Today marks the launch of a new joint campaign between The Observer and Amnesty International over the contentious issue of internet censorship. They are calling on internet companies to stop colluding with repressive governments by denying citizens access to certain websites. Of course, the most publicised occurrence of this is Google’s decision to censor its search results in China, but Amnesty reports similar activities in Vietnam, Tunisia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

The campaign is, doubtless, a little misguided. After all, all Google actually did was remove inaccessible search results from it’s Chinese search engine. In the old version, people could see the results, but not access them thanks to censorship from the Chinese government. It’s arguable that removing such sites from the index prevents the Chinese people from being aware that such documents exist, whether or not they are able to access them, but it also makes the search engine much more usable on a day-to-day basis.

It’s also slightly unfortunate that, in fact, most people support internet censorship to some degree. Most people would support the closing of child pornography websites, for example. Why? Because they are seen as offensive, damaging, exploitative, and culturally unacceptable. Surely similar arguments could be constructed for other forms of censorship. Amnesty argues that Human Rights Standards form the basis for acceptable censorship, but Human Rights legislation is largely based on Western ideology, and it is questionable as to whether it can truly be applied in non-Western cultures.

However, despite its flaws, the central message of the campaign is a worthy and positive one, and one which I have supported in the past through posts like this one. It is, therefore, a campaign which this site will be supporting – albeit in a somewhat symbolic way – by carring quotes from otherwised censored material in the sidebar, in order to raise awareness of the issue.

If you would like to find out more about the campaign, it’s website is here, and the launch articles from today’s Observer are here.

Forty-five years ago, an article in the Observer led to the launch of Amnesty International itself. Where will this campaign lead?

On the Today programme this morning, some Labour official or other insisted that the pension reforms they’d come up with were designed to be ‘non-partisan’ and they hoped to reach a ‘cross-party consensus’, not play party-political games. The claim was repeated on The World at One, and quite possibly on many other news broadcasts throughout the course of the day. Of course, making such claims simply sets up clear criticism of any party who dares to point out flaws in the White Paper, so really it’s a good strategy. If only they stuck to it.

Unforunately, they didn’t. Tonight, I received an email from the Labour Party (much like those I’ve received in the past):

The proposals we are publishing today represent the greatest renewal of our pensions system since the post-war reforms implemented by Clement Attlee’s government… Since 1997, we have made real progress in tackling the appalling legacy of pensioner poverty we inherited from the Tories, so far helping a million pensioners out of poverty.

Non-partisan? I think not. Why is it that even when they think they’re doing the right thing, the Labour spin machine just can’t help pumping out lies? And how can they say they’ve had ‘real progress on pensioner poverty’ when Council Tax has soared, and OAPs imprisoned for failing to pay? I just don’t get it.

Mr Hutton’s changes mean that I will be working until I’m 68. That’s fine, I have nothing against working into old age. I mean, most 68-year-olds can’t set a video recorder, and I’ll no doubt have a similar incompetence when it comes to the medical breakthroughs and technologies of the 2050s, but I’m sure that won’t be a problem. And when I’m taking your blood or excising some growth, I’m sure you won’t be too worried about my small tremour. And at the end of a twelve-hour shift, I’m sure you’ll forgive my aging brain for prescribing a drug that just happens to react with something else someone else gave you.

Of course, working to 68 will allow me to earn the money to cover the student debts that Labour have given me – otherwise my net income over my working career would be reduced.

Not that much of it matters anyway: Predictions are that there will be 3,000 junior doctors unable to find suitable training posts by the time I qualify. If I never get a job, I’ll never have to retire. Now there’s a cheery thought 😉

First Shahbaz went nuts, and now Dawn’s done a Nick and been thrown out for rule breaking. Tomorrow, another’s going to be thrown out because, hell, we don’t like them.

So we’ve already got fourteen housemates, one more’s going in through a Kit Kat promotion, and there’s two more to go in to replace the two that’ve been kicked out. After one week, we’re up to sixteen housemates. Then there’s eleven housemates from series one, eleven from series two, fourteen from series three, thirteen from series four, thirteen from series five, sixteen from series six, plus thirty-three ‘celebrity’ contestants. That’s 127 Big Brother Housemates. Another eight from Teen Big Brother takes the total to 135.

Surely there can’t be that many more people who want to go in? Everyone knows that the majority of the contestants are treated cruelly on the show, and then ridiculed by the press, before fading to obscurity. We have the experience of 135 people to tell us that. I wouldn’t know Tania Do-Nascimento, Herjender Gosal or Lynne Moncrieff if I fell over them in the street. Why would anyone put themselves through all that?

The front-page news that pre-1992 coppers (coppers that are actually made of copper) are now worth more than their face value in scrap has apparently sparked meltdown at the Mint, with them being forced to put out a statement reminding people that it’s illegal to melt down a coin of the realm. So there’s a thing.

