David Miliband quits the frontline

So, the rumours are true; David Miliband has announced that he will not attempt to become part of his brother Ed's shadow cabinet and that he will be stepping down from frontline politics for the foreseeable future. It's a dramatic departure for a man who not that long ago had been viewed as a dead cert for the top Labour job long before the leadership contest was announced.

It'd be easy for critics of the elder Miliband to view this as a case of sour grapes, that having victory snatched away from him and instead seeing his younger brother anointed as successor to Gordon Brown was simply too much to take. Indeed Ed has already distanced himself from the previous administration and in particular the decision to go to war with Iraq under Tony Blair, a venture former foreign secretery David openly supported. His displeasure was embodied in his unscripted rebuke of Harriet Harmen as she applaud Ed's denunciation of the war; that the other candidates in the election have not themselves stood down perhaps adds some weight to this interpretation of events.

But this is not the only possible explanation for David's decision. After so many years in the spotlight his eventual leadership of the Labour party was once virtually assured; being beaten to that spot by a younger brother who has been an MP for only five years must be particularly galling. There is also the question of whether a sibling working under another in the shadow cabinet would really work; for a party scarred by the Brown-Blair rivalry the prospect of another unbalanced political dichotomy would not be an enjoyable prospect.

There is also the nature of Ed's triumph. It was extremely close, with the margin of victory coming in at just over 1% of votes. And although David won a slightly higher percentage of votes from Labour MPs, MEPs and party members the younger Miliband's success with trade union members and affiliated societies pushed him into first place. Should David perform well in Westminster or be seen to overshadow his brother the coalition will waste no time in accusing the opposition of having picked the wrong leader.

But ultimately David Miliband is probably just knackered and needs a break from it all. I doubt that this will be the last we'll hear of him, and should Ed's tenure not prove to be a productive one it doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that David may once again eye the top job. This is a good thing; the elder Miliband has proved himself an invaluable asset to Labour and it would be real loss to the party if he were to disappear for good. It could be that stepping down temporarily is David's shrewdest political move to date.

The Toro de la Vega - cruelty in action

It's not often that I agree with a Daily Mail article but this one has proved to be an exception. It would appear that EU funds intended for agriculture and delivered to member states via the CAP's subsidy payment system is inadvertently funding the breeding of bulls intended for prolonged ritual slaughter.

Investigations into Spain's appalling animal rights record have understandably focused on bullfighting, the most famous, emotive, high profile - and, its proponents would argue, the most quintessentially Spanish - Iberian blood sport. But cruelty to bulls is not merely restricted to the Plazas de Toros; other festivals far from tourist eyes also engage in an orgy of bloodletting in the name of tradition.

The Toro de la Vega is one such example. Just one of the many blood fiestas that take place nationwide, this particular event in the northern town of Tordesillas has become notorious for its brutality. A bull is chased and beaten through the town and then slowly impaled to death in a nearby meadow by large crowds; pictures and video footage make for particularly uneasy viewing.

Those that support these events usually employ the defence that these are ancient traditions worthy of preservation, a stance that the EU seems to support. The Lisbon Treaty insists on “respecting... the customs of the member states relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage”, a category into which bullfighting falls. This renders it immune from the organisation's published policies on animal welfare, despite the fatuousness of the cultural argument that I and many others have rejected outright.

But it would be wrong to suggest that the EU is a rabidly pro-bullfighting institution. The problem, as this parliamentary answer makes clear, is that the single farm payment established during the CAP's reformation back in 2003 "is not linked to any specific type and level of agricultural production". In other words, it is up to the individual farmer concerned and not the EU to decide what to do with the money.

You might have expected this rather laissez faire approach to agriculture to please the Daily Mail's readership; after all it devolves power to farming communities and reduces the influence of the much-loathed Eurocrats in Brussels. We now have the peculiar situation whereby a paper that notoriously regards itself as the bastion of the right is calling for more EU intervention, not less of it.

But the Mail is right to criticise the European Union on this issue. Handing out public funds gives the institution the moral right to specify exactly how that money is spent. Its ambivalent attitude towards bullfighting is also peculiar given that Union-wide moral positions on other issues - abolition of the death penalty, for example, is mandatory for EU membership - are much less problematic.

Bullfighting and other forms of recreational animal cruelty are barbaric practices that have no place in modern society, traditional practice or not. The public funding of such activities - whether intentional or not - by national and supranational entities needs to be halted immediately.

Is Christmas under threat?

I recently mentioned that even the Pope appears to have been fooled by the Winterval myth, a provocative but completely untrue claim that Birmingham City Council once tried to replace Christmas with a non-religious festival. It's since become a staple of the right-wing tabloid press that likes its readership to think that a toxic combination of political correctness gone mad, elf 'n' safety and Muslims is fueling a war on British traditions. With its emphasis on immigrant scapegoats it's a particularly insidious and spiteful conspiracy theory.

In case you can't remember, the Pontiff declared that "There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none". It's like something you'd read in the pages of the Daily Mail which - thanks to his holiness - it now is.

I mentioned this to an acquaintance - an habitual Daily Mail reader - and pointed out the paper's use of the thoroughly-debunked Winterval. In reply she launched into a passionate defence of the paper's editorial, arguing that the UK is a Christian country and as such it should be allowed to celebrate its Christian heritage. She also expressed outrage that schools are apparently abandoning nativity plays for fear of offending pupils of other faiths. It was a surprisingly strong statement from a person who isn't a regular churchgoer.

And yet I remained unconvinced by the Pope's stance. I genuinely don't see Christmas as a festival under threat; indeed the season is regarded as so important to the economy that the festive retail period is frequently used as a yardstick for measuring national economic performance, which explains why preparations for the big day are made months in advance. It's still only September and I've already seen advent calendars in the shops and Christmas lights up in the centre of Leeds, and soon it will come to dominate our screens and our newspapers. Clearly Christmas is not in danger of extinction any time soon.

But what worries me most about these claims is the idea that 'others' are to blame for something that isn't actually happening. In this article on Daily Mail stablemate The Telegraph it's acknowledged several paragraphs down that any schools refusing to host nativity plays out of fear of causing offence are doing so in spite of the fact that no domestic religious leaders have called for the proscription of celebrations surrounding the birth of Jesus. Yet the article implies early on that it is these groups which are responsible for the abandonment of nativity plays in some of our schools and not the overreaction of the school heads in question, a view which is subsequently bolstered by reader comments suggesting that "if it offends other cultures then perhaps those other cultures should not be here in the first place". The power of the press is thus laid bare for all to see.

If there is any danger to Christmas - which is, I hasten to add, a celebration of what is not an indigenous British religion but rather one exported here from the Middle East - it comes from crass over-commercialisation that seems to get worse with every passing year. It's here that the central Christian story of the birth of Jesus Christ is most likely to be lost amidst a celebration of mass consumerism, gluttony and greed.

