As the Conservative leadership content heats up to an almost tepid finale, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the next General Election will be fought between Gordon Brown and David. But which David? Well, Cameron, most probably. Let’s be realistic here. The chances of David Davis winning are – well – low. This represents an interesting moment in modern politics – the heavyweight, overbearing Labourite vs the touchy-feely everyman Conservative. Reverse the party allegiances, and that could’ve been written ten years ago. Well, maybe not. John Major was never exactly heavyweight or overbearing, but he was clearly very ‘establishment’, which Brown also has a flavour of. Or summert.

My point (if I have one) is that the electorate appear to be looking for a change in leadership style, and bizarrely it’s Labour who are likely to supply this, while the Conservatives are desperately trying to emulate Blair. Which is somewhat unusual, and seemingly unwise.

But perhaps the Conservatives aren’t going for the Blairite approach at all. Perhaps they’re actually trying on the ‘chat-show Charlie’ Lib Dem approach, given that Charlie Kennedy is seemingly the most liked of the party leaders. If Cameron can manage to turn the Conservatives into something resembling a modern party, where a wide range of views are held, openly discussed, and considered, instead of the Labour approach of everybody being whipped into Tone-clones, then maybe he’ll be very successful. But then, when the Conservative party get talking, they seem to suddenly discover that they really don’t like each other, and re-enter the wilderness years where a number of factions roughly equal to the number of Conservative MPs appear, and no-one quite knows what’s going on, or what the party stand for, but are united in their dislike for the current leader. And the next leader. And possibly the one after that, too.

It seems rather cruel to criticise Cameron before he’s even taken office. But heck, since when has that stopped me? At the end of the day, in all likelihood he’ll do a reasonably good job. But without the united support of the party, that’ll mean nothing.

From Catherine Bennett’s column in Thursday’s Grauny:

Readers of the Daily Mail are used to being frightened out of their wits, usually by you-couldn’t-make-it-up announcements to the effect that Tony Blair is developing plans to hand out morning-after pills to war veterans, or to sell sick puppies into the white slave trade. But the most hardened readers must have been shocked, yesterday, to find the paper resorting to outright threats. “Free Christmas Cartoon DVD”, it announced on the front page. Adding, in the spirit of we-know-where-you-live: “Collect yours from WH Smith today, or we’ll post the whole collection to your home”.

Be afraid; be very afraid.

Following on from yesterday’s post about the suggestion that capital punishment should be brought back, today I thought I’d comment on the equally silly suggestion that all police officers should carry guns.

Before I make any argument, let’s look at the figures. 11 police officers have been shot and killed in the line of duty in the UK in the last twenty years. 30 civilians have been shot and killed by police officers in the line of duty in the UK in the last twelve years. That means that about one police officer is shot dead every couple of years, while the police shoot dead five civvies in the same amount of time. To the best of my researching powers, every single one of the police officers shot dead in the last twenty years have resulted in prosecution of the civvy with the gun. Of the thirty civvies shot and killed, not one has resulted in a police officer with a gun being prosecuted – even in the cases where the civvies were completely innocent.

To me, that alone suggests that arming every police officer is not a bright idea.

Figures aside, let’s think about this. The suggestion is that every police officer should be given a two-day training course, then sent out on the street with a gun. Frankly, after a two-day training course, they’ll be lucky to be able to hit a guy at six paces without some ‘collateral damage’. Then there’s the medical aspect – you don’t need great eye-sight to be in the police. I could be in it. But I have a squint. Should I ever try and fire a gun, I’ll miss the target by a mile. What are you going to do with police like me? Not arm me, so I become the obvious target in a force of armed officers? Or kick me out, despite loyal service?

People claim that the police would only use the guns in the most extreme circumstances. To be frank, I say that’s bollocks. You see a guy coming at you with a knife. You’re unarmed, so, with heart thumping, you try to negotiate. Worse case scenario, you fail. You’ve got a knife sticking out of your abdomen, because you weren’t wearing your knife-proof vest. That’s not a good state to be in, but you’re pretty certain to survive, and get over it, returning to complete health. Yes, it would take time, but you put yourself on the front line, that was your choice. Now consider that you’re armed. Before the guy gets to you, you pull out your gun. He keeps coming towards you. Luckily, you’re quite talented at shooting, avoid the rest of the people on the busy street, and shoot and kill the guy. He ain’t going to recover. He’s dead. No court will ever be able to decide whether he was guilty, psychiatrically impaired, in need of help, or whatever. He’s dead. He’ll never get a chance to tackle his problems.

I’m by no means suggesting that all attackers would continue to lunge. But some would, and those would die. And that can’t really be too good.

All police being armed raises the stakes of the game significantly, and means that much more premeditated crime will involve guns. If the police have them, the criminals will have to match or even beat them. Gun crime soars, the streets become inevitably more dangerous. And then there’s the issue of the guns falling into the wrong hands, or even new, inexperienced police officers being attacked for their guns. Not a healthy prospect.

And the final point… It completely changes the relationship between the public and the police. For example, I’m quite heartened to see the (very) occasional police officer on the beat now and again. Would I be so heartened if I knew he was carrying a gun, and capable of lethal force? I think not. And I think some in the police would let that power go to their heads, and imagine (even more-so than now) that they are an untouchable, greater class, rather than public servants policing by consent.

So, as far as I can see, there are many more arguments of greater power for keeping the police unarmed than there are for routinely arming them. So it’s not something I’d support.

