Miliband and Cameron gender quarrel disguises true parliamentary failings

Labour leader Ed Miliband has criticised the lack of promotion of women by David Cameron's ruling Conservatives in a fiery Prime Minister's Questions session.

Describing the Conservatives as an "old boys' network", Miliband slammed a decision by the party to deselect long-serving Member of Parliament Anne McIntosh for the next General Election.

Embarrassingly for the Prime Minister, his front bench was full of male MPs for the session, while Miliband packed his front bench with women.

Miliband also noted that there are just as many members of David Cameron's cabinet from two fee-paying schools as there are female members. The ruling coalition has been criticised in the past for hindering social mobility, with the current cabinet the least diverse in years, if not decades.

There has been activity in all of the major UK political parties in recent years to promote more women to Parliament, occasionally controversially in the form of 'all-women shortlists' in some parliamentary constituencies.

The coalition parties have been wholly unsuccessful in returning women to Parliament though. In the aftermath of the 2010 General Election, 31 percent of Labour MPs were female, compared with 16 percent of Conservatives and 12 percent of Liberal Democrats.

This deficit has given the government a headache, as Labour has a broad pool of female talent to draw from. In contrast, promising female MPs on the government benches have largely fallen by the wayside.

Louise Mensch was part of the parliamentary committee charged with interrogating Rupert Murdoch over the phone-hacking scandal that engulfed his newspapers. Following that role, she suddenly stood down as MP citing family reasons and now writes for Murdoch's Sun newspaper.

Other promising female careers in the coalition government have also fizzled out, including that of Sarah Teather - now a regular rebel against government policy. Teather has announced she is stepping down at the next election.

Others, including Nadine Dorries, have also taken to frequently opposing their own party. Indeed, Dorries has also criticised the Conservative leadership, dismissing them as "posh boys."

However, there must inevitably be an allowance for the prospect that any MP, regardless of gender, may fail to fulfil early promise - at best serving as a good constituency MP. The problem for the coalition is there are still not enough female MPs to source talented potential cabinet members in sufficient numbers.

The true failing, it would seem, is not just the failure to get enough talented women into high-profile government roles, but getting them into Parliament in the first place.

Every day is a bad news day under this government

Living in Britain at the moment is a tougher experience than we have been used to. While we continue to struggle to make ends meet, every day it seems as though there is another piece of news that is a slap in the face to us all. Each helping of gloom is supported by a source, which cumulatively are broad and inclusive.

Wednesday 27th February

Centrica, the private company that owns British Gas posts a tasty £606m residential profit in 2012 - up 11 percent on the previous year. In November 2012, the company put up gas bills by 6 percent.
Source: Which (consumer group)

Thursday 28th February

The bank that needed to be bailed out by the government, the Royal Bank of Scotland, made a pre-tax loss of £5.17bn. Many of the losses were due to PPI claims and fines. Bonuses remain set aside for staff. Astonishingly, the hapless organisation has been praised by the government.

Source: BBC

Friday 1st March

The pound plunges to a two-and-a-half year low against the dollar following a "shock" fall in manufacturing output. I place the word "shock" in quotations on purpose, for many of us would hardly be shocked by a fall in manufacturing under a Conservative-led government.
Source: Sky

Saturday 2nd March

From the file marked 'how to win friends and influence people', Philip Hammond, the Secretary of State for Defence decided to suggest that spending cuts should be made to welfare rather than his war chest. Great. We can all starve, but at least our military will be kept strong. Nothing like North Korea at all, of course.
Source: Independent

Sunday 3rd March

The Conservatives are now making noises about withdrawing from the European Court of Human Rights after the next election, in what is seen as a populist move as a knee-jerk response to some high-profile defeats for the government regarding the deportation of terror suspects. A move would put Britain in a minority of two, alongside Belarus – at present Europe’s only remaining dictatorship.
Source: Independent

Monday 4th March

Government policy to encourage banks to lend in order to breathe life into the economy is a catastrophic failure after banks and building societies slashed lending by £2.4 BILLION in the three months to December. The government’s “Funding for Lending” scheme was meant to encourage the banks to lend.
Source: Evening Standard 

Tuesday 5th March

In a slap in the face to all those struggling to make ends meet, George Osborne went to the European Union finance ministers’ meeting to fight the corner of the bankers by voting against a cap on bankers’ bonuses. He lost 26-1.
Source: Telegraph

 

And you wonder why Labour are 13 points ahead in the polls.

Time for everyone to calm down over McAlpinegate

I am sleeping fairly well at night right now. I have never written a tweet implying Lord McAlpine was a paedophile. (Note: tweet is a common definition of a micro-blog post. Additional note: Paedophile is a term describing those attracted to children typically below the age of 13, though in Britain the word is used a little more liberally to refer to anyone who legally is not expected to pay an adult fare on public transport.)

In fact, I have never written a tweet bearing McAlpine's name, prior to his unveiling as the poor bloke BBC Newsnight meant when implying some shadowy relic of the Conservative Party was abusing children.

And despite witnessing many tweets directly claiming he was a paedophile (along with four or five regularly alleged others), I believed it was unethical to "retweet" any of them. (Note for those not familiar with micro-blogging websites: Retweet is the Twitter term for copying someone else's tweet into your own Twitter page for other Twitter members to view.)

There was one notable tweet bearing his name that I may well have retweeted, but it no longer exists, for the author (a highly respected Guardian columnist) has apologised and presumably removed it. For that reason, it is no surprise that I do not even remember if I retweeted it! However, I best apologise just in case.

The tweet in question did little more than question some of the dubious things written about McAlpine on the Internet, but I suspect in the current climate the author will be in trouble over that.

That author apologised in the form of a tweet and linked it towards a more detailed apology. I decided to retweet his apology to my followers - you know, just in case. I hope Lord McAlpine accepts it and that is the end of the matter.

Now that is clear, I add a caveat or two to the above summary of McAlpine vs Twitter. Firstly, I fear that having won the goodwill of the public in light of some rather diabolical allegations, McAlpine (and more significantly those representing his interests post-McAlpinegate) risk overplaying his hand. Secondly, even if McAlpine's response is legally tenable, it is very much in the context of laws that have not caught up with the demands of print and broadcast media, let alone the online variety. First, I shall deal with the former point.