This is a situation of our own making. Simply trying to pin the blame on those of different colours and creeds is lazy and self-delusional.

Leeds protesters highlight Azeri Iran

Walking in the centre of Leeds earlier today I stumbled across a small group of protesters gathered outside the main library completely by chance. They were highlighting Iranian domestic policies in its northwestern province of Azerbaijan, and although it was a distinctly low-key affair - the chilly and overcast weather made engagement with often apathetic pedestrians even more difficult - it did afford the representatives of the groups on show to publicise what is a relatively obscure political issue.

I have to admit that my knowledge of Azeri-Iranian relations is pretty scant; I was dimly aware that - just like Luxembourg and the Belgian province of the same name - Iranian Azerbaijan is larger than the independent Azeri nation lying to its north. I also knew that both have a Shia majority and are historic centres of Zoroastrianism, but that's about it. So it was interesting to find out what the crowd had to say.

The main gist of the protest was the claim that Tehran is engaging in a cultural war of assimilation against its Turkic-speaking Azeri population, particularly through the medium of education and the wider media in general. Azeri students generally have to access learning through the medium of Farsi, and those agitating for reform have apparently been subject to harassment and arbitrary arrest. Iranian Azerbaijan is also the home of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the woman at the centre of an international outcry after she was recently sentenced to death by stoning.

Human rights abuses may have been the dominant theme of the gathering but it was hard not to suspect that - although not explicitly articulated - Azeri nationalism was the real underlying theme. A leaflet being distributed to passers by claimed that "Mother language reflects each nation's way of thinking" and that Iranian language policies "alienate Azerbaijanis from their own identity (and) deny them their nationhood". Even the name used by the group responsible for organising the demonstration - the South Azerbaijani Front for Democracy - is contentious, implying as it does that this part of Iran is actually an extension of what should be a united and independent Azeri nation with its capital at Baku.

Much of the contemporary attention paid to Iran focuses on its maverick president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his twin obsessions of building a viable nuclear programme and an unrivaled hatred of Israel. But the fundamentalist nation's human rights record is also incredibly suspect - it executes more people per year than any other country apart from China - and the mistreatment of large sections of its population on grounds of gender or sexuality is becoming increasingly notorious.

Those protesting today in the centre of Leeds may have been motivated by more by a sense of separatism and national awakening than by pan-Iranian social injustice, but by doing so it continues to highlight Tehran's domestic failings. For that, at least, it was worth stopping and talking to them.

Ed Miliband wins Labour leadership

The results are in: Ed Miliband has won the the battle for leadership of the Labour party, narrowly defeating his brother David by the slimmest of margins. The latter had been the frontrunner for much of the contest but a surge of support for the younger Miliband in the last few days was enough to see him win by just over 1% of votes. For a contest that some have considered dull it was a surprisingly dramatic finish.

Miliband junior will have much work to do once the celebrations are over. He has already had to play down the influence of the unions in securing his victory and there may be some sections of the Conservative party which will attempt to draw parallels with the dark days of industrial unrest and union power in the 1970s. He must also consolidate his victory by unifying Labour and ensuring that it becomes a more coherent opposition to the coalition. Perhaps most importantly, however, he needs to make Labour electable again whether that be for a general election in one year's time or five.

I found it a hard decision when it came to casting my ballot; whilst all of the candidates had their strengths none had really grabbed me as the person to vote for. My local MP had cast her lot with Ed early on in the contest and in the end I did too; I feel a leftist approach to the coalition will be the best way to expose the glaring inequalities in society that it seems determined to promote.

It will be interesting to see how Ed deals with the pitfalls of leading the opposition and whether the Tory's quick succession of leaders when they sat opposite Tony Blair will be replicated. There will be a lot of hard work ahead.

Defending libraries

I'm temporarily residing in Sherburn-in-Elmet, either a small town or a large village in the Selby district of North Yorkshire. With a population of around 6,000 it's got a more generous smattering of shops, pubs and banks than one might think for a settlement of its size.

Earlier today I visited the library, a small but neat and well-stocked affair that offers a valuable service to the local community which includes not only traditional books but also a few computers, photocopying equipment and a hot drinks machine. It appears to be a well used amenity.

It's also fortunate that Sherburn still has one. Libraries in recent years have come under increasing pressure to diversify or face closure, as many already have; the Future Libraries Programme currently being championed by culture minister Ed Vaizey has recently announced the 10 pilot projects - including nearby Bradford - which will attempt to deliver an 'ambitious' programme of change. This is code for combining library services with other institutions that very often have no obvious historical link to the provision of public information.

It's all extremely depressing. The services that libraries supply cannot be adequately assessed in purely quantitative terms and their loss is felt across all sections of the various communities that use them. To regard libraries in purely monetary terms is to misunderstand their purpose.

The simple modernisation of libraries is no bad thing; the introduction of computers, for example, is of tremendous benefit for those who might not otherwise be able to access them. But the principal role of libraries has be the stocking of books and the promotion of reading; diluting that harms the one true source of free universal education that we have in the United Kingdom and which is open to all. They are worth defending.

Irish terrorism threat 'substantial'

It would appear that the threat of attack from Irish terrorist groups on the British mainland has increased, with an assessment level increase from 'moderate' to 'substantial'. This is still less than the threat posed by such organisations within Northern Ireland or from terrorism in general in Britain - rated as 'severe' - but it's still an indication that the ambition of some members of the Republican movement to cause physical damage in the UK is one that is being taken seriously.

The hitting of targets outside Northern Ireland have played a prominent role in recent armed Republican history; the murder of civilians in pub bombs and high streets matched with more obviously political strikes in Brighton and even on Westminster and Downing Street. Attacking England - Scotland and Wales have escaped relatively lightly - serves three main purposes; its value as propaganda, as a show of strength, and as an attempt to provoke a reaction from an often-apathetic British public.

Whilst some commentators - myself included - believe the term 'dissident' is sometimes overused and risks overshadowing Nationalist discontent at the price of protecting the peace process it's important not to under- or overestimate the current Republican propensity for violence at any given time. Giving militant groups the 'oxygen of publicity' may not be desirable but reducing their support base and operational capability is. Terrorism must be combated at its source but a militaristic response will only provide relief, not a cure.

The Commonwealth Games

Talking of developing nations it would appear that India's efforts to host the Commonwealth Games next month are in serious trouble after several competing nations expressed doubts over their continued participation. It's been claimed that the athletes' village is not fit for human habitation and photographs have emerged which seem to confirm that the facilities in Delhi really are in a shocking state of repair.

Team England, however, have decided that they are made of sterner stuff and have unanimously agreed to attend. One can only assume that the opportunity to take more medals in the event of a boycott had nothing to do with it...

Millennium Development Goals

What with everyone's attention focused on the Labour leadership contest, the Lib Dem conference and - perhaps most distracting of all - the battle to head the UUP it's perhaps not surprising that the UN's summit on global development in New York has received rather muted coverage in the British media.

