DNA OK?

I’m still buzzing from my glorious result on political compass and thought it was time to exercise some liberal outrage.

This week, my sights are set on Lord Judge Sedley, the noted “upholder of civil liberties on the bench” who caused a bit of a stir recently after claiming that the current DNA database was “indefensible” as it listed a higher proportion of ethnic minorities than whites. To remedy the situation, Sedley proposed, everyones DNA should go on file, which would not only redress the balance but would also mean there were less criminals on the street.

While Downing Street was quick to distance itself from Sedley’s comments, what has emerged is the extent to which current DNA collection procedures violate civil liberties, as well as Home Office plans to extend DNA collection to low-level offences such as speeding or littering. As the current database holds some 24,000 records of 10 – 17 year olds who have never been convicted of an offence, under the plans proposed it's not difficult to see the database, which currently holds around 5% of the UK population, expanding rapidly. What's more, it probably wouldn't be long until police started takind DNA samples at random checkpoints and from arbitrary searches, (no doubt under the guise of counterterrorism) none of which they would be obliged to destroy.

DNA identification is still very much in its infancy, but an enlarged database and more sophisticated methods of gathering samples could potentially be used to devasting effect, providing a unique profile of a persons movements and associations.

Combine this with ID Cards and CCTV Cameras and you have in place the apparatus of control Stalin would be envious of.

Power to the Papal

As the lives of millions become increasingly dominated by the heavyweight fundamentalists, religious or otherwise, it looks like the Catholic Church is going to join the fracas and once again start throwing its weight around.

Having exercised a degree of damage control by largely staying clear of public life during the child abuse scandals of the last 20 years, the willingness of the church to influence public policy is in the resurgent, and in voting terms this means the awakening of a sleeping giant.

The influence of this new power base is being felt most keenly in the abortion debate. The church has always been steadfast in its pro-life stance but recent months have seen a sharpening of the rhetoric followed by the action to back it up. In June of this year Pope Benedict called on Catholics to sop donating money to Amnesty International after it made a change to its constitution to support abortion in cases where a woman’s health is in danger, or their Human Rights have been violated as in the case of incest or rape.

Closer to home Cardinal Keith O’Brien, head of the Catholic church in Scotland resigned his membership of Amnesty on Wednesday, and earlier this year likened abortion to “two Dunblane Massacres a day” urging voters not to support politicians who defend the “social evil” and just stopping short of advocating excommunication.

It is difficult to judge the outcome of the church’s renewed vigour on this issue. The church represents a sizable, and more importantly, organised bloc, and will certainly make its presence felt, yet the recent hard line stance does run the risk of alienating more liberal Catholics, not to mention the public at large. Additionally, recent threats to close its adoption agencies in Scotland if they are compelled to consider homosexual foster parents could have a similar effect, undoing the ecumenical and concilatory work of JP by plunging the church back into the dark ages.

It wil be interesting to see how Cameron reacts to this as his party drags him to the right by the scruff of the neck , but i wouldn't be surprised if this becomes a conservative issue at the next election.

Check me out!

I take the political compass test every year or so and look what it turned up this time. I need to tone things down a bit! If you're unfamilar with the concept you answer 40 or so multiple choice questions ranging from abortion to the free market, and the computer plots you on the above graph where you can compare your position to the likes of Hitler, Milton Freidman and Ghandi. The makers recently plotted all of the US presidential hopefuls and they all seemed to cluster just above middle right. Take the test at www.politicalcompass.org. I'm off to throw bricks at CCTV Cameras...

Die-Nasty: Keeping it in the family

With the unopposed coronation of yet another Labour leader, family ties in the Brown cabal have never looked stronger. As Wendy Alexander takes her place alongside her brother Douglas in the inner circle, Labour’s upper reaches are starting to look a little incestuous.

Add this latest appointment to a cabinet which already includes the brothers Milliband and husband and wife team Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls, it could be argued that Brown is employing family ties to strengthen the unity of a Cabinet that is already packed with his former advisers and treasury stooges.