I personally think McAlpine's response is understandable. If I had been subject to the allegations he has faced, I would be on television too, auditioning my croakiest voice and reminding the audience how devastated I am by the allegations. I would have been demanding the BBC justified its research. No question - I would have sought some compensation from the broadcaster.

Having said that, I also think McAlpine has already done very well. His settlement with the BBC must surely be some sort of precedent for dealing with libel through innuendo and cryptic messaging.

I dare say if the BBC was not so on its knees in the fallout of this and the Savile fiasco, they may have had more of a stomach for a fight. They wanted the episode over as quickly as possible and who can blame them?

So you would think that Lord McAlpine would be happy with the settlement for a mischievous report that caused a lot of harmful gossip, and a clear message sent to the world that he is not a paedophile.

No sooner had the BBC surrendered, his legal team outlined their plans to pursue up to 10,000 Twitter users over the publishing of defamatory tweets in what is described as potentially a libel action with the largest number of defendants ever. The response is hardly a surprise when the first defendant (the BBC) settled out of court despite not actually mentioning him by name, instead allowing public gossip settle that matter. I too would be trawling the cyber and the tangible trying to find my next catch.

His next catch seems to be ITV, who broadcast the segment where Phillip Schofield handed a list of paedophilic names to David Cameron. He (McAlpine, that is!) was believed to be on that list and it is rumoured a camera picked it up. (Note the deliberate use of 'believed to be' and 'rumoured' in that sentence.)

I would be absolutely fuming if I was on Schofield's camera-shot list, and understandably McAlpine must be fuming about it. However, has anyone actually seen names on the list? It may have been caught by a camera, but was that particular camera part of the broadcast feed at the time?

These are crucial questions, because as things stand, despite an apology aired on This Morning, nobody seems to have produced the offending screen caption. I would have thought with the millions of feral Twitter users, ready to shine a light on predatory paedophiles at any moment, the offending screencap would have been doing the rounds within minutes of the broadcast ending. I have not seen any image, and I practically live on Twitter at times!

We were told viewers might have seen the list. It seems nobody has seen it. Someone should tell Lord McAlpine. This time, he is in the clear!

Except nobody will, as his legal team looks towards holding anyone and everyone to account. It is an approach that risks McAlpine losing the goodwill he has earned in the aftermath. I do not have the biggest Twitter feed in the world, so it is not a representative tapestry of views, however I have noticed a change of mood among those I follow.

When BBC Newsnight originally apologised, there was a mixture of sympathy for McAlpine and irritation that a story about child abuse had been superseded by poor journalism. The sympathy towards McAlpine has fallen away on my Twitter feed, and I wonder if he should retreat from further action while he is ahead.

His reputation has ironically been enhanced, as a weak and feckless media (in part brutalised by arcahic libel laws) made huge steps to apologise to him and stress that he is not a paedophile. Many people were quick to sympathise with him.

My second point regarding the post-Newsnight fallout is that I feel that libel laws in the UK need to catch up with the reality of the Internet, or it is going to destroy what is good about websites like Twitter.

Twitter enables lay members of the population to debate, discuss, talk, have a laugh, sometimes troll, sometimes troll aggressively and sometimes troll unlawfully. It is a big room where everyone can shout at anyone, with the rather obvious drawback that whatever is shouted is rendered into cyber-memory. Those words are there forever.

I am no legal expert, but my understanding is that British law is often cast through precedent. There will be many precedents needed in light of McAlpinegate if we are to prevent an online crisis of communication.

First of all, there will need to be an acceptance that although journalists and writers publish on Twitter and other sites, so do people who are not used to their copy being checked by lawyers before they hit the send button. (Note: Journalists have their work checked, and yet they have been known to wrongly accuse – the Chris Jefferies case springs to mind.)

Any developments of law that see thousands of people with a few dozen Twitter followers going to court will be to the detriment of ordinary people, many of whom who already have enough to worry about in day-to-day life. Lord McAlpine certainly would not have the same anxieties and worries that they face.

There is going to need to be a clear post-multimedia agreement governing Internet use which does not penalise ordinary people. I cannot offer much help to those who are directly tweeting allegations about people. As I already said, I am not a legal expert, but I am now old enough to know by now that to call someone a paedophile requires a stack of irrefutable evidence.

I can offer suggestions for those who have retweeted, or wrote implied comments. By letter of the law, it would seem that those who retweet gain responsibility for taking that tweet to their followers, but how many people know this? Any retweet is clearly marked with the original author's name. Ignorance being no defence is a harsh principle to reply here. This is not as black and white as knowing that violence or sexual abuse is legally wrong.

This is important, because there may be no end to this. Courts could find themselves being a revolving door for trivial Twitter actions, with judges having to rule on who retweeted someone else's innuendo. The fact of the matter is that people could potentially be sued for retweeting a comment by a respected Guardian journalist originating from a rather dubious news report by the respected (but heaven knows why!) BBC.

That is the reality, and it seems wrong because it is wrong.

I would suggest that judges become familiar with the Twitter architecture. It is clear how the site works. If someone tweets something potentially libellous with 100,000 followers in tow, then it is obvious that it is going to be spread much wider. This puts the onus on the original author to get it right. Retweeters do so with the original source of their tweet clearly marked, and those retweeters who are clearly not media-savvy should not be punished for not knowing the rules of engagement. If some of those who are media-aware (and legally-aware) cannot get their Twitter activity right, what chance the rest of us?

One logical conclusion is that people will not just be sued for tweets and retweets, but they will also be sued for mentioning the names of high-profile people who are tweeting potentially libellous material elsewhere on the website. For example, Sally Bercow has come in for a lot of unfair criticism for also being little more than careless about who she saw "trending" on the website (McAlpine, since you ask). Assuming her tweets are deemed unlawful, what fate could befall anyone who simply tweeted the text “I wonder what Sally Bercow is up to today?"

Most of the "chattering classes" know who Sally Bercow is.

To find out what Sally Bercow has been writing, she is well-known enough to be the first twitter result if anyone enters "Sally Bercow" into the search box.

If I wrote a tweet "I wonder what Sally Bercow is up to today," there is the argument that I am effectively signposting people to her page containing lots of questionable tweets.

This could happen to a lot of other people too. This is why the law as it stands cannot work.

I also fear what the consequences of these issues could be for opinion. A lot is written about high-profile Members of Parliament, for example, Nadine Dorries, who has recently been a resident of a jungle somewhere on the other side of the world. Dorries has always attracted a lot of criticism from those on both the left and the right because of her unconventional approach to public office.

