Waiting For Rose's, Or Martha's, Or Donna's End

With The Stolen Earth out of the way, Saturday sees the finale of the thirtieth season of Doctor Who.

Called Journey's End. But whose journey?

My money is on Rose:

• Caan has said that the most faithful companion will have a permanent death. Now, which companion is it who has crossed universes to be reunited with the Doctor? And the permanent death is interesting- we have seen the Doctor go through the grief of Rose's "death" in Army of Ghosts/Doomsday. Why wouldn't Caan just say that the most faithful companion will die?
• It is hard to see how anything other than death could separate the Doctor and Rose, especially seeing their mutual reaction to finding each other again. When Rose originally departed, Russell Davies mentioned that it would take something major to separate them. Two years ago it was being trapped in a parallel universe. If Rose can walk from universe to universe then being in a parallel universe won't separate her from the Doctor. Only death can do that.
• I couldn't see the current Rose being able to continue as a companion- which seems to be the only alternative to killing her off. She is still the Bad Wolf. In Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways she states the way she sees the universe- and the Doctor tells her that that is how he sees it as well. There is the bit in The Fires of Pompeii where the Doctor tells Donna that he can see what is and isn't possible, with there being "fixed points", events which must happen. Rose sees the same- in Turn Left she is able to notice that the alternative reality she is in is somehow wrong, and it is interesting that since her return she makes references to what is supposed to happen, what should and should not happen. The companion is meant to be the human eyes, and Rose seems to have somehow gone beyond humanity. Interesting the warning her mother, Jackie, gave her that one day there'd be this woman walking in a market on a distant planet, and that woman would not be Rose Tyler anymore, she wouldn't even be human.

Is Rose still a human being? Or has she become something else?

The Stolen Earth

After the lengthy build-up, tonight saw the start of the Doctor Who season 30 finale- The Stolen Earth/Journey's End- with the threads over the past four years coming together.

The first thing which has to be said is that it has taken its time. It has been slow potboiling. Four seasons. That is the difference between, for example:

• The first adventure, An Unearthly Child, and The Evil of the Daleks
• The Ribos Operation and Time Flight
• Castrovalva and Revelation of the Daleks
• Warriors of the Deep and Dragonfire

You would not, for example, expect Ace's debut adventure with the Seventh Doctor to rely on a plot strand that has been building up since the Fifth Doctor went with Tegan and Turlough to an underwater base, and which was developing in the background through the Sixth Doctor's era and in all of Peri's travels with the Doctor.

But this two-parter is intended to tie up all the loose ends, to bring Russell Davies' tenure in charge (and David Tennant's time as the Doctor?) to a clear conclusion, to close an era which has seen two (or will it be three?) actors playing the Doctor.

Before the second episode of Season 27, The End of the World, was shown, there was the news for fans that Christopher Eccleston was going to be giving up the role as the Doctor at the end of that season. Davies had intended it to be a complete suprise so that when, at the end of Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways, there was the Eccleston to Tennant regeneration, viewers didn't know it was coming.

I wonder if at that time, they decided that when Tennant leaves, the regeneration would occur without us expecting it...

The TARDIS lands on modern-day Earth, and the Doctor asks a passing milkman what the day is. It's Saturday, and the Doctor likes Saturdays. Once the Doctor and Donna are back in the TARDIS it starts shuddering.

Nothing compared to what is going on on Earth. At a UNIT base in Manhattan Martha Jones is picking herself up after what she thinks is an earthquake. Ah, she's in Manhattan. Must have changed a bit since she was last there in 1930 (Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks). Come to think of it, the Daleks only seem to invade Earth when Martha's in New York. The US State Department should look at putting her on their list of people not allowed in!

In Cardiff, at the Torchwood base, Jack Harkness, Gwen Cooper and Ianto Jones are getting over their earthquake, which they think all of south Wales must have felt. Jack initially wonders if it's problems with the Rift.

In Ealing, Sarah Jane Smith and her son, Luke, are recovering from the effects, and she asks her computer ("Mr Smith") what happened. It suggests she looks outside. It's dark, yet it was 8am.

In Chiswick, Wilf Mott and Sylvia Noble notice that there are loads of planets in the sky.

And the milkman gets a shock when Rose appears in front of him and says that the trouble is only just beginning.

The Doctor opens the TARDIS doors to find blackness- just rocks. But the TARDIS hasn't moved- the Earth has gone. At a complete loss as to what to do, he tells Donna they'll see the Shadow Proclamation.

Ianto notes that there are 26 planets in the sky, and Jack mentions that the Earth still has an atmospheric shell, so whatever took the Earth wanted them alive. Gwen and Ianto note another object, which Mr Smith tells Sarah Jane and Luke is artificial.

In New York, UNIT's General Sanchez tells his staff that there are 200 objects heading for Earth. He notices that Martha is on her mobile and when he tries to rebuke her for this, she points out that she is trying to phone the Doctor, but something must be blocking the signal. Instead, she phones Jack.

While she is doing this, there is a message from the arriving fleet for the people of Earth. Torchwood and Mr Smith both receive it- one word, "Exterminate", over and over again. Jack tells Ianto and Gwen that there is nothing he can do. Sarah Jane is upset at the thought of Luke getting exterminated.

On board the Dalek main ship, the Supreme Dalek- a red one- says that the harvest of humans will commence. Same word ("harvest") as in Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways. Not much imagination, these Daleks, have they? They don't want to kill humans, or enslave us, just harvest us.

The TARDIS lands at the base for the Shadow Proclamation, and encounter the Judoon, who guard it. The woman from the Shadow Proclamation whom the Doctor talks to mentions that the whole universe is in outrage as 24 planets have gone missing. These include Clom (the homeworld of the Abzorbaloff in Love & Monsters) and Woman Wept (which Rose mentioned to Mickey in Boom Town that she and the Doctor had visited).

Donna asks about Pyrovillia (from The Fires of Pompeii) and the lead Judoon tells her this is a cold case. When the Doctor asks, the woman tells him it went missing 2000 years ago. When Donna mentions the Adipose breeding planet being lost (from Partners in Crime), the Doctor realises that planets are being taken out of time as well.

Adding in the Lost Moon of Poosh (from Midnight) brings the total to 27. The Doctor notes that they can be put into a natural set of positions which enables them to be like an engine- that someone plans to use them as a powerhouse.

Interestingly, he mentions that someone tried to move the Earth before. Now, the only example I can think of was in The Trial of a Time Lord: The Mysterious Planet, when the sixth Doctor and Peri arrive on an Earthlike planet, Ravalox, and find that it is Earth, having been moved- and the Doctor found out that it was the Time Lords who were responsible for that.

Meanwhile, on Earth, Jack reports that the UNIT flagship, Valiant, is down, and Ianto says that Daleks have landed in Japan.

In New York, Sanchez tells Martha he's activating Project Indigo, despite her telling him it's not safe, that it's never been tried. While this is happening, the Daleks are in the building and have orders to exterminate UNIT. Over the phone, Jack tells Martha not to use Indigo, but Sanchez tells her she takes her orders from him, not Torchwood. He gives her the "Osterhager Key". With the Daleks approaching them, Martha teleports out.

Jack tells Ianto and Gwen that Indigo is based on the Sontaran teleport system, but it would have scattered her into atoms.

On the Dalek ship, we get our first glance at Davros. He asks the Supreme Dalek about the Doctor, saying that Dalek Caan is uneasy. The Supreme Dalek dismisses Caan as the "abomination" (the same word used to describe Rose as the Bad Wolf in Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways). But Davros responds by telling him that without Caan, the Dalek race would not have survived.

Caan is reduced to a Dalek base without the normal Dalek head. Instead we see the creature inside, which is quite giggly when it talks. Caan says that the "threefold man" who "dances in lonely places" will be coming.

At the Shadow Proclamation, one of the staff mentions that there was something on Donna's back and says to Donna that she is sorry for the "loss that is yet to come."

The Doctor asks Donna whether there were any signs on Earth that something was going to happen. She mentions the bees disappearing, and he realises that the ones from Melissa Majoria were sensing something was happening, and going home. When Donna asks if bees are extra-terrestrial, he tells her that not all of them are. He knows what the alien bees were sensing, which he calls a Tandocca trail, and says that they can follow this. When the woman from the Shadow Proclamation tries to claim the TARDIS for her organisation, the Doctor and Donna escape in it.

In Chiswick, the Daleks are ordering people to leave their homes. When one man refuses, and sends his wife and son back in, they respond by destroying his home.

Wilf and Sylvia are in hiding and watching this, although Sylvia says that theirs isn't one of the streets that the Daleks are evacuating (so the Daleks only want some humans). They encounter a Dalek, and Wilf fires a paint gun at its eyestalk. However, instead of blinding it, the paint just dissolves. They are about to be exterminated when Rose blows its top off with a gun. She realises who they are, and says that they are her last hope as she is looking for the Doctor, and to find him, she needs to find Donna.

The TARDIS follows the trail to a nebula, where the Doctor says the Medusa Cascade is. He tells Donna he used to come here as a kid, when he was 90 years old, and it's a rift in space and time. And this is where the trail ends.

Suddenly, Rose picks up a subwave message on Wilf and Sylvia's computer, very faint. The message reaches Mr Smith and Torchwood. It's Harriet Jones, the former Prime Minister, looking for Sarah Jane, Jack and Martha.

Martha has survived and finds herself transported to her home, although among her family, it appears only her mother, Francine Jones, is there.

Harriet explains to Sarah Jane, Jack and Martha that the Subwave Network was designed by the "Mr Copper Foundation" (so we know what he did with all his money after the end of Voyage of the Damned). She tells Martha not to use the Osterhager Key under any circumstances.

She explains that she stands by her actions at the end of The Christmas Invasion, as she warned the Doctor that a day would come when the Earth would need him, and he wouldn't be there, but he would not listen to her.

The idea she has is to contact the Doctor. Jack says that they can send a signal using the power from the Rift. Luke says that Mr Smith can access every telephone network in the world, so they can phone the Doctor. Martha gives them his mobile phone number.

The Doctor detects the signal and follows it- but Jack tells Harriet that the Daleks have detected her running the Subwave Network.

Davros announces that- as Caan predicted- the "Children of Time" are moving against them.