This isn’t a surprising move for a centralising control freak such as Brown, but if family relations are to become a lasting factor in the Governments of the future, does this have implications for the democratic process?

America has had its fair share of political dynasties, with the Kennedy’s and Bush’s (and now the Clinton’s) divvying up parts of the country along bloodlines at various points in its history. It is possible that sections of the electorate look to these families as the embodiment of certain values which become more than the sum of the individual candidate, perhaps displaying a tendency towards feudalism that hasn’t yet been completely erased from the human psyche. In a country like America where the President is also head of state, this can become even more pronounced.

This side of the Atlantic the phenomenon is less severe, perhaps because we have the royal family to benignly satisfy a repressed and irrational desire for subordination? Whatever the reason, as respect for the Royals wanes, and Prime Ministerial power becomes more Presidential, we may see a few more “Douglas’s” rising to prominence.

This in itself is not anti-democratic as such, but combined with an increasing reliance on cash to get anywhere near elected, we should keep our sceptics hats on regarding this one.

$peculate to A££umulate…

“In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women”

- Tony Montana

In the news in the last few months have been a number of stories regarding party funding and its relation to the democratic process. This issue is only likely to get even more exposure as the next General Election looms.

While the most recent item has involved the pulling of funds from David Cameron’s Tories by Sir William Cowie in protest to his “arrogant, Old Etonian” style of leadership, the most damaging event in recent months has undoubtedly been the cash for honours scandal, which saw the apparently coincidential awarding of peerages to every single labour donor/lender of over £1 million. While the trading of money for influence is as old as the hills, trends home an abroad seem to be suggesting that the money equals power relationship is continually being honed within the democratic process.

In the past, political parties could rely on party membership (and in the case of Labour the Trade Unions) for a sizable chunk of their kitty. However, in the face of declining party membership and voter identification (likely to be exacerbated as the major parties battle for the centre ground) party chiefs have been understandably scoping around for alternative forms of revenue. Whether this is in the form of the £4800 a-head dinner (£5000 is the declaration threshold) that caught out Tony Litt seemingly hedging his bets before the Ealing Southall by-election, or in the undignified Tory grapple for a sizable cut of millionaire eccentric Branislaw Kostic’s estate, winning and keeping power too often relies on the actions of a wealthy minority – and they’re going to want a return on their hard spent lolly at some stage.

If the experiences of our American cousins are anything to go by, the personal finances of candidates are also likely to come into play more and more in the future. Stateside, the general consensus is don’t even bother trying to make an even half-serious run at the Presidency unless you’ve got several million George Washington’s tucked away somewhere. What’s more, with the the costs of running a campaign rising steeply (the 2000 Bush campaign cost $95.5m, rising to a whopping $269.6m in 2004 – Kerry trailed at a modest $234.6m) candidate wealth is likely to become an even bigger factor. Already, Hilary Clinton’s war chest totals $177.2m, and no fewer than 10 of the 17 candidates are millionaires.

Back at home, a disproportionate number of MP’s have either hit the million mark, or have substantial assets to their name (Boris Johnson, Mohammed Sarwar and Lynne Featherstone spring to mind.) With no cap on personal expenditure in UK campaigns up until the last three weeks and the increasing cost and sophistication of election techniques, the common man might be priced out of politics sooner that we think.

Is this inevitable?

A recent inquiry into party funding and election expenditure in the UK by Sir Hayden Phillips proposed that apart from the small administration fee opposition parties currently receive, there should also be a substantial state subsidy, with parties getting 50p for every vote they received at the last election (a similar scheme already operates in Germany.) Along with spending limits and a cap on private donations, this might go some way to help sap the influence of the super rich. In reality, however, it would be hard to see the main parties pass laws that might curb their ability to raise money and extend their influence, so whether such proposals become a reality remains to be seen.

Until then it seems that the old Scar Face adage might just hold true

View from the Arse End of the Week

N.B. This entry should have gone online on Sunday, but immeasurable difficulties with our new Broadband connection has caused delays.