Nobody can expect to be sued for describing her as a ghastly, awful woman, as it is an opinion that is not necessarily damaging. However, some may feel that Dorries has gone on a TV show to boost her own profile. They may argue that she is deserting her constituents while doing that. They may believe she is not fit to be an MP on that basis.

My fear is that Dorries may consider those viewpoints to be damaging and contest them on that basis. If a portal is opened to sue people for expressing such sentiments on Twitter, then the whole principle of debate is at risk.

Admittedly, criticising someone's fitness for office is not comparable to calling someone a paedophile, but the recipient could still fight the Twitter membership on the basis they feel it is damaging to their future employment opportunities and reputation. There are stakes here that are much bigger than context of one accusatory episode where this is located. The law must reflect that.

For now, I believe everyone has to calm down a little. We must cool down with the feral accusations. I can understand why feelings are running high though. I used to think, and still do to some extent, that Brits are extremely paranoid and irrational when it comes to the issue of paedophilia.

The Sun mixes up coverage of right-wing politics, international affairs and celebrity gossip with regular titillation stories from the courts about paedophile activity. If the stories look peculiarly out of place outside of the context of a local newspaper, it is because they are. In some ways, the newspaper's obsession with the issue is borderline creepy.

It has been known for innocent people to be attacked in the street because they happen to resemble a paedophile mugshot published in the tabloid press. This is not on.

I do believe though that Britain has a bigger paedophile problem than I originally thought. In some ways, the Internet has flushed them to the surface in much the same way as rain brings out slugs. Without being rumbled by an eagle-eyed computer repair engineer, Gary Glitter would still be enjoying regular paedophile holidays to the Far East, unchecked.

Shouting out the names of presumed paedophiles on Twitter is not the answer. We need to apply pressure to get these high-profile child abuse cases re-opened and re-examined, so the offenders can be brought to justice.

It is not just ordinary citizens, many of whom are worried parents and people with good hearts, who need to cool down though. A little understanding needs to be shown by those who are trying to control what is published on the Internet.

Let us not forget the public was wound up by this story by the very classes now trying to stamp down on Twitter activity – those in the media. The wind-up process started earlier in the day of the Newsnight report into the child abuse scandal, when someone connected to the report tweeted to tell people it was likely to be screened and involved an old Tory.

The idea may not have been to cause feverish speculation, but it had that effect.

When the news report went out and (quelle surprise) nobody was named, that raised anger levels further. Bearing in mind Anglo-Saxon attitudes towards paedophila, this outcome should not have surprised anyone, apart from maybe the most moronic of TV executives.

So whereas the Twitter community needs to calm down a little now, so must also those who are the most condemning of us.

Why feminism must free itself from people like Louise Mensch

Louise Mensch, former Conservative MP for Corby, never struck me as much of a feminist, despite what she may say. Real feminism engages with serious issues, such as the vote, pay, workplace and violence. Yet, when put to the test, self-styled feminists such as Louise Mensch fail to campaign effectively for their comrades. Her feminism, if it can be described as such, is more of the individualist variety.

Other than pointing out occasional outbursts of male chauvinism, I am uncertain what her principles are. That is, of course, a more general criticism of her that Labour, and even some Tories, would offer. On the whole, the sum total of her feminist achievements seems to be a demonstration that she can climb up any corporate ladder. That is not solidarity though with women who are aiming to achieve equal pay, trying to campaign against domestic violence, or protesting for more effective rape convictions.

Unfortunately Mensch is not alone. From the heavyweights of the past, we now have those who write about matters so trivial it barely qualifies as feminist scholarship. A great place to start for the evidence gathering is Mensch's Twitter page. (No link provided - it's easily searchable, and I do not wish to give her any more hits than necessary.)

The page is a masterclass in light Internet trolling. It is not the sort of trolling associated with vile people who, for example, threaten others. It is trolling of the variety where Mensch, as a conservative, has digs at her political opponents, then retweets the inevitable reactions she gets. Dare I say it, some of the responses use sexist language.

Bravo! That's how to change the world! Mensch tweeted and retweeted reactions for hours because Labour peer Lord Sugar called her "dear" on Twitter. This was certainly not the most outrageous act of sexism that Mensch has been subjected to, but of course she - as Sugar's political opposite - was deeply offended by it. I am frequently called "dear" by older women. I am no longer sure how to interpret it. Maybe I will dismiss it as a generational thing and be a little less chippy than Mensch.

The problem is, there is something decidedly "me, me, me" about Mensch's individualist ravings. The truth is, as someone on the right, Mensch cannot begin to appreciate the oppressor/oppressed dynamic that often constructs gendered interactions.

When put to the test, Mensch falls down. While her feminist comrades are campaigning for The Sun to abolish the antiquated (and rather embarrassing, it has to be said) daily topless page 3 girl, Mensch is writing for the newspaper.

This is the newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch - the man who she was drafted upon to interrogate as part of a parliamentary committee into the conduct of his newspaper researchers in the phone-hacking scandal. The outcome saw Mensch as one of the MPs who publicly distanced herself from the eventual report condemning Murdoch's suitability to run a newspaper. Now she is working for Murdoch.

That is not just a middle-finger to the feminism she supposedly stands for, that is a sequence of events ripe for a parliamentary inquiry.

Also counting against Mensch is her decision to quit as an MP little over two-years into her term for family reasons, something else which is not going to help the cause of other ambitious women hoping to enter Parliament in future. However, apart from marriage, little seems to have changed in her circumstances. It is now widely reported that it was fear of inevitable defeat from the embarrassed and angered Corby electorate that led Mensch to step down.

In summary, I feel that feminism is better off without Louise Mensch. However, as a male, I am no feminist writer and as I explain in this article I believe it is not for the place of men to speak on behalf of women. Therefore, all I offer here is mere advice, and a narrative into how I believe one particular bad apple can bring with it many contradictions.

Savile latest: paedophilic cover-up at the BBC and the discrediting of 'Newsnight'

The disgust of many regarding the Jimmy Savile paedophile scandal is difficult to quantify. Some see our anger about Savile's sick conduct a matter of great hysteria, and a mindless assault on the BBC. Others believe that we would be making a greater fuss if Savile's behaviour had been facilitated within a Murdoch institution, such as Sky TV. I believe this effectively means the public have been fair and balanced in their response to the scandal. We believe that the BBC must be held to account, while appreciating who the main perpetrator was.

