Since midnight, I’ve received 313 spam emails, and 11 genuine emails. So, on this pretty representative sample, 97% of my email is spam. That’s probably atypical, as my email address is liberally sprinkled all over the internet, but still, 97% of my email is spam.

On this very blog, there have been no genuine comments since midnight, but hundreds of spam comments (I haven’t even bothered to count…). That’s not really such a representative sample, but I’d say about 97% of the comments received on here are spam, too.

Yet, thanks to my spam filters, I’ve only seen one spam email get through to my inbox, and one spam comment was caught in my moderation queue (where spam comments are held if my advanced spam filter okays the message but my crude one doesn’t). Out of several hundred spam messages, only two have passed before my eyes. That’s much, much less than 1% of the spam I’m sent.

So, effectively, instead of the huge proportion of spam destroying email as a communication tool, it is probably less of an issue for me now than it was when only a few spam messages were hitting my inbox. With such a volume, the filters have become more finely trained, so that there are few false-negatives, and very, very, very few false-positives. Spammers are killing their own trade by inundating me.

Clearly, as long as people respond to spam, spam will continue. But it actually seems that, despite spammers getting more advanced, the success of their message in getting through is actually decreasing (except for on the odd occasion when things go wrong). So, perhaps, if the spam stops getting through to most people, it will stop being a problem for most people – and maybe the spammers will have to find other ways of conning people.

As you’ll no doubt have registered by now, David Miliband appeared to make a huge ‘blunder’ whilst appearing on Question Time this week by claiming that when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, people would be aching for Blair to return:

[flashvideo ratio=”16:9″ filename=”http://sjhoward.co.uk/video/qt.flv” title=”Question Time (BBC One)” /]

Perhaps I’m too generous, but I can’t bring myself to believe that even David Miliband could be so incredibly stupid as to say this if he didn’t mean it. But why say it?

Is he such a loyal Blairite that can’t see any other way forward? Does he want to leave politics, and stick by Blair when he resigns? Surely not. He’s the very definition of a career politician, with a proclivity for power-seeking. And, perhaps, this is what makes this move so odd – he’s distancing himself from the incoming power.

Does he actually believe that James won’t take over from Anthony, and so is continuing to align himself with the Blairites over the Brownites in an attempt to cling onto his own power?

Is he purposely distancing himself from Brown, so that he might take over as Party Leader once Brown is ‘removed’, as he almost certainly will end up being, as an unsuccessful Leader. Does he think that the Party will yearn for the Blairite glory days, and he’ll be able to ride in on a white horse as the newly shining knight of Blair’s order, and steal the Party crown?

None of these options make perfect sense. That means one of two things: He’s a great political mind who has everything plotted out, but no-one can work out quite where he’s going. Or he’s a terrible political mind, who can’t think his way through a simple question on a TV show. I have my suspicions, but I’m not yet sure which.

In the series opener of her US chat show, Tyra Banks takes on the media, complaining about a photo that was published of her under headlines suggesting she’d gained forty pounds. The tirade she unleashes was heavily promoted beforehand, and it is clearly something of a ratings-grabbing stunt. I’ve included a eight-and-a-half minute chunk of the programme below, to set the whole thing in context for the majority of my readers who may have missed the story. The much repeated tirade is in the last minute-and-a-half or so of the video.

It has to be said that this is an odd, odd piece of television. The creator and judge of America’s Next Top Model protesting at accusations she’s put on weight, whilst simultaneously claiming to think that ‘curvy women’ are ‘sexy’. The sentiment is very good, but the hypocrisy stinks: If curvy is sexy, then why is she so ‘humiliated’ by the idea of being curvy herself? She surely can’t have it both ways. She criticises others’ obsession with weight, yet knows her own exact weight from over two months ago. She says she’s no longer a model, yet shows pictures from her swimsuit shoot. She says perfection is unrealistic, yet admits that she has her photos retouched. It’s all just hot air.

[flashvideo filename=”http://sjhoward.co.uk/video/tyra.flv” title=”The Tyra Banks Show (Warner Bros)” /]

Perhaps this video symbolises everything that’s wrong with the fashion industry. Everyone pays lip-service to the ideas that big is beautiful, healthy is good, and ultra-slim is bad, but nobody in the industry actually believes it. Which is odd, because I don’t think anyone in the real world finds Size Zero models attractive.