One of the central ironies of writing a TV related blog is that it leaves less time for actually watching TV. Combine this with me and the Duchess relocating to a new hate nest, TV viewing has been regrettably light this week.

With a mindful eye on the schedule, however, I managed to prioritise my workload, and was witness to the birth of televisual phenomenon Heroes, sneaking a couple of elicit after hours episodes of The Thick of It into the bargain.

Sweetened by a series of breathless reviews from my square eyed Comrades, I awaited the arrival of Heroes (BBC 2, Wednesday 9pm) with bated breath. This heavyweight offering from the other side of the Atlantic has been hyped as a sci-fi revolution of sorts, picking up where lost nose-dived and tipped as Spiderman without the spandex.

Going by episodes 1 & 2, I could be spending some serious downtime with this one over the next few months. The season opener begins on solid foundations as we are introduced to the central characters and given a taste of the action to come, and Heroes has plenty to play with. Making an appearance are a time travelling Japanese office worker, flying politico and his dead beat brother, an indestructible cheerleader, and future predicting junkie artist scum Isaac. There is also something weird about a reflection going on, and the pace is set by a pater-avenging Indian Doctor, while the cheerleader’s evil adoptive dad lurks ominously in the wings.

True to form, this is comic book TV, and expect faux philosophy, page turning plot-lines and a trash clash of good against evil as its bread and butter. Heroes does, however, give the impression that it offers something more than the standard American diet, and it will be interesting to see how the story develops and the characters interact. I have a feeling that the stars and stripes are going to creep in there somewhere, but even this could (possibly) be forgiven if it’s done right.

Occupying a 40 minute slot on BBC 2, Heroes is also mercifully devoid of big brand sponsors who can’t seem to resist offering mini-sketches which look like they were thought up by humourless advertising drones taking five in the chill out room of their open plan creative work spaces. It also means you can watch uninterrupted, and don’t need to spend 20 minutes of each episode as one of those little shit wipes target audience, reminding me why I should pay the TV license.

At the risk of turning this entry into a BBC love-fest, The Thick of It (DVD) is another good reason to pay your fees. Created by Armando Iannucci, this fly-on-the-wall political satire offers a scathing and irreverent take on the corridors of power.

I missed the series when it was on TV, and having recently splashed out on the box set (can it be called a box set if there are only two discs?) I’ve been savouring these babies slowly but surely. Set in the fictional Ministry for Social Affairs (“What the hell does that even mean?” muses Chris Langham’s character in one episode) the plot follows the daily mishaps of Minister Hugh Abbot as he lurches from one political crisis to another. There to help him along the way are ambitious aide Ollie, SpAd Glenn and pragmatic spoil sport Terri.

The lynch pin of this series is without doubt, however, the PM’s Scottish “Policy Enforcer” Malcolm Tucker, who browbeats, cajoles and profanitizes his way through Whitehall like a tornado in a razor blade factory. With a visceral hatred of the Press and penchant for ruining careers (“He’ll be copy and pasting Hollyoaks extras tits in the the Sport by tomorrow”) you have to wonder how much Alistair Campbell there is in Tucker. Sharp, ruthless, and endlessly creative in his put downs, he satirises the spin and power politics of present-day Government to a brutal degree.

That’s what I call a Hero.

Brown still bouncing as bottom falls out of Cameron Leadership

After approximately one month in Number 10, Gordon Brown is enjoying an upsurge in popularity among voters, while David Cameron's support among conservatives wavers, according to the results of a new ICM poll.

The poll, conducted the weekend after the Ealing and Sedgefied by-elections, sees Browns approval among voters go up by 21%, compared to Cameron's approval going down by the same amount. Particularly telling are results which suggest that Cameron is losing support from within his own party, with 42% of voters saying they like the party but dislike Mr Cameron.

It has been a tough few months for the Tory leader; the Grammar Schools row, which led to the resignation of Shadow Europe Minister Graham Brady, undermined his authority, while a poor showing in Ealing and Sedgefield has done little to boost confidence among the rank and file. Most recently, the Leader has had to deflect allegations that he abandoned his flood-struck Witney constituency in favour of a trip to Africa to discuss development issues.