In Harriet's first appearance, in Aliens of London/World War Three, there was a running gag where she would introduce herself by holding up her security pass and saying "Harriet Jones, MP for Flydale North." In The Christmas Invasion she had a habit of introducing herself by holding up her pass and saying "Harriet Jones, Prime Minister", to which the human would reply "Yes, I know who you are." And when on the Sycorax spaceship she does the same, the reply back through the translation software- "Yes, we know who you are."

It might seem to be taken a bit too far when there are Daleks in her living room, and she holds up her passport, saying "Harriet Jones, former Prime Minister" and one of them responds with- "Yes, we know who you are." But, before being exterminated, she turns it back on them by telling them they don't know her, they know nothing about humans, and that will be their downfall.

The Doctor is able to connect to the Subwave Network and speak to Sarah Jane, Jack and Martha, telling Donna it's everyone except Rose. Then another signal comes through- Davros, welcoming the Doctor to the new Dalek Empire.

Sarah Jane is shocked, saying that Davros was destroyed. The Doctor says that Davros's ship was destroyed at the Gates of Elysium in the first year of the Time War, and the Time War is "timelocked".

Davros explains that the Emergency Temporal Shift that Caan did at the end of Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks took him into the early stages of the Time War, and altered it by saving him- but Caan lost his mind. Caan declares that the Doctor's most faithful companion will die.

The Daleks locate Torchwood, and Jack teleports out, telling Gwen and Ianto that he needs to find the Doctor. Then the Daleks arrive at the Hub, and Gwen tells Ianto she's going to go down fighting like Toshiko and Owen did in Exit Wounds.

Sarah Jane tells Luke that the Doctor needs her, and Mr Smith gives her the co-ordinates where the TARDIS lands. She tells Luke that she loves him, and that he needs to remain in the house, before she drives off.

In her communicator, Rose tells "Control" that she needs to go to where the TARDIS is. She vanishes from in front of Wilf and Sylvia.

The TARDIS lands and Donna sees Rose in the distance. The Doctor and Rose run towards each other, but then a Dalek shoots the Doctor. Jack appears and destroys it, telling Rose and Donna to get the Doctor into the TARDIS.

Sarah Jane's car is stopped by two Daleks who tell her that she will be exterminated.

And in the TARDIS, the Doctor starts regenerating...

Turn Left

Last week was the Doctor Who episode, Turn Left.

In The Five Doctors, the Master commented that a cosmos without the Doctor doesn't bear thinking about. But, this episode shows a universe in which the Doctor has died.

The Doctor and Donna visit the planet of Shan-Shem, which looks like a giant Chinatown. Donna sees a fortune teller, who offers a free reading as Donna's a redhead.

During the reading, the fortune teller asks Donna about when she met the Doctor. Donna talks about The Runaway Bride, saying that she ended up in his spaceship on her wedding day. But the fortune teller wants to know more. So Donna says that it was because of her job. The fortune teller wants to know what led her to that.

Donna remembers when she was setting off with her mother, Sylvia, one day, six months before meeting the Doctor (so, this would be summer 2007). Sylvia was nagging her to go for a permanent job as a secretary working for Javil Choudhury, one of Sylvia's friends. All Donna needs to do is to turn right at the junction and she can see him about the job.

Donna mentions to the fortune teller that she turned left and got the temping job at HC Clements, which led to her meeting the Doctor.

As a giant beetle scurries along and jumps onto Donna's back, the fortune teller is grabbing her hands and telling her to change the decision in her past- to turn right.

Now, all the publicity was about Rose returning, but I didn't fully believe it until the opening credits:

David Tennant
Catherine Tate
and Billie Piper

We are back at the junction, and Donna wanting to turn left to HC Clements, but she gives in to Sylvia's nagging and turns right.

Six months later, she is in a pub with her friends, celebrating Christmas, and celebrating being promoted by Choudhury to be his Personal Assistant. But one of her friends, Alice, is looking concerned at Donna's back. Which perturbs Donna.

Then a man comes in and tells them to look outside. It's the Racnoss ship from The Runaway Bride, and it starts firing at London. Donna runs to where the UNIT soldiers are, and sees a man's body, covered up, being carried away on a stretcher. The sonic screwdriver clatters to the ground from his lifeless hand. A soldier (blissfully unaware that he has being taken over by Sontarans to look forward to!) reports to UNIT that it is the Doctor and that he did not have time to regenerate.

Rose runs up to Donna, and asks what's happened, and Donna tells her about the Doctor's death. Rose mentions that this universe is wrong, and is trying to look at Donna's back. Donna looks away briefly, and Rose has gone.

Things start to go badly for Donna. With the Thames dried up and bridges across it closed, Choudhury has to make job losses. And so he sacks Donna. As they argue, there is a loud bang, and then news reports about Royal Hope Hospital having vanished, and the rain having fallen upwards.

Later, Donna and her grandfather, Wilf, are watching the evening news with Sylvia- who is paying more attention to the stationery that Donna has taken from work- and the reports are about Royal Hope vanishing and returning. But, with the Doctor dead, events are going differently from Smith & Jones, as Oliver Morgenstern is the only survivor. He talks about the Judoon, and how one of his colleagues, Martha Jones, gave him the last oxygen pack. He also mentions that Sarah Jane Smith worked out how to defeat the Judoon, but was killed.

Among the stuff Donna took from work was a raffle ticket. She goes for a walk and encounters Rose. Rose asks her what she is planning for Christmas, and tells her to make sure she's not in London. When Donna says they can't afford a holiday, Rose says the ticket will win a prize for a holiday at a country hotel.

We switch forward to Christmas Eve 2008, with Donna, Wilf and Sylvia on holiday. The Spanish chambermaid is pointing at Donna's back and saying in Spanish about something being on Donna's back. This is overshadowed by TV reports about a replica of the Titanic falling from the sky, and the channels all go dead as it hits London. Unlike in Voyage of the Damned, the Doctor was not there to prevent tragedy. At first Donna assumes it's a film.

As they go outside, they see a huge mushroom cloud over London, and realise that their home has gone and all their friends are dead. And if they had not had that raffle ticket...

Weeks pass, and with southern England uninhabitable due to the radiation, and France having closed its borders to refugees, the "Emergency Government" is relocating 7 million people. Donna and her family are sent to Leeds to be billetted in accommodation there. They are given a house, but when they arrive, an Italian man, Rocco, explains that there are several families there. Donna, Sylvia and Wilf have the kitchen to sleep in.

Wilf suggests that the Americans will help. And then we see Trinity Wells.

In every season since Doctor Who returned, there has been at least one appearance by a New York news anchor, reporting on events. Now she is finally given a name. In the "real" Whoniverse, the events in Partners In Crime occured in Britain, with only one death. In the reality that Donna et al. are in, the events happen in the USA, and with no Doctor to save the day, Trinity reports 60 million deaths.

They slowly realise that things aren't going to get better, and that, as internal refugees, they can't vote. Donna can't find work to support them.

And one day they hear shooting. Going outside, Donna, Wilf and Rocco find soldiers firing at cars. One of them shouts at Donna to show him her back, and she turns away from him, terrified. He apologises, telling her that he thought she had something on her back. The reason for the shooting is the cars with ATMOS devices (as in The Sontaran Stratagem/The Poison Sky) which are emitting poison.

That evening, Donna goes for a walk and encounters Rose. In the park, Rose explains that she came across to this universe from another, and talks about the Doctor, explaining that all this is because the Doctor died. Rose somehow knows that Donna was supposed to travel with the Doctor and would have prevented his death. Rose asks Donna to come with her. When Donna refuses, Rose suggests she'll change her mind in three weeks, when the darkness comes- not just to that universe, but to others. She adds that Donna will die.

Three weeks later, Rocco and his family are being taken away to "labour camps", with him explaining to Donna and Wilf that the Government's policy is "England for the English". Donna sees what's happening as positive, as Rocco will have work and she and her family will have more space, not realising why Wilf is upset. This is the old Donna who misses the picture. Wilf says that "labour camps" are what they were called last time, and it's happening again.

In the evening, Wilf is doing some astronomy, and Donna joins him. He is looking for Orion and can't find it. As they look up, stars disappear. Donna realises that the darkness is coming, and Rose finds her. Donna says she'll help.

At UNIT HQ, Rose shows Donna the TARDIS, which is not working well. They have hooked it up to a series of mirrors. Rose asks Donna if she wants to see what's on her back, and uses the mirrors to make the beetle appear. Donna says that people have been staring at her back for ages. Rose explains they can't remove it, as it seems to be part of her. It feeds off changes in time.

Donna notes that Rose has not told anyone her name. Rose explains that she has travelled across too many parallel universes and knows that the wrong word could upset the "causal nexus".

Rose has traced the change to when Donna turned right, and asks her to go back in time and get herself to turn left. The circle of mirrors, in conjunction with the TARDIS, allows limited time travel, and Donna agrees to go back.

But there is little time to spare, and Donna remembers Rose's words about dying, so throws herself in front of a lorry. Rose appears to the dying Donna and whispers two words to tell the Doctor.

Donna and Sylvia are in the car, and Donna says that there's a traffic jam to the right. She turns left...

Back on Shan-Shem, the beetle falls to the floor, dying, and the fortune teller hurries off, saying that Donna was too strong.

The Doctor arrives and identifies the beetle as "one of the Trickster's brigade" which alters decisions. Donna tells him what she can remember, and talks about the blonde woman. It appears that the Doctor is thinking this might be Rose.

Then Donna gives him the message- "Bad Wolf."

As they rush out, they see the words "Bad Wolf" everywhere- on posters, on banners and on the TARDIS. Inside the TARDIS, the cloister bell is tolling, the console has been replaced by a paradox machine. Donna asks the Doctor what Bad Wolf means and he says that it's the end of the universe..

A few thoughts:

• So the Doctor and Donna finally realise what the prophecies in The Fires of Pompeii meant. The Doctor must have worked out that Rose has returned.
• We were really led up the garden path with the thing on Donna'a back. All that stuff about an old enemy making a surprise return. 2 + 2 =5, where 5 is a giant spider from Planet of the Spiders.
• Rose can see what is supposed to happen, what the possible realities are, and what the ones which are not meant to be are. Sounds like a Time Lord- or what she was able to do in Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways. Once the Bad Wolf, always the Bad Wolf.

Midnight

A couple of weeks ago was the Doctor Who episode, Midnight.

