I do not read either the Guardian or Observer to be informed, but rather to be amused.  In the aftermath of New Labour being exposed as not so frank, transparent and whiter than white in relation to the awarding of honours, these Labour-sympathetic titles are desperate to make a story about sleaze that sticks to the Conservatives.  I should not suggest that you need to read this report in the Observer today by Antony Barnett, Gaby Hinsliff and Ned Temko. Having whispered in dark conspiratorial tones about the manner in which the Conservatives have raised funds (whilst being strangely silent about new revelations involving Labour reported elsewhere) their report concludes,

“There is no evidence to suggest either the loans or donations to the Tories broke the law.”

Well then, that’s a damp squib of a story.

This part of the report did make an impression, however:

“…Downing Street has been closely studying the Bradley report which shows how Labour was financially outgunned in the marginal seats.

 

Of the Tories' 36 gains at the last election, 24 were funded by donations from at least one of the trio of Lord Ashcroft, Lord Steinberg and Bob Edmiston in a separate initiative from the party's official campaign: in 20 of them, they got bigger swings than the national average. Blair will now push for a cap on spending in each constituency, to stop money being poured into a handful of critical seats which could skew the next election.”

It should not surprise anyone that political parties target those seats of their opponents that they believe are vulnerable. Leaving aside the issue as to whether it is right that a party should not be allowed to target marginal seats, “skewing the next election” is an interesting concept. This is the Government, let us remember, that delayed implementing constituency boundary changes before the last General Election, changes which would have, surprise surprise, handed the Conservatives up to a dozen extra seats in the Commons; the same Government that allows Scotland and Wales to be over represented in the Commons by, you’ve guessed it, predominantly Labour MPs.

Oh, and finally a word about the author of the “Bradley Report”, namely the former MP for The Wrekin, Peter Bradley.  As you might expect, he has had rather a lot of time on his hands since the General Election last year. I perceive that Mr Bradley feels himself wronged by being one of those Labour MPs on the receiving end of these naughty Conservative tactics.

It was Mr Bradley, the private secretary to Alun Michael, the Rural Affairs Minister, who admitted that the hunting ban was part of the class struggle thereby ensuring that the anti-ban Conservatives would have scores of extra voluntary helpers to canvass and deliver their leaflets.

Mr Bradley, the Conservatives did not have to out-spend you in your election campaign, through your sheer, unabashed arrogance, you made yourself vulnerable.

It was in Scotland that opposition to the Community Charge first exploded.  I should not suggest for one moment that the anti-smoking ban in Scotland will lead to so much violent protest, but quiet, large scale disobedience is assured.  No matter how softly softly the authorities seek to enforce the ban, it will just cause more hard feeling and generate the political opposition to the measure that was so singularly missing when it was first proposed.

As someone who does not smoke, it suits me not to inhale others’ cigarette smoke or have the dubious honour of my clothes smelling as if I had polished off a pack of twenty, personally.  Nevertheless, I feel that smokers are being victimised.  Many non-smokers I have spoken to feel the same way.  Beyond our politicians and persons involved in the provision of medical or health care, amongst non-smokers the support for a ban is soft  or non-existent.  Smokers are currently resentful but compliant.  This resignation to their fate will not last long once the inconvenience of their being unable to smoke in their favoured pub or club has sunk it.  The sheer unfairness of it all will rankle.

Many hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters will be directly touched by this ban in a way that Iraq and Sleaze did not.  Iraq did no more than reduce Labour’s Commons majority  from epic landslide proportions to a “pathetic” thumping one of sixty plus. Sleaze, taken on its own, is not likely to lose many seats for Labour, particularly if Honest Gordon takes over at No.10. The smoking ban will irritate many natural supporters and the Government should bear in mind that it is not only bad weather on Polling Day that can keep away Labour supporters.[1]

Andrew Sullivan reports today in The Sunday Times concerning the row that has erupted in relation to an episode of the cartoon series South Park being “pulled” from a television schedule because it appears to have offended Scientologists.  Now others seem to be jumping on the “cartoons” bandwagon, the willingness to kow-tow to the complainers is unsettling.  There may be solid commercial reasons for this particular example of self censorship, but nevertheless more people with super sensitivities about their beliefs might to be encouraged to chance their arm.  Should this trend continue, a line will have to drawn. 

Mr Sullivan argues,

“…it’s this artful ability to say in cartoon form what you cannot say in any other without a libel writ that makes cartoons irreplaceable…

 

Cartoons and puppetry, as the classic series Spitting Image proved, can convey truths and explore fantasies no other form can.

 

We need those truths and benefit from those fantasies. A free society survives partly because the powerful are mocked, and their pretensions undermined. Religions, which guard their own illusions carefully, are particularly ripe for satire.  And they should be.

 

Whenever one human being is claiming to tell the truth about the meaning of life he is making a very powerful claim — and in a free society he also runs the risk of getting a raspberry. Laughter matters because piety begets power.

 

Orwell once remarked that one reason fascism never took off in Britain was because the sight of a goose-stepping soldier would prompt your average Englishman to giggle. Someone is now silencing the giggles.  And our world is a lot creepier because of it.”

Yes, quite.