When you vote, do you vote Expressively, or Rationally? Most party activists and committed partizans will vote expressively, and assume that voters do likewise. However, many voters will vote rationally, seeking to maximise the impact their vote will have on the result. It is this tendency, that most activists find hard to relate to, that leads to the phenomena referred to as “tactical voting”. Still with me? Good, let me explain…Tactical Voting: Myths and reality - Voting TaKtiX
Personally, I doubt Blair will last 12 months or anything like it. Until he goes, civil war will reign in the Labour Party. Unlike Blair, too many people in the Labour Party have an interest in not losing the next election for that to happen. Unless they're really, really stupid. And I don't think they are. ... Brown will be a disaster as Labour leader. If Brown really had the capacity to be leader, he would have become so after the Granita restaurant, after Blair was clearly out of step with the country on the war, after Labour lost 50 seats at the General Election, etc., etc. He didn’t because he has no killer instinct and no real leadership skills. Brown likes to skulk in the corner and avoid difficult issuesHe goes on to analyse the state of the parties, the poll rankings, the likely effect on the next election, etc. It's one of those "I wish I'd written that" posts, well worth a read.
However, I do not think it would be appropriate to remain in government in these circumstances and return to the backbenches, where I will be a strong and active supporter of this government and the leadership of Tony Blair for his full parliamentary term.Do we detect a note of "well Gordon'll never give me a job" in the Safety Elephant's behaviour? In the meantime?
But the protest has had its critics, with Tory London Assembly member Brian Coleman calling them "sad, mad and bad".Well no you fool. That's the whole damned point!
"Is this really the image we want to give of London - tourists whose income we rely on for the jobs and prosperity of our city?"
"Bugger civil liberties, think of the tourist trade?" And in what universe would the tourist trade be adversely affected?Still busy, distracted and not in the mood for serious blogging. Week off next week, might, hopefully, clear my head. In the meantime, I await the reports of the event from those that were able to attend.
What a tedious cock.
He believes his removal was down to having a "Muslim-sounding name".Mr Ashraf? Good luck. Told a friend in Canada about it. His reaction is here. Summary:
Mr Ashraf, 28, a British Pakistani who was returning to his job as a pilot for one of Continental's partner airlines in the US, will lodge a formal complaint with Continental Airlines, with whom he was travelling, as well as with the US authorities.
That's right, they dragged a guy WHO FLIES *THEIR* JUMBO JETS FOR A LIVING off a plane because THEY WERE AFRAID HE MIGHT DO SOMETHING BAD WHILE HE WAS A PASSENGER ASLEEP IN BUSINESS CLASS.Tomorrow, when I go back into the office, I have to find accommodation for two lawyers planning to come study English with us for 6 months on an executive course. Normally, not a problem at all, executive long term bookings are sought after by our host families. Problem? They're from Kuwait. I shouldn't need to have to persuade people to let me pay them money, just because the client is from a muslim country; Kuwait is one of our major allies out there, right?
Hey, everyone who's afraid of brown people: Remember the terrorists?
They won, and you helped them do it.
Good job!
One aspect of the alleged bomb plot which has provided a tremedous boost to the atavists, is the so-called "Baby bottle bomb" ... there is nothing uniquely Islamic about infanticide. Indeed, in the last two days the news bulletins have covered prominently the stories of a British man who allegedly jumped from a balcony clutching his two children in Crete, and the inquest on a woman who threw herself under her train with her nine year old child.The leaks and spin coming from various "sources" bother me as well. If there is actually a plot, if there is evidence, have these guys got a chance of a fair trial? No. You know what that means? No conviction, we can't get the bastards. If they're actually guilty (and every day that if gets bigger), then we need to get them jailed. Trial by media is a bad idea, right?
Horrible? Yes. Have Muslims wreaked more horror on the World, either historically or in the last five years, than those professing other religions? No.
Thousands of pupils received their A-level results today, and amazingly the UK seems to be getting more intelligent than ever!Seriously, go read the rest. For the record, he thinks even less of Ruth Kelly than me. Seriously, it is possible. Anyway...
In the spirit of the occasion, the rest of this article will be multiple choice:
A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.(via)
In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.
