How totalitarian is New Labour? How more totalitarian could it become? What is its ultimate aim? We, especially I, frequently refer nowadays to the surveillance state or the police state , implying that the governing of our country under New Labour has taken a sinister turn and we subjects are being constantly watched and monitored in case we step out of line. That line is increasingly becoming very narrow, as more and more petty-minded, officious jobsworths across Britain try, and all too frequently succeed, to assert their minimal authority. Whether it is because a waste bin did not have its lid not properly closed, or a Muslim woman was convicted of possessing material of possible use to a terrorist, or someone dropping an apple core, using a camera at nativity plays, standing in a space near (not in) a first-class compartment, or literally hundreds of similar events, the one thread that pulls these together is that they are all very alien to how we have managed ourselves for decades. We British are, or once were, renowned for our tolerance. Tolerance meant that each one of us had certain boundaries that may be slightly different from the next citizen's but are largely similar. The tolerance kicks in because we admit to respecting, or tolerating, those slightly different boundaries in others, since we ourselves can admit to sometimes breaking our own and then feeling ever so slightly guilty as a consequence. The mix of guilt, conscience, tolerance and affability is what has enabled the British to continue for so long without a revolution. But New Labour's boundaries are far more Draconian and not in the least tolerant. There is a law for anything and everything now, usually of an extreme nature.Take a typical government information film like the one warning about not paying the road fund licence. It is not enough for the government to simply point out, as one adult in conversation with another adult might, the various ways of paying and to mention possible fines for not paying. No, the people behind this advert thought they had to take the example they wanted to set to utterly ridiculous extremes by demonstrating to the amazed owner that his car may be crushed, presumably on a darkened street right in front of him as he returns from a night out with his girlfriend. This depiction of state power is risible beyond farce, because the car will have been parked in the same spot, uncrushed, maybe for hours, even days. But when the owner returns and can observe the degree of state power wielded because of failure to pay a couple of hundred quid, his car that could be worth £20k is crushed right then and there! Who clears up the mess? What if the government got it wrong and the fee has been paid, but the government lost the disks? Will the government be forking out £20k in compensation? What does the small print say? So, what if the owner of a 40-tonne lorry also failed to pay his road fund licence, might  his 40-tonner also be crushed? Wouldn't that leave a very large mess to clear up if it were done right there and then, in front of the driver, who may not be the owner, in a darkened street? When this kind of stupidity is employed by the government to inform the public, no wonder it is treated with such utter contempt and ridicule. Homeowners who don't pay their council tax could maybe see their houses blown up, dog walkers failing to pick up might have to watch as Fido is put on the rack and stretched till he is screaming with agony, litterers could have thumbscrews applied so that they can no longer pick up anything to drop and will starve to death as a result. Maybe the government information film on that one could just end with the slogan Nil by mouth . But the question is, are these symptoms of the nanny state, or the surveillance state, or the police state, or the totalitarian state, which are all different levels of the same, centralised control freakery that Labour has always exhibited to some degree since its rise to power in the 1900s? Given that we used not to be like this in the period following 1945 and permitted very dangerous open platforms at the back of Routemasters and children to cycle without crash helmets and people to sing a song in a pub and many, many other activities without the state jumping in and shouting Can't! , what has motivated New Labour these past eleven years? Did Blair always have this plan or was he persuaded by the (ex-)Marxists in and around his team? What will happen if New Labour does win a fourth term? Probably, New Labour is now finished as internal squabbling starts to spill out into the open, but times are always changing, sometimes quite rapidly. There is already talk of dumping the PM and this may rise to a crescendo if Crewe and Natwich turn (the air) blue on Thursday, with the stalking horse of (ex-)Marxist Charles Clarke mentioned as a possible contender. With Clarke as PM, DNA profiling of the entire country won't be too far away, and the ID card programme will probably be speeded up. Should we be worried? Or should we pray for Dave Cameron? Or should we have another look at Passport to Pimlico and treat it a bit more seriously? MM