Allow me to deal with the Murdoch point first. I am a big critic of the BBC. The reason for this is I believe it was a great institution, but at present it is doing itself a huge injustice, not just by the way in which it is failing to report important events (such as the government assaults on the NHS), but because of the shambolic handling of the Savile scandal. Despite my affection for the BBC, there is no question the physical abuse that occurred within the boundaries of the broadcaster is far more appalling than the phone-hacking at the News of the World. The phone-hacking, let us not forget, was itself serious enough for Murdoch to close the newspaper.

Savile (right) with friend, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
Source: (The Sunday Times)

When the phone-hacking scandal came to light, I was one of those who made a case for breaking up Murdoch's stranglehold on the British media. It would be hypocritical for me not to insist upon the same with the BBC. It is a massive institution, which as with Murdochsville was (and possibly still is) also a fertile environment for wrongdoing. This must take two parts - the abolition of the licence fee and a splitting up of BBC operations.

First of all, the licence fee needs to be abolished, and quickly. The funding model for the BBC is archaic. Every household in the country with a television set (almost everyone) pays a tax, not to watch BBC programming, but to merely be able to use the set in their household. A great chunk of the licence fee then goes on funding the behemoth. This includes paying the likes of Jeremy Clarkson to spread their political messages overtly through light-entertainment programming in a manner that makes an absolute mockery of the BBC's veneer of impartiality. Every television owner has to pay the licence fee tax, whether their home is a mansion or a flat. It is grossly unfair. I have spent the past decade or so trying to make my fellow members of the left see this.

The template for a modern BBC is that of Channel 4. They are largely funded by advertising, but still maintain an independence, resulting in brilliant documentary programming such as Dispatches, and the most balanced news programme on British television. It can be done.

Secondly, and most crucially, the BBC needs to be broken up into sections covering radio, TV and local output. Anyone who has read The Corporation by Joel Bakan will realise that the bigger corporations are, the more susceptible they are to pathological and downright criminal behaviour, that would lead to imprisonment if carried out by individuals. Bakan largely wrote about private enterprises, but his argument can be applied to the BBC - itself a huge corporation, which is clearly a breeding ground for pathological behaviour and secrecy.

I still find it difficult to comprehend how an institution is large and sophisticated as the BBC was able to create such a huge monster in Jimmy Savile, and keep it active for 40 years. In the meantime, Savile was a prolific abuser, who raped children at every possible opportunity. Other BBC staff chose not to say anything despite admitting they knew (or had strong suspicions) about Savile's individual pathologies because he had amassed a lot of power. This Savile case is a warning to broadcasters, who still to this day over-inflate the importance of their highest-profile stars by giving them as many presenting gigs as they will accept. We know who they are. They are the ones who always seem to be on the television, no matter what time you switch it on. They reach a point where they are untouchable.

However, excuses about 'untouchable' presenters do not wash. The "I was a new member of staff" excuse is symptomatic of this. Does the novice member excuse remain relevant long after those using it cease to be newcomers? Fair enough if in 1971 a newcomer felt unable to report Savile's paedophilia - but what about 1981 and 1991? Another cop-out is the old "things were different in the 1970s" excuse. Savile was someone who seeked out physically and psychologically vulnerable children to attack. That is not a bit of 1970s experimentalism; that is abuse.

The most sickening aspect of all is the secrecy and cover-ups continued to the present day. The BBC's once-flagship, but now discredited, current affairs programme Newsnight will never be the same after the stigma associated with the apparent decision by the programme's editor, Peter Rippon, to ditch an investigation into Savile scheduled for late last year. The researchers, Meirion Jones and Liz MacKean are convinced the decision was made because the BBC had some gushing tribute programmes to the paedophile already filmed. Despite none of the pressure faced by commercial broadcasters to pursue ratings, the decision was taken anyway, and the news story was suppressed for months, until it was picked up in an investigation by ITV.

At this point, I wish to explain selectivity bias. In research, to bias a project by choosing samples or examples which tell a preferred story at the expense of others is an unforgivable academic sin. In fair and balanced research, all narratives must be collected and accounted for. With issues such as the NHS, and now Jimmy Savile's perversions, Newsnight has shown to be lacking in this important academic test. Their biases are demonstrated - not by what is included in their programmes, but what is excluded. Never again would, or should, anyone trust Newsnight as a neutral and impartial news source. The best thing the BBC could probably do is develop a new news programme to take its place - one more up-to-date and respondent to emerging interactive technological trends.

The Jimmy Savile scandal has created a huge problem for the BBC, which will be faced with legal actions from Savile's victims, and rightly so. Other institutions trusted the paedophile because of the exposure he was given by the BBC. Children who thought they were safe on BBC premises were taken into dressing rooms and abused by dirty old men. This is not a problem that the BBC can now escape from, and having held their hands up and all but pleaded guilty to failing in its duty to the public (Panorama, BBC, 22/10/12), the BBC will need to take its punishment on the chin.

The left certainly not suckered in by the Olympics

'The London Olympics are the most right-wing major event in Britain’s modern history', proclaims Andrew Gilligan. In his article about the event, he correctly argues that the London Olympics provide advertising space for large corporations, that unsubstantial protests have been squashed and people have been kicked out of their homes. However, contrary to his claims, by having the audacity to actually enjoy the event, the left have not been "suckered in" by the Olympics.

The part of the event that Gilligan refers to that had us captivated (much more preferable to the phrase "suckered in") was the opening ceremony, brilliantly conceptualised by the director Danny Boyle. I enjoyed every minute of it and tweeted my delight during the latter hours of the event, therefore I missed parts of it. I will watch it again when time allows and I am looking forward to it already.

The opening ceremony was particularly outstanding because it provided an account of British history which meant something to the viewers. People I know from both the right and the left of the political spectrum loved it. There were few dissenters, despite my rather cynical network of friends.

My favourite part was the emergence of the industrial revolution, accompanied with lights, fireworks and high-energy music. Sadly, there was no Margaret Thatcher figure to smash it to pieces at the end of the episode to add to the accuracy of the proceedings.

The deliberately extended section celebrating the NHS told the world that our health service is something to be celebrated. After witnessing that, it is entirely up to the present government if they wish to smash that to pieces as well. If there is only the possibility that the show would make the coalition government think twice about dismantling the NHS, then it has contributed to the future of our nation in a small way.