The British official said the Americans also argued over the timing of the arrest of suspected ringleader ***** in Pakistan, warning that if he was not taken into custody immediately, the U.S. would "render" him or pressure the Pakistani government to arrest him.So, that could even cover arrested without due process and with the possibilty that a trial may not now be possible. I've deleted his name from the US based report as UK law is very strict about possibilities of prejudicing a trial.
British security was concerned that ***** be taken into custody "in circumstances where there was due process," according to the official, so that he could be tried in British courts. Ultimately, this official says, ***** was arrested over the objections of the British.
Almost 3000 people died September 11th.The Politics of Fear is getting to me. I grew up with the real and present danger of the IRA, and those nasty communists with their ICBM nukes. Now, in the absense of a new state based enemy, we're to fear "global islamic terror", and fear it so much that we're to give up a lot of the basic fundamental freedoms that make this country, and indeed much of the west.
They tell us to be afraid. I'm sure some of you recall that I often poke jibes at the bullshit society of fear here in the USA. It's been going on a long time, but it's been substantially worse since the towers fell.
They tell us to be afraid of Extremists for Allah. They tell us to be afraid of planes. They tell us to be afraid of buses. They tell us to be afraid of bombs. They tell us to be afraid of suitcase nukes. They tell us to fear death from above, fear the breown people, fear Islam, fear those who HATES TEH FREEDOM, fear the NAIL CLIPPERS and BOX CUTTERS, fear the MIDDLE EAST, FEAR MOTHERFUCKERS, BATHE IN IT, BREATHE IT, DREAM IT, BE BORN IN FEAR AND FUCKING DIE IN FEAR.
3000 people die of smoking-related disease every 3 days.
3000 people die in car accidents roughly every 29 days.
3000 people burn to death approximately every year or so, give or take some, in accidents involving smoke and fire. Every year, over and over.
And then one day you wake up and realize that you're less likely to die from a terrorist attack than you are from an infected wisdom tooth.
And you don't have to be afraid.
Right about then is when you take a look at the media and you get really, really pissed off.
Welcome to the fold, Rubix.
Following on from my aside mention earlier in the week, also worth linking to the more detailed analysis on of the Threat Levels bollocks on Europhobia. But Jack Thomas's version is much better. "We agree that the facts of this case fall clearly on the wrong side of the dividing line. The orders amounted to a deprivation of liberty contrary to Article 5.Putting someone under house arrest and only allowing them out between 10am and 4pm? Yup, that's deprivation of liberty. Restricting who can visit them and who they can associate with? Yup, that's deprivation of liberty as well.
"We consider that the reasons given by Mr Justice Sullivan for quashing the orders are compelling."
Dr Reid,Please write something similar to:
I know that you've met the author of the Rachel in North London website, a victim of the July bombings and organiser of Kings Cross United. You may or not be aware that her passport was either lost or stolen at the memorial commemoration, and she is due to be leaving the country at the end of this week.
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/07/lost-my-passport-losing-it-generally.html
If you are able to use any influence whatsoever in your position, given her status, a large number of people around the country would very much appreciate it; I'm sure that I will personally still disagree with you politically, but it would certainly up my respect for you personally.
Best regards, Mat
(full name, full address, full contact details as per formal letter)
first we really ought to see what Yasmin’s whining about…His analysis is spot on, go read. I'm not sure I buy into Tim's opinion that it's a conspiracy, I suspect it's more a case that, as Deek Deekster observes, the proverbial chattering classes have noticed that the internet is allowing us poor normal citizens to share our opinions with each other, debate, deconstruct and critique opinion columns, etc.
… which, sorry, doesn’t really amount to much.
In the past these true journal-ists would have been writing in isolation, but we contemporary writers are blessed with the modern miracle of interactivity - and frankly this is something that scares the Gucci pants off most hacks, whose idea of interactivity is submitting to an axe-wielding editor.The beauty of "blogging"? (and what is a blog if not simply a style of managing a website, a different type of publishing tool?) Interactivity, commenting, discourse, analysis.
