I’ve pointed out before that, for me, one of the worst aspects of the Blair government is that ministers who resign in disgrace are almost invariably rehired, making a mockery of the idea of resigning because it’s the ‘right thing to do’, and removing all honour associated with standing down because you’re not worthy of office. What had never occured to me until today, thanks to a good journo asking an intelligent question of the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesperson, is that these ministers get payoffs for resigning from their posts, and then get rehired. And, on top of that, there’s not any wish to reform the system.

So not only is there no honour to resigning in disgrace any more, but it’s actually incentivised. The politician who’s done something so inescapably bad that they are forced into resigning gets a nice fat pay-off, and then is rehired. So they are, effectively, paid for being naughty. Even Dr Tanya Byron can see that’s not a good idea. And, frankly, it’s disgraceful.

Look at Estelle Morris, for example. Her mistakes put thousands of teenagers’ life plans off course, and caused untold worry and stress in families across the country. So she resigns, apparently very sorry for the mess she’s made. And I truly believe she was sorry – she seems a very open and honest woman. And yet, I guess it’s not all that difficult to be truly sorry when you know you’re going to get a nice big pay-off and a job back in government, with the associated huge salary, within a matter of months.

Tony Blair may have aspired to heading the washing-powder ‘whiter-than-white’ government, but his government is, at the very least, as soiled as the last. He should be ashamed.

The Beeb’s new editorial guidelines include one paragraph which is sparking quite a bit of debate:

we [will] install a delay when broadcasting live material of sensitive stories, for example a school siege or plane hijack. This is particularly important when the outcome is unpredictable and we may record distressing material that is unsuitable for broadcast without careful editing.

Some people have been saying that this amounts to improper censorship, and fails to show the world as it really is.

Clearly, the whole point of this guideline is to provide sanitised, ‘safe’ news coverage, so that innocent people being killed in a horrific fashion will not be shown to the nation. Some commentators have been asking why this is necessary, when we see such very graphic imagery in films and dramas. This, of course, misses the point entirely; there’s a vast difference between fiction and reality.

For example, to see one’s relative quite literally blown to pieces live on television would cause untold mental suffering to lots of people, and would add very little to the public’s percerption of the event. That said, perhaps nineleven would have had a little less impact on the US as a whole had the second plane not been shown smashing into the tower – a moment which may well have been censored under the new guidelines (though, to be honest, I’m fairly sure it would have been shown).

The most unworthy argument, certainly from my point of view, is the idea that the BBC should show things absolutely live, in case the public switch over to another network. Frankly, if people are voyeuristic enough to switch networks at a time of high crisis simply to see pictures a few seconds ahead of time, then I don’t think that BBC News 24’s more analytical and level-headed approach to news will suit them anyway.

Perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, I trust the BBC’s editors in the judgement of when to use this new device. They should (and, I think will) be careful and deploy it only when absolutely necessary, but they certainly should not pander to the whims of those saying that a few seconds’ delay is too high a price to pay to maintain the dignity of the dying.

Once again, apologies for the delay – I keep pressing ‘Save’ instead of ‘Publish’ – it’s a new affliction to me, and one that I can’t easily explain, but it means that I don’t notice the post isn’t up until I come to write the next one. I’ll get over it soon. Just bear with me.

The musical opposition to ID cards is here (via Observer Blog)

This craze is truly underway now, with Amazon currently listing twenty titles, including a board game, the Guardian book of hand-compiled puzzles, the Independent book of Super Sudokus, and even a guide to completing the puzzles by Carol Vorderman (or, if you prefer, Sudoku for Dummies).

It’s been clear for a long time that this is a major craze – even my original post on the subject has topped the charts for most popular post, but has consistently been leagues ahead of every other post each month. But this level is, as any idiot can see, unsustainable. And, frankly, I’ll be glad when the craze has finished and I can just do the (single) daily Sudoku puzzle in peace, without having to have it taking over every media outlet. But if you are truly obessed, then make sure you’re tuned in to Sky One on Friday 1st July, for Carol Vorderman’s Sudoku Live. I only wish I was joking.

If you buy your Sudoku supplies through the Amazon links on this site, you’ll be helping to keep the site going – you can check out the very latest titles and their prices here

As silly as Andy Duncan, head of Channel 4, was to try and defend Big Brother as ‘a Christian parable for our times’, you can almost see where he’s coming from. There are stories of transition, triumphs of perceived good over perceived evil, and of personal growth in between the bickering and fighting. But that was never the reaction he was going to get from a religious gathering, who are stuck in tradition and their old ways (which is not, by definition, a bad thing, but that’s a whole other argument).