The celebration of Britain's multiculturalism was sufficient to have some far-right politicians tweeting with rage, generally embarrassing themselves and playing a game of roulette with their careers in the process. And as for the appearance of Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti, I imagine that would have been the straw which broke the camel's back for many Tories.

It was the opening ceremony that had the lot. It had the lights, the pyrotechnics, tributes to my favourite bands of the past few decades, Dizzee Rascal, our finest sportspersons, Mr. Bean, animals, the Queen and James Bond.

Looking at the bigger picture, I appreciate the claims made by Gilligan. While I agree with his distaste about the influence of corporations, I warn him against selectivity. There is much to celebrate, particularly the inclusiveness encouraged. To witness Saudi Arabia shamed into including female athletes as part of their team is consistent with the Olympic spirit.

To witness countries I have never heard of bringing with them small teams, however nominal their performances turn out to be, delivers to people something that FIFA has never been able to achieve with football.

The leftists are right to celebrate this, yet we have not taken our eyes off the ball. Between appreciating the opening ceremony, there were also plenty of online updates about the plight of protesters in and around the Olympic event.

There is already an emerging anger about how corporations have swallowed up tickets for events and not used them, resulting in empty seats for events that the general public were disappointed to have missed out on. This ties in beautifully with theory (and not just among leftists) that corporations and banks are monumental wrecking machines responsible for a vast proportion of misery, economic or otherwise.

I am now looking forward to enjoying the sport, yet I remain aware of the wider issues of which the Olympics are a symptom rather than a cause. If we are to change corporate discourse, we must do so at the root of it, not at the expense of life and events operating within it, such as sporting events or even our own purchasing decisions.

Despite their presence at the Olympics, I am not about to start guzzling jugs of Coca-Cola or bags of McDonalds, but I will remain partial to the occasional indulgence. Saying the Olympics suckered in the left is akin to saying Starbucks was an inappropriate choice of coffee shop for last year's London occupiers campaigning against corporatism, despite the fact London is a ruthlessly competitive place for business, where the strongest prevail, with the result of limited purchasing options.

So where else do protesters go for an emergency coffee fix? And where else would we go to find the excitement of the Olympics?

The social influence behind Labour's support for military academies

The Shadow Education Secretary, Stephen Twigg, has caused uproar among many grassroots Labour activists by endorsing military academies to school the most troubled pupils in society. For many activists, it is an indication that the party cannot let the militarism of the early 2000s go, nor return to its natural habitat of the centre-left politics of days gone by. I cannot say I am overly enthused about the idea either. However, it is understandable why parties are sentimental towards military solutions to societal and global problems (that is of course when the coalition government are not cutting troop numbers) - there is much public support at stake.

Over recent years, we have witnessed the popularisation of militaristic discourse in this country. You only have to look at those heavily duplicated Facebook pages, urging support for the armed forces and tough jobs they are expected to undertake.

Meanwhile, it seems as though every helping of human misery is equated to those lives lost in the battlefield. At a time when football supporters were posting messages of good will on the Internet in support of the critically ill Bolton player, Fabrice Muamba, others were critical of the attention being given Muamba when hundreds of soldiers had lost their lives. They could have pointed to the many lost lives on the roads as well, but that is somewhat less political and less in tune with current popular military discourse.

Then there are the millions of pop records sold by the wives of servicemen. There are surely many choirs up and down this land, but the success of the military wives was no fluke. It was a true measure of support for the armed forces and their families. There are also the 'Keep Calm and Carry On' branded products and their variations, which nostalgically reflect a country under siege.

I could go on, but I think the amount of examples I have recalled are sufficient enough to support my point. Indeed, even old rocker John Lydon indicated a separation from his old punk persona by stunning Question Time viewers (and a few old fans, no doubt) by declaring that "one of the most beautiful things about Britain, apart from the NHS and the free education, is the British Army."

As a consequence of these glamourisations, the military is always going to be a central plank of any targeted election campaign. Rightly or wrongly, it is perceived to be on a par with those two great social creations, the NHS and our education system, as being something great. It is just a shame it seems the education system can no longer be trusted to school our youth despite the fact we invented it.

I have a lot of sympathy for those Labour activists working hard to battle the Tories, who fear that the support of military academies could possibly backfire and see Labour's 9 to 12 point lead turn to dust. I admire how critical they have been. To see the dozens of Labour activists I follow on Twitter irritated by the idea demonstrates a reflexivity among us that you would never see in Tory or Lib Dem activists.

Those Lib Dem activists who still remain despite Nick Clegg, David Laws and friends painting their party orange, and eroding the relevance of the party in the process, have hardly uttered a word of dissent. Meanwhile, sticking up for bad Tory ideas seems to be a core characteristic of many Tories who are so unflinchingly tribal. In fact, you see more antagonistic debate on the Tory benches in the House of Commons, than among those Twitter Tories.

So like the idea of military academies or not, you can guarantee it will be strongly debated within Labour before it ever sees the light of day.

Government workfare policy almost wrecks Queen's jubilee celebrations

The Queen's jubilee celebrations provided much joy for members of the British public of all classes. They defied the rain and the cold temperatures to pay tribute to her lengthy service. However, the sceptre of spiteful Tory policy is never far away. Their workfare policy, which encourages young people to work for nothing to gain 'experience', provided an uncomfortable backdrop which threatened to tarnish the memory of the Bank Holiday weekend festivities.

In this outstanding piece of research by Shiv Malik, it was revealed that young people were bussed in to London from other areas of the country with pockets of deprivation, including Bristol and Plymouth, to provide security for the jubilee pageant. Their coaches arrived too early, at 3am, and they were left camp under London Bridge. Yes - in 2012, the young poor found themselves in a situation that could have been straight out of the history books of Victorian Britain. They were unpaid slaves. Having spent hours cold and wet under a bridge, they worked for nothing, as royalty flowed down the river in a golden boat and hoards of royalists watched on, expressing their pride in being British by waving flags.

This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. Instead of forcing young servants to work for nothing, the long British summer should be used as a means to provide economic opportunities for these people. The Olympics, the jubilee celebrations, and the prospect of perhaps a warm summer, should be opportunities to provide paid employment - not another means for the wealthiest to exploit the poorest. It is another example how those holding currency in this country do not want to share any of it with the nation's poorest. Unemployment will not go down while the so-called wealth creators know they can employ people for nothing.