This is a great shame. Top of the agenda will be the Millennium Development Goals, a set of eight lofty ambitions with the combined goal of alleviating economic misery in the world's less developed nations. Ambitious targets - on poverty and hunger, education, women's rights, child and maternal mortality, HIV/AIDS, aid budgets and the environment - set in 2005 hoped to have succeeded in a decade.

This makes the 2010 conference particularly important; it is now the half-way point and the outlook for hitting interim targets is looking particularly grim. Some critics are blaming a toxic combination of global recession and sheer complacency from many of the 189 countries that signed up. The lack of progress on any of the eight key areas of concern does suggest that the Goals have lost impetus extremely quickly and that donor countries have essentially lost interest.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, for his part, has told the summit that the UK's contribution towards fighting African malaria will more than double by the end of the MDG cycle, a move predictably opposed by the Daily Mail who cannot understand why a British government would want to waste money on saving lives when it should be spending it on the armed forces instead.

The Millennium Development Goals are so far off-target because of a lack of positive engagement by those nations who committed themselves to helping some of the world's poorest and their - and our - environment. It is right and proper that the UK - as one of the world's largest economies - renews its pledge and continued support of humanitarian missions that aim to combat poverty. Concerns over how that cash is spent are legitimate; recent investigations into the likes of CDC reveal that there is money to be made in alleviating misery. But that is not a legitimate excuse to abandon those that genuinely need help; aiming to combat corruption at the same time is merely the other side of the same coin.

Are internships exploitative?

A while ago I completed a postgraduate journalism course, one of the few nationally to be accredited by the Broadcast Journalism Training Council. It wasn't cheap - a hefty £4500 for around nine months of full-time study, not including additional costs - and needless to say I'm still paying for it now.

Sadly I've not been able to put much of what I've learnt into practice, aside from a couple of stabs at freelancing. A combination of a highly competitive job market and the effects of recession has seen demand for jobs rapidly outstrip supply, with the result that employers can pick and choose who exactly they want to work for them. In short, they can afford to be fussier than ever.

A quick scan down journalism-related posts on any particular website will soon show that virtually every job demands large amounts of previous experience in that field, even for the most lowly paid positions. Ditto for advertised vacancies in other areas; entry level positions have essentially dried up and those which remain frequently specify a frustratingly high amount of specific experience as essential before the offer of an interview will even be considered. For those like myself who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time applying for jobs with a virtually zero success rate it's difficult to imagine how one would ever be in a position to get that experience in the first place.

One of the traditional ways to learn about a job is to undertake work experience, and I did a few stints with various local media outlets both before and during my time as a student. It was a useful way to learn about the fundamental basics of the job and to see whether it really was the career for me. Most of these sorts of placements are rarely longer than a fortnight, and are almost always unpaid.

Whilst no doubt fun, it's fairly obvious that the most limiting factor when it comes to learning on the job in this way is the short amount of time a placement typically lasts. They are essentially an introduction to work but they will never fully develop skills beyond a fairly rudimentary level.

This is a widely acknowledged problem with work experience, and businesses know that students on placements will only be able to contribute a limited amount to the organisation. So what to do about it? Enter the internship.

Internships are just like work experience placements - they are unpaid entry level positions - but with one major difference; they can last for several months. They're becoming increasingly popular in the world of journalism and the media; these two based in London are excellent examples.

This immediately raises several ethical questions; is it exploitative to employ staff without paying them? And is it fair that many people - myself included - won't be able to take advantage of an internship because they simply cannot afford to do them?

Those that support the idea of the internship argue that in this cash-strapped world businesses are offering opportunities for individuals to network and to learn about a job that they are unable to pay a salary for. And for those who cannot afford to work for free in one of the world's most expensive cities? Either they offer internships and some can take advantage, or simply not offer them at all.

It's a tricky conundrum, and given that I've been priced out of opportunities such as these it's hard not to take a partisan stance; that internships have apparently multiplied since the onset of the current recession lends weight to the suspicion that businesses are simply taking advantage. It's galling to think that for a few privileged jobseekers landing that dream job is made all the more likely from gaining experience that eludes the rest of us and which appears to be so vital in securing gainful employment.

Did Clegg sell out for power?

Amid the chaos and wall-to-wall coverage of the Papal state visit over the past few days it might have been easy to miss the news that the Liberal Democrat party conference has kicked off in Liverpool. This is a shame, for it promises to be one of the more turbulent Lib Dem meetings in recent years.

The simple reason why, of course, is the coalition government, and more specifically Nick Clegg's choice to enter into partnership with a political party that he actively campaigned against during the general election. The Deputy Prime Minister is already set to placate angry party members in a speech to be given later this week.

And placate them he must. There have been overt voices of disapproval over the perceived compromises the party has had to make ever since it became a governing party for the first time in 65 years, and several councillors have already defected in protest. Perhaps even more disturbing for those in attendance is that the usual rule of motions passed at conference automatically becoming party policy will be ignored if they clash with the coalition deal. The claim from certain quarters of "Vote Lib Dem, get Tory" has never rung more true.

Those that support the coalition argue that for a party almost certainly condemned to sit in opposition for eternity the opportunity to take part in government was one not to be passed, however unpalatable that proposition might initially be. Having Liberal Democrats in the cabinet, so the argument goes, will act as a check on the worst of Tory excesses and will allow some of their own policies to be considered. The proposed AV referendum - which the Conservatives oppose - is a good case in point. So have the compromises been worth it?

Chief among the issues that Clegg is now having to justify to the party faithful is the coalition's programme of spending cuts, which many believe go too far even with the application of the vaunted Lib Dem brake. There was the rise in VAT which hitherto had been described as a "bombshell", the abolition of the UK Film Council and the Building Schools for the Future programme, the cancellation of other building projects including hospitals, and cuts across the public sector that have already attracted the ire of the unions and which could create another Winter of Discontent. There are also upcoming matters such as free schools which threaten to create even more division.

It has to be said that thus far the coalition partners seem to be getting on rather amicably, despite the disquiet among the grassroots. Until another general election - and until we can more accurately assess the consequences of the assault on the public sector - it may be hard to tell just how support for the Lib Dems will be effected by their spell in government. It's fair to say that many people would have voted for Clegg's party on their platform of opposing Tory cuts; that they now see that same party collude in these very same cuts could well result in punishment at the ballot box. It's a gamble which will either make or break the Liberal Democrats as we know them.

When it all started...

A lot of people active in politics like to suggest that they've been active in their respective parties or movements for a long period of time. The five Labour leadership hopefuls are a good case in point; all have been keen to stress the duration of their involvement. It's to be expected, because length of service suggests dedication to the cause and an ideological durability that translates into reliability.

So I'm rather pleased to have stumbled on the above photograph of my parents and I protesting against the US invasion of Grenada in 1983. My age? A sprightly 10 months. Beat that Frères Milibands...