What is its ultimate aim? We, especially I, frequently refer nowadays to the surveillance state or the police state , implying that the governing of our country under New Labour has taken a sinister turn and we subjects are being constantly watched and monitored in case we step out of line. That line is increasingly becoming very narrow, as more and more petty-minded, officious jobsworths across Britain try, and all too frequently succeed, to assert their minimal authority. Whether it is because a waste bin did not have its lid not properly closed, or a Muslim woman was convicted of possessing material of possible use to a terrorist, or someone dropping an apple core, using a camera at nativity plays, standing in a space near (not in) a first-class compartment, or literally hundreds of similar events, the one thread that pulls these together is that they are all very alien to how we have managed ourselves for decades. We British are, or once were, renowned for our tolerance. Tolerance meant that each one of us had certain boundaries that may be slightly different from the next citizen's but are largely similar. The tolerance kicks in because we admit to respecting, or tolerating, those slightly different boundaries in others, since we ourselves can admit to sometimes breaking our own and then feeling ever so slightly guilty as a consequence. The mix of guilt, conscience, tolerance and affability is what has enabled the British to continue for so long without a revolution. But New Labour's boundaries are far more Draconian and not in the least tolerant. There is a law for anything and everything now, usually of an extreme nature.Take a typical government information film like the one warning about not paying the road fund licence. It is not enough for the government to simply point out, as one adult in conversation with another adult might, the various ways of paying and to mention possible fines for not paying. No, the people behind this advert thought they had to take the example they wanted to set to utterly ridiculous extremes by demonstrating to the amazed owner that his car may be crushed, presumably on a darkened street right in front of him as he returns from a night out with his girlfriend. This depiction of state power is risible beyond farce, because the car will have been parked in the same spot, uncrushed, maybe for hours, even days. But when the owner returns and can observe the degree of state power wielded because of failure to pay a couple of hundred quid, his car that could be worth £20k is crushed right then and there! Who clears up the mess? What if the government got it wrong and the fee has been paid, but the government lost the disks? Will the government be forking out £20k in compensation? What does the small print say? So, what if the owner of a 40-tonne lorry also failed to pay his road fund licence, might  his 40-tonner also be crushed? Wouldn't that leave a very large mess to clear up if it were done right there and then, in front of the driver, who may not be the owner, in a darkened street? When this kind of stupidity is employed by the government to inform the public, no wonder it is treated with such utter contempt and ridicule. Homeowners who don't pay their council tax could maybe see their houses blown up, dog walkers failing to pick up might have to watch as Fido is put on the rack and stretched till he is screaming with agony, litterers could have thumbscrews applied so that they can no longer pick up anything to drop and will starve to death as a result. Maybe the government information film on that one could just end with the slogan Nil by mouth . But the question is, are these symptoms of the nanny state, or the surveillance state, or the police state, or the totalitarian state, which are all different levels of the same, centralised control freakery that Labour has always exhibited to some degree since its rise to power in the 1900s? Given that we used not to be like this in the period following 1945 and permitted very dangerous open platforms at the back of Routemasters and children to cycle without crash helmets and people to sing a song in a pub and many, many other activities without the state jumping in and shouting Can't! , what has motivated New Labour these past eleven years? Did Blair always have this plan or was he persuaded by the (ex-)Marxists in and around his team? What will happen if New Labour does win a fourth term? Probably, New Labour is now finished as internal squabbling starts to spill out into the open, but times are always changing, sometimes quite rapidly. There is already talk of dumping the PM and this may rise to a crescendo if Crewe and Natwich turn (the air) blue on Thursday, with the stalking horse of (ex-)Marxist Charles Clarke mentioned as a possible contender. With Clarke as PM, DNA profiling of the entire country won't be too far away, and the ID card programme will probably be speeded up. Should we be worried? Or should we pray for Dave Cameron? Or should we have another look at Passport to Pimlico and treat it a bit more seriously? MM If you think of it with a matrix aspect it's very interesting. Really they're not supposed to be watching us.  But this week I found out they do own us.  Women don't own their placentas.

Probably, New Labour is now finished as internal squabbling starts to spill out into the open, but times are always changing, sometimes quite rapidly. There is already talk of dumping the PM and this may rise to a crescendo if Crewe and Natwich turn (the air) blue on Thursday, with the stalking horse of (ex-)Marxist Charles Clarke mentioned as a possible contender. With Clarke as PM, DNA profiling of the entire country won't be too far away, and the ID card programme will probably be speeded up. Should we be worried? Or should we pray for Dave Cameron? Or should we have another look at Passport to Pimlico and treat it a bit more seriously? The most worrying thing about all this is that I see a trend across all political parties towards more authoritarian govt.

How totalitarian is New Labour? How more totalitarian could it become? Should we be worried? That depends. Britain is admired for its rule of law, but petty bureaucracy is the other side of that coin. We like laws and rules more than most countries. On public transport you're told what the rules are almost ceaselessly. It makes the people in the office feel good. Our tradition of freedom isn't all that old. It's possible to break it. The Puritans were originally called the Precisemen or the Precisions. They banned theatre, christmas, cricket, music, dancing, mince pies and bear-baiting. Our love of laws would be fine if we were an unprejudiced and confident race. But we're not entirely, so our rules are both an assurance of freedom and a prop to support us in our weaknesses. But it's a mixture that needs the right ingredients to really spell trouble. It needs bad, prejudiced laws. It also needs prejudiced people to enforce them. Labour have expanded the number of people working for the state, and have also given the power of enforcement to a much greater number of people and organisations. Then chances of things going wrong are increased. It happens little by little. The puritans were around for 150 years before they finally arrived in Westminster.

Or should we have another look at Passport to Pimlico and treat it a bit more seriously? Undeer labour you now need ID to get on internal flights and ferries. Pretty soon it will be a requirement for trains and long distance coaches

How totalitarian is New Labour? How more totalitarian could it become? Given both the trend for more and more mass surveillance of the general public, and the ambitions represented in some of the policy documents and proposals I've seen from the government (e.g. individual carbon credits, satellite tracking of all vehicular journeys, tracking childhood development to try and spot those who will become criminals, etc), I think they ultimately want to gather as much info as they can about people, in order to track everything from obesity rates and alcohol consumption to peoples internet usage and who they do business with. I think they want to control people's behaviour for what they believe are benign ends - ending poverty, reducing obesity, making people healthier, tackling climate change, etc. I think they could become a lot more totalitarian if allowed to remain in power