But despite all that, the Times article on the subject is very good. It compares Biblical quotes with quotes from Big Brother contestants. Tabloidesque and faintly ridiculous, but also very funny.

I know a Blair apology is a rare old thing, but I’m sure that the poor people who are being asked to pay back tax credits they received due to government errors, despite the fact that they can’t afford to do this, are terribly grateful.

And, in a classic Blair non-apology, he didn’t apologise for the error itself, but for the ‘hardship or distress’ it caused. Which could easily have been avoided if his government had simply drawn a line under its own mistake, instead of effectively penalising those on the receiving end of the error.

And then he launched into a speech about why tax credits are normally wonderously marvellous things, and that the whole system is bascially perfect except for this one small error, that’s resulting in people having to live on £56 per week. He’s not even suggesting any way of helping these poor people out.

He should be ashamed of himself, and he should take some action to sort this mess out, not try and brush over it with a vacuous apology and self-congratulation. Pathetic.

As widely predicted (even by me), Nick Robinson is on the move from ITV to the Beeb, as their new political editor. He’s not the person I would’ve chosen, but the only other real candidate is Martha Kearney, and she’s not a favourite of mine either – of the two, frankly I’d prefer Robinson.

But there’s a wider issue here, as Polly Toynbee points out in tomorrow’s Grauny: Robinson is yet another macho attack-dog of a politcal reporter, in an organisation full of them. Personally, I would prefer to see someone like Elinor Goodman as political editor. But clearly the decision has been made, and, no doubt, I’ll come to like Mr Robinson over time. Even if at the moment, I think he’s a bit useless – but that’s probably more to do with ITV that it is him. Hopefully.

Apologies for the slight technical hitch which meant that this post only appeared about 24hrs after it was supposed to – I clicked the wrong button!

From the Times:

Potato farmers held a noisy protest outside Parliament today to get the term “couch potato” removed from the Oxford English dictionary, claiming it harms the vegetable’s image.

A similar rally took place outside the offices of the dictionary’s publishers in Oxford, with demonstrators carrying signs that read “couch potato out” and “ban the term couch potato”.

The British Potato Council wants the expression stripped from the Oxford English Dictionary and replaced in everyday speech with the term “couch slouch”. It says the phrase makes the vegetable seem unhealthy and is bad for its image.

That seems foolish. What seems more foolish, however, is that Nigel Evans MP has spent in the region of £1000 of taxpayers’ money tabling an EDM on the subject. Normally I wouldn’t object to that, especially given that there have been such protests – it is important that these people’s feelings are recognised. But when the OED has already told the protesters that words are not taken out of the OED, since their usage has contributed to ‘the patchwork of the English language’.

So either Mr Evans has wasted your money by expressing support for a futile campaign, or else he wants to change the nature and function of one of Britain’s most respected institutions, the OED. Which is it?

I must thank Tom Reynolds for his Guardian piece which reunited me with the almost fatally depressing ‘Brick’ by Ben Folds Five. I can’t think why I’ve come across it before, but I have, and it still retains the same sense of hopeless tragedy that it did the first time I heard it. But then, I guess it’s difficult to write a cheery song about getting an abortion.

Here’s what Mr Reynolds had to say about it (complete with corrections presumably added after he wrote the original):

(NB: Many listeners, including me, first assumed Brick was about a relationship ending. We discovered later that it’s about a couple getting an abortion. The following is based on the first scenario. Therefore it’s all wrong.) A gloomy piano-and-voice song about a couple breaking up (wrong), Brick tells of a guy who picks up his girlfriend, bitches, takes her someplace, bitches, waits for her, bitches, then brings her back home, referring to her as a “brick” (this is true). We never learn what’s transpired in between (this is wrong). All that’s certain is the couple wants to split up (this is wrong). Brick offers the same pleasure that comes with dropping one on your foot (this is really true).

He only rates it as number 13 in the most depressing songs ever. I think it’s far worse than that.

Just a bit of closure. It’s important that you pronounce ‘closure’ in a psuedo-psyhiatrist voice with some accompanying hand motion when you read that. Go back and do it.

The good news is that I got ‘satisfactory’ grades in all three strands, which is most satisfactory as my final grades from Durham. So after today’s end-of-year ceremony, I now have the whole summer off before starting up with the University of Newcastle for ‘Phase II’ of the course at the end of August. Time for a rest, I think.