Atheists Vs Christmas?

This is an excellent look at the penchant for certain sections of the press to regularly churn out copy that supposedly shows that the UK is an over-regulated and politically correct bureaucracy but that much of the evidence for this is - if not entirely fabricated - based largely on urban legend.

The latest example has seen the tabloids jump on the Pope's comments that "There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none."

You almost know that at the merest mention of Christmas and offence that someone, somewhere, will trot out the story of Winterval and how perfidious councils up and down the land are planning to rebrand or replace the religious-themed Christmas with a secular celebration of Winter. Just as they've done in The Sun, in fact.

Needless to say it's complete and utter nonsense, and one has to feel sorry for the Birmingham City Council press officers who have to routinely inform journalists that Winterval was actually a campaign run over a decade ago to attract business into the city centre. It had nothing to do with any Christmas celebrations, nor did it replace any of the events that one would expect local government to indulge in. That so much of Christmas these days seems to revolve around the celebration of excessive consumption is of course by-the-by.

This says more about the those newspapers that run this sort of rubbish than anything else. Either their journalists are lazy or see no problem in spreading lies, or the papers in question have a predetermined agenda and twist stories to fit as a result. Either scenario isn't particularly palatable nor is the strategy subtle, and yet millions seem to be taken in by it. It's a sorry sign that of all the national press websites it is the Daily Mail's which is the most popular.

Tabloid Watch, the blog which brought this latest piece of media manipulation to my attention, does a good job at exposing the lies at the heart of the UK's tabloid industry. Anyone who reads the likes of the Daily Mail and its stablemates would do well to have a look.

Will culling badgers save our farms?

A long running saga in the British cattle industry has been proposal to cull large numbers of badgers in the fight to halt bovine tuberculosis , a disease which badgers appear to inadvertently spread and which results in the loss of thousands of cows every year.

The latest news is that coalition Agriculture Minister Jim Paice has proposed that licenced farmers in England will be able to cull badgers - a protected species - from next year, subject to consultation. It was an option originally rejected by then-Environment Secretary Hilary Benn in 2007 after an in-depth scientific study which concluded that culling was ineffective. Paice has justified his decision by arguing that the scientific case for slaughter has since moved on, a claim denied by a former scientific adviser who has argued that it could actually make matters worse.

It's a strange announcement given that only two months ago the Court of Appeal upheld a judgment against the Welsh Assembly Government's plans for a trial cull in Pembrokeshire. The reason? Cull proponents expected the measure to produce only a 9% decline in bovine TB, which the court rightly ruled as not constituting a "substantial reduction" as required by the Animal Health Act.

It's always struck me that the slaughter of wild animals is a particularly nihilistic approach to agricultural management, not to mention morally questionable. Recent scientific studies have suggested that developing an effective vaccine is the best and most efficient route to proceed down, and it's hard not to agree. The coalition government claims that it wants to initiate "a carefully managed science-led cull" but Paice's proposals are nothing of the sort; allowing farmers free reign to shoot animals on their land is hardly a shining example of micro-management. Not only is it unscientific, it's unnecessary and cruel. Needless to say I'll be watching the Badger Trust's campaign against the cull with interest.

"Aggressive forms of secularism"

Now that the Pope has finally landed in Britain at the start of the first ever Papal state visit to these shores it's not taken long for controversy to start. His holiness has called for an end to "aggressive forms of secularism" which he sees creeping into mainstream British society and has seemingly likened atheism to Nazism. It's a peculiar statement coming from a man who seeks to impose his own narrow interpretation of morality upon the faithful and others besides.

But the main point that the pontiff tried to make - that the separation of church and state is essentially leading to moral decline in society - is not a new one; indeed, religious leaders of all hues have been saying this for years. It's always struck me as a little odd to argue that individuals should believe in a supreme being because of the moral codes one would subsequently adopt, because one could quite easily hold those codes already and be an atheist. Belief in God should really only concern that belief; morality is essentially a non sequiter.

But it's still interesting to examine how religion can influence politics, and assess whether its involvement really does have positive consequences. In the nominally Christian world it's undoubtedly the United States where the power of Jesus is most keenly felt so it's perhaps here that we should look first.

I've just finished reading The Age of American Unreason, by Susan Jacoby; it's an interesting book which examines how a country which once had a strong affinity with intellectualism and the Enlightenment has now found itself in the grip of anti-rational fundamentalism. Needless to say the rise of radical Christian movements has to shoulder much of the blame.

The recent rows over a proposed Koran-burning session by a small and radical Florida church and the mass objection to the Ground Zero Mosque - in reality nothing of the sort - are perhaps indicative of the power the Christian right has in the US. It's a country where in some places creationism holds its own against the science of Darwin - you can even visit a museum which tells you all about humans and dinosaurs coexisting - and little progress seems to have been made in some states since the Scopes Trial of the mid 1920s. The development of the Intelligent Design movement - essentially creationism rebranded so as to make it more palatable for human consumption - is also an indicator of the influence of fundamentalism, a development which worryingly has not been entirely unfelt here in the UK.

But perhaps the biggest evidence of fundamentalism's strength across the Pond is in the rise of the Tea Party Movement, an umbrella conservative grouping which is threatening to split the Republican vote. The recent victory of evangelical Catholic Christine O'Donnell in Delaware's Senate primary has only added to the suspicion that the Movement is merely a political cover for the Christian right and their own particular brand of beliefs. The power of the Bible belt was also seen as crucial for George Bush Jr's electoral success.

It would be unfair, however, to simply single out the US or accuse it of being a theocracy. But as nation with similar cultural norms to our own it is perhaps the best indicator of what heightened church influence in political life is like. I don't regard it as being particularly attractive.

The most pervasive influence of religion in politics is to be found, of course, in various Islamic countries and particularly those which operate under Sharia law. Given that the European Court of Human rights has declared that "the introduction of sharia... cannot be reconciled with the fundamental principles of democracy" and that there are genuine concerns of human rights violations sanctioned by Sharia courts it's perhaps understandable that sceptics sometimes find it hard to see the supposed tolerance that institutionalised religion claims to advance.

The truth is those nations which actively incorporate religious belief into their codes of practice rarely present themselves as shining beacons of mutual understanding and love. To be moral does not require the adoption of religious beliefs; indeed, it could be argued that the world's most secular nations are also the most multicultural and tolerant - a fact scorned by at least one individual high up in the Papacy's ranks.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with believing in God nor are those who freely choose to do so committing an evil, in spite of copious evidence to the contrary. But when religious leaders begin to demand that these beliefs should be enforced on those that do not wish them it must set alarm bells ringing. We've struggled long and hard for our secular society; long may it continue to be just that.

Horrible right-wing ownership

It's one of the terrible ironies of being a blogger that it is sometimes the smallest remarks that garner the most attention. It's possible to slave away for weeks producing well-written and thoughtful material and find that no-one's particularly interested; criticise another's work and all of a sudden your every utterance is subject to intense scrutiny - or at least it seems.

