many households are struggling, the Royal Family has had a 5.3% pay rise, well above the government's 2% target for public sector pay. In the last financial year, they received £40M, while in the year before, they managed to struggle along on just £38M. A Buckingham Palace spokesman said that the cost of the Royal Family was equivalent to two pints of milk or an MP3 download—per taxpayer.

It reminds me of the old joke that you can get rich by asking everyone in the country to donate 10p. They won't notice the loss of 10p, but you will be rich. Somehow it never happens, though. Someone gave me 5p last week when I had no change for the car park machine, but that's the closest I've got. (If my benefactor is reading this, though, I'm very grateful! That 5p saved my day.)

One of the strange spin-offs from my marketing job is my junk mail collection. No doubt when I die, museums will be fighting to raise money so they can save it for the nation. For now, though, it is a source of marketing ideas. I've got them all: good ones, and cheesy ones that humbug people with nonsense about pints of milk and things like that. So, now the Royal Family is being sold like a downmarket book club, here are a few ideas:

• "... at a price you will appreciate!"
• "Ask [the Inland Revenue I suppose] about our affordable payment plans!"
• "Eminently affordable!"
• "... for less than you expected!"
• "Get more than your money's worth!"
• "Gives you so much for so little!"
• "Once in a lifetime savings!"
• And last but not least, the magic of ambiguity: "A toast to extraordinary prices!"

Of course the reality is that this sort of treatment devalues the Royal brand. The Royal brand is about mystique, leadership, luxury. So imagine going to a shop selling luxury goods, and seeing a sign in the window saying, "A toast to extraordinary prices!" You would be a bit surprised, and what would it mean anyway? That you can get a £50,000 Patek watch for £45,000?

Soon the monarchy will pass to Charles, as the Queen is already long past normal retiring age. Perhaps we should say instead that, after the death or abdication of the Queen, we will switch to an elected President. Alternatively, we could be the first country with an elected king or queen; that would be reasonable too. Charles would, of course, be welcome to stand and royalists would be welcome to vote for him. On the other hand, the change would have made the country more democratic. It would also protect us from the possibility that the heir to the throne might be someone unsuitable.