In fact, the loans are actually only repayable six months after the lender specifically asks for them to be repaid. If the lender does not do so, the loan might conceivably never be repaid. It's almost as if the terms of the loans have been specifically written so that they could be turned into donations at a later date.In the meantime, Shaun Rolph has all the evidence pointing that Levy and Blair acted illegally if they did withhold details of the money to the elected party treasurer, Jack Dromey (via).
anyone who, with intent to deceive, concealed from Jack Dromey (i) the amount of any donation made to the party, or (ii) the person or body making such a donation, has committed a criminal offence.It's probably a good thing for tired Tony that he knows a few decent lawyers, right? When I wrote that post, I didn't even think to dream he'd be out because he broke a law he himself wrote.
we have a problem in the House, which is called researchers trying to prove a point and the result of these websites called TheyWorkForYou which simply seem to measure MPs' work by quantitative rather than qualitative measures.Apparently, that MPs are getting their researchers to make themselves look good is the fault of a website dedicated to informing people what MPs get up to. On the face of it, he may have a point, but the site itself makes it clear the best way to judge an MP is to get to know them, stats are simply a metric not an end in themselves.
For anyone who wants to help us tweak and improve the data that TheyWorkForYou publishes so that it makes MPs do more good things (like answer constituency mail) and fewer dumb things (like table pointless questions) we’re holding a public meeting on November 7th to discuss the options. Please email beta@theyworkforyou.com to reserve your place, as space is limited. Someone please ask Jack if he’ll come to say something more constructiveBoth of which leads us to this new pledge. As Guido puts it:
TheyWorkForYou, PublicWhip and WriteToThem.com shine a spotlight on what our parliamentary shysters get up to. You can see what they say, how they voted and who is giving them bungs. In addition what freebies they take, what vested interests they are close to and where they have been are all in the register of interests online. The websites also enable you to communicate with your representative easily. They are tools for democracy.Go sign up.
Guido thinks we need to play closer attention to Jack Straw and what he is trying to keep out of the picture.
In 1998, Anthony Barnett, a Senior Research Fellow at London University, wrote a pamphlet in connection with the ongoing reform of the House of Lords entitled The Athenian Option, in which he advocated random selection as a method of election to the new upper chamber.The current House of Lords is an accident waiting to happen, and the corruption scandals surrounding the Prime Minister at the moment are largely linked closely to the way it is composited. Change is needed. As I said before:
I've already argued here and here, we don't need an elected Lords, we need an effective Lords. We need to sort the constitution out.Pledge to reform the lords
If faced with similar circumstances, there's not a country I can think of that wouldn't pursue a legitimate armed response. Why should Israel be expected to behave any differently in that regard?And, although I disagree with some of his take on it, Richard at Leninology has a good selection of coverage not being picked up by certain elements of the media. Given I don't actually watch TV, how are the various channels managing tog et all sides across?
It shouldn't. Thing is, it isn't.
this isn't a legitimate armed response. It's overkill and then some. The Lebanese Govt is new, barely established and far too weak to control the militants directly. Israel knows that.
Legitimate reponse fine. Disproportionate overkil?
No way.
Creating more affordable homesApparently, anyway. They provide no evidence there, but the results of the full poll are worth a look.
Delivering sustainable communities
Urban regeneration
Tackling poverty and social exclusion
a leading scholar on democratization, warned of the “perils of presidentialism.” Presidents, he argued, made for a “winner take all” politics and tended to see themselves in dangerously “plebiscitarian” terms as the living embodiment of the nation’s will and deepest interests. Linz’s special concern was Latin America, which (like the Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea and much of Africa and Central Asia) has followed the model set by the United States. To his mind, Europe’s more accountable prime ministers — and their parliamentary counterparts in countries like Canada, Japan and Australia — represented a safer institutional alternative.Reading it requires registration, but that's free, so worth the effort. Interesting real world analysis to back up my academic interest in the subject; essentially, America set the standard for Presidential systems, but got lucky, because the early Presidents were all great statesmen with experience in government already. For most countries, especially emerging democracies, too much power in the hands of one person, especially one who can claim a rather spurios "mandate" is dangerous, as numerous coups and pwer grabs the world over have shown. Parliamentary systems may be flawed, and open to abuse, but in the long term, they're both more stable, more democratic, and contain their own checks and balances.
This is unspeakable, seriously. As we withdraw physically from one another and see dangers and threats around every corner, so we become yet more obsessed with "sharing" guilt and grief in an increasingly embarrassing manner, whilst others value the lives of others as nothing more than a punchbag for the culmination of a drunken night on the piss.What I found most worrying was the report of the diocesan spokesman for his Bishop (Lichfield):
We are becoming a nation paralysed by paranoia, seeing "paedo's" behind every door and, in the meantime, our social services turn a blind eye to little girls being beaten, tied up in baths, sexually assaulted and murdered by their own relatives.