I was guilty of committing such an act very recently. Coming across the blog of former diplomat Charles Crawford I found the bold assertion that

"There are only two important ideas in politics and political philosophy:

• That government belongs to the people (ie the people are the source of sovereignty)
• That the people belong to the government (ie the government/state is the source of sovereignty)".

Such a claim is of course utter nonsense, and I pointed out as such:

"This is, I fear, an intentionally selective observation. There are also those of us who believe that government is the best vehicle to fight discrimination and promote equality. 'Ownership' - such a horribly right-wing term - has nothing to do with it."

This is indisputable; I feel - as do many others - that government is one of the best resources we have to tackle inequality, so long as it performs that duty responsibly. That in a democracy governments can have their mandates removed on the whim of the electorate further suggests a far more complicated relationship then Crawford et al would have us believe. Ownership doesn't come into the equation.

The rest of the article - a round-up of right-of-centre blogs - then proceeded down a familiar, Daily Mail-esque route; that government is the source of all evil and those "Left collectivists" who believe it has a positive function to play are essentially collaborating in spreading "darkness". Government wants to control you. To own you.

It's a well-worn and tiresome path; first claim that all left-wing politics is about state control and nothing else, and then rubbish any advances it makes or suggestions made by its advocates. By reducing politics into nothing more than a black-and-white - and non-existent - dichotomy Crawford prevents any genuine or realistic discussion of how society and government can and should interact. I can't imagine that it's anything other than an intentional sleight of hand of the sort that is repeated ad nauseum in the right-wing tabloid press.

But it wasn't this that caught the eye of Crawford. Rather than address the main point of my response he has instead seized upon my final parting assertion that "ownership" is a "horribly right-wing term", essentially a flippant remark made by someone irritated at the unashamed bias - nay crassness - of what I was reading. It's become the subject of a short commentary here and a more lengthy dissemination here.

Crawford rubbishes the claim, suggesting that the concept of ownership as right-wing and horrible reminds him of Tito's Yugoslavia. He should know; Crawford worked extensively in Eastern Europe and the Balkans for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office during the turbulent era of economic transition in the early 1990s. In case we're not sure what happened with Tito's brand of socialism we are helpfully informed that it went "bust". And the reason why? A removal of the profit motive and the initiative of private enterprise.

Again, this seems a narrow interpretation; as we all know capitalist economies have also been vulnerable to implosion, and numerous other factors both internal and out can and do effect economic performance. I also fear that Crawford places too much weight on his experiences out East, as if the communism of the Soviet Union and its satellites were and are the sole expression of left-wing politics. That the 'communism' in these countries was in reality nothing of the sort is another debate entirely.

But this diverts attention from the point of that final and - at the time - seemingly inconsequential comment. What I was trying to articulate is that the concept of ownership is a frequent obsession for many of a rightist persuasion to the utter exclusion of all else; that it has been seized upon so gleefully perhaps illustrates the point better than I ever could. It's fair to say that right-wing politics is the politics of selfishness and of cooperation only when there is something in it for an individual concerned. Crawford even makes this very point, with a final poetic flourish to the commentaries mentioned earlier - "If you fail to deliver your side of the bargain, off I go – taking my fair share of my production with me" - but I'm not convinced that selfishness is a healthy mindset for a society to have nor greed to be the most desirable or morally constructive driving force behind an economy.

The reason for this is simple; the aims of rampant capitalism and the needs of the disadvantaged do not always coincide. There is no room in Crawford's world for those in need or those who wish to help them; in his mind the state can only interfere or restrict, never assist.

I say that's nonsense. Government can and does act as a check on economic exploitation and is one of the best ways for those imbalances to be addressed. As I originally said, it's nothing to do with ownership: it's just that Crawford and the rest want you to see it that way.

The Trouble with the Pope

Later this week the Pope will be visiting Britain at a particularly low point for the Roman Catholic church, embroiled as it is with seemingly never-ending accusations of institutionalised sex abuse coming from all over the world. The troubles facing the church - described as the worst since the Reformation - are possibly to blame for reportedly low ticket sales for the various events the Pontiff will be attending during the three day tour.

But some people argue that Benedict XVI should not be visiting these shores at all and it's not merely about cost, either. Chief among these is Peter Tatchell, veteran gay rights campaigner and outspoken critic of conservative Catholic dogma.

Last night on Channel 4 Tatchell presented The Trouble with the Pope, a programme which produced a lengthy charge sheet against the teachings of the current Bishop of Rome. It is Tatchell's belief that Benedict's teachings and particularly narrow interpretations of religious ideology are having profoundly damaging consequences for society and that he should not be welcome in Britain as a result.

And it's a largely convincing argument. Among the more stringent criticisms levelled at the Pope are his rigid stance against contraception and the effect this has on birth control and HIV, his abandonment of Vatican II reforms, the rehabilitation of a holocaust denier back into the church, the lack of action over child and sex abuse scandals, the condemnation of stem cell research and the description of homosexuals as having a "tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil". He could have mentioned institutionalised sexism, the attempted luring of Anglicans, questionable remarks concerning Jews and Muslims, and other similarly suspect tenets of the church's teachings, but the idea that Benedict's assumption of divine authority lends a "moral legitimacy to discrimination" is perhaps Tatchell's shrewdest observation. It's a programme worth watching.

Some argue that Benedict is no worse than other leaders that have already enjoyed the hospitality of a state visit to the UK and who themselves have questionable moral track track records, but this is to ignore the global influence that Benedict enjoys as head of the world's largest religious organisation. State visits to Britain by other leaders, after all, rarely include organised public events and mass gatherings. And Stephen Glover over at the Daily Mail website makes the bizarre contention that the Pope should be welcomed because he is "a decent man of principle", purposefully forgetting that the principle held is as important - if not more so - as the degree with which a person holds it.

I am personally not particularly keen on the Pope's visit to England and Scotland - Wales and Northern Ireland are to go without - during a time of deep recession; simply put there are better things to spend public money on. But it also creates the potential for a spotlight to be cast on the dogmatic teachings that Benedict has promoted since the beginning of his tenure and for uncomfortable questions to be asked. It's a chance not to be missed.

Happy birthday Super Mario

Today marks the silver anniversary of Nintendo's Super Mario Brothers, the most famous Italian-American plumbers ever to grace a computer console. It wasn't the first appearance of the titular heroes - it was a sequel to Mario Bros, released two years earlier - but it was by far the most popular, with Super Mario Bros becoming the biggest-selling game of all time until beaten by Wii Sports in 2009.

To some Super Mario Bros was the saviour of the computer games industry; in 1983 oversaturation by poor quality games and consoles led to a famous market crash which some commentators thought might spell the end for gaming. It was the plucky Brooklyn plumbers who led the recovery and their place in computing;s hall of fame has been assured ever since.