Now, it was not what I expected. When I first heard what the title was, I was imagining an adventure in which the Doctor and Donna arrive in the flat upstairs one midnight. While the Doctor deactivates the washing machine with his sonic screwdriver, Donna gives Dame Washalot an ear-bashing about too much noise at unreasonable hours.

Oh well, maybe they can try that for one of next year's "specials."

It was, to put it bluntly, a very strange episode. Unlike the rapid action adventures, this was made up on a few lengthy and talkative scenes.

Another difference is that this year the "Doctor-lite" episode is not the "companion-lite" one. The Doctor and Donna are on the planet Midnight, and while the Doctor plans on a bus trip, Donna wants to spend time at the health spa, and only appears in the pre-credits teaser and the closing moments.

What you get is something that shows just how important the companion is- no longer someone to fall over and say "what do we do now, Doctor?". Without a companion, the Doctor is on his own.

Midnight is an airless planet, orbiting a star emitting X-tonic radiation. So dangerous that the windows of the futuristic bus have to be covered up, as the radiation would vapourise the passengers and crew in minutes.

The Doctor meets the passengers- a scientist, Professor Hobbes, and his assistant, Dee Dee; the Cane family (Biff, Val and teenage son Jethro); and a businesswoman, Sky Silvestry- as well as the Hostess.

Dee Dee has been researching the Lost Moon of Poosh- ah, another planet that has gone missing.

The bus goes faulty, and the Doctor goes into the cabin to talk about it with Joe the pilot and Claude the mechanic. He gets them to lower the shields on the front window, so he can look out, noting that for a minute or so, the X-tonic radiation is OK. He notes that this is something no human has seen before- but Claude sees something moving out there. Joe has called for a repair vehicle.

With the Doctor back, they all hear something knocking on the side. When the Doctor knocks, it responds. Sky is panicking.

Then the bus is attacked, and we are left with Sky hunched over. The Hostess opens the door to the cabin and finds nothing. There is a forcefield but it will only last 6 seconds.

The knocking has stopped, but Sky is behaving strangely. At first she simply repeats everything the others say. But after a few minutes, she is only repeating the Doctor. He surmises that this is a lifeform having its first encounter with humans, and is trying to learn about them.

Then Sky says whatever the Doctor says at the same time as he does, which he cannot understand. While he is talking to the passengers, Rose appears on a screen behind him, silently calling out.

It gets much freakier when Sky starts saying what the Doctor says- before he says it. The passengers, stirred up by Sky, assume that he is behind whatever is happening, and Hobbes and Biff prepare to throw him out. But the Hostess realises that whatever is in Sky has stolen the Doctor's voice. She opens the cabin door, so she and Sky are sucked to their deaths.

Very odd- unprecedented for the Doctor to face an enemy about which almost nothing is revealed.

When Resigning Is The Politically Correct Thing To Do

You really have to feel sorry for Wendy Alexander, the Labour MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) for Paisley North.

Oh, hang on a second, no you don't. She brought it all on herself.

It all goes back to when there were the first elections to the Parliament in May 1999. Alexander was given the brand-new post of Minister for Communities. Now, you might think, when the word "community" is mentioned, that we are talking about things like villages and towns. But, for Labour, people can be put into "communities" based on things like religion, ethnicity etc. and communities will have people who are recognised by Labour as that community's spokespersons. Such spokespersons are not elected by the community concerned- they tend to be recognised by Labour based on who shouts the loudest and needs to be appeased most.

Alexander was often dubbed "Trendy Wendy" and had a reputation of not allowing anyone to be more politically correct than her. She could even outdo Harriet Harman on this (yes, there is somebody more achingly politically correct than Harman!).

In May 2007, Labour lost Scotland. This led to Jack McConnell, who had been First Minister, since November 2001, to resign as the leader of Labour MSPs. And in September 2007, Alexander won the election to be leader.

Now, if I say "winning the election", you would think of there being candidates and a vote etc. This is, however, Labour we're talking about. Democracy? The mere thought of that brings Labour politicians out in a horrible rash.

Like McConnell when he became leader of Labour's MSPs, and like Gordon Brown when he became Labour leader, Alexander won in a "single-candidate, no-alternative" election of the type that Labour likes.

What has damaged her is that her leadership election campaign received an illegal donation from a Jersey-based businessman. Now, why there needs to be a campaign when there are no rivals is beyond me. But, this is Labour- they do things differently.

With the pressure mounting, it seems that the most politically correct thing for a politician to do in that situation is to resign as leader.

So, Labour start the hunt for another leader of its MSPs. No doubt there'll be just one candidate...

The Not-So-Boring By-Election

OK, by-elections are supposed to be interesting. There was that interval in the 1990s when any one caused by death or resignation of a Conservative MP would cause great excitement in the media, with the only question being whether Labour or the Liberal Democrats (or, in the case of Perth & Kinross in May 1995, the Scottish National Party) would win. A by-election in a Labour seat would be much lower profile, as in the political climate of the time, the only question would be about how much the Labour vote would increase by.

Yesterday was the Henley by-election. It nearly passed me by. But it shows how times have changed- a by-election in a Conservative seat is now relatively boring. Conservative hold is great news, but boring news at the same time.

The interesting part was the relative success of the fringe parties- in particular, Labour, the British National Party and the UK Independence Party. The rag-tag-and-bobtail ones who are wasting their time.

For the three major parties, the Conservatives came first (with John Howell being the new MP), the Liberal Democrats second, and the Greens third. There was a slight swing (0.8%) from the Liberal Democrats to the Conservatives. This sort of Liberal Democrat to Conservative swing would see us pick up a handful of Liberal Democrat seats (Cheltenham; Eastleigh; Somerton & Frome; Southampton North & Romsey; York Outer).

But it is the total collapse of Labour to fifth place- behind the BNP- which is quite important. Indeed, UKIP were only a handful of votes away from pushing Labour into sixth place.

Is this unprecedented? There are examples in the past 25 years of a then-major party (by which I mean the Conservative, Labour and the Liberal Democrats or Liberal/Social Democratic Alliance) falling to fourth place or lower in England, or fifth place or lower in Wales or Scotland (using this definition to take into account Plaid Cymru and the SNP). I am ignoring cases of the "continuing" Liberals or Social Democrats doing badly after the formation of the Liberal Democrats in March 1988.

• February 1983. Bermondsey. The Liberals' Simon Hughes (now Liberal Democrat MP for Southwark North & Bermondsey and their spokesman on parliamentary affairs) won this from Labour. The Conservatives were forced into fourth place. However, in August 1982, the sitting Labour MP, Bob Mellish, resigned from the Labour party, sitting as an Independent, before resigning from the House of Commons in November 1982. Some of Mellish's supporters were unhappy about Peter Tatchell being the Labour candidate, and so put forward their own candidate, who came fifth.
• February 1989. Richmond. This was held for the Conservatives by William Hague, now the Shadow Foreign Secretary. Labour was in fourth place. In second place were the "continuing" Social Democrats, and in third place the Liberal Democrats. Between them the Social Democrats and Liberal Democrats actually got over half the vote.
• June 1989. Glasgow Central. Held for Labour by Mike Watson (despite what one would automatically assume, the Prodigy's hit, Firestarter, is not about Watson). The Liberal Democrats were pushed into fifth place with the Greens coming fourth. With hindsight, the Greens would have done even better if they had emphasised the large carbon footprint caused by setting fire to hotel curtains.
• July 1991. Liverpool Walton. Held for Labour by Peter Kilfoyle, with the Conservatives in fourth place. Liverpool City Council was famous for its Labour administration being infiltrated by Militant Tendency, and so there was an "Independent Labour" candidate third.
• September 1999. Hamilton South. If you ever meet a Liberal Democrat and there is a lull in the conversation, please do not offend them by mentioning this by-election. Although Labour's Bill Tynan narrowly held this seat, the Liberal Democrats came sixth, with an Independent campaigning about Hamilton Academicals Football Club's ground one place above them.
• December 2000. Falkirk West. Another central Scottish one that the Liberal Democrats prefer not to talk about. Held for Labour by Eric Joyce, but the Scottish Socialist Party push the Liberal Democrats into fifth place.
• September 2004. Hartlepool. Held by Iain Wright for Labour, but UKIP push the Conservatives into fourth place.
• June 2006. Bromley & Chislehurst. Bob Neill holds this one for the Conservatives, but UKIP push Labour into fourth place.
• June 2006. Blaenau Gwent. The Conservatives come fifth. However, this is a rare Independent gain from Independent, with Dai Davies winning the by-election caused by Peter Law's death.

The thing to note is that quite a few of these are poor results caused by one party having an internecine argument and being the source of more than one candidate. Now, of course, no party puts forward more than one candidate, but what I mean is that there is some division, and someone who was from that party runs as an Independent (or under another label).

Others are simply an area where a party does badly anyway.

But fifth place. Labour can now be described as a "dead party walking." Any newspaper article about their finances makes it clear they are a matter of weeks away from bankruptcy.

However Labour try to spin it, it is obvious that the Labour party is finished.

First Anniversary

May I congratulate Gordon Brown on defying all political expectations and serving longer as Prime Minister than Alec Douglas-Home did.

No Place For Me In "Evangelicals Now"'s Evangelicalism

For the past few years, I have subscribed to Evangelicals Now, which is probably Britain's leading evangelical monthly publication. Today I cancelled my subscription.

The cause for this was a nasty article by someone called Nancy Lambrechts about evangelicals with depression.

Now, I lay my cards on the table here. In March 1995, I was diagnosed with depression (by an evangelical doctor, incidentally). For the past 13 years, it has been part of my life- sometimes in the background, sometimes more centre-stage.

Note that depression is not "feeling blue", it's not being "down in the dumps"- and the most annoying "helpful advice" is of the form that all you need to do is think happy thoughts and depression will flee away. A few moments meditation about the Sun shining in the sky, the water babbling in the brooks and the little bunny rabbits hopping through the fields will cure it all. Yeah, right.

This will shock some. But, depression is something that I can thank God for, as I have found it a blessing.

Yes, I think I have been richly blessed by having depression.

I'll give you a few minutes to get over the shock of someone saying that...

--------------------------

OK, got over your shock?

There is the old story of Faith, Facts and Feelings. When Faith focussed on Feelings, he fell off the wall. When Faith focussed on Facts, he was able to continue. I find that in modern evangelicalism, we are often called to focus on our Feelings- a wise retired pastor I know used to comment about this that people have had their nice Sunday experience, but what difference will it make to their lives on Monday? I have a scepticism about worship designed to give spiritual highs.