Fern Britton won an award last week for being the woman most men ‘secretly adore’. How sad it is that men don’t feel able to say they’re attracted to women like Fern, and that The Sun insists on branding her an ‘unlikely babe’. When we finally get over these silly mass-market produced images of beauty, and accept real beauty – beauty that lies in the eye of the beholder rather than the eye of fashionistas who decree the latest ‘sexy look’ – then perhaps we’ll be finally able to tackle the misery these ill-conceived perceptions cause.

Rumours abound that Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s Chief of Staff, is to be interviewed for a third time – and under caution for the second time. Charges are said to be near… though I’d take that with a pinch of salt.

Guido and Iain Dale tell us that, later today, the Conservatives will launch a big public campaign against the government’s ID Cards scheme. This is excellent news (see my rationale from almost three years ago – it’s still scarily relevant), and it actually seems that they’re serious.

For a politician that has urged politicians to take more action with less talk, David Cameron has done very little other than talk. But now, it appears he’s carved out some kind of official role for the opposition. David Davis is writing to all of the major parties in the ID Cards scheme explaining that the Conservatives will be withdrawing the scheme should they form the next Government.

It would actually seem that the opposition are living up to their promise – They’re actually taking action, preparing to form a government rather than simply talking. Now, of course, they could have done this at any point, but to be seen to be preparing in this way is a departure from the way the Conservatives have seemed to act for some years now. They finally appear to be building in confidence, and believing they can win. And if they believe they can win, then maybe they can convince other people too.

As I’ve said many times, I don’t really care which party is in power, provided no-one has a large majority. Big majorities remove the need for compromise, and compromise generally brings refinement and improvement of law. Small majorities are preferable, as they force parties to co-operate to forge better legislation acceptable to all – not just those who voted for the party in power. And that ideal is facilitated by having an effective, confident, power-hungry opposition who can really split the vote. We might just be getting one.

A brilliant video explaining in simple terms the Web 2.0 concept and its impact.

[flashvideo filename=”http://sjhoward.co.uk/video/web2.flv” /]

Apologies if you’re having problems accessing the site. It seems to be stumbling a little, probably due to increased traffic – I’ve served roughly the same number of hits in the last month as I did in the first five months of last year, and it seems to be taking the server a while to catch up. I’m sure it’ll be sorted soon…

It’s a good while since I last posted about a film. In fact, the last I wrote on the subject was my seemingly scathing review of The Da Vinci Code in May last year. That is, at least in part, because I am terrible at writing film reviews.

Over the weekend, though, I went to see Notes on a Scandal, and now feel compelled to post about it. It is an absolutely brilliant film. I know people say that too much, and you can find blogs anywhere that will say any film is brilliant, but this one is really, really good. And if you’re going to skip to the trailer, please don’t be put off – it’s a little lacklustre compared to the movie itself, and you’ll be glad to hear that the sound on the movie is actually in sync with the video, unlike on my dodgy copy of the trailer.

In the film, Judi Dench perfectly protrays Barbara Covett, a near-retirement teacher who discovers an affair between the new, young and beautiful art teacher Sheba Heart (played by Cate Blanchett), and the film follows both as their worlds fall apart. It’s very hard to write about the film without spoiling it, and yet also convey how excellent it is. It comes very highly recommended.

Just go and see it…!

[flashvideo ratio=”16:9″ filename=”http://sjhoward.co.uk/video/scandal.flv” title=”Notes on a Scandal” /]

The most respected journal of weekly news takes on the most austere and professional of the BBC’s journalists… or not. The rag and the hag have had a bit of a tiff. (For those unfamiliar with the key players, one’s ‘Not as bad as the Daily Mail’ and the other fronted a massive cock-up).

A couple of weeks back, the Mail on Sunday did a big two-page spread about how all but one of Natasha Kaplinsky’s family had been rounded up, shot, and dumped in a ditch by the Nazis. Her grandfather was the sole survivor. A terrible, tragic fate.

Except the story may have contained one or two tiny errors.