Perhaps bank robbery could be worth it after all – steal the coppers, melt them down, and you’ve got untraceable money worth more than the coins you started with. Not that I’m recommending bank robbery, here! You could always try selling your 2p coins on eBay, though.

But how many such coins are still in circulation? In the interests of research (and just because I was bored), I went through my penny jar, expecting to find very few pre-1992 coins. (I’m not usually this dull, it’s just that I’ve finished my most recent rotation today, so was at something of a loose end.) As it so happens, I have quite a number of these coins. A good proportion of them are older than me, let alone pre-1992. It’s interesting to think what a remarkable piece of design it takes to be in every day use by all sectors of society, and still as functional as the day they were first produced a quarter of a century later. How many other things have survived so long in everday use?

Of course, the design itself hasn’t lasted so long, which is why the 1992 cut-off exists. The copper-zinc mix was then replaced by a steel version, with a thin copper coating. So coppers aren’t really coppers anymore. And I guess that probably goes for the police force, too.

But, at the end of the day, my money is worth more than it was last week. And, under the circumstances, it’s difficult to complain about that.

So Blair has come third in the local elections. That’s not good for him. In response to this, and the scandals surround the Labour party for last fortnight, he’s performed a reshuffle so huge that it begins to feel like he’s got a whole new deck. Charles Clarke has been unceremoniously sacked, saying that he disagrees with Blair, and Prescott is angry too at the prospect of losing the bigger part of his responsibility whilst retaining his title and his salary. If that happened to me, I certainly wouldn’t be angry, I’d probably be cheering, but that’s Prescott for you.

Patricia Hewitt has retained her post, despite the service that she is trying to reform revolting against her, and losing all faith in her abilities. And Jack Straw, who’s seemingly done nothing wrong, gets demoted. Sensible.

Earlier in the week, I couldn’t understand why Clarke hadn’t resigned. It would now appear that he genuinely beleived he could carry on. This was actually good news for Mr Blair, because it meant he had a big headline-grabber for election results day, so the fact that Labour have performed appallingly could be buried.

Yesterday, I was unsure whether he’d pulled off something incredible, and made a fantastic political play, or whether this really would be the beginning of the end. But the news today that in a week’s time, seventy-five backbench MPs are to deliver a letter telling him to resgin or he will be challenged changes everything. This simply isn’t how Blair wanted to go.

Blair and Brown are holding talks this weekend about the future of the party. Basically, it’s pretty clear that they’re talking about when Blair should go. On Monday, Blair has a press conference at which this topic surely can’t be ignored. But what can Blair do now? If he resigned next week, he’d look pressured into it, which isn’t what he wants to do – he wants to go according to his own timetable. If he leaves it much longer, he will be forced out by his own party. If he announces a future resignation date, perhaps there’s scope for a few headlines now about him being forced out, but at the time of the transition of power, perhaps that will be more forgotten.

Could he announce that he’ll stand down on his tenth anniversary as Prime Minister? That would give about a year for the transition to take place, satisfy most of the party, and make it look like he was going according to his own timetable. It would also allow him the honour of making an official ‘final’ conference speech without plotters murmuring in the background. If backbenchers are more insistent, he could always announce that he’ll leave at the end of the year, which would have similar advantages.

But, of course, announcing in advance makes him a true lame duck, something that he and the party would probably object to over such a long period. So what can he do? Probably very little. He’s been greedy, and left the transition too long for it to happen in any symbolic, pretty way.

The idea that he won’t get his last wish after nearly a decade of leadership almost makes me feel sorry for him. Almost.

Charles Clarke’s department allowed 1,023 criminals who should have been considered for deportation to roam free around the country, with some of them committing further offences.

He knew about this for three weeks before he bothered to let the Prime Minister know about it, let alone the Police who need to track these people down.

Even after three weeks, he still didn’t even know the scale of the problem, or whether any of the prisoners had reconvicted.

And yet, he’s stayed in office thus far on the basis that he’s the best person to fix a problem he created. And the longer he stays, the more reports continue to trickle out, and the more damage it does to a Labour government already facing a grim local elections result.

What is he doing? And why hasn’t he been unceremoniously sacrificed?

He clearly can’t stay as Home Secretary. That’s now absolutely obvious, and as clear as clear can be. But in any reshuffle, there’s really no cabinet position of equal power to that of Home Secretary. Foreign Secretary or Chancellor would be a promotion, which would make Mr Blair look arrogant beyond belief. Anything less than those two positions would be a demotion, which Clarke would never agree to. So what’s going on?

If Clarke resigns tomorrow, it’ll hit the papers on Wednesday, the day before the local elections. That’s not satisfactory. He could resign at the point of a reshuffle, but he’s a clever guy – why hang on that long and keep the bad press coming? If he was going to go, from a political point of view he should have done it by now.

So what’s missing? There’s an outside chance that Tony Blair could use the local election result to announce a date for his departure, and relieve Gordon Brown of his Chancellorship to concentrate on the handover of power. Charles Clarke could sneak in and be caretaker Chancellor, which would techincally be a promotion, but no-one would care because the story would be eclipsed. Patricia Hewitt could be shuffled out of Health at the same time.