There are a few counter-arguments to this position, largely surrounding the idea that the jubilee events were a privilege to be involved in and young people agreed to participate to get experience. So let us consider some of these arguments.

1. "They agreed to it"
One of the counter-claims is the young people agreed to the unpaid work. Whether they have agreed to it or not is a moot point - nobody should be made to feel they should work for nothing for a chance in life. Some knew they were not being paid, but felt they had to go along with it or maybe lose their welfare benefits. Others were allegedly bribed with the promise of work at the Olympics. None of them expected to be treated like peasants, dumped under a soggy bridge and left to sample Cardboard City life from the Thatcherite 1980s.

2. "They are paid state benefit, so in theory had been paid"
Anyone who has been on state benefit knows the income it provides does little more than buy food and pay the bills. It is not a means to live an active and sociable life. The conditions of state benefit include actively seeking work and demonstrating a willingness to do this, so it is not a payment without conditions in its first instance. The purpose of benefits is to help counter the effects of poverty. Welfare payments should not be a means to justify blackmail. This kind of blackmail potentially affects millions of people out of work at present. Despite the void of millions of jobs needed, this blame culture continues, with the poor being ordered to get on their bikes to find work - or in this case, a coach.

3. "Others were camping out just to get a good position to enjoy the event"
Well good for them. How very deferential. If anyone was camping out to be there, I hope they had taken the necessary safety precautions, and I hope they enjoyed their day. The slaves were never going to enjoy the day in quite the same way. They were on duty. They had to work. They had to deal with any problems that arose. They had to deal with colleagues, and take instructions. And they should have been able to do this without the stress of having arrived at 3am and left to fend for themselves. As a side note, it is also worth mentioning that if it was a mere "logistics error" (as the manager of the private firm responsible for the security colourfully described it), what else was not done properly? Were those unemployed people plucked to provide security (of all things) sufficiently security-checked themselves? Would we have known if they were terrorists?

Those who think the centre-left, led by Lord Prescott, are being typically difficult about workers' rights and blowing this issue up out of all proportion, here is some food for thought. It is just as well that the debate is "merely" about the employment rights of young people. If someone had been seriously injured or killed as a result of negligence, the debate would have been far more critical, and the jubilee weekend would have been wrecked thanks to this inept government and their rotten employment policies.

This incident is typical of the problems we face in 2012 under a callous government. Although our society's problems cannot be compared to those in Syria, it is difficult to wonder how we can consider setting anyone else free when sections of our society are not free. A minimum wage should mean a minimum wage for all. That means no more unpaid internships, and a termination of the workfare policy.

Would it really cause great hardship to companies to pay all workers who wish to learn their trade with them? There are enough mechanisms for employers to rid themselves of staff who struggle to grasp the work thanks to our lightweight employment laws. They could take a chance on these young people and pay them what they deserve. Their own lack of economic consciousness mean that many companies are unaware of the fact that they also need paid staff for the economy they rely on to function, An economy that provides liquidity to the poorest is in the interests of all but the very wealthiest of companies. Staff who are unpaid for their labour cannot be consumers. Until the consumers are given the resources to participate in economic life, the economy will continue to stagnate. Sadly nothing will change unless this government changes course, or a sensible government is elected to replace it.

Warsi or Hunt?

I have pledged not to write much more about BSkyB, the Murdochs, the Leveson Inquiry and those Tories who have damaged their own personal reputations with their own roles in the grubby affair (and I include the Prime Minister in that). The reason is that the evidence is now so public that those involved must simply await their fate. However, the contrast is clear between the way the Prime Minister has treated the transgressions of Jeremy Hunt, the Murdochs' cheerleader, and Baroness Warsi, who he has ordered an investigation into for allowing a business partner to accompany her on an official trip to Pakistan.

The error-prone Prime Minister described Jeremy Hunt as handling the BSkyB bid 'wisely and fairly'. Despite some very ambiguous evidence, we will have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was handling the bid fairly. There is no justifying any suggestion that Hunt handled the bid 'wisely' though. There is nothing wise in accepting the role overseeing the BSkyB bid, when you have previously sent messages to Murdoch HQ congratulating them on having their bid cleared by those democrats in Brussels. There is nothing wise in most of the messages he sent them.

The difference between Hunt and Warsi though is that Hunt is a great human shield for David Cameron, who has seen most of his inner-circle arrested because of their involvement with News International. Warsi, on the other hand, has always been a performer promoted way above her level in a cynical Tory attempt to pretend they are inclusive and transcend class and race. She has repeatedly been sent out as the public face of the Conservative Party, and repeatedly given performances that are more likely to lose votes rather than gain them. It is speculated that this is why it was easy for Cameron to refer Warsi to be investigated for breaking ministerial rules but not Hunt. It would seem Warsi is more disposable than Hunt, but surely neither can last much longer.

Beecroft shows the attitude that runs through Tory policy

Aggressive comments made by Adrian Beecroft about Vince Cable have overshadowed his report into employment reforms - and rightly so. His comments, using the word 'socialist' as an insult to describe Cable's concerns about his report, bring into focus the spite and vindictiveness that have been invested into his policy agenda. In essence, his actions have exposed the lack of objectivity influencing his report that the Tory-led government will use to guide employment policy.

The most controversial feature of his report, and the one that attracted Mr. Cable's critique which prompted the outburst, is its suggestion to make it easier for firms to sack employees. It is an indictment of present Tory thinking that at a time of economic difficulty and mass unemployment, reworking employment law to weaken the employment rights of those who are economically active is considered a priority.

The irony is Beecroft's claim that Cable's resistance to his report is ideological. This leads to two questions. Firstly, since when was 'ideology' - the science of ideas - used as a means of personal insult? Secondly, Beecroft's report has ideology running through it. In fact, it has class warfare running through it.

It is wrong for Beecroft to suggest that someone like Cable is unfit for office because they are daring to be hostile to a contentious part of a report. If anything, my fear was that many leading Liberal Democrats are not fit for office because they often failed to take a contrary position to the government line. Their roles ought to make coalition government a bit more of a challenge for the Tories in the coalition power dynamic.

Beecroft's venture capitalist company holds a stake in Wonga.com, the company that provides short-term 'pay-day' loans for the financially desperate at inflated interest rates. You could be forgiven for thinking his ideas seem to do more to create the next generation of Wonga.com customers than solve any red tape problems facing businesses. I struggle to understand how business rules that are a problem now were less of an issue when the economy was thriving and people had spare money (or at least spare low-interest credit) to spend. It appears another attempt to chip away at workers' rights.