As MediaGuardian are now reporting, the person the Mail on Sunday thought was Natasha’s grandfather actually wasn’t, Natasha’s family were not killed, and the people who were killed were not slaughtered in a mass execution. And they weren’t shot and dumped in a ditch, either.

In fact, it’s quite difficult to find much about the story that is true. Much like a lot of the Mail on Sunday’s reportage, then.

Undoubtedly, the most accurate comment about Mr Blair’s interview on the Today programme this morning came from the Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell: “There is resignation in his voice”.

It was an extraordinary interview, unlike any we’ve heard from Mr Blair before. Listening back, Mr Blair sounds distinctly like he knows the game is up. He no longer seems to be a Prime Minister fighting for survival, but rather a Prime Minister who’s being kept in an undignified position until the Cash for Honours investigation ends, so that he, rather than his successor, can take the flak for it. It’s important to note that the interview was recorded before the news of his second questioning came out.

The first particularly interesting segment of the interview comes right at the very beginning.

[audio:cantgoon.mp3]

JH: Good morning, Prime Minister.

TB: Good morning, and welcome to West Cornforth.

JH: Thank you. Er… We can’t go on like this, can we?

TB: We can’t go on in what sense?

JH: With this inquiry. It’s doing damage, isn’t it?

TB: Well, I think it’s got to run its course over the next few weeks. I hope it’ll be wound up and let’s see where we are then. And in the meantime, despite what people may think, I get on with the job.

JH: You may get on with the job, but it’s doing damage isn’t it, that’s the point.

TB: Well, I think the most sensible thing is actually to wait and see what the inquiry comes up with. We won’t have a great deal longer to wait.

The extraordinary thing about the start of this interview is the emotion shown by the PM. Listen to the whispered ‘well’ of his first proper answer, and the clearing of throat, as if he’s a little choked up. That’s not the mood of a leader striving to continue for another six months to try and achieve a true legacy. It’s the mood of someone who’s throwing in the towel, and just waiting until the inquiry reports – apparently soon – and he’s forced to resign.

Later in the interview, Humphrys returns to the subject of the inquiry:

[audio:conclusions.mp3]

TB: And, in the end, I totally understand why this obviously is very obsessive and somewhat distracting for media, it’s bound to be, but it isn’t for me.

JH: But it’s not just for the media, is it? And it’s not just distracting. If you hear what Lord Kinnock said yesterday, and you’ve seen it, he said the damage to reputation, to trust, will take years and a great deal of action to try and repair. And your own Party Chairman, Hazel Blears, talks about the corrosive effect. We heard Shahid Malik saying there’s enormous damage being done to trust and confidence in our democracy. That’s what I mean when I say it can’t go on.

TB: Yeah, I entirely understand what you say, but it’s not going to go on, because it’s going to come to a conclusion, and the sensible thing is to wait for the conclusion before we reach our own conclusions.

JH: But it has been going on for a very long time, hasn’t it?

TB: Yes, it certainly has.

JH: And do you know that it will come to a conclusion soon?

TB: No. I mean it’s entirely up to the police as to when they conclude their inquiry. But, I mean, let us hope at any rate that it does come to a conclusion shortly and then, incidentally, I’ll be perfectly happy to answer questions about it and what went on and so forth, and all I say to members of the public is that I wouldn’t believe everything that’s ricocheting round the media in terms of what’s supposed to have happened.

JH: What should we not believe?

TB: Well, I’m not going to go into all the detail of it. But what I will do, incidentally, very clearly indeed is when it is over I’m perfectly happy to answer questions on it.

Again, I can’t shake the feeling that ‘when it is over’ means ‘when I’ve resigned over it’. And, of course, it turned out that what we couldn’t believe is that the Prime Minister hadn’t been interviewed again.

Later, Humphrys turns specifically to the issue of resignation.

[audio:putupwithme.mp3]

TB: There is a huge debate about policy that is there but it doesn’t seem to me at any rate often to get the coverage that we should have for these issues which is why I think actually that what you’ve done this week is both sensible and responsible.