But are the latest poll figures that surprising?

Since taking control of the Conservative party in a virtual media coup in December 2005, Cameron's first battle was always to win over the traditional Conservative vote. While the past 18 months or so has generally seen the party increase in popularity, the new figures suggest that this support has been built on shaky foundations. Brown, on the other hand, assumed the leadership of his party unopposed, demonstrating a party unity that has reflected favourably in the polls.

What is more difficult to fathom, however, is Cameron's failure to catch Brown on the hop during the handover period. Brown's PMQ performances have been stuttering at best, and a deft orator such as Cameron (who could hold his own against the razor sharp Blair) should have had no trouble exploiting this more. However, with a substantial 49% of those polled seeing Brown as presiding over a real change of leadership style, this has not been the case.

It may be that Tory voters are beginning to see that party leadership is a matter of "different horses for different courses," and that what worked against Blair could have the opposite effect against his successer. Whether Brown will bounce all the way to an early election in October or May however, still remains to be seen.

I predict a re-bound.

Guardian Watch: Gestapo Tactics

Anyone who has paid any attention to the news in the last few days will have undoubtedly come across reference to Sarah Helm's My family's ordeal in police probe article in Sunday's Observer.

In the article, Sarah Helm; journalist, author and wife to Tony Blair's former chief of staff Jonathan Powell, complains about the Assistant Commisioner John Yates Gestapo tactics while investigating the cash-for-honours allegations.

Describing the hell her family was put through in the last few months, Helm isolates an incident when police (legitimately) question Ruth Turner over her role in the affair, bemoaning how the police "Pick on a woman living alone, give her a scare and hope she'll slip up."

Am i the only one who finds this a little bit hypocritical?

Coming from an administration that has presided over the greastest assault on civil liberties in post-war years, knowingly allowed US extraordinary rendition flights through its territory and introduced more new offences than any government before it, Helm's charge would be laughable if wasn't so insulting to the thousands of people who are now feeling the sharp end of New Labour's New Britain.

The Labour leadership obviously couldn't resist bringing down some heat on Yates and is men, and in Helm they've found a relatively indirect way of doing it, free from the uncomfortable questions any formal legal proceedings might dredge up.

As a piece of journalism the article reads like it would be more at home in Pick Me Up than The Observer with Helm adopting an outraged, anecdotal tone to underline the concerned mother angle and maximise effect.

One positive aspect does come from the article however:

For those worried that The Observer has strayed from its leftist roots, this piece of pravda-esque reporting should no doubt put them a little more at ease. (ouch!)

Jacqui Smith Shock Drug Revelations!

I realise this may not be the most appropriate subject to open my TV- related blog on, but this will probably be on the box later anyway and i just couldn't resist!

The story centres around the stunning revelations by new Home Secretary Jacqui "who?" Smith that she smoked Cannibis "just a few times" during University, although she had "not particularly" enjoyed it.

Coming a day after Brown announced that she would head a review of UK Drugs Strategy, including Cannabis Laws, this revelation is no doubt an attempt to demonstrate Jacqui's human side, not to mention cover her arse when her cash-strapped former smoking buddies come a- knocking to the red tops.

Well Move over Howard Marks!

Jacqui commented:

"I think in some ways I have learnt my lesson and I have a responsibility as home secretary now to make sure we put in place the laws and the support and information to make sure we carry on bringing cannabis use down, which we are doing."

I am sure this will come as a great consolation to the thousands of ordinary citizen's who will likely be hauled before a judge if the Goverment gets its way and re-classifys Cannibis as a Class B drug.

Over the coming months expect the "10 x Stronger than the sixties" argument to be trotted out ad naseum as the goverment shapes up for another assault on freedom of choice. If weed was so weak in the past, maybe this is why Jacqui didn't enjoy it? For what ever reasons, her brush with addiction has left her in no two minds about the green menace.

On her actions Jacqui further commented:

"I did break the law... I was wrong... drugs are wrong."

So much for forward thinking policy...