They may be a undemocratic, anachronistic sort

I think this chaos illustrates precisely why the Lords is such a good idea, undemocratic though some may consider them. The PofT legislation is quite obviously politcal gamesmanship: not even this Government, incompetent, cavalier and sanctimonious though it clearly is, could possibly hope in a million years to push this bill through in eight days, or even eight months. Not even this Government could have failed to realise the extent of the likely opposition or fancied that they could bully it through. And to hear Tony Blair in PMQs two weeks ago manage to talk about deferring to the Lords' judgment (Hansard) with no apparent awareness of the fact that his Government has invoked the Parliament Act more times than all the others combined since it was passed in 1911 was surely a hypocrisy too far even for him.

The point is that it's the very undemocratic nature of the Lords that ensures they can rise above this kind of party-political horseplay and concentrate on the simple facts and implications of the bill, without worrying about who gets painted as soft on terror or who might stand to ensure himself re-election if the bill passes or fails. If Blair had had the full extent of his way with the Lords, this bill would have sailed through.

Yes, despite my liberal unease with the House of Lords, I will say, that on balance, they're normally more right than wrong :-). I'm a bit (well, more than a bit, actually) annoyed with Labour here, because they're blatantly copying from the Republican style of politics here - if the Bill doesn't pass tomorrow night, and the Belmarsh detainees go free, how long do you think before the attack ads saying "The Conservatives and Lib Dems are soft on TERROR!" start appearing?

(although, it was amusing last night to hear that, even if ALL the Conservative peers had voted with the Government, the Bill would have still failed, due to the Labour rebellion)

Seriously? How many Labour rebels were there? I thought it was like 60.

Oh, and I love the way Blair's started co-opting Bush's lines as well as his scaremongering tactics. Apparently the sunset clause would be a "signal of weakness" - whereas, presumably, falling over yourself to change the law and telling anyone who'll listen that we're desperately vulnerable to attack is going to dishearten the terrorists by showing them we just don't care.

I got that line about the size of the rebellion from the BBC a couple of nights ago - I haven't actually checked to see how true it was.

Yes, it is very worrying to see how much Blair is copying Bush these days. Even the original PATRIOT Act had a sunset clause, so I don't see why he has such a problem. Except, of course, that he WANTS IT SO AND BY GOLLY, HE'S GOING TO GET HIS WAY. Amusingly, the fight has already seen the ID bill being junked due to lack of time. Are they really going to let these people, who they insist are a danger to the country, go free, simply because they'll have to debate it again in November? (I'm assuming that they're going to win again, but win a smaller majority)

The BBC is also reporting rumours of a snap election if the vote doesn't go Labour's way - shades of 1911 all over again…

Petulance, they name is Tony.

Yeah, there were 60 Labour rebels ... I know the Tories took it up the ass in 2001 but I think they have more than 60 seats!

Are they really going to let these people, who they insist are a danger to the country, go free, simply because they'll have to debate it again in November?

I know, I was watching PMQs yesterday, and Howard asked twice whether Blair would rather have a bill he claims we desperately need "with a sunset clause, or no bill at all": Blair didn't answer the question, of course.

Do you watch This Week? (Genius programme with Andrew Neil, Michale Portillo and Diane Abbott, on after Question Time on Thursdays.) A few weeks ago Diane Abbott was confidently predicting a Labour election victory, but she's getting more evasive by the week. Still, with James Naughtie batting for them (impartially, of course), I sadly conclude it is still more or less foregone. Anything can happen, though.

Have you heard from Dr Moore lately? I keep posting inflammatory comments here hoping to goad him into replying, but he seems to have taken a leave of absence.

Blair is definitely assuming that they'll blink first. But, as we know, the Lords gets indignant when the Commons cracks the whip. Labour is threatening to keep them there until 4am - if that happens, I don't think the Lords is going to budge at all.

I'll have to give This Week a try - lots of people are recommending it to me at the moment.

Although I agree that the Conservatives would probably behave better in Parliamentary terms, I pretty much disagree on all their policies, so I'm hoping for a greatly reduced Labour majority and a strong Lib Dem presence in the next Parliament ;).

I last heard from Tom about two weeks ago, talking about the twin delights of MP3s and Manchester…

Hello from my rut.

/gay wave

I seem to be taking a backseat from life at the moment - a rest cure whilst remaining vaguely (and regrettably) on-the-job, as it were.

It may be a combination of tiredness and laziness, I'm not sure. Or just depressed apathy - combined with a little learned helplessness.

Anyway, Richard, I suspect that despite the outward bark, we probably agree on more things political than we'd like to admit, when it comes to the bite. After all, we both think that Blair is a c**t, so I need fewer anti-inflammatories than you'd think. We also agree that Diane Abbott's simpering flirtation with Portillo amuses greatly, yes? ;-)

Once we find some common ground on those nasty macroeconomics issues, world domination will surely follow swiftly.

Hurrah!

I will be watching This Week shortly!

(also, have used up my exclamation point quota for the month. Bobbins)

My, they're cozy! Diane's arm is hoving with intent, isn't it?

I want to slap Andrew Neil…

It's all part of the fun though, the way Andrew Neil is just so smug :). Trust you enjoyed Mardell as the fourth Doctor though?

We also agree that Diane Abbott's simpering flirtation with Portillo amuses greatly, yes?

Do we ever. Even Sam Leith, who writes one of those infuriating "notebook" (read: gossipy, whimsical, and with no real point beyond showing off your wide circle of friends) columns in the Telegraph, observed a few months ago that theirs was the most beautiful relationship on television. They went to school together, if you didn't know: they've known each other since they were 10, apparently (although that sofa's snug enough to make good friends out of Ann Widdecombe and Michael Howard); it's the way when one's speaking the other will never take his eyes off her (or vice versa) - particularly Portillo, who when he's in a good mood will just gaze at Diane with this beatific smile.

But I wonder, though, what will become of it after the election, when Portillo is due to stand down. I'll be very upset if he's no longer on This Week - so too, presumably, will Diane ;).

The BBC is going all out with the Who promotion this time around ;).

Oh, I saw Rose, by the way. (The Dr Who episode, not the Slems domestic staff battleaxe.) Indeed how can one be friends with Alex and not see it?

No real spoilers, but...

****

Quite cool, although I think they might have wanted to go with a less silly and esoteric villain than the Autons for the opening episode: this will just leave it wide open to charges that it's just as ludicrous as before. And while it's good (or at least refreshing) to see Eccleston play a bit of levity, at times he does almost seem to approach that kind of thumbs-in-braces, silly walk parody acting. And even I know he should be credited as "The Doctor" not "Doctor Who".

*that sound in the distance is the squeal of a million Dr. Who fans gnashing their teeth*

Poor form regarding the credits, I feel. From what I hear, "Rose" is apparently one of the worst episodes of the series; the director didn't get on too well with the stars, and most likely won't come back for Series 2.

I think they should have gone for a new villain in the first episode, but I guess they wanted to give a wink to the fanbase.

AND IF I READ ONE MORE ARTICLE THAT COMPLAINS ABOUT DALEKS NOT BEING ABLE TO GO UP THE STAIRS, I'M GOING TO STRAP PEOPLE INTO A CHAIR, CLOCKWISE ORANGE-STYLE, AND MAKE THEM WATCH 'REMEMBRANCE' UNTIL THEY UNDERSTAND...