Following the killing of PC Beshenivsky, several people who should know better have been calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty for those who kill police officers. This is a pretty silly proposal, as anyone with a handful of brain cells can recognise (too harsh?).

First and foremost, why is the death of a police officer any more terrible than the death of someone with a different job? Why is it more terrible than the killing of a child? Heck, why is it more terrible to kill a single police officer than it is to kill a tower block full of civvies? Especially when you consider that police officers are actively remunerated for the risk that they may be harmed on duty?

Secondly, people who kill police, by definition, do not expect to be caught. They’re killing the police either in a moment of clouded judgement or because they think they’re going to get away. No criminal is going to stand there and say ‘Fair cop, guv, slap the ol’ han’cuffs on then’ just because killing a police officer carries the death penalty, because they’re not considering the penalty at the time of the crime.

Thirdly, if we go about killing people based on a single decision taken in a split second, set against the background of their whole life, why are we any better than the criminals?

This proposal serves no serious purpose other than to allow some barbaric form of satisfaction for the bereaved. And, frankly, I thought humanity was better than that.

David Austin, one of my two favourite newspaper cartoonists, has died, aged seventy. It’s strange to think that despite never having met the man, he’s made me smile probably thousands of times, even laughing out loud on occasion. The Guardian, which carried an Austin on its front page and another inside for many years, has a tribute by my other favourite, Steve Bell, a leader column in his praise, and, of course, a full obituary. I will miss him.

He’s apparently leader of the free world. He’s arguably the most powerful man on the planet. Yet, like the greatest of heroes, he’s thwarted by the simplest of things. Like locked doors. Or micturition. Or bicycles. Or pretty much anything, really. I may have to rethink that ‘Greatest of Heroes’ bit…

Clearly, the fact that Blair has finally been defeated is humourous in itself, but the reactions to it have also tickled. Start off with the desperate-to-be-loyal Blairites, who insist that, despite the fact that 30 of his own MPs have defied him, he has apparently not lost his authority. Yeah, right.

And then, on the other side of the political fence, the amusing interview with IDS, in which he said it was important to stand together and vote as a party on these issues. Until it was pointed out that several Tories had voted Labour’s way. When suddenly he completely contradicted himself and told us he’d always thought that it was on issues like these that politicians should vote with their consciences. Well done with that one.

Today, we descended further into the realms of bizarre claims and general ridicule as Mr Blair claims that he’s more in touch with the common man than his MPs. I think there’s a chance his head is more in touch with his own rectum that most people’s, but that’s pretty much all he’s in touch with.

In a very cleverly written allegorical article for Prospect this month (“Opiate of the masses: It is a highly addictive drug, but governments everywhere encourage its use“), Richard Dawkins grapples with the inherent dangers associated with ‘Gerin oil’:

Gerin oil (or Geriniol to give it its scientific name) is a powerful drug which acts directly on the central nervous system to produce a range of characteristic symptoms, often of an antisocial or self- damaging nature. If administered chronically in childhood, Gerin oil can permanently modify the brain to produce adult disorders, including dangerous delusions which have proved very hard to treat. The four doomed flights of 11th September were, in a very real sense, Gerin oil trips: all 19 of the hijackers were high on the drug at the time.

I’m quite surprised that the Mail hasn’t picked up on this and given Dawkins a pretty hard time for it – but then, perhaps they didn’t get it. Either way, it’s a superbly well written piece, and has some pretty convincing arguments, many of which I largely agree with:

It is easy to regard such people as evil criminals, from whom the rest of us need protection. Indeed, we do need protecting from them. But the problem would not arise in the first place if children were protected from becoming hooked on a drug with such a bad prognosis for their adult minds.

It’s very well worth reading, whatever your point of view, and I think it was quite a brave piece for Dawkins to write. He’s always been one of my favourite scientific authors, and this has certainly done nothing to change that view.

What can really be said about accountability in modern day politics, when the same guy can resign twice from the Cabinet within ten months? Is there any chance he’ll go for a hat-trick in a year? I know I’ve said many, many times that the lack of accountability is the worst aspect of the Labour government, and, of course, they’ve even gone as far as to incentivise their dirty form of government. It is, quite simply, wrong.

That said, it’s quite comical to look through my emails this morning: There’s one from 7pm last night – “I am not resigning, says Blunkett” – one from 9am this morning – “Blunkett preparing to resign” – and one from 10am – “David Blunkett resigns”. Talk about a fast mover.

Of course, the idea of a big pay-off, and the pretty certain guarantee that he’ll be working for New Labour again in the very near future must have made the decision to resign rather easier to take. A culture where a select few are protected and continually rehired after being sacked or resigning in disgrace is not a healthy one, but quite clearly, it’s a New Labour one.

Today’s Daily Express splash claims that the paper has been leading ‘the growing clamour’ for action on climate change. Today’s Daily Express leader complains that the price of oil is too high. Maybe not ‘The Greatest Newspaper in the World’, but clearly the most confused.

The incident does, however, call to mind an anecdote from a few years back (which may or may not be grounded in fact), when the Daily Express held a series of focus groups to try and reverse the continuing decline in its circulation. At these groups, members of the public were given copies of the Express and the Mail, and asked to comment on features in the Mail that they might like the Express to copy. Seems a good idea – except that several members of the groups left vowing to buy the Mail thenceforth, as they had never realised how good it was.

Good one, Des.