Of course, joy and peace are parts of worship- but they come from focussing on God, on Facts. Not stirred up by a moving melody. When I attend worship I expect and want the Feelings to follow on from the Facts.

The heart is deceitful above all things. (Jer. 17:9)

When you have depression you quickly learn that the focus on Feelings is wrong. In times of depression, your feelings and emotions are all over the place, and you find out that these are simply sandy places to build your faith on. Instead of building a house on the sands of feelings, better to build on the solid rocks of facts.

In times of depression, a faith which has Feelings as some of its foundations (or even as some of the mortar) is gently removed by God and something firmer and more solid is built by Him in its place.

What God says about Himself, about us, and about the Cross is all true- whether you feel it's true doesn't alter whether it's true or not.

Simon Peter answered [Jesus], "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that You are the Holy One of God." (Jn 6:68f.)

Who indeed- other than the Lord Jesus Christ- do we go to? Who else can we rely on?

In depression, all your crutches, all your own resources, are stripped away. You can only turn to God, and rely on Him alone. In the blackest moments of it, you know the truth of Jesus' "farewell":

I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Mt. 28:20).

There is the truth, that however bad it gets, God is there.

------------------------------------

Onto Lambrechts' article. The first thing to note- but I'll deal with that later on- are the sweeping generalisations about evangelicals with depression, which rely simply on caricatures and stereotypes.

Lambrechts is keen to assure us that ideas that depression could be caused by chemical imbalances are "not based on solid evidence" and "not entirely true". It seems very odd then, if people are successfully treated using conventional medicines.

Lambrechts is scathing of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, criticising Christian therapists whose "professional training would have been based on a secular model of counselling that does not consider the teaching of the Bible."

Hmm. Now, I want to suggest something. And that is that evangelicals who work as counsellors might know what they're talking about. They might know the Bible inside out, they might know how what's insides people's heads works- and they might know Christians who suffer from depression. They might even know more about it all than she does!

The example she gives of the problems with CBT is of a young man being told by his therapist that having sex with his girlfriend is OK. And this happened when? Where? Ah, it's what she imagines would happen. Surely, someone doing research into this would have actually sat in on CBT sessions.

Because many evangelical leaders interpret sadness or anxiety induced by the trials and suffering of life as "illness", it follows that they deal with these problems by advising medical treatment...

and later on

We should expect trials and suffering as the normal Christian experience and not be surprised when they come.

Now, what is the underlying assumption that Lambrechts has made there? Basically, that depression is all about not being able to cope when bad things which happen to people happen to us.

There is a huge flaw in that, and I'm sure that anyone who has experienced depression will spot it at once.

Because, depression is often not circumstance-dependant! It's not a case of "something bad happens, so someone gets depressed". As I have found, things can be going well, yet depression is bad. And things can go badly, and no depression. There seems to be no correlation in whether things are going well or not, and the depth or otherwise of depression.

It excuses sinful behaviour, as the person is sick and unable to help the way they think, feel or act...

Caricature alert! Has Lambrechts got solid proof that this what evangelicals with depression do? Or is it simply the sterotypical view of us that pervades her whole article?

We can place our trust and hope in [Jesus], and not in medical treatment, to deal with the sadness, grief and suffering of this world.

Again, the complete misunderstanding of depression.

What is really offensive is the idea that people with depression put their hope in medicine and do not trust Jesus, and do not have hope in Him. The idea that we do not have trust and hope in Jesus carries one implication, and can be taken only one way- namely that as far as Evangelicals Now is concerned, Christians with depression are not real Christians.

In her attempt to define depression as not being an illness, she latches onto the fact that it is not diagnosed by things like X-rays or urine tests. Hmm, nor some other conditions. How about a follow-up article on how headaches are not an illness (using the same rules she uses to decide that depression isn't an illness) and how people who take aspirin for headaches are not putting their trust and hope in Jesus? There seems to be some circular arguing- to show that depression is not an illness, draw up an unusual way of defining what is and is not an illness, and use that.

When I turn to what God says, I find:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good.. (Rom. 8:28).

Depression? Yep, that's included in there- something God may send for our good. And personally, I am grateful He did, as I have been blessed so much through it.

I remember when one could read Evangelicals Now and get articles designed to build up and edify the church. Now, it simply seems to be a rag for people to use stereotypes and caricatures to take potshots at evangelicals who do not fit into the "I'm so happy, I'm so clappy" mould. Its focus is more on knocking down rather than building up.

The First Great Western Ticket Trick

While on holiday, I was travelling with a Basingstoke to Perth return ticket. Indeed it was a Saver Return.

One of the benefits of this is that you can break the journey anywhere on the return part. Seeing how fiddly the journey was, I think next time I will spend a day or two in either the Lake District or Staffordshire on the way back. The journey up was fine to do in a day. The one back involved going to Glasgow Queen Street, walking to Glasgow Central (about 15 minutes), a train to Crewe, one from there to Birmingham New Street (which as this was held outside Birmingham for several minutes, I missed my connection, so had to take a train from there where I could change at either Oxford or Reading- and I didn't want to do Reading as it's a fiddly station with loads of platforms and footbridges and stairs, which aren't what you want when doing a pack mule impression)....

Like I emphasised, you can break your journey. There is one station which has decided to be exempt from this rule. And that is Oxford- where I waited for a connection.

To get to the food places, you have to go through the barriers, and then back through them when you want to return to the platforms. And there was the song-and-dance routine from one of the ticket barrier staff about me breaking the journey. To get back, I ended up having to buy a single ticket. Reading was the first destination that came to mind. £10.20 to buy a ticket I didn't actually need- solely for the purpose of getting back to the platforms to catch my train.

While I believe capitalism has its benefits, there are limits. And those limits are defined by ethics. And by the law.

I imagine that this policy- which goes against the rules governing the railways- has been decided high up in First Great Western. A way of getting people to buy tickets they don't need as a way of boosting FGW's profits.

I call it theft.

Lost Luggage

In the 1980s and 1990s we were used to being aware of the risk of terrorism, and one thing you always kept an eye out for was luggage that had just been abandoned at railway stations. I had an annoying delay once when setting out from Salisbury as someone had done this and the station had been evacuated. But, whenever I see anything abandoned, I find a member of staff.

You would think with the latest emphasis on terrorism, that people would be keeping their eyes opened, and would actually be bothered.

While on holiday, there was abandoned luggage at Dundee station. You would think that the police there- on the actual platform- would do something. They were completely uninterested. Although it seems curious that with the Section 44 "stop and grope" powers, police always seem more enthusiastic about targetting young men for a quick feel than dealing with abandoned luggage. I suppose no policeman gets a cheap thrill from dealing with luggage that someone has dumped.

A Major News Story- Hidden Away In An Aside

One thing while on holiday was the lack of catching up on news. Sure, I was buying The Scotsman every day (except Sunday) and Scotland on Sunday, but there wasn't the going online, or even looking at Ceefax on TV.

So, I was surprised when I saw on yesterday evening's news on Channel Four that, after 56 years as monarch, the Queen has been deposed and a Republic of Britain had come into force.

Rather than a headline, it was hinted at in a minor news story, as Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, was referred to by a sycophantic socialist reporter as our "Head of State."

Since when has a Prime Minister been the "Head of State." OK, too often Labour groupies referred to Tony Blair as the "Head of State", and his wife, Cherie, even did one of her American speaking tours billed as the former "First Lady" (the Queen is the First Lady).

I had hoped that the way that Labour leaders (and their wives) use titles, ranks and styles that belong solely to the Queen had been a peculiar affectation of the Blairs, but now it seems that Brown is doing this as well.

How long before a Channel Four news item starts with "President Brown..." or "King Gordon and Queen Sarah.."?

Perth

I am going away tomorrow to Perth for a long weekend. A couple I know are going out to Uganda to work (he's from Tanzania, she's from Perth) soon, and their farewell is in Perth this Sunday.

Perth over the summer solstice. The Sun will still be up at 10 in the evening. Civil darkness isn't until 1/4 past 11.

On Friday I plan to visit my old haunt of St Andrews.

For Saturday, I had thought of going up to Inverness and have a look at Culloden (where I haven't been before) and Loch Ness (which I have visited once). But what I then thought about is that if I'm to go to Inverness, do it properly. Just take the train up there (it's only about 12 or 13 hours) and go from there to places like Thurso (and on to the Orkneys) or even as far as the Outer Hebrides (of course, these aren't the journeys one can do in a day). I think I could easily plan a week's holiday there.

Instead, I am thinking of going over to Loch Lomond on Saturday. Today I was busy buying several rolls of film. It's time I did a proper update to my flickr site.

Thirty Nine Articles Or Fewer

In any copy of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, tucked away somewhere, there will be the Thirty Nine Articles. These are the nearest you get to a Doctrinal Basis for the Church of England. In the Declaration of Assent that all clergy in the Church of England have to assent to, support for the Articles is important.

It is always strange when liberal clergy take the Declaration of Assent, as the Thirty Nine Articles are a reformed evangelical statement of faith. So, whenever a liberal clergyman or clergywoman is ordained, he or she will make a Declaration of Assent to a doctrinal basis he or she doesn't agree with. So, they begin their ordained ministry with a lie- that they assent to a reformed evangelical statement of faith.

Whenever I hear evangelicals outside of the Church of England suggest that real evangelicals should leave it, I feel like suggesting that it is only the evangelical clergy who can make the Declaration of Assent and fully agree with what it says. It is the evangelicals- and only the evangelicals- who are the true Anglicans as we are the ones who hold fast to the Church of England's doctrinal basis.

A few weeks ago in London- and I intend to write on this further, so will restrict myself to a few points here- there was a service conducted by one clergyman for two others. Most of the text was from the BCP's Solemnization of Matrimony- and it was really a parody of the marriage service. The two people getting "married" were both ordained clergymen.

One of the most bizarre arguments in favour is that evangelicals should look to the Thirty Nine Articles and there we will see same-sex marriages. The 32nd Article- Of the Marriage of Priests- states:

Bishops, Priests and Deacons, are not commaned by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful to them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

The context is, of course, the Reformation, and the fact that the Roman Catholic Church insists on priestly celibacy. The point of that Article is to say that clergy can marry.

But this has suddenly been lifted out of context by those who say that priests can "marry at their own discretion" and so, a clergyman who marries another man is following this Article to the letter.

