The Statesman has reinvented itself almost to the level of rediscovering its must-read days. Clearly, Wilby has done an excellent job, and following his resignation, we can only hope that Kampfner can continue his success.

The news that Elinor Goodman is leaving Channel 4 News, which somehow I’ve forgetten to comment on, is also a big disappointment. She’s been with Channel 4 for longer than I’ve been alive, and is one of the best and most under-celebrated Political Editors I can call to mind. Hers will be big shoes to fill.

I don’t really understand what the BBC staff hope to acheive by staging these strikes. Is the management expected to turn round and say ‘Oh, alright then, you can all stay after all.’ Clearly, that’s not going to happen. The strikes will cause disruption, and make the discussions between the parties even less amicable. Clearly, if they think all staff are necessary, then a global work-to-rule makes this point rather more effectively. Everybody refusing to work leaves everybody with a sticky situation, but doesn’t move anything forward in this kind of dispute. At least as far as I can see.

As I’ve previously told you (weren’t you listening?!), I have a fairly unhealthy obsession with Su Doku. It’s becoming so much of a national obsession that it’s even featured on Richard and Judy. While I was washing up today, something in my slightly disturbed mind obviously connected this with my recent bordering-on-philosophical comments.

Here’s what popped into my mind: I enjoy Su Doku. The part I enjoy most is the satisfaction of having completed the puzzle. The logical conclusion of this is that I would be happiest with a book of prefilled Su Dokus. But, of course, this misses the point: The completion is only enjoyable as a result of the prior frustration of being unable to solve said puzzle.

So, if the majority of the world’s religions promise that we’ll live happily for eternity, wouldn’t the people in that place be incredibly bored and, ultimately depressed? If they’re all already as happy as they can possibly be, then they have nothing to strive for, nothing to work towards, and nothing to live for. What’s the point of living forever if you’ve nothing to acheive in that time?

Surely a much better place to be would be hell, where you could always have aspirations of having a slightly less hellish time? You’d have something to work towards, each day would have a purpose, and eternal life would have much greater significance and meaning.

Just a thought, straight from my head to yours.

The Indy produced this rather striking graphic today, along with an accompanying article telling us – once again – why we are in desperate need of electoral reform. They repeat once again the Mail claim which may well haunt Labour’s third term:

The Tories gained 50,000 more votes than Labour in England but got 92 fewer English seats.

As much as it’s talked up over the next few weeks, I highly doubt any major reforms of the electoral system will happen in this Parliament, not least because such reforms would seriously damage Labour’s chances of a fourth term. Or am I being too cynical?

The problem of electoral reform is a particularly tricky one, because I’m not aware of any suggestions that produce a truly fair and democratic electoral system. Having said that, I’m obviously not an expert in the field, and I may be missing something fairly obivous. But there’s no easy solution screaming out at me, like there is with so much other stuff that needs changing.

There was somewhere in particular that I intended to take this post, but it’s several hours since I started writing it (it’s been very much a bitty affair), and I’ve fogotten where that place was. I’m now faced with the decision of just giving up, or publishing this little bit. So I might as well just publish what I’ve written, even though there seems to be little point to it, and it doesn’t read very well. If you’ll forgive those points, I’ll consider writing something more sane tomorrow. But now I’m tired and have a killer headache.

Two more ‘critical flaws’ which could allow a user to gain access to private information, such as banking details, logins and passwords have been found in Firefox. Information on temporary workarounds is provided here. This is, apparently, the fourth major security scare at Mozilla in three months – eek.

Two frankly bizarre pieces in today’s .Media (in the Indie).

Firstly, the Mail’s Melanie Phillips features in a lengthy interview, trying to convince us all she’s left-wing. The result is so strange that there’s really very little I can say, other than bringing together two quotes: “She backed the Iraq war… I insist upon things like truth and morality”. I can only recommend that you read it. And her blog has been added to my watch-list of things I might have to comment on in future.