The conclusion that Mr Barrett had acted inappropriately is not a finding of guilt or negligence, but recognition that in today's climate, previously acceptable innocent behaviour is now subject to misunderstanding and suspicion.Right, a common greeting across the world now has "potentially damaging consequences". Let's get this straight, if a young kid, known to me, comes up to me very happy with something (s)he's done, and I, as my parents and grandparents were wont to do, kiss that child on the cheeks, it's "potentially damaging"? Because an overly suspicious parent, fed on a diet of tabloid scare stories and misinformation, is convinced that anyone who actually likes children is a potential abuser?
"As the complaint and subsequent police investigation demonstrates, the simple act of a kiss on the cheek - a common greeting throughout the world - has potentially damaging consequences.
there are many who still try and hold to the idea of ‘No Platform’, a tactic that I long ago concluded was ultimately counterproductive as efforts to ’silence’ the National Front, BNP and others and prevent then getting their message out only serve to contribute to the false mystique they try to create around their appaling ideas and values in order to convey the impression that they are somehow dealing in ‘forbidden knowledge’ rather than errant, pig-ignorant, bullshit.He then goes on to cover a specifi case in generality over how racists can abuse the ASBO system. The basic principle of a method of dealing with genuine anti-social behaviour is a good one. But the blunt and open to abuse intstrument we've been granted is not a good way to go about it. Especially when it's this open to abuse.
‘No platform’ also leaves us wide open to the charge that we are censorious and acting as the enemy of free speech, sometimes with some considerable justification, and all too easily leads us into hypocrisy.
Today's colour-coded "Labour idiocy threat level" stands at Puce (middling to high idiocy), a slight decline from last week's Prescott-inspired Vermillion and the weekend's ID-card and Super Happy Fun Public Terror Threat Indicator prompted Burundy alerts.However, for a more serious analysis of the latest addition to the politics of fear, I give you Robert Sharp. Go read.
Right, Craig Murray's Book is out. To support the assertions he makes in it, he published all the documents on his website. Most of these documents were released under the Freedom of Information Act. Unfortunately, they're also covered by Crown Copyright. That means that you can only republish extracts. He's been threatened with legal action, which will need the price of a London house to defend in court. So he's taken them down. They're mirrored elsewhere already (links below), but those mirrors will also be forced down, as copyright is covered by the Berne conventions. So, there are ways of getting around it. One is a lot of people publishing separate extracts (we'll work on that), the other? Chris Lightfoot: If one person can get hold of documents under the Freedom of Information Act, then so can anybody else, simply by making a request to the relevant public authority. Rather than trying to face down the FCO and its lawyers, a better response would be to draft a fill-in-the-blanks Freedom of Information Request, which anybody could email in to the FCO to get their own copy of the key documents perfectly legally. That's certainly less convenient than simply downloading them off the web -- in particular, most government departments make sure they send responses no earlier than the maximum twenty working days permitted under the Act -- but there's a limit to what the government can do to wriggle out of its obligations. If Craig can provide information identifying each document to be used in such a request, I'll happily build him a website which will allow anybody to send in such a request at the click of a button.As Chris is one of the MySociety people, and I've yet to see a site of his that didn't impress, this is a damn fine offer.
If you haven’t seen the documents, they’re available here, here, here, here, here, here, and as a bittorrent here.(via)
Now I agree that something doesn't add up, by I'm more concerned about what is going on elsewhere in Government while Prescott acts as a lighting conductor for all the flak being aimed at New Labour. It may be crediting Blair with too much foresight, but it seems very convenient that John has been kept around in spite of Tracey Temple and croquet on the lawn at Dorneywood.John? Given most of it isn't your fault, can you stop being a scapegoat and take Tony with you?
Prescott seems emminently suited to the role he is now fulfilling, the bumbling leftie northerner who is out of his depth; the fall guy who can be blamed for any number of ills given the wide remit the ODPM used to have.
