How did I miss this story? Someone finds a sawn off shotgun in his garden and hands it into the police to be disposed of safely, at which point he’s then arrested, charged and now convicted for possessing a firearm. He faces a minimum of 5 years.

It’s a clear miscarriage of justice. The man’s life is ruined because he tried to do the right thing. What reasonable person would believe this is the correct outcome in this case?

Apparently Stuart Sharpe’s not bothered, causing Devil’s Kitchen (and in fairness, myself) to stare open mouthed and incredulous, at his response.

In court, the prosecution said:

“The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant.”

… which sounds fantastically tough and politically wonderful, but in the real world a case has been found which undermines public confidence in this. Clearly it’s not irrelevant, except to politicians who set these rules.

Anyone can see that taking a firearm to a police station isn’t something society should be punishing with 5 years in prison. The law is unjust and wrong – because it allows no other possible outcome –  but what politicians will dare stand up for a rethink of the firearm possession rules?

I think none, so Paul Clark is going to rot. And my friend Stuart and others are fine with that. Not amused.

Ah, it’s a joke, right? Mandelson becoming Minister for Information? Yes, it’s a joke. He’s not actually becoming Minister for Information, that’s just the Telegraph being cheeky scamps.

But the other bit though, that’s true.  The bit where, once a week, the civil servant that acts as the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson will be swapped out for a Minister, television cameras will be invited in and the results will be put on the Number 10 website for our viewing pleasure. Hmm…. the pleasure!

So, let’s break this down – the PM’s official spokesperson, being a civil servant, isn’t allowed to act in a party political manner. This, it seems, will not do. Ministers have no such restrictions – they can report on the activities of Downing Street in a way that blurs the line between Government and Party, Reality and Spin, Facts and Propaganda. A reliable source for what’s going on this won’t be.

So going through the journalistic tick list, that’s the ‘what’ covered. The ‘how’ is simple – they’re just doing it. When? Nick Robinson says, “run up to the election” (which means no-one knows.)

That just leaves the really really interesting question: Why. Why are they doing this?

One of the most consistent traits with this particular Government has been an obsession with what they believe is an inability to communicate their message properly – that if only we understood then we’d see that this is a bloody fantastic Government. So this stunt is all about trying to by-pass the newspapers and the blogs and go straight to the people through television.

Will it work?

Because, as we all know, Labour’s unpopularity is due to their inability to explain just how awesome and successful they are, right? To their credit they’re not blaming us for not understanding this time, they’re blaming themselves for not trying hard enough to get across their achievements, wonderful wonderful achievements – like abolishing youth unemployment, boom and bust, saving the world… what kind of screwed up evil world do we live in where a Government that’s been this successful should be cursed with unpopularity?

So, will it work? Will this save the Government?

Well… no. It won’t work because, just like every time they come out with a new initiative to get their message across, it’s the wrong diagnosis of the problem:

“Blair was a good communicator, we were popular. Brown is a terrible communicator, we’re unpopular. Therefore the problem is communications.”

Survey said? Eh-eeeh. Sorry, that’s not one of the answers we’re looking for. This is a fallacy that’s so easy to spot it’s breathtaking it needs explaining: Blair, after Iraq, was extremely unpopular. He was still a great communicator, but, see, people didn’t trust him or the Government anymore, so all the charm in the world couldn’t save them. Communication not the problem then, and not the problem now.

Of course, if they could admit that then we’d really be making progress.

Everyone’s writing about the new series of The Thick of It. Well, I say everyone, Darrell Goodliffe’s not impressed and Alix Mortimer’s wondering where it’s all going.

I suppose now’s my chance to write about it too. Writing my review of In The Loop was strangely enjoyable – at the time I wrote that it was the scariest horror film I’d ever seen, and Malcolm Tucker, as far as evil villains go, has a body count the envy of monsters the world over. Comedy? Are you sure? So, hey, why don’t I  write about the Political Anorak’s favourite TV programme – The Thick of It, or “that documentary about New Labour they have on the arty channel.”