So happy 25th birthday, Super Mario; it's been a fun journey.

A private post office?

I've always thought it remarkable that, for the cost of a stamp, a person could send a letter or a postcard all the way from Land's End to the Shetland Islands or anywhere in between.

Ever since the inception of Universal Penny Postage and the introduction of the world's first postage stamp in 1840 the Royal Mail have operated a flat fee. Any item they carry is charged at the same price irrespective of the delivery address in the United Kingdom and further afield. It's a remarkably egalitarian service.

But all that is under threat. Business Secretary Vince Cable has announced that the coalition government will proceed with plans to privatise the business, an idea first mooted but then abandoned by the previous Labour administration and now resurrected by the latest incarnation of the Hooper Report. Cable's position is a simple one; the number of letters Royal Mail carries each year is falling and it is projected to do in the immediate future, mainly as a result of email and the internet. It's his belief that only privatisation will ensure that the Post Office becomes more productive and efficient and better placed to survive into the 21st century.

It's true to say that, whilst making a profit last year of £404 million, Royal Mail's balance sheet in recent years has not always been in the black. And a series of undercover documentaries by the likes of Channel 4 presented a rigid and antiquated business with shoddy service and low morale. The saga of Post Office pensions is also a key concern, with a deficit currently running at around £8 billion.

But to simply place the quest for profit over all else would be to betray the work of Rowland Hill and other postal reformers who saw a cheap and universal postage rate as an emancipatory advancement for the masses who had - up to that point - been excluded. Hill regarded the flat rate as an essential and integral component of these reforms, and to simply hand the Royal Mail over to shareholders would almost spell its end. Even the Hooper report confirms as much; its author states that "The introduction of private sector capital is by itself far from sufficient to secure the future of the universal postal service", no doubt because big business will fail to share the same egalitarian principles that has until now been the Post Office's most redeeming feature.

Simply viewing the Royal Mail as an operation that should be solely concerned about making money is to ignore the huge social benefits a flat postal rate brings. Universal postage would simply not exist in a free market, becomes the aims of capitalism and social justice do not always coincide. According to CWU leader Billy Hayes the "British public don't want privatisation", and he's right; they want to be able to post a letter from Penzance to Lerwick for the same price as it does from Westminster to Trafalgar Square. Net social benefit can't always be measured on a balance sheet.

9/11 - 9 years on

Today marks the ninth anniversary of the deadly attacks in New York that brought down the World Trade Centre and ensured that the formative years of the 21st century would forever be associated with terrorism. 9/11, as it became to be known, has since set the tone for the vast majority of the relations between the West - specifically the United States - and much of the rest of the world.

The event itself was horrifically spectacular; I remember watching the event unfold on television, astounded by the surreal nature and sheer implausibility of what I was seeing. The cameras were focused focused on the imposing towers of the WTC but two more aircraft were hijacked elsewhere, one slamming into the Pentagon and one in a field in rural Pennsylvania. Around 3,000 people were killed that day in a huge propaganda coup for al-Qaeda - exposing as they had done the vulnerability of the US - and even the date itself has become synonymous with the rise of militant Islam.

So the anniversary of the Twin Towers' fall gives us an opportunity to reflect and examine the legacy of the world's most deadly attack of its kind. And that legacy is perhaps best embodied by the subsequent Anglo-American War on Terror that dictates so much of our foreign policy to this day.

We've had the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, two conflicts where apparently quick military victories were soon transformed into bloody insurgencies characterised by suicide bombings, kidnappings and sectarian violence. We've had terrorist attacks in London and Madrid, and those critical of the twin campaigns in the Middle East both domestic and foreign have been quick to draw links between the two. It leaves us with an almost permanent polarisation of what has been broadly termed the 'Muslim World' and the 'West' into two competing and mutually exclusive camps. Thousands have lost their lives as a result.

But the relations between East and West are far more nuanced than that, and terrorism is not a post 9/11 phenomenon. There is a history of colonialism in the Middle East that has implications even today, and both the importance of oil to the Western economy and the threat of religious fundamentalism has led to a long and curious history of alliances and counter-alliances between the US and Arab states.

The religious aspect has always been at the forefront of the War, with militant Islam the stated raison d'être of many of the terrorist groups that are its target. And whilst the Muslim world does not represent a homogeneously monocultural or monopolitical bloc there are reasonable suspicions that the Islamic propensity to take offence is particularly acute. Take the current furore surrounding one formerly obscure Christian minister's pledge to mark 9/11 with a burning of the Koran; whilst it is no doubt provocative and offensive to those who believe the book to be the work of God it seems entirely excessive to demonstrate so violently that people are killed, as has happened in several parts of the world. There was a similar outcome surrounding the Danish cartoons affair several years ago.

But this apparent intolerance doesn't just go one way. Today's Wolrd Trade Centre commemorations have also been overshadowed by an ongoing dispute surrounding a proposed "Ground Zero" mosque - in reality an Islamic centre - not far from the former site of the Twin Towers. Accusations of discrimination and bigotry have, with some justification, been leveled at those who oppose it.

Despite the West's relative secularism it's hard sometimes not to view the War on Terror as a War of Religion, with the forces of commercialism and individual freedom up against the words of Allah and his Prophet. As the Cold War dominated the latter half of the previous century, so the war between Islam and the United States and its allies will dominate the present one.

The Gore-Tex Wilderness Trek

Here's an exciting opportunity; Gore-Tex, the company best known for its outdoor waterproof clothing, is running a Wilderness Trek in Knoydart in the Scottish Highlands led by author and broadcaster Cameron McNeish. The idea is spend five days as a team living in the outdoors and taking part in cooking and wilderness survival skills before spending the final two days solo. The whole experience - including the lone trekking - will be recorded on film as a video diary.

There are two spaces up for grabs and naturally I'd love to be a part of it. Applications are made via Facebook and viewers can vote for who they think deserves to go. Whilst the public ballot is not decisive it can't hurt to have some popular support so any votes out there would be greatly appreciated. The expedition itself is scheduled to take place at the end of October so there isn't much time left!

You can vote here, although you may have to some hunting to find me; I'm on page 3, if that helps. Many thanks, and wish me luck!

The Leeds blog awards?

Leeds and Manchester share a well-documented competition that transcends mere football rivalry, which is perhaps just as well considering how far behind Leeds United lags behind not one but two Mancunian teams these days. The cities often vie for the unofficial title of Capital of the North, and whilst Leeds has been described as a regional version of London's Knightsbridge it's fair to say that - culturally speaking - the plaudits belong to the other side of the Pennines.

One of the virtual ways in which Manchester remains streets ahead of Leeds is in its recognition of its bloggers; its annual awards are now in their fifth year and it has the laudable ambition of "celebrating the best of the city's online writing". Leeds has no such event, despite a small but dedicated community of enthusiastic bloggers and writers.