Oh dear. Do these sort of liberals need M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E spelled out to them? One man, one woman.

The Nannygate State And What It Tells Us About Labour

The Labour party think they have scented blood, and the target in their line of sight is Caroline Spelman, the Conservative Party Chairman.

It is best filed under "Teacup, Storm in." According to Labour, in 1997, Spelman paid her children's nanny, Tina Haynes, out of parliamentary expenses. As one Labour MP is droning on, many "hard working families" would love to have a nanny paid out of the public purse.

Hard working families. Oh yes, the people who have seen their income tax bill double with the abolition of the 10% band, and have seen the price of petrol shoot up way above the rate of inflation. Amazing how Labour isn't remotely interested in hard working families- who have to work a lot harder to keep their current standards of living- except to patronisingly say that "hard working families" would want X or Y.

Now, we are talking about 1997. It took Labour 11 years to decide to get worked up about this.

At the May 1997 general election Spelman became Conservative MP for Meriden. From the May 1979 general election, until his sudden death in February 1997, its MP was Iain Mills, and if he had lived, he- rather than Spelman- would have been the Conservative party candidate for the seat. So, Spelman was chosen as the candidate at fairly short notice, and by the time she became MP, the seat had been vacant for 3 months.

She did not have a constituency office until later- it was all at short notice- and there would have been the constituency casework lying unworked for 3 months.

So, Haynes worked one of Spelman's secretaries, and was, quite rightly, paid out of parliamentary expenses for that. And some of the time she was the nanny, and therefore, not paid out of parliamentary funds for that part.

And this was 11 years ago.

Last week saw the Government get its latest restriction on our freedoms through the House of Commons. Now, the odd thing is that being "tough on terrorism" involves giving more and more powers to the police to be used against the innocent and the guilty equally. Yet Abu Qatada is out of prison. I would have assumed that being "tough on terrorism" would involve making sure that he was banged up. Odd that you can be stopped and searched at a railway station for no reason, other than the police want to have some fun, yet the man described as Osama bin Laden's right-hand man cannot be kept in prison. Straining at gnats and spitting out camels.

If the Government was really that concerned about terrorism, so concerned that it has to restrict freedoms, then it wouldn't do stupid things like let civil servants carry secret documents relating to national security on public trains, and then leave said secret documents on the train for anyone to read. Wouldn't it?

Well, this has happened.

What has surprised me is that the Government hasn't responded to this by banning the public from trains to avoid any of the hoi polloi from reading top secret documents that civil servants have left lying about on the train.

So, having severely compromised national security- maybe the time the Government spends on planning to lock people up without charge, or on introducing ID cards, could instead be spent on putting its own house in order, rather than being so cavalier with the public's safety- the Government should be left with a lot of egg on its face.

Instead, they try to revive "Tory sleaze" to deflect attention and the best they can come up with is a new MP, 11 years ago, paying one of her secretaries from parliamentary funds.

Gamaliel's "Sitting On The Spiritual Fence" Principle

I was flicking through Church of England Newspaper, and there was a little bit about whether or not there was a bit of a revivial going on through one man's ministry in Florida, and a helpful comment by someone from the Evangelical Alliance that, basically, they were a bit concerned about some of it- but feel that the "Gamaliel Principle" would apply.

The "Gamaliel Principle" sounds so pious, very spiritual, but, I have concerns about it.

There is an incident in Acts 5, where the Apostles are brought before the Sanhedrin, for disobeying an instruction not to preach Jesus. And one of the Sanhedrin, Gamiliel, suggests that they should wait-and-see.

While the "Gamaliel Principle" is a current spiritual fad, it is interesting to note that the original application of it led to the Apostles being beaten and told not to proclaim Jesus.

Also, if the "Gamaliel Principle" is such a ready tool to examine a ministry, it is very odd that none of the New Testament writers use it. Paul had to deal a lot with "super-apostles" and false teachers, yet at no point did he say something like:

Dear brothers, I am concerned at the heretical teaching of these super-apostles. However, I believe we should let the "Gamaliel Principle" apply here. I'll come back in ten years, and if they have loads of followers, then I'll know that their ministry was fruitful and God was blessing their ministry despite the false teaching behind it.

The "Gamaliel Principle" is a way of sitting on the fence, and being spiritual about indecision.

If there is something dodgy in someone's teaching, if heresy is being taught, then it is spiritually irresponsible for Christian leaders to sit by and say "ooh, give it time. See if there's any fruit." False teaching damages people. Plant a few weeds in a flowerbed- they'll be very successful. If there's a weed in the church, tear it up, before it chokes the flowers. Don't say that you'll leave it, just in case it bears fruit.

I have no doubt that the Antichrist will lead many astray, and in worldly terms would be very successful. What will they do when he comes on the scene- say that they're concerned about what he is teaching about God, but let the Gamaliel principle apply. Remember that the false prophet will be doing loads of miracles.

If the numbers game, or the spectacularness of miracles, is the way you determine fruit, and you apply the "Gamaliel principle" to the Antichrist's ministry- well, that is spiritual catastrophe. Not just for yourself.

A few months back, I watched a good documentary about the work of Jim Jones- the man who led his followers to commit mass suicide by drinking Kool Aid. The thing that struck me is that for much of his ministry years, if you applied the "Gamaliel principle" you would look at the close-knit community he built, you would look at the good works, you would look at the (faked) healings; and you would go "OK, some of his teachings are odd. But look at the fruit- definitely God at work."

Or, alternatively, you could look at the pre-Reformation evangelicals, such as Jan Hus and John Wyclif, and apply a sort-of "reverse Gamaliel principle", i.e. not much success at the time, so God wasn't with them. It is only centuries later that the seeds they planted grew.

Harriet's Hand

There are two sci-fi devices I'm not normally a big fan of. The first is where alternative realities get involved. And the second is the "reset" episode.

Normally, in drama, someone does X, and then Y is the result. In an "alternative" episode, the message is that X doesn't matter, because all that happens is an alternative reality.

A "reset" episode is a poor dramatic device. You know where there is a situation and you wonder how they're going to get out of that, and then Bobby Ewing is in the shower.

Doctor Who has tried both in the past few years. Now, the parallel universe stories have avoided the "it all happens in an alternative reality so it doesn't matter" trap. The events of Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel impacted on our universe in Army of Ghosts/Doomsday.

A "reset" episode is something like Last of the Time Lords, with the sudden "hey, let's reverse time so none of this happened" cop-out. I would have loved to have seen the impact of the Toclafane invasion if they had been defeated in January 2010 (when that episode is set) and then the world has to get on with restructuring after an incident when 10% of humans were killed in a single day, Japan was totally destroyed in a day, humanity was enslaved, much of the environment was destroyed, there was no government etc. Yes, that would have been a huge challenge for the writers to examine what humans would be like- would what was left of UNIT have to introduce international martial law? Would humans be more wary of extraterrestrials? Become more militaristic? Collapse into civil war over scare resources?

Tonight sees the episode Midnight, and then it's into the three-part season finale- Turn Left/The Stolen Earth/Journey's End.

When you do some surfing, you come across interesting ideas about what is ahead. Now, some are simply ridiculous, of the "I herd that their would be a woman playing the doctor" variety. But there are fans out there who have carefully looked at all the clues across the past four seasons...

----

At the end of Last of the Time Lords we saw a woman's hand pick up the Master's ring. This might be Harriet Jones's hand.

The background to this is the idea that Harriet is annoyed that the Doctor brought her down as Prime Minister in The Christmas Invasion after she ordered the destruction of the Sycorax craft, but he took no action against Harold Saxon (aka the Master) when he had the Racnoss ship shot down in The Runaway Bride. So, she stows away on the Valiant and picks up enough to know what is going on with the Master, and takes his ring at the end.

Interesting. Firstly, the Doctor did not know the reasons behind the Racnoss destruction- in The Sound of Drums, Jack congratulates the Doctor on defeating them. Maybe the Doctor didn't even know that the Racnoss ship was even destroyed.

So, if Harriet does believe that the Doctor is having double standards, then she is simply misguided. But, this could be what she thinks- she might believe that the Doctor did know that Saxon had the Racnoss destroyed.

Work on the Valiant didn't start until Saxon became Minister for Defence (they probably meant to say Defence Secretary), and that wasn't until after Harriet was brought down as Prime Minister. It is hard to see how she got onboard, as no-one would invite her, and if security was that tight, she wouldn't have been able to stow away. Plus hiding on board for a year, undetected.

Or was she undetected? We don't know what happens that year, and whether she and the Master actually met onboard. Whether he saw her as a useful ally. Whether she got a daily chance to visit the Doctor and gloat and what he was reduced to....

If the Master's "funeral" was on Earth, then she would have been able to get to it, maybe. But I had assumed it was Malcassairo.

----------

Harriet starts hearing the sound of drums, and works out it's Daleks in the Medusa Cascade communicating.

Very interesting idea. The Doctor did seal the Medusa Cascade single-handedly. And the idea that he trapped Davros and the Daleks in there is probable.

My problem is that if the sound of drums that the Master has heard from when he was young is the Daleks in the Medusa Cascade, then that seems to go back too early.

While there is a Time War, and history was getting changed, I had assumed that the personal histories of individual Time Lords were unaffected, e.g. the problems the Malus caused at Little Hodcombe could have been wiped out in the Time War, but it would be possible for the Doctor, Tegan and Turlough to meet up and have a drink and reminisce about the events of The Awakening. But if they went back to Little Hodcombe, none of the residents would remember it, as it would not have happened.

So, I would assume that even as late as Survival, the Doctor and the Master were unaffected by the events of the Time War, as for them, it had not yet happened.

Also, if it's the ring that causes the drumbeats, then it is hard to see how the Master was hearing them in Utopia, as he had been found on the coast of the Silver Devastation, naked and with only the fob watch.

--------------

Midnight is near the Medusa Cascade.

Well, the Doctor is supposed to be terrified by the knocking on the wall in Midnight. The Daleks?

--------------

Rose's physiology was changed by being the Bad Wolf.

Although I didn't notice it, some have picked up a Bad Wolf reference in Forest of the Dead. And the Bad Wolf has an influence- in the parallel universe as well. Where was the final gap between our universe and the parallel one? Bad Wolf Bay.

The idea is that Rose was changed by being the Bad Wolf, and this still has implications. In Partners In Crime it seems that she can cross from one universe to another with ease.