See, I’m starting to believe that Armando Iannucci isn’t all that impressed with everyone loving Malcolm Tucker, uncritically, simply because he’s funny when he swears. He doesn’t want to look back, in ten years, and think that he’d abandoned all artistic integrity by turning the programme into nothing but a few hours of angry scottish people shouting a lot.

Armando doesn’t actually write the ultra-swearing himself, which, I suppose, makes people only wanting funny swearing all the more depressing. There’s more to Thick of It than threats involving balls and anuses… really really good threats involving balls and anuses, admittedly:

“I think we should use the carrot and stick approach. Yeah.. take a carrot, stick it up his fucking arse, followed by the stick,  followed by an even bigger, rougher carrot.”

But still – there has to be more to it than that, right?

So this new series of the Thick of It sees a very different (although still genitally and anally obsessed) Tucker – one that’s not actually in control of the media any more – the media, in fact, have started laughing at him. We’re seeing this new pathetic, helpless Malcolm Tucker and, I think, that’s a much more truthful – and biting – satire of the current Government.

The Thick of It’s true genius is the blurring of reality and fiction. Where does the documentary end and the satire begin? Like Tina Fey’s devastating portrayal of Sarah Palin, Armando simply takes the truth and adds a few winks here and there, and that’s all it needs – the absurdity and horror of the reality is comedy enough.

But perhaps that’s also the problem. Perhaps it’s just a little bit too close to reality for comfort. Maybe – just maybe – this series isn’t quite as funny because this time most of us are thinking, “Oh God! They’re STILL in power!” which kind of makes me want to do some Tucker style swearing myself.

While I’m on the subject of Thick of It, this week’s episode was notable for the presence of the bloggers… here’s Tucker again:

“Oh yeah, I read all the blogs cos I’m an under-employed, fat fucking loser, cos I’ve got nothing better to do with my time than to sit in my bedroom like a fat space-hopper in a tracksuit, reading endless, inconsequential, un-spell checked shit, fabricated by other fat fucking losers.”

It’s true. I don’t spell check and you – yes you – look like a space-hopper.

This is a guest post by Matt Wardman of the Wardman Wire. It follows on quite nicely from what I said yesterday about the link between the way parties run themselves and what we can learn about what their Government might be like.

The Undemocratic Nature of the BNP

By Matt Wardman

This article is an introduction to a paper I have published showing that the BNP is dangerously focused on, and controlled by, the single person who happens to be the National Chairman, and is therefore unstable as a political party. You can download the PDF here, or read the full text on the Wardman Wire .

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has taken legal action to force the British National Party to change parts of its Constitution to prevent discrimination on the basis of race or religion. The BNP has agreed to use “all reasonable endeavours” to revise its constitution so it did not discriminate in contravention of the Equality Bill.

The debate has moved on to Nick Griffin’s ability to “persuade his party to allow the change“, with Griffin positioned as a leader attempting to persuade the “General Meeting” of his party to moderate its position.

This is the wrong focus, and it seriously misses the point.

The organisation of the BNP is unrecognisable from the democratic model used by other UK parties; rather, it is heavily dominated by the “National Chairman” himself. Rather than watching the party being gently reformed away from a racist constitution by its leader, we should be questioning the way in which the party itself is controlled from the centre.

The BNP Constitution reveals the party organisation and governance, just as it revealed the racial basis of the BNP’s politics.

Nick Griffin is the “National Chairman” of the BNP. As such, under Section 3 of the Constitution, he has full power over appointments to all other executive offices in the party (except the Party Auditor), routine executive, administrative, policy and tactical decisions, all organisational structures and how they are governed, and determine all policies to implement the basic objectives set out in the Constitution.