This is a real shame. Leeds - and the wider Yorkshire region - is an incredibly diverse place and it contains a wealth of views and opinion within its borders. It's time, for bloggers at least, that we caught up with Manchester for a change.

Update 18/10/2010
To date I've attempted contact with the Yorkshire Evening Post, the Sheffield Star, the York Press and even the Guardian. None of these have bothered to reply, which is a real shame.

Scotland boo Liechtenstein anthem

Unsporting scenes at the beginning of last night's Euro 2012 qualifier between Scotland and Liechtenstein, which resulted in the narrowest of victories for the hosts; large sections of the Hampden crowd openly jeered the Alpine kingdom's national anthem in an act which has since been described as "disgraceful" by SFA chief executive George Peat.

There isn't much of a history of rivalry between Edinburgh and Vaduz despite the close result, which makes the entire episode all the more peculiar. It's only when we consider that Liechtenstein's "Oben am jungen Rhein" is set to the same tune as "God Save the Queen" does the mystery begin to present a possible solution.

Such subtleties have not been looked over at the Sun website, which helpfully ran an article before the game asking its readers "To boo or not to boo?" and features enlightening comments from Scotland supporters who - among other things - accuse Liechtenstein of having "chosen it deliberately to wind us up". In the sarcastic words of one blogger: "Yes, of course they did".

But the debacle does provide an interesting question; why would an anthem be detested so much that it's very tune would be booed irrespective of the words being used - or the nation it was representing - at the actual time?

I suspect the answer lies not in an ardent republicanism among the Scotland fan base; I doubt a similar reception would await Spain's La Marcha Real, Japan's Kimigayo or Thailand's Phleng Sansoen Phra Barami, all of which have a royalist theme. That England adopts God Saves the Queen for its own national sporting events seems a far more likely source of inspiration for the ire of the Hampden crowd. But why?

Politicians of a certain leaning have long fought off accusations of anti-Englishness as one of the driving factors behind Scottish nationalism, and some members of the SNP have themselves been charged with harboring anglophobic thoughts.

Those that care to indulge may decry the "people who get wound up about a bit of pantomime booing" but to see it as indicative of a latent ethnophobia doesn't seem unreasonable. Its casual regularity must not lead to normalisation, but for the misbehaving Scotland supports at last night's game it appears it's already too late.

Stephen Hawking and God

Stephen Hawking has dared to utter what many already suspect to be true; that there is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe. Although it marks a radical departure from Hawking's earlier suggestions that belief in a creator was not incompatible with science he has often hinted at the possibility of a link between atheism, science and reason.

Take this observation regarding the discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun in 1992: "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions - the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass - far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings." Quite.

Faith has long been religion's trump card, for it requires no evidence whatsoever that any of its tenets have a solid basis in fact, and to lack faith was to be regarded as committing a crime so heinous that it frequently stifled open debate about the nature of the universe. It's long been telling that as scientific advancement has given us new discoveries religion has had to mold its beliefs to fit it, not the other way round.

Hawking's announcement has been purposely timed to coincide with the release of his latest book The Grand Design, which says there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going. It should make for an interesting read.

Who would you vote as Labour leader?

This is an interesting online tool; it's a simple test to see which of the Labour leadership candidates most closely approximates one's own particular views and beliefs. Clearly Vote Match is not to be used as a sole determinant of who should be elected - other qualities that aren't easily quantifiable such as 'leadership' are not considered - but it is interesting to see whether its results are similar or radically different to the user's own opinion. Sadly Andy Burnham has not been included so it's not entirely complete.

I have found myself leaning towards a couple of candidates recently and it was interesting to see that this appeared to be confirmed by the test. I wonder how much the final result will be influenced by programmes such as these..?

ETA declares ceasefire

ETA, the terrorist organisation fighting for an independent Basque state, has declared a ceasefire after 40 years of armed insurrection and some 820 deaths. It said that it will no longer "carry out armed actions" and that it now has a "commitment to finding a democratic solution to the conflict".

Ceasefires are not new when it comes to ETA; this is its third attempt at renouncing violence. But the organisation has apparently been under increasing pressure to lay down its arms as the Basque nationalist movement in general has become increasingly uncomfortable with its methods, and it's more than possible that this time they really mean it. Such news will be welcome to not only the Spanish and French authorities but also all those who reject violent means for political ends.

The closest thing to ETA that we've had here in the UK is, of course, the IRA, and links between Basque and Irish nationalism have always been strong. The two causes have long shared an ideological affinity that is readily apparent by the amount of support the likes of Ógra Shinn Féin have given to their Basque counterparts.

So it's interesting to see that Sinn Féin's Gerry Adams has welcomed the announcement, an act whose significance will not be lost on those who see the parallels between that organisation and the IRA, itself disarming in 2005. Ógra have already declared that the Spanish government's decision not to negotiate with ETA unless it fully decommissions its weapons as "hopelessly unrealistic".

Ultimately any steps towards the furtherance of secessionist movements by democratic means only is to be welcomed. Not only does this halt the morally indefensible murder of civilians and others but also confers a legitimate mandate on those groups which do manage to capture the public vote by peaceful means. Let's hope that this time ETA really means it.

Update 07/09/2010
This is an interesting and well-written article examining the relations between Irish and Basque nationalism.

Tony Blair pelted with eggs

Former Prime Minster Tony Blair has not had a pleasant trip to Dublin today. A large crowd of around 200 anti-war protesters threw eggs, bottles and shoes at him in the Irish capital as he turned up to sign copies of his new autobiography A Journey. All of the missiles missed their target.

It's perhaps unfortunate that for a man who served as the country's top politician for a decade and who guided Labour to an unprecedented three consecutive election victories Blair is chiefly remembered for his role in the Iraq war, a debacle which has - for better or worse - become the defining episode of his time in power. Even at the time the war quickly became a stick with which opponents of the government could beat it with, including those who originally backed the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power but have since tried to use subsequent popular opposition to their advantage. There is a suspicion that in some quarters opposition was deemed either fashionable or politically expedient, or both.

And yet one sometimes wonders whether lambasting Blair for his ill-fated decision to the extent of throwing rubbish at him is perhaps a little unfair and not conducive to a proper and thorough analysis of the war in Iraq. True, there were and continue to be legitimate concerns over the primary reason for going to war - the ultimately non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction and the 'sexed-up' dossier which claimed that such weapons could be deployed by the Baathist regime within 45 minutes.

But to accuse Blair of being a 'warmonger' is to gloss over the fact that the dictatorial Hussein frequently treated the people he ruled over with callous barbarity - his Anfal campaign of chemical attacks in the late 1980s is widely regarded as genocidal - and had himself embarked on costly and deadly wars in Iran and Kuwait. His continued position as leader of Iraq for over 20 years was an affront to the most basic principles of democracy and yet similar scenes to that in Dublin were not common occurrences.