[One has to be careful typing "Bad Wolf." Do it quickly, and you get "Bad Wilf". With tongue firmly in cheek, maybe they planned to introduce Donna's grandfather early on in the twenty-seventh season and someone high up in the BBC went "Bad Wilf? Hmm. A typo. Change it all to Bad Wolf." Closing scene of Journey's End- Bernard Cribbins steps out of the TARDIS, declares "I am the Bad Wilf" and wipes out the Daleks.]

------------------

Donna was bitten by a spider from Metebelis 3 in The Runaway Bride.

Believable. She was separated from the Doctor for quite some time on board the Racnoss spaceship. The idea is that the spider lay there, waiting for instructions- and if the Racnoss returns in Turn Left, Donna will be under the spider's control.

----------

The Doctor is only able to injure Donna's spider, causing her injury as well. The only way to kill it would involve Donna's death. Donna sacrifices her life to defeat the Daleks once for all.

I have only read the novelisation of The Planet of the Spiders, but I am sure that people had their spiders removed and lived. Sarah Jane Smith did, didn't she?

However, a "noble" (pun intended) end for Donna.

-----------------------

Donna has read in River Song's diary that she was killed by the Racnoss.

Well, in Forest of the Dead, she was alone with River's diary for long enough.

There is a poignancy in this- in The Fires of Pompeii, the Doctor refused to save Pompeii, as some things are fixed, and as a Time Lord he knows what is and isn't fixed. And Donna accepts the necessity that some must die for humanity to be saved. And if he knows that her death due to the Racnoss is a "fixed point"?..

And if Donna accepts that her death might be necessary to save all of creation?...

-------------------

Donna's sacrifice resets everything to how it was when she was supposed to have been killed/The Doctor is forced to choose between two companions.

OK, why are these two together?

If Donna was supposed to be killed in The Runaway Bride, and was only saved due to the Doctor, then "reset" returns the universes to Christmas Eve 2007.

Gwen Cooper is a policewoman patrolling Cardiff, unaware of aliens in the sewers. In the Torchwood Hub, Toshiko Sato, Owen Harper and Suzie Costello are all alive and kicking.

Martha is getting on with her medicine studies, unaware that the day will come when she will be in a hospital to be transported to the moon. While the Doctor can look back at the events of Smith & Jones, for Martha this never happens, and she dies at work, unaware of what is going on. never having met the Doctor.

Unless, the Doctor contacts the Judoon and tells them who the Plasmavore is, in which case Martha's life is spared- but again, she never meets the Doctor.

---------

The Doctor saves Donna before her wedding to Lance.

In The Fires of Pompeii, Donna pleaded with the Doctor to save just one person.

It is suggested that the Doctor intereferes with Donna's timeline, and has her retconned by Jack, so that she never remembers meeting the Doctor.

However, he has to find a way to get rid of all the Huon particles in her. Otherwise, she can be used by the Racnoss.

Since When Has Being Gutless The Moral High Ground?

While it is understandable that the Liberal Democrats are not contesting the Haltemprice & Howden by-election, choosing to put principles above party (and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, has shot up in my estimation of him), Labour's posturing is, at first sight, less understandable.

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, like to harp on about how their stance on locking people up without charge is supported by the majority. You would expect that the chance to argue this case before the people would be one they would jump at. And, indeed, if the people of Haltemprice & Howden agree with Labour, this would be an ideal chance for Labour to:

1. show that the people support Labour's stance
2. see a Labour MP elected for Haltemprice & Howden
3. end the career of a major Conservative politician

And, if the people do support Labour on this, then what has Labour got to lose by putting a candidate up in this by-election?

Instead, they are clear that they will not run a candidate there. Interesting- if Labour were confident of their argument then they would contest this by-election. But, then again, if they were confident of their argument then they would not have offered baubles to get MPs to vote for 42-days detention.

What is entertaining is that they try to portray a refusal to give the people a say as a sign of taking the moral high ground.

Yesterday, the Irish Republic had its referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. It would be nice if we were asked- but Labour has a pathological dislike of asking the people to make decisions. That manifesto committment was solely there to get Labour elected- it meant nothing more than that.

It is not only a natural aversion to giving people a say in major decisions that has sparked Labour's inability to contest this by-election. There are other, pragmatic, reasons.

Last month, Labour lost the Crewe & Nantwich by-election. On 26 June there is the Henley by-election- and the interesting question there is whether Labour will do badly enough to lose their deposit, which would be a complete humiliation. Three humiliating by-elections in a row would be a catastrophe for Labour.

But, as well as the political pragmatism, there is the economic reality. Labour is £21 million in the red. A by-election would cost money at a time they can least afford it. It is interesting to see whether Labour can make it to the general election without going bankrupt.

Point of Departure

I need to begin with an apology to Diane Abbott, the Labour MP for Hackney North & Stoke Newington.

This morning, I had in my mind a post praising her as the political hero of the hour, after her impressive speech to the House of Commons on the 42-day detention without charge issue. Unlike too many MPs, who when given the choice between trinkets and defending our freedoms, chose the trinkets (I wonder how many Labour MPs will be getting knighthoods?), it is very clear that Abbott is not selling her conscience to the highest bidder.

And there were too many baubles and goody-bags available from Downing Street for any Labour MP (and some others) willing to sacrifice their principles- and the foundations of our freedoms.

If Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, had been so sure of the arguments for 42-day detention, then such desperate measures would not be needed. Yes, taxpayers' money thrown at compensation for miners with osteoarthritis might count as worthy, but the timing is impeccable. Was that one or two Labour MPs Brown bought with that?

Cuba- well, the next time the European Council discusses that, Brown will be pressing for the European Union to lift sanctions. And when whoever is chairing the meeting asks him why, Brown will be reduced to saying "Er, well, I did promise some of my MPs that if they voted to lock people up without charge..."

And Lot number 3. The Democratic Unionist Party MPs. Going once, going twice, sold to the dour gentleman in Downing Street for £225 million. What? He doesn't have the money on him? That's OK- it's in our wallets.

Remember the days when Brown talked about "prudence"? Now the motto is "Roll out the pork barrel!"

So, fair credit to Abbott and the other Labour "rebels" for digging in their heels and refusing to bow to pressure from Brown.

But, since lunchtime the political hero of the hour has been David Davis. He was Conservative MP for Haltemprice & Howden from the May 1997 general election until lunchtime. And he was Shadow Home Secretary from November 2003 until lunchtime.

When he and David Cameron stood for Conservative party leader in December 2005, I voted Davis.

This lunchtime, Davis resigned from the Shadow Cabinet and from the House of Commons. His rationale is that he is concerned about the gradual erosion of our civil liberties under Labour- not just the detention without charge, but ID cards, Government snooping, and restrictions on jury trials as well. He sees our fundamental freedoms under threat, and so he is forcing a by-election in Haltemprice & Howden so that his former constituents can have their say.

As he says, he wants them to be given:

the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of the day- the ever intrusive power of the State into our lives, the loss of privacy, the loss of freedom and the steady attrition undermining the rule of law.

As Cameron notes- this is a courageous strategy. I cannot remember the last time that an MP did anything like this.

Since its creation, Haltemprice & Howden has been a close Conservative/Liberal Democrat marginal. Well, the Liberal Democrats don't stand a chance of winning this by-election. Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, has emphasised that the things that Davis is fighting this by-election on transcend party politics. Although at the next general election, the Liberal Democrats will do their best to defeat Davis, in this by-election, Davis is running with Liberal Democrat support.

Of course, Labour doesn't like it. There has been the tedious wittering from Smith, who asks to know the "real" reason why Davis has quit. Er, the "real reason" are those he outlined- that he is concerned at what is happening to this country.

Hazel Blears, the Communities & Local Government Secretary, waffles about the Conservatives fighting like ferrets in a sack. Er, hello? That's the Labour party. Maybe they're so used to people jockeying for a leader to fall, and doing their best vulture impressions when that happens, that they expect every other party to be like them.

But what staggers me about Blears is that she says that the by-election is an "insult" to the voters in Haltemprice & Howden- I'll come back to that in a bit.

But what is interesting about Smith and Blears' reaction is their inability to understand that some MPs are willing to take risks for their principles. It is clear just how cynical the Government has got. As we saw, the Government's strategy was based on the idea that MPs can be bought- some at bargain basement prices.

David Hill, a former Labour spin doctor, suggests that Davis sounded "slightly unhinged." Now that crosses the line. Since when has a belief in freedom, in democracy been a sign that someone is "slightly unhinged."? Back In The USSR it was.

If you have a spine, then the shivers about to run up it come from the comments by David Blunkett, Labour MP for Sheffield Brightside, and a former Home Secretary, who describes Davis' actions as "childish" and "immature."

Interesting- so asking people to vote on whether they want to live in a surveillance state, whether they want to give up freedoms is a "childish" concept. Nanny knows best. Add it to the Blears approach that to ask people their views on these matters is an "insult" to them.

How many Marx out of ten do Blunkett and Blears get for that?

State of the Union

Politically, I am instinctively a unionist. While I believe that it's up to the people of Scotland to decide whether they want to be independent or not, and it's up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide whether or not to be part of the United Kingdom or of the Irish Republic, I also believe that the Union serves us all well, and both those areas are better off in than out.

I am a unionist- not an integrationist. The non-English parts of the United Kingdom have their own distinctive cultures and identities, and it would be awful for them to be treated as just part of a "greater England", with a one-size-fits-all political approach.

One interesting question is about mainland parties contesting elections in Northern Ireland. The Liberal Democrats don't- but John Alderdice, the former leader of the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, sits is the House of Lords as a Liberal Democrat, and there are close links between the two parties. Labour has traditionally been hostile, at one point not allowing Northern Ireland residents to be party members.

For the Conservatives, it has been more interesting. Traditionally, the Ulster Unionist MPs sat as part of the Conservative group in the House of Commons. Until the April 1992 general election, the Conservatives did not contest elections in Northern Ireland.

My viewpoint on this has changed over the years. When the UUP was dominant, my views were that we should return to this system. The past 10 years has seen the UUP's decline and the Democratic Unionist Party in the ascendant. Initially, I felt that we should look again at contesting Northern Ireland, but as the DUP moved into the mainstream and became more moderate, I was swinging round to the opinion that we should consider offering the Conservative whip to UUP and DUP MPs.