The National Chairman also exercises comprehensive control over the “General Members Meeting”, under Section 5.6 of the Constitution. This is the Meeting he needs to “persuade” of to change the Constitution in November. Such a meeting can only be called by two parties: the National Chairman at any time he wishes, or the “Advisory Council” after a two-thirds majority vote.

The Advisory Council can call a General Members Meeting over the head of the Chairman, but that Council itself is a creature of Nick Griffin. It consists of the “National Chairman, Deputy Chairman, the national officials of the party and the organisers of the partyís five most effective regions”; all of these are personal appointments of Mr Griffin. In the event of any disagreements, the decision of the National Chairman is also final. Just to be tidy, the Party Auditor – the only official not appointed by the National Chairman – is appointed by the Advisory Council, all of whom are appointed by the Chairman.

Section 13 of the BNP Constitution controls how General Members Meetings are called. It is all quite informal: “No rigid rules shall govern the holding of internal meetings of the party but such meetings will be held as the occasion demands.” And all Members can attend if their party dues are up to date.

Anyone can submit a motion (28 days in advance through the National Chairman), and if the motion is a proposal to change the way the party is governed, it can only go on the agenda with the National Chairman’s consent.

In contrast to the requirements laid on members wanting to submit motions to a General Members Meeting, there are no requirement for the National Chairman to give members a set amount of advanced notice of such a meeting taking place, or indeed to tell them that it is taking place at all.

In short, there is nothing to prevent the BNP National Chairman holding a General Members’ Meeting by inviting a few friends of his own faction round for tea and buns tomorrow, and voting through any changes they wish to make.

The BNP Constitution is more than 6,000 words long. That is a lot of verbiage to summarise organisational arrangements which I’d summarise as “Nick Griffin and a bunch of fig leaves”.

I’d suggest that the undemocratic nature of the BNP Constitution is every bit as crippling to its credibility as is its racism, and that scrutiny of the BNP should now focus on these aspects.

Today has been one of those days. It started with the news that Gordon Brown had sent a handwritten letter to a mother of a dead soldier that was full of clumsy mistakes and spelling errors. The woman was furious… and promptly called the media. Cue media storm and Brown landed in yet another steaming pile of his own dung.

I ‘tweeted‘ my immediate reaction:

The PM’s atrocious letters are a serious PR blunder. Makes him look like he writes too many and doesn’t really care.

Fair enough? Other people replied along the lines that he does write too many and he doesn’t care. I thought that was it.

Then, because I’m insufferably insensitive, I did some mock letters from the PM full of spelling mistakes, terrible handwriting and ‘don’t give a shit’ attitude. For a laugh, see.

An hour or so later I realised I’d offended and upset a few people – cue huge blazing row about the fact that Brown only has 30% of the sight in his one remaining eye and so, technically, flaming Brown for this letter is effectively picking on him for being disabled. In fact, making me feel like even more of an arsehole, it was pointed out that whether or not Brown can spell or write properly doesn’t really matter… whether he’s disabled or not. Not in the big scheme of things, anyway.

And, you know… that’s all true. So I thought about it even more and realised that the letter being a bigger story than the death of the boy itself is…. well, it’s obscene.

People are right to expect absolute professionalism in these sorts of letters. It’s about showing the appropriate level of respect to the recipient by caring enough to get everything right. Brown’s problem here is that, in attempting to send a handwritten rather than typed letter to every single family he has overstretched himself. If he learns anything from this, he should learn to concentrate on quality, not quantity – not just in this but in everything. Get things right not just done. It’s probably better if he doesn’t send these letters as they currently are, or, at least, devotes the appropriate amount of time to it. Either way he’s apologised and I don’t really see what else can or should be done.

Of all the things to criticise Brown for (and the litany is legion), his unfortunate, clumsy or careless attempts at letter writing barely register, do they? It doesn’t prove he doesn’t care about the troops. It doesn’t prove he doesn’t care about the grieving relatives.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind on this story over the course of the day. I made a concious decision not to be an arsehole about it. Hmm I’m mellowing out. What’s going on?