Prescott’s a stickier problem, because Deputy Leader isn’t a job Mr Blair gets to play with – it’s elected by the Labour Party at large, but again the announcement of Blair’s departure would overshadow any news about Prescott’s pants anyway.

It all seems a bit unlikely, but there’s something that doesn’t add up here.

It seems increasingly clear that, with all the current bad press Labour’s been getting, someone – probably Charles Clarke – needs to resign to reassure voters before Thursday’s local elections. Logic says that the most likely day for this to happen is today, because no-one wants it to drag on till Tuesday, when everything’s a bit close. But leaving it till Tuesday does have its advantages, as it makes Labour look responsive right before the election – it just doesn’t give campaigners the boost they need on the doorsteps over the Bank Holiday weekend.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see an announcement today. But let’s face it, I’m usually very wrong…

Clarke, Hewitt, and Prescott – the newest terrible threesome.

Clarke’s under pressure after freeing over 1000 prisoners who should have been considered for deportation. With more and more such people being found every day, and the story just dripping on, there’s little chance of him surviving for much longer if this continues to drip.

Patricia Hewitt has been heckled at the RCN conference – the second time she’s been heckled in three days. For the first time, she actually seemed to come close to breaking today, complaining that whatever she said she’d be shouted at. That’s not good, and isn’t a ministerial response. Which must increase the odds of my prediction from January.

Prescott’s had an affair with a secretary, which has been very much buried. All-in-all, Labour’s been lucky – three potentially big stories all released on the same day, meaning each one will get less than its fair share of coverage in the news cycle.

But still, the headlines are looking bad for Labour right now.

And the future isn’t looking bright, either: The local elections in May will bring bad news for Labour, the by-election also in May will likely bring bad press, and then the Education Bill follows shortly afterwards, which is so controversial that it can only bring bad press – particularly with the ongoing police investigation into peerages being sold.

But bad news for Labour is bad news for us all. There’s no chance of Blair going until calm political waters present themselves for Brown’s succession to be as smooth and positive as possible – so it looks like we’ll be waiting for a while longer yet.

Following a discussion on the subject of student funding, I thought it time to get in touch with Mr Borrow again, knowing how well he represents my views. And so, I placed this in the big red shiny postbox today:

Dear Mr Borrow,

The average student has sixteen hours of formal teaching time each week. As a medical student, I have thirty-five hours of formal teaching time each week. Where is the logic in providing the same level of student support to all, despite clear disparity in the time available to supplement this support through paid employment?

I look forward to reading your response.

Yours sincerely,

It’ll be interesting to see whether he actually answers the question, as previous experience has shown that he, erm, doesn’t. I’ll let you know the response either way.

Just as an aside… Last time I wrote to the guy to ask him to support an EDM, he said he wasn’t going to sign any whilst acting as a PPS. In fact, I have the very letter on file:

I am currently the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Higher Education Minister, Kim Howells MP. When I was appointed I took the decision that as I was a member of the government, albeit at a very junior level, I would not sign EDM’s.

Strange, then, that during his PPS-ship, his signature appeared on 111 EDM’s. What’s all that about?

Update: 8th July 2006
To his credit, my MP did get in touch with Alan Johnson on my behalf. I was forwarded the reply from Bill Rammell, Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education:

Dear David

Thank you for your letter of 24 May, addressed to Alan Johnson, enclosing correspondence from Mr Simon Howard of (address removed) about the student support arrangements. I am replying as Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education.

I appreciate Mr Howard’s concerns about the difference in the number of contact hours medical students receive in tuition, compared to those on standard degree courses and appreciate why he feels the financial support should depend on the hours of study per week. However, time spent with lecturers will differ for individual students, depending on the type of course they undertake. Mr Howard may not realise that in addition to time spent in lectures and in tuition/contact time, students are also expected to undertake different types of activity. These include a personal study time, working with other students, research and project work. This is to enable students to develop and build upon the work carried out in lecture time and is part of the educational experience and development. As autonomous bodies, institutions are responsible for the service they provide for their students, including the level of contact time.

Nevertheless, I am aware that it is not always possible for some students to supplement their income from part-time employment. That is one of the reasons which we provide additional help through the Access to Learning Funds (sic) to those experiencing financial difficulties during their course. The Fund is administered directly by students’ individual institutions which are best placed to assess students’ circumstances. If Mr Howard has not already done so, he can obtain further information about the application process from the student services at his institution.

I do hope this clarifies the position for Mr Howard.

Yours sincerely

Bill Rammell MP

So he did quite well, and did seek out an answer to the question.

Thanks, Dave!

Surely I can’t be the only one to find the most surprising fact in this article to be that someone has resigned from a body in this Labour government for lying? I thought this administration didn’t do resignations over matters like that. And even more surpising, he’s not been rehired five minutes later.

Maybe he just doesn’t understand the rules of the game.