It seems the Tories will back the findings of Beecroft regardless of his political unsubtlety. It is disappointing that the report is supported by our local MP Damian Collins. The only outcome of 'no-fault dismissal' will be to create greater job insecurity and uncertainty for families in Shepway, who are already struggling to make ends meet. These people, not just in Shepway but in the whole of Britain, deserve better.

Vote 2012 review, complete with some risible myths

Almost 72 hours have passed since David Cameron's bleakest hour, which saw his party suffer heavy losses in the 2012 local elections. His Con-Dem partners, the Liberal Democrats, sustained a second round of heavy losses following a similar mauling twelve months ago. For the junior partners in the Con-Dem alliance, there was little in the way of comfort. The only comforting factor for Cameron seemed to be re-election of Boris Johnson as the Mayor of London.

However, this good news tidbit for Mr. Cameron may be a slight myth. If Cameron is rejoicing Johnson's victory in public (and Cameron needed something to be seen to cheer about), then privately he must be alarmed as to how Johnson has maintained such a level of popularity. Johnson's narrow victory over influential rival and seasoned campaigner Ken Livingstone was an impressive one in light of the level of animosity towards the present Tory-led government. Some may see this as a silver lining for Cameron, but the rise of brand Boris is something that has the potential to be troublesome to the Prime Minister in the future.

Another myth the Tories and their Con-Dem partners are trying to promote is the election result was a typical "mid-term kicking" being given to the governing parties. Not only is that claim highly disrespectful to all of those who exercised their democratic right to vote, but the opinion polling over recent weeks do not reflect these claims in any case.

Over recent months, Labour and the Conservatives have been closely matched in the polls. Many voters were uncomfortable with the speed and the scale of government cuts, but while the Tory-led Con-Dem government were able to coherently argue a desperate need for cuts, supporter numbers held up. Then came the budget which put money into the pockets of millionaires, the problem that is Jeremy Hunt, the under-reported assault on the NHS and various other acts of incompetence. Polls started revealing a shift towards Labour, giving them anything up to a 12 point lead. The Guardian's ICM poll had the Tories ahead by 3 points on the 18th March of this year. By the 22nd April, the same pollsters had Labour a comfortable 8 points ahead. Thursday's vote reflected the emerging gap, as the overall vote share suggested a 7 point triumph for Labour over the Tories.

Tories continue with the claim they are suffering for "cleaning up the mess they inherited" (they still do not realise this phrase is a vote-loser).The aforementioned polls suggest this is a complete fallacy, for it is those calamities involving Jeremy Hunt, the Murdochs, a self-inflicted fuel crisis and the budget that co-incided with plummeting poll ratings - all of which had more to do with creating mess rather than cleaning it up.

Some old-fashioned but highly influential Tories have complained Cameron is not 'conservative' enough, not right-wing enough and too liberal. Their argument is that parties like UKIP will continue to grow if the Tories do not move rightwards (unless your name is Warsi, then you imply that UKIP are mopping up estranged BNP voters). Some bitter backbenchers are delivering similar criticisms, and worryingly that means commentators are now actually taking the outbursts of Nadine Dorries seriously. Cameron himself has declared he will continue as he is, continuing to make those "tough" decisions, and presumably continuing to slide down the poll ratings.

His Tories could not even win in Chipping Norton. Labour's success in this area was laughed off as something ironic given the area being synonomous with Cameron and his News International pals. I would suggest the result is more reflective of the absolute embarrassment felt by local residents of the way their corner of the world has been brought into disrepute over the past twelve months. Also, as should be the case with local elections, there are also local difficulties that contributed to the result.

Cameron's management of both party and country does not lend itself to winning new voters anytime soon. Moving towards the right will not help either - voters already think their economic policies are too extreme and favour the top of society's food chain. That means Cameron's run of not being very good at winning elections is liable to continue. This is quite the opposite to a certain Boris Johnson, who for whatever reason seems to be well-regarded in London. The best advice for the Prime Minister should be to keep looking over his shoulder.

Murdoch crisis has exposed Cameron's unelectability and Tory dependence on his press

Whatever the outcome of the Leveson inquiry into media standards, and the many other investigations into the conduct of News Corporation, one thing for certain is the Tories will emerge with their reputations battered. Although David Cameron's asserts that all parties got too close to the Rupert Murdoch machine, there is no doubt the Tories are coming away with more muck on them than the others. It is hardly a surprise - they have showed themselves to be the party of the few and out of touch with the many.

The phone-hacking scandal and the subsequent fallout relating to Murdoch's undemocratic influence in Britain, is the gift that keeps on giving. This week, the Prime Minister resorted to personal jibes in the House of Commons, targeting veteran MP Dennis Skinner with a legally dubious remark about his age. This is because he had no robust defence of Skinner's question about Jeremy Hunt being given more employment protection by the PM than the average worker gets.

Past Labour Prime Ministers may have tried to gain some of that Murdoch stardust, but this is hardly surprising given the supposed impact his populist paper had on their 1992 election defeat. However, it is becoming clear some serious back-scratching must have occurred for Cameron to get such Murdoch support for the 2010 election (not to mention the fact the BBC and Sky News coverage of the election was also very unfriendly towards Gordon Brown). Cameron's Tories certainly need these media giants: the unelectable one still could not win an election off the back of almost universal media support, and had to beg Parliament's biggest bunch of chameleons to form a working majority. Embarrassing.

The list of Murdoch-related calamities so early in his tenure as PM reflects badly on Cameron, and he knows it. Firstly, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor, was recruited by Cameron, despite having to resign due to phone-hacking concerns as early as 2007. Following his necessary resignation as Cameron's communications director, he was arrested by police investigating the phone-hacking scandal.

Secondly, there is the question of David Cameron's own links with the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks. It has now claimed that he DID discuss the BSkyB bid with James Murdoch - something that had been repeatedly denied.

Thirdly, Cameron is developing a fast-growing reputation as notoriously inefficient when it comes to sacking ministers who are clearly on borrowed time. First Liam Fox, now Jeremy Hunt - it is not good enough. Jeremy Hunt's office faces an onslaught due to its underhand support for the Murdoch's bid for BSkyB. The way Vince Cable was shifted from his role in assessing the BSkyB bid in favour of someone whose office have apparent Murdoch sympathies is suspicious to say the least.