This evening, Labour won the vote on the 42-days detention without charge part of the Counter-Terrorism Bill. This was by a majority of 9 votes.

The DUP confirmed that all 9 of its MPs voted with Labour. And Sylvia Hermon, the UUP's sole MP, has added that she voted with them as well.

Now, I don't know what grubby little deal Labour made, what offer there was which bought off the Unionists, but thanks to them we have this situation. And I worry that people on the mainland will start saying that- without Northern Ireland- this would have been defeated.

Tonight, the Unionist MPs- all 10 of them- are the worst advertisment for Northern Ireland remaining in the United Kingdom. They have ceased to further the cause of unionism.

So, my view on the Conservatives and Northern Ireland is this- we emphasise that there are no "no-go" areas for the Conservatives. That doesn't just mean we campaign in Labour heartlands. That means that we contest places like Fermanagh & South Tyrone; Antrim North; Down South etc.

We run a candidate in all 18 Northern Ireland constituencies. We start building the party there- we emphasise what the Unionist MPs did tonight. We give the people of Northern Ireland the choice that all the main parties have denied them for so long- a say in who governs Britain.

Some might object, and say that we might split the Unionist vote in some constituencies and let Sinn Fein in.

Tough. It wasn't Sinn Fein who voted tonight to remove our historic rights and liberties.

Three Days To Midnight

With the trip to the library out of the way- the thirtieth season of Doctor Who is well on the way to its conclusion.

The running order left is:

• 14 June- Midnight
• 21 June- Turn Left
• 28 June- (title not yet disclosed)
• 5 July- Journey's End

Although Mail on Sunday stated that the last three form a single adventure.

What I found interesting was that Radio Times lists Rose Tyler as one of the characters in Midnight...

Things You Never Expect...

I never thought I would be in the House of Commons on the day Magna Carta was repealed.

This was Tony Benn's response to the House of Commons' vote on 42-day detention without charge. I read that he hopes it is overturned in the House of Lords.

I never thought I would see the day when Benn calls on the House of Lords to overturn a decision by the House of Commons.

Time For Labour To Take Out Third Party Insurance

The latest opinion poll in The Times gives:

• Conservatives- 45% (up 12.7% from the May 2005 general election)
• Labour- 25% (down 10.3%)
• Liberal Democrats- 20% (down 2.1%).

On a uniform swing:

• The Conservatives would gain 166 seats from Labour, 31 from the Liberal Democrats, 2 from the Scottish National Party and 1 from Kidderminster Hospital & Health Concern- a net gain of 200 seats.
• Labour would lose 166 seats to the Conservatives, 6 to the Liberal Democrats and 2 to Plaid Cymru- a net loss of 174 seats.
• The Liberal Democrats would gain 6 seats from Labour, but lose 31 to the Conservatives and 1 to Plaid Cymru- a net loss of 26 seats.
• The SNP would lose 2 seats to the Conservatives.
• Plaid Cymru would gain 2 seats from Labour and 1 from the Liberal Democrats- a net gain of 3 seats.
• KHHC would lose their sole seat to the Conservatives.

The overall result would be:

• Conservatives- 410 (including 2 Deputy Speakers)
• Labour- 174
• Liberal Democrats- 36
• Democratic Unionist Party- 9
• Plaid Cymru- 5
• Sinn Fein- 5 (do not take their seats)
• Scottish National Party- 4
• Social Democratic & Labour Party- 3
• Ulster Unionist Party- 1
• Respect- 1
• Independent- 1
• The Speaker- 1

Note that as Sylvia Heal, a Deputy Speaker who is Labour MP for Halesowen & Rowley Regis, would lose her seat, one Labour MP would become a Deputy Speaker in her stead.

There would be 408 Government MPs and 233 Opposition MPs eligible to vote- a Conservative majority of 175.

Several Cabinet members would lose their seats to the Conservatives:

• Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor/Justice Secretary) in Blackburn
• Alistair Darling (Chancellor of the Exchequer) in Edinburgh South West
• Jacqui Smith (Home Secretary) in Redditch
• Ruth Kelly (Transport Secretary) in Bolton West
• John Hutton (Business & Enterprise Secretary) in Barrow & Furness

and the icing on the cake of a Conservative victory:

• John Denham (Innovation & Universities Secretary) in Southampton Itchen.

Denham has Labour's safest seat in South East England. Indeed, in this region, the only two seats without Conservative MPs would be Lewes (Liberal Democrat hold) and Oxford East (Liberal Democrat gain from Labour). In South West England, the sole Labour MP left would be Dawn Primarolo, the Minister for Public Health, in Bristol South- the Liberal Democrats would be left with 4 seats there (Bristol West; St Ives; Thornbury & Yate; Yeovil).

Labour would also be completely wiped out in Eastern England- where the Liberal Democrats would be down to 3 seats (Cambridge; Colchester; Norfolk North).

If Labour's support carries on falling like this, then it won't be long before the Liberal Democrats overtake them...

The "Dotty Old Uncle John" Approach

This evening, the House of Commons votes on whether people suspected of terrorism should be detained without charge for 42 days.

However, it is important to note that the Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords, Alex Carlile, has said that "nobody is supporting locking people up without charge for six weeks."

Hmm. Could Carlile please explain to us mere mortals the difference between locking people up without charge for 42 days (which is what the Government wants) and locking people up without charge for six weeks (which he says nobody wants)?

The most atrocious intervention is from John Stevens, a Crossbench (i.e. Independent) member of the House of Lords, who was once a policeman.

Now, Stevens has responded to the comments made by John Major, the Conservative former Prime Minister, who knows a thing or two about combatting terrorism. Stevens takes the condescending and patronising approach towards Major, suggesting that Major is missing the point about the threat of al-Qa'eda.

When Major's Government, in the mid-1990s, decided to ban Osama Bin Laden from entering Britain due to him being a terrorist, was that him "missing the point" about al-Qa'eda? Or was it Major and his colleagues recognising a terrorist threat years before the rest of the West?

The whole tone of Stevens' attack on Major is that he makes Major sound like a dear old Uncle John, out-of-touch and boring everyone silly with a "when we faced terrorism" talk.

In comparing al-Qa'eda with the IRA, Stevens makes comments which are reprehensible:

The aim of al-Qa'eda is to inflict mass casualties, they don't mind how many people they murder and maim, they don't mind who the victims are.

Now, on its own that statement is true. But in a compare-and-contrast, they imply that the IRA did not aim to inflict mass casualties etc.

If Stevens wants to explain why we need 42-days then he should find a way which doesn't involve trivialising the deaths of over a thousand British citizens at the hands of the IRA.

An Important Week In Europe

This is quite an important week for the European Union.

First up is the joint EU/USA summit in Ljubljana, hosted by Slovenia's Prime Minister, Janez Jansa. It is unclear who will be hosting next year's- if the Lisbon Treaty is successfully ratified, then it will be the first President of the European Council; otherwise the Czech Republic's Prime Minister will be the host.

The second is the case in the High Court this week about Labour's reneging on its manifesto commitment to hold a referendum.

The third is that in the Irish Republic is holding its referendum on the Lisbon Treary this week. Although opinion seems evenly split, there has been the hilarious intervention by John Bolton, the former American Ambassador to the United Nations. This was Bolton at his best.

Bolton had stormed across the Atlantic to tell the Irish to vote "No". His warning (!) was that the Treaty would undercut NATO (how?) and would damage military links between the USA and the EU.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Obviously, no-one was polite enough to tell him that the Irish Republic is not actually a NATO member, and indeed NATO recognises Irish neutrality. And of course, there is the strong public opposition to US military using Shannon Airport.

How entertaining! A perfect antidote to those who have warned before previous referendums on former Treaties that European integration would lead to the Irish Republic having to get involved in military operations.

Hmm. So, in a country which does not want to join NATO and objects to military links with the USA, Bolton rushes in and warns them that if they vote "yes" they'll get precisely what the majority wants!

I wonder if any TV network would be interested in a comedy show called John Bolton and Ann Coulter Talk About European Politics?

Forest Of The Dead

Last night saw the continuation of the Doctor Who adventure, Silence In The Library/Forest of the Dead.

It is River who is able to get the Doctor and her colleagues to safety, by using a "squareness gun" to create a hole in the wall. Interesting, as Jack Harkness- like River, from the 51st century- also had one of those. Whether these are common at the time, or whether she is a Time Agent, is not made clear.

The girl can see this on TV, and is flicking channels. On one channel she sees an ambulance draw up outside an old large house, with a sign saying "CAL". And Donna is taken out of the ambulance on a stretcher.

Then we see Donna in her room, and Moon enters, telling her she has been at CAL for two years. He suggests they go for a walk and then they are in the grounds, with Donna unable to remember how they got there. He then asks her about her dreams of the Doctor and the blue box. When he suggests they go to the river, they are suddenly there, with Donna unable to remember how they got there. He introduces her to another one of his patients, Lee McAvoy.

We then see Lee carry Donna- who is in a wedding dress- over the threshhold, and a bit later Moon visits Donna, who now has two young children, Joshua and Ella. When Moon says that it's been seven years since she left CAL, Donna says that sometimes it feels like no time has passed. Moon starts phasing, and the Doctor appears in his place, before disappearing and being replaced by Moon.

There is still some uneasiness from the Doctor towards River, and she tells him that in his future, she will be someone he can trust completely. She whispers something in his ear, and he is quite shaken by it.

The Doctor notes an artificial moon in the sky- and things start to fall into place (for the viewers, not the Doctor) when Lux explains it's a "doctor moon", a virus checker. Hence, it is obvious, that what Moon, Donna and the girl are in is some sort of virtual reality.

Donna keeps seeing a figure in a black veil, and the figure puts a letter through the door at midnight. It asks her to meet at the playground at 2pm, and the letter states that they met at the library. Then Donna is in the playground with Joshua and Ella, and sends them off to play as she meets the figure on a bench. When she says that the letter was pushed through the letterbox the previous night, the figure corrects her- saying that it was moments ago, and when Donna thought about meeting, she found herself there. The figure says that the playground is the best way to see the world for the lie it is.

When Donna asks to know the figure's identity, the veil is lifted, and she sees a disfigured Evangelista- which is actually the data ghost saved in the computer's memory. Evangelista says the people there are the "dead of the library", and that Joshua and Ella were never really alive. When Donna gets angry at this, Evangelista tells her to look- all the children are either Joshua or Ella, and this saves memory space.