Slightly less strange, but more outright amusing, is Kay Burley trying to convince us she’s a serious journo. Clearly, it’s important for a journalist to keep up to date with the news, and the leaders and comment pieces of the big papers. What papers does she read? “A distillation of The Sunday Times, Mail on Sunday and News of the World tends to cover it”. So she’s not big on the broadsheets. Then she’s asked about magazines. This is where I first actually laughed out loud: “I’d like to say Cosmo, Vanity Fair, but it’s Good Housekeeping.” Good to see that she has such a close relationship with the news weeklies, then. She could no more present the news authoritatively than give up lip gloss.

One of the stories which dominated this site earlier in the year has finally reached a resolution: The good people at Ofcom have taken a proper objective look at the Opera, and decided that the BBC were right to screen it. Hurrah for sanity!

Going off now at something of a tangent, the more I learn about death, and the more I listen to cases of people who are dying, the less I like the idea of Christianity. What’s the point in life if it goes on forever? Surely it’s much more special and valuable if you only get your three score years and ten? Besides which, isn’t it far more beautiful as an idea that you simply return from ashes to ashes, and complete the natural cycle of life, returning to the earth and nature, rather than some fanciful idea that you ascend to an effectively pointless eternal life?

And doesn’t evolution – the idea that by pure chance, nature has produced an species with the ability to philosophise – make life far more precious than it simply being the result of some deity’s day-job?

I know which belief I prefer. But that’s not to say it’s any better than anybody else’s.

There’s much more interesting stuff being written about this election now it’s done with.

Colombia’s El Tiempo (via Harry Hutton) has praised Britain’s tedious elections, observing that this probably indicates social well-being, and that we should be celebrating the dullness. I’m not sure that’s actually true, but it’s certainly a different take on things.

At the same time, the Sunday Herald has come over all Kevin: “THE MOST UNFAIR ELECTION IN BRITISH HISTORY”. They have some reasonable points, but am I supposed to take them seriously under that headline?

PressEsc accuses Jack Straw of meddling in the inquiry into Labour’s rigging of votes. I wouldn’t worry too much about that – the worst case scenario would be for Tony Blair to fire him, and rehire him a couple of months later. That’s the Labour definition of ‘taking responsiblity’.

The Daily Mail appears to have got to Nosemonkey, by pointing out that Labour got 60,000 fewer votes than the Conservatives in England. I haven’t seen the Mail in a while, but I’m feeling a burst of desperation following their effectively defeated campaign.

All of the newspapers, including The Observer, report the meaningless non-story that Tony Blair has announced he’s not going to quit. Meaningless mainly because it’s not really his decision to make, as much as he’d like to think it is.

The Times is happy with the outcome, claiming it to be a ‘Miracle of democracy’. What has happened to the Times? It’s quite depressing.

I’m sure I’ll come across lots more on the election in the coming days, so stay tuned.

The Sindie says Michael Howard reneged on a secret deal by announcing that he was to stand down as leader of the Conservative Party.

Funny old world, politics: One leader reneges on a secret deal by staying on, another does so by refusing to stay on. And people say politicians are all the same.

The Observer claims to have seen a document that says the government is to press ahead with plans to build several new nuclear power stations:

In a 46-paragraph briefing note for incoming ministers, Joan MacNaughton, the director-general of energy policy at the new Department of Productivity, Energy and Industry, warns that key policy targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and boost green energy are likely to fail, and that decisions on new nuclear power stations must be taken urgently. It advises that ‘it is generally easier to push ahead on controversial issues early in a new parliament’.

I don’t understand the reasoning here: We apparently live in an age where the terrorist threat is so great that civil liberties must be curtailed in order to deal with the problem. And yet this government is actively seeking to increase the amount of radioactive substances being shipped around the country, as well as (presumably) increasing the total amount in the country. This seems like a strange decision to make, unless we are to assume that Tony Blair thinks the terrorist threat is a passing phase, whilst nuclear energy will have long-lasting benefits.

If this is the case, then when does Mr Blair conceive that terrorists, who have been targeting more progressive nations for centuries, are ever going to stop doing so? There is simply never going to be a time when terrorists aren’t active in the world, which is precisely why the curtailment of civil liberties is wrong – it will necessarily become a permanent measure.

It all seems like a wildly haphazard, unconsidered plan to deal with climate change to me. But, having said all that, I have no better suggestions of a path to take.