JH: But that is partly because of so much attention being on you personally, and that’s the point of this, isn’t it, it’s been focused on you, Tony Blair, and you say we have to wait for it to come to an end. You, actually, could bring it to an end. You could say, ‘Look, I’m going. I’m leaving Number 10 within a few months anyway’, we all know that, we don’t know precisely when, but we do know you’re going. You could say ‘I’m going next week or tomorrow, I’m going to put an end to it. You can have somebody else, then, in Number 10 to kick around if you like, but I’m going to put and end to it’. You could do that and then it wouldn’t be about Tony Blair the Prime Minister, would it? That’s the point.

TB: Yeah, well I hear what you’re saying, but…

JH: It would be a service to the country, to your party, not only the country, but it would service your party if they believed that your presence there is doing enormous damage.

TB: It’s not a very democratic way to decide who the Prime Minister is or not.

JH: But you’ve already decided that: You’ve decided you’re going.

TB: Yeah, well I’ve said that I will stand down this Parliament but I’ve also said that I want to conclude certain things and finish certain things. And if, for example, the Health Service reforms that we’re engaged in at the moment I believe in very very strongly…

JH: But I’m going to come to that if I may. I’ll stop you there if I may because I do want to come to the Health Service in a moment in some detail. But surely Gordon Brown could do those things? I mean, that’s… you’ve said time after time you’ve total confidence in him, we expect he’ll be the next Prime Minister, I know you’re not going to confirm that, but the fact is that he could do those things that you want to do.

TB: Absolutely, I’m sure he could and there are…

JH: So why not stand down? Why not put an end to it all?

TB: Because I don’t think that’s the right way to do it and I think it would be particularly wrong to do it before the inquiry has even run its course and come to any conclusions. So you’ll have to put up with me for a bit longer.

He says here that he won’t stand down until the results of the inquiry are published… surely that suggests that he thinks he will be standing down when they are published?

Later, Mr Humphrys confronts Mr Blair with one of his own soundbites.

[audio:prettystraight.mp3]

JH: Ten years ago, we spoke after the first scandal if that’s what it was, the Formula One affair, did a television interview and you said to me, and the quote has been used many, many, many times since then, you’ll know where I’m going, “People think I’m a pretty straight kind of guy”. They don’t think that now, do they?

TB: Well I thought you might ask me that, and I thought about how I should answer it, and actually I got the same thing put to me during the course of the last election when I… people were calling me a liar, a war criminal, and so on. Maybe this is how I’ve changed over the years as well, and I said then during the election campaign, and I would say now, I’m not going to beg for my character in front of anyone. People can make up their mind about me according to what they think about me, but I know what type of person I am, and I’m not going to get into a situation where I’m sort of pleading for my integrity, not even actually in front of the public, even though I obviously have a deep respect for the British people and it’s been an honour and privelege to lead them. I try and do my best, I have tried to do my best over the last ten years. I don’t say I’ve always got everything right, of course I haven’t, and there’ve been mistakes and things that have gone wrong along the way. But actually, when I look back on my ten years I do beleive that there’s been a lot that’s been good for the country as well so I’m not really going to comment on my character like that, and other people can comment on it as much as they like.

JH: No, I wasn’t really asking you to comment on your character, I was asking whether you could say today, as you said to me ten years ago, that people think – that’s the point, it’s what people think of you.

TB: I know, but I…

JH: Because that’s damaging to the nation, not just to you.

TB: Of course, but ten years on I answer that in a different way. I answer in a different way because, perhaps, I’m a different sort of person too.

Not only is Mr Blair admitting that he’s not a ‘pretty straight’ sort of person any more, but look at the content before that. He even corrects himself: ‘I try and do my best’ becomes ‘I have tried to do my best’ – he’s looking back on a career that’s over, not looking forward to the things he claims it is important to him to finish off in the next few months. He knows, realistically, that he doesn’t have another few months, he’ll be forced out long before then.

And that’s the most noticeable thing from this interview. Perhaps I’m being obsessed with people rather than policies, as Blair claims, but that’s because it’s clear that the person at the centre of the government knows he isn’t going to be there much longer. He knows that this inquiry will draw blood, and he will have to resign. He’s going to go soon, and has no motivation to go on. There is, indeed, resignation in his voice.

It’s a retrospective interview, and may well be one of Blair’s last ever big political interviews. And so it’s well worth listening to the full thing on the Today programme website.