I've said it before, I say it again, self publicist or not, the story has to be told. Now, you can read all about it in glorious print. If 20 readers buy the book following that link, then I can afford to buy a copy myself. Go on, y'know you want to...This does have a kind of logic to it, after all as a global revolutionary leader why wouldn't you want your most powerful opponent to be run by a guy that would lose a general knowledge contest with an Aubergine.To be honest, I'm quite surprised it took the CIA that long to figure it out, seemed obvious to me. Ah well.
What is is about is a government that has a direct pecuniary (i.e. financial) interest in seeing AEG get the super casino licence, and one compounded even further by the fact that it is the same department (Culture, Media and Sport) that made the deal with AEG for the use of the Dome, that will now issue the licence for the super casino.The BBC has all the facts, covered it on Newsnight, but didn't make the link. Dave had already done so, and has now written it up.
You can't defeat the ideology of extremist Islam by saying we half agree with your grievances but you're wrong to deal with it that wayDo we "half" agree with the grievances? Are some of the complaints legitimate? I say yes, we do, and some are. Given this, why can't we ameliorate those complaints to reduce the resentment that fuels the extremists? We already know it works FFS.
That's my big problem with the statement. We "defeated" the IRA by recognising the legitimate grievances of the population supporting them. "We" managed 2 Palestine ceasefires by acknowledging legitimate grievances, etc...
"represion: creates the water for the terrorist fish to swim in..."
First said of Franco's Spain but true everywhere.
“I am probably not the person to go into the Muslim community,” said Blair today. How does he know? If walking into Leeds, Dewsbury, Beeston or Rawthorpe nude but for a sandwich board with “I’M SORRY” painted on it dissuaded just one potential bomber, wouldn’t it be worth it?Garry Smith:
This is possibly the least helpful thing I've ever heard our moronic Prime Minister say, and that's really going some.I think he's right, on both counts. Jamie Kenny:
Only when people stop opposing my foreign policy can terrorists be defeated. Got that one cleared up, then.
I said before that it was a smokescreen and I didn't care who he slept with. I suspect the rumours to be true, it piques my interest in a salacious way, but ultimately, I care not. But the idea that he's off on junkets to ranches owned by people bidding for contracts he has power to grant?Just to recap: a minister whose department is in charge of planning applications for casinos receives free hospitality from a tycoon bidding to build a supercasino. Minister stays night in tycoon's ranch with "a small number of civil servants" (including diary secretary?) and makes charity donation to cover hospitality. Donation paid for out of public purse.
The abridged version: Prescott spends night on Colorado ranch relaxing/sipping martinis/banging his mistress, and gets you to pay for it.
Guido has more (including the news, revealed by Iain Dale, that the Daily Mail may be planning to run a storyrevealingalleging that DPM was having an affair with an unnamed Labour MP. Needless to say this story is not true and no-one should imagine otherwise, certainly not R**** W********'s lawyers).
The debasement of ethical standards in public life is almost complete.
Apologies for this outbreak of crudity but the one eyed Goblin King can fuck right off. *DK goes a bit further and R-M has some outraged reactions. To think I nearly put some complimentary stuff in my previous post about him. We're screwed, the Labour leadership wants constitutional reform, but only to give them more power, the Tories are giving the name "stupid party" even more meaning.
What is the point of taking away our liberties in order to fight those who would take away our liberties?
I am not surprised that terrorists seek to do what they can to attack my democratic society, to threaten my liberties, to spread fear, to seek to divide us.Her words summed up all our reactions then. They remain true now. Gordon? 90 days without trial? Fuck off.
I do not expect my democratically-elected government to do the same.
So, let’s recap: it’s wrong for Liberal Democrats to point out Four Jobs Bob isn’t local to Bromley because he lives somewhere completely different – which is a statement of fact. But it’s all right for the Conservatives to say the leader of a country that’s a union of different nations can only come from the bit that the Tories have all their votes in, ruling out Scots not because of their ability or their ideas but simply because of where they live. Which is a wholly negative opinion that Scots should be second-class citizens in the Britain made up of all of us, based on their being not ‘local’ to England.Yup, to run for election as an MP while not being local is acceptable, but to run for election as British Prime Minister while living in Britain, being British and married to an English wife isn't if you're not local to most Tory MPs (ie, Southern England).