Finally, it has emerged today that four Conservatives wasted their time sitting on the Culture Committee to question journalists. They refused to endorse the report that followed, dismissing it as "partisan" because it reached the conclusion Rupert Murdoch "is not fit to run not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company". This is the same Murdoch who either would not or could not do anything about systematic phone-hacking at one of his newspapers. As the Coulson example above demonstrates, the phone-hacking has been in the background since at least 2007. This will do nothing to extinguish the heat that is rising against the Tories, or the suspicion that they represent the wealthy, the elite and powerhouses like the Murdoch machine. It simply adds to the distaste of the saga.

Hopefully voters will find recent Tory performances equally as distasteful on May 3rd.

Galloway by-election win needs Labour reflection, not revolution

This was meant to be Ed Miliband's finest week since taking up the reins as leader of the Labour party. As one scandal after another hit the Tories, Miliband found himself suddenly in the driving seat; the likely victor of a future general election. The Tories floundered under the weight of criticism against taxes on pasties and pensioners, the creation of a fuel crisis and NHS reforms. At one point, Labour built up a massive 17 point lead in the polls. Nothing could go wrong. Then along came George...

George Galloway, Labour's self-created nemesis when he was expelled from the party in 2003, triumphed in the Bradford West by-election on Thursday to remind Labour he still has great nuisance value. While the rest of us were busy point-scoring off the back of the Tories' nightmare week, Galloway was putting the final touches to a typically well-crafted campaign. In the campaign, he used every available resource to communicate with voters, found out what was troubling them (probably jobs, the economic outlook and welfare provision, in addition to locally specific concerns over foreign policy and alienation with the political system). From this starting point, his job was simply to tell them the words they wanted to hear. There was no photo finish. Galloway mopped up 56 percent of the vote. He won fair and square. The margin of victory suggested votes came from all sections of the community, not just Muslims and leftists whom he built the solid foundations from.

I would not have voted for Galloway, for I already have my party loyalty towards one I deeply care about - probably the same party that Galloway too still holds a torch for. However, I think if public attitudes towards politics in general is to be truly reshaped, then the attitude from politicians must change, but so too must the attitude of those who discuss politics in the media. The overall reaction to Galloway's win, from all areas of the discursive political sphere, smacked of sour grapes.

Of course, Galloway's shoulders are more than big enough to withstand the critical onslaught in the aftermath of his victory. He will happily take on those who criticise or merely attempt an inquisitive interview with him, in some cases quite brutally. A particularly unpleasant exchange was between him and the interviewer Cathy Newman of Channel Four News. From the interview, it was immediately apparent that Newman is no Jeremy Paxman, nor is she ever likely to be, though she gave it her best shot. The mildly challenging questions she posed were batted away with the well-rehearsed "I can see you and I are not getting on very well" and "I really do have a lot of very important interviews to do". Seasoned Galloway-watchers will be familiar with this tactic. He was working from an fairly similar script to the one he used in his post-2005 General Election interview with Jeremy Paxman (who unquestionably deserved to be brought down a couple of notches). Although the video is incomplete, I recall the interview was also terminated by Galloway.

Galloway should realise though that the hostile Paxmanesque inquisition is now the norm for political interviews. To some extent, they're all Paxmans now. As soon as a politician is being interviewed, that politician must not just explain their work, but explain their entire existence. Nobody working in any other field would be spoken to so universally in that fashion. Doctors, teachers and other professionals would be required to explain themselves when they fail to reach the standards expected of them. Those who desire to be an elected representative have to explain themselves the moment they hit the campaign trail, before they have even won an election.

It is true that people have become sick of politicians because they are sick of being lied to. This was never more blatant than when Liberal Democrats walked around university campuses with camera crews on hand to witness their worthless signed pledge regarding university tuition fees. The expenses scandal also lives in the recent memory. Despite these facts, there is no excuse for the media contributing to the loss of respect for politicians by wrongly presenting a narrative that it is acceptable to speak them as though they are scum. Galloway therefore must realise he is not being treated any differently to anyone else, and to not take the media jibes so personally.

The media coverage of his victory has been harsh and unfair though. Aside from the prickly interviews, the print media (including the more leftist newspapers) have taken aim at his tactics, notably Nick Cohen, from the Observer, and David Aaronovitch. In typical Galloway style, he responded to the pair in the strongest of terms. The BBC meanwhile showed its usual disregard for editorial impartiality by playing a montage of his past 'crime-sheet' before his Radio 2 interview with Vanessa Feltz, including predictably the notorious fawning speech he delivered to Saddam Hussein and the cat impersonation on Big Brother. Vanessa handled the interview itself admirably, and did not fall for the Paxman 2005 script - unlike Cathy Newman over at Channel 4.

He has not only received media criticism, but individuals have also been quick to condemn Galloway's success. Here is a clip of a man expressing his dissatisfaction with a democratic outcome by aiming eggs in the direction of the victor.

Most of the soul-searching must come from Labour. How bad was the result for the party? Should there be reflection or revolution? Is it time to chuck out Ed Miliband and replace him with someone of greater presence? Such an idea represents a huge gamble. There are elections coming up in May, and Labour candidates are set to do well. I believe the Bradford West by-election is an isolated setback, orchestrated by an experienced, aggressive and well-known campaigner. Some are suggesting that to dismiss it as a freak result is reckless complacency, but on this occasion maybe the result is just extraordinary. Galloway is, after all, a man of great political skill and oratory, but he cannot be cloned and sent to every area of the country to campaign - imagine that! In any case, there are many places where the conditions would not be right for him to win. For example, when he stood in Scottish Parliament elections, the Scottish sent him packing.

The Respect Coalition is not much of a force outside of the Galloway bubble either. There will also be no influx of celebrity candidates for future elections as a result of Galloway's success. That has been tried before and did not work. The public are wiser than to vote for political lightweights who were not as popular as TV casting executives thought they were in the first place. Galloway's victory is not the start of a wave of independent election candidates that will radically alter the way elections are conducted.

The Labour man in me remains optimistic about what remains an awful week for the Conservatives. Few newspapers led with the story of Galloway's triumph, as government incompetence continues to give them more mileage. For now, it is a time for reflection in the Labour ranks; not revolution. Galloway captivated Bradford. A refounded Labour can captivate the rest of Britain.