Then there is the issue of other interventions by British troops around the globe. In 1994 almost a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed in the Rwandan genocide whilst the international community did virtually nothing to stop it, a fact that will have almost certainly resonated with the future Prime Minister. Thus with Labour in power we saw members of the UK armed forces take part in military missions in Sierra Leone and the former Yugoslavia, roles which helped end conflicts in those regions and which have been all but overshadowed by Iraq.

The ethical implications of the Iraq war, the decision to invade and Tony Blair's role in doing so will be the source of continuing debate for years to come; that it is a recurring feature of the current Labour leadership battle is a vivid reminder of its divisiveness. But simply to turn up en masse and act in an overtly aggressive manner is not a reasonable or grown-up approach to judging the rights or wrongs of this century's most complex, deadly and protracted conflict.

Selling Ulster to the highest bidder

This is an interesting article by Mary Dejevsky, a columnist for the Independent. Writing in the Belfast Telegraph Dejevsky argues the case for Irish unification, citing economic and political benefits to the rest of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic and the presence of a general antipathy from British mainlanders like herself towards their fellow countrymen across the Irish Sea. Needless to say it's a provocative piece and is already being mulled over with much aplomb at the Ulster-based Slugger O'Toole blog.

The main thrust of the piece is that all would stand to gain if Northern Ireland was 'sold' to Dublin in an economic transaction that Dejevsky likens to the 19th Century sale of Alaska and the Louisiana Purchase. The British Exchequer, she argues, would save a considerable amount of money and the Republic of Ireland would "gain some of the most lavishly funded infrastructure that exists in the UK". She downplays any likelihood of a Unionist backlash should such an event come to pass - "With the Protestant majority in the North smaller than it has ever been... assent to unification may anyway be just a matter of time" - and states that Nothern Ireland's "transfer to the Republic would make cultural, demographic, and geographic sense".

There are numerous problems with these arguments, and Dejevsky betrays a shocking lack of understanding of the modern Irish question even if - despite appearing in the Bel Tel - this article clearly has a mainland audience in mind.

The first - and most obvious - are the legal implications inherent in selling off a piece of territory without the democratic consent of the people living there. Alluding to colonial-era land sales wasn't a smart move, taking place as they did at the behest of self-interested governments and empires indulging in a spot of realpolitik. There is also the fact that Northern Ireland is a constitutionally integral component of the United Kingdom and not a mere territory or dependency, which makes the legal ramifications all the more uncertain. And if it is entirely about money why restrict its sale to only one bidder?

Consent is an important issue. Both the governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are signatories to the Good Friday Agreement, which states that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland can only be decided by a majority of voters within its borders. The agreement itself was passed in referendums in both Irish states and resulted in the dropping of the territorial claim over the North that until that point had been stipulated in the Republic's constitution. Flogging off Northern Ireland without the consent of the Province's population would be a gross breach of the democratic process.

Then there is the matter of whether the Republic would welcome Northern Ireland under its wing. Support for unification is often taken for granted south of the border and even when Irish leaders inadvertently admit the reality of partition it can prove controversial. But aspiration is very different to reality and there is little doubt that the socio-economic challenges arising from such a development would make even the most ardent nationalist pause for thought. Dejevsky's blasé dismissal of Loyalist fury will not be replicated in Dublin.

The argument that the electorate of mainland Britain should decide Northern Ireland's fate is an interesting proposition, particularly when considering that taxes raised in the rest of the UK do appear to subsidise Ulster's economy. Yes, there is the oft-quoted observation that British public opinion to Northern Ireland is mixed at best, and whilst there might be some truth in the matter no mainstream political party advocates repealing the GFA and nor is there much call for it. Besides, this is a failure to understand the nature of the Union - and any other nation state for that matter - for areas of high economic activity will always help to pay for the provision of goods and services in other areas. The individual nations of the United Kingdom should and do act in mutual cooperation and not in an endless cycle of competition. Nationalists elsewhere might also have something to say about the possibility of an electorate within the territory they wish to secede from dictating their own constitutional future. Scottish independence referendum in England, anyone?

But its in her closing statements that Dejevsky's thinking is at its most muddled. Her contention that Nothern Ireland's "transfer to the Republic would make cultural, demographic, and geographic sense" is a failure to recognise that Ulster is home to a pronounced cultural dichotomy and exists as an entity independent of the Republic because it has expressed its wish to be treated as such. The Irish republic carries with it a pronounced and idiosyncratic sense of national identity and this is simply not replicated to the same degree across the border.

The geographic argument is also irrelevant; Northern Ireland's position as a portion detached from the rest of the United Kingdom has remained the same for almost 90 years and to suddenly argue this as a reason for its sale speaks of ulterior motives. Will similar logic be applied to other non-contiguous regions, such as the Scottish islands? And should Ulster be punished for the rest of Ireland's secession from the UK all those years ago?

It's this last point which is worth thinking about. Everything that Dejevsky argues could be used to press for the reunification of the Republic of Ireland into the United Kingdom. That she considers Irish identity to be incompatible with membership of a wider British family in the same way that English, Scottish, Welsh - and Northern Irish - identity currently is a failure to understand that it is this which has done so much to create Ulster's apparent problems. Hiving off a portion of the UK to another sovereign state is not the only answer.

Brown Vs Blair

Just when you thought it was safely consigned to history the spectre of Brown Vs Blair has once again reared its ugly head.

Tony Blair's memoirs - A Journey - describes the often fraught relationships between the former political allies, a development which essentially dominated each of their premierships. There's little I can add to the post-book launch analysis - the papers have done a pretty good job of that - nor can I say that it appears be anything particularly revelatory. We all knew the two shared an acute political and personal rivalry.

But what A Journey must not do is continue to define Labour here and now; the party is in the process of electing a new leader and it needs to form a coherent and unified opposition to the coalition government. No doubt Gordon Brown will feel aggrieved and it goes without saying that he will almost certainly provide some sort of printed rebuttal of his own in due course. But Labour must look forward and learn to live in a post Blair/Brown era. Memoirs, whilst no doubt interesting and which can often provide valuable lessons, must not detract from that goal.

New Daily Rant poll: a minimum price for booze?

Ballot papers for the Labour leadership are being sent out to members over the next couple of weeks, and the candidates' respective campaigns are noticeably stepping up the pace as a result. Various quarters are suggesting that it is little more than a two-horse race between the brothers Miliband, and results of the most recent DR poll suggest that there may be some truth in the observation. David came out on top with 40% of votes cast, with Ed taking 26%. Diane Abbott, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham barely made it into double figures.

I'm still undecided as to who I'll be voting for; I genuinely believe that all five candidates would make for a potentially powerful leader. What I am looking forward to is having an influential leader in place so that Labour can provide a more united Opposition to the Con-Dem coalition.

And so, the next poll; another political issue this time. Do you think there should be minimum pricing imposed on alcoholic drinks?