If, by excluding Scottish MPs from voting on English bills, parliament is left with left with a government that lacks a Common’s majority on English issues, how is fair that that government retains control of the legislative programme and timetable for England.This is of course all linked to the Conservatives desire to not appear to be "too radical" and instead implement something that sounds right, and simple. Except of course, it isn't right, it isn't simple, and it's a lot more radical than either of the three other main solutions. Gareth outlined a list of objections and questions back in March. While I disagree with Gareth's proposed solution, his is at least both honest and intellectually coherent. EVOEM is neither.
English Votes on English Matters is so unworkable and prejudiced towards Scotland that it will inevitably lead to a constitutional impasse so great that an English parliament will be the only solution. But at what cost? The alienation of Scotland; the break-up of the Union; an end to the principles of parliamentary democracy? Can we have a union in which MPs are barred from the top-jobs because they represent a non-English constituency?Like I say, I disagree with the solution he proposes. England has to be represented, but given that England and Wales share a law code, you need a Welsh element at times. The Westcountry has different needs to the Home Counties, both are different to Yorkshire.
Dangerous nonsense!The rest of that post gives a very strong reason for why I'm actually fairly happy within the Lib Dems; they actually address the issues and don't hide from policy or constitutional impact. Y'see, while I've long been convinced the current "settlement" is anything but, I'm pretty sure the Tories are only really coming on board because
Liberals and Liberal Democrats always supported home rule for Scotland and Wales on the basis that the result would be a Federal Britain. Only Federalism answers the so-called West Lothian question. What is now needed is a full constitutional settlement- which means restoring the lost powers of local government and making the current Scottish and Welsh systems self sustaining.
If England chooses a Parliament of its own or chooses regional assemblies, or makes the existing Counties more powerful (after all many of them are larger than several member states of the EU) then that is a matter for them.
What they can NOT do is to minimize or exclude Scottish or Welsh members from the only body that unites us: The national Parliament in Westminster.
When I write 7/7, you'll know exactly what I'm referring to. A year on, the tragic deaths of 52 people in London is still very much in people's minds and rightly so.When London was attacked, 52 people dies, many more injured, the whole world new, there was massive coverage in media everywhere. It was an unusual event, ergo it was news. It was a horrible event, and therefore it made people scared. Yet when more Iraqis die in terrorist attacks on a regular basis? It's no longer news, it's no longer unusual. It's just statistics.
In Iraq, attempting to identify the deaths of civilians by the date on which they occurred would be entirely pointless. Today, on 1/7, a car bomb has killed at least 62 people in Sadr City. This time next week, 1/7 will mean nothing to you or I.
Perhaps, one day far in the future, Iraq will become a peaceful democratic country. But, three years on from the invasion, with conservatively tens of thousands of Iraqis dead and no sign of the violence abating, if it does, it will be no thanks to the two men who instigated the violence whilst having not the slightest idea how to stop it.
The Conservative Party official newsfeed. Always cheers me up when I see that, reminds me that for all that my brain says I have have to not hate them, they're still Tories at heart. Best bit of LJ? You don't even need an account with them to log in, you can have a "friends page" by logging in with your TypeKey profile or any other OpenID supporting service. Utterly pointless, but I'm not currently in the practice of promoting LJ accounts, just observing how useful it can be.Tomorrow is the last Thursday of the month, a date upon which it is traditional for the Home Office to dump a heap of undifferentiated output from its research department on the world. It is suspected by many, including me that this practice is carried out in order to make it more difficult for there to be adequate scrutiny of the Home Office's performance, because there is limited analytical resource available to have a look at these things before the story goes cold.Swamped at work, can't do it this month nor next, but it's a great idea. If the Home Office would follow the example of the other departments and stop burying all the stats on one day, it wouldn't be needed. But as it's "not fit for purpose" and this easily fixed problem still hasn't been done, we need to highlight the issue. So, if you've time this fine morning, go here and join in.
That's the idea behind the Nightcap Syndication Research Thursday Project, which I am plugging here again. All Comment is Free readers and contributors (subject obviously to a baseline requirement of "knowing what you're talking about") are invited to have a look at the Home Office What's New page early doors tomorrow, pick a document that looks interesting to you and write a couple of hundred words about the main themes. I will be posting my piece on Comment is Free, my own blog and on the Nightcap site. If we can get a decent summary and a few bits of rough analysis of all the major documents up early enough in the day, it ought to make it much easier for the interesting pieces of research to get the publicity they deserve.