The girl is seeing this on TV, and when she presses a button on the remote control, Ella falls over, crying, and Donna takes her and Joshua home.

Back in the library, the Doctor confronts Dave and challenges the Vashta Nerada in the spacesuit to talk to him through the neural relay. The Doctor asks about why the Vashta Nerada have come here, as they hunt in forests, growing from microspores. Dave replies that the Vashta Nerada did not come to the library- they come from the library. Then the Doctor realises that the books in the library are made from paper from the trees in the Vashta Nerada's forest. The microspores all hatched 100 years ago.

River's team is down to just her, Lux, and another woman, Anita. But not for long, as Anita has two shadows, with the Vashta Nerada ready for dinnertime. The Doctor tints her visor, which he says might fool the Vashta Nerada. Meanwhile, River is explaining to Lux that the Doctor isn't her Doctor yet, and talks about how he opens the TARDIS doors by clicking his fingers. The Doctor grows suspicious as he says he can't do that.

When Anita comments about being safe, the Doctor notices that she says "safe" not "saved" and then realises that a computer says people are saved. He surmises that the readers in the library were saved by the computer- saved to the hard drive- when it was unable to teleport them out.

When the girl throws the remote control to the floor, the computer states that the autodestruct has started, and they have 20 minutes.

The Doctor and the team use a gravity platform to go to the planet's core, and Lux explains about CAL. Charlotte Abigail Lux. His aunt. As a young girl, she was terminally ill, and loved reading, so his grandfather created the library, with a copy of every book in the existence, and had her mind wired into the computer mainframe, so she could live forever, with all the books in the universe to read. The virtual reality is her dreams. And she is the girl that Moon visits. And they see that the node there has Charlotte's face.

The Doctor realises that to transport the people to safety, he needs to provide more memory space- from himself. River tells him he can't- as he'll kill himself and won't be able to regenerate. He tells her and Lux to get out.

Ella and Joshua note that everything outside is glowing red. Donna tells them to get ready for bed, and then they are all in the children's bedroom. Ella says that when Donna isn't there, she and Joshua don't exist- even when Donna closes her eyes. Then Donna finds that they have disappeared.

The Doctor tells Anita that she knows that the Vashta Nerada have killed her, as she only has one shadow. He urges her to let the people escape, and suggests that she looks him up in the reference books.

River goes back for the Doctor and knocks him out, connecting herself to the mainframe. When he comes round, she emphasises that if he dies, then the timeline would be affected, as he has to live- or else she'll never have met him. She reflects on how, some time after she stopped travelling with him, he visited her and took her to the singing towers of Darillium, and that was the last time they met and when he gave her his sonic screwdriver.

The Doctor says that she whispered his real name in his ear- and there is only one time that he would tell someone that.

River reflects that from the moment she started travelling with him, he would have known how she would die.

River manages what she intends to do, and Donna and the other people are back in the library. Donna tells the Doctor about Lee, and suggests that he might not really exist. As they leave, Lee sees her, but he is teleported out as he tries to call to her.

There are a couple of mysteries for the Doctor and Donna. The first is Donna wonders why River reacted to her that way. The Doctor suggests looking in River's diary to see what happens to Donna, but they decide that would be "spoilers".

The second is that the Doctor wonders why, if he knew how River would meet her death, did he not come up with a better plan to save her. Why give her a sonic screwdriver? When he opens it up, he finds her neural relay, and with Charlotte's help, is able to send her data ghost, and those of most of her team (except Lux, the sole survivor) to Charlotte's virtual reality.

As they prepare to leave, the Doctor snaps his fingers and the TARDIS door opens. When he and Donna are inside, he snaps his fingers again and the door closes.

A few thoughts on these episodes:

• Although at times I wondered whether River might be a Time Lady, or perhaps a Dalek agent, or something else to trap the Doctor, it seems that she is what she was at face value- a future companion. This isn't something new- in The Trial of a Time Lord: Terror of the Vervoids, the Doctor presented evidence from his future, with a companion, Mel, whom he had not met yet. And in The Trial of a Time Lord: The Ultimate Foe, the Master brings Mel to the courtroom as a witness- for her, the events with the Vervoids are in her past. Presumably, if Colin Baker hadn't been sacked, then the following season would have kicked off with Mel's debut adventure.
• River is the third companion from the 51st century- the others being the original K9, and Jack.
• There seem to be certain periods where more than one adventure is set, e.g. the 42nd century (The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit; 42; Planet of the Ood); 51st century (The Girl in the Fireplace; Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead); the 2100st century (The Long Game; Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways) and 5 billion years in the future (The End of the World; New Earth; Gridlock).
• There is only one moment when the Doctor would tell someone his name. From the way the Doctor says it, it sounded as if this moment would be the time of his death. If so, when he picks up River to take her to Darillium, he knows she isn't the only one of them about to die. In that case, it is interesting that it is River- rather than the more obvious choice of Rose- whom he will choose to spend his last moments.
• Another adventure where some of the events are consequences of the Doctor's future actions..

A Third Province Is Needed- But Not For The Traditionalists

According to some reports, Parliament's Ecclesiastical Committee is in favour of the idea of the Church of England consecrating women to the episcopate with the simple "single-clause" method, which would mean that any diocese could have a women bishop in charge of it, and opponents would not have any choice but to put up with the situation or to leave.

When the General Synod voted in November 1992 to allow women to be ordained to the presbyterate, there were a couple of pieces of protection added to the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993, which basically meant that a parish church could decide that it would not have a woman as its priest-in-charge and/or it could decide that it would not allow a woman to exercise presbyterial functions in that church.

There was a further protection added by the House of Bishops, which allowed such a church to call in a Provincial Episcopal Visitor (commonly called the "flying bishops") to provide episcopal oversight.

It is important to note that there was no "sunset clauses" in this. Sometimes, and especially around the tenth anniversary of it, some of the more vocal supporters of women presbyters try to make out that it was all a "provisional" measure. So you would hear nonsense about the protections only being meant to apply for 10 years, or that they were intended to lapse when George Carey retired as Archbishop of Canterbury, or that when a PEV retired he was not meant to be replaced, etc.

The logic was often that this was all a temporary action, designed to give those who did not approve a "breathing space" to decide whether or not to accept women presbyters or leave the Church of England.

It is always interesting that those who shout loudest that the church should be united are those who are most keen about expelling their opponents from the church.

As that is what it would be- to remove the protections would mean that many of us would have to leave the Church of England. To force someone to make the decision to leave is the same as expulsion.

Those supporters of women presbyters who talk about the need for unity should reflect that before they pushed their schismatic agenda on the Church of England, the church was united on this matter. It is not enough for them to get their own way- they often feel the need to drive others out.

What would happen if the Church of England goes ahead with a "single clause" approach to women bishops? Well, there is no way that a parish church could choose not to have a woman as its priest-in-charge if its diocesan bishop were female. All the protections would be removed, and so many would be forced to leave the Church of England. Although that would only happen if the Church of England were to leave its bearings and go with the flow of fashionable opinion.

There are suggestions that the Church of England could have a Third Province, alongside the Province of Canterbury and the Province of York. Now, this would be fully part of the Church of England, with its bishops ultimately being appointed by the Queen, and an Archbishop and some bishops sitting in the House of Lords. But whenever it is suggested, even by its supporters, it is seen as a place where the "traditionalists" would be exiled to. Out of the mainstream, something a bit left-field.

I wonder whether the media would portray a Third Province as genuinely part of the Church of England?

My big problem with that sort of Third Province is the signal it would send out, that what would be accepted as theological orthodoxy a generation ago would be something for the fringes of the church.

Instead, I suggest a Third Province with a woman Archbishop and her supporters as bishops. If a church feels very strongly that women should be bishops, then instead of them trying to force schism on the whole church, they can have their own special enclave, a Province for them.

It's a solution in which everyone wins.

There's Something In The Water

You would expect to turn your tap on and get pure, clean water with no additives.

While there is some talk of an obesity epidemic, you would be shocked if healthcare "experts" decided to put slimming drugs in the water. The same with cholestrol-lowering drugs.

If people have a health problem, and they need medication, then it would be silly to give all their neighbourhood the same medication.

Unfortunately, in Southampton there are some interfering busybodies who believe it would not be silly at all.

And so, there is this nannying campaign to put flouride in the drinking water. The bossyboots will produce photos of the mouths of 3-year-olds with teeth problems, but that is the responsibility of the parents. Maybe better education, rather than putting something in the water, would be a more sensible and adult response.

Why should I have to have a higher flouride intake just because someone doesn't brushes their children's teeth and gives them fizzy drinks? And, if an adult doesn't take care of their teeth, then, yes, that is disgusting, but it's their choice to let their teeth rot.

Silence In The Library

It now seems part of tradition for Doctor Who to have a mid-season break so that BBC1 can show the annual humiliation of Britain at the Eurovision Song Contest.

When the show returned last Saturday, it was for the start of a two-parter, Silence In The Library/Forest of the Dead. (Note that the latter episode was originally going to be called River's Run).

The season has suddenly got a lot darker, and it is clear we are now on the path to the season finale.

The episode has a peculiar pre-credits opener, with a young girl seeing her psychiatrist, Dr Moon, and telling him about being in her library. When she closes her eyes she is in the library, and she is in a room in the library, with there being banging on the door, and then the Doctor and Donna rush in.

We then go back a bit. The Doctor and Donna have arrived at the library, and it is in the 51st century. The whole planet is a giant library, with its core being a computer. The Doctor won't let Donna read any books after her era, using the excuse "spoliers". Donna wonders why the library is so empty, and suggests it's a Sunday. The Doctor tells her the TARDIS doesn't land on Sundays!

A quick check with the computer shows that there are only two humanoids in the library- but over a trillion lifeforms. And they learn that the library sealed itself 100 years earlier.

They also encounter a "node"- something similar to a statue with a living human face. It gives them two messages. The first is to run. The second is to count the shadows.

The Doctor explains to Donna why they came to the library- he received a message on the psychic paper, asking him to go there as soon as he can. Then the lights start going off, and the Doctor and Donna rush into the room we saw in the pre-credits.

When they get there, the girl is replaced by a spherical security camera. As the Doctor uses the sonic screwdriver to open the cover, the girl collapses in pain and tells Moon that the others are coming- words which appear on the camera.

Then an expedition team arrive, led by archaeologist River Song. The team is sent by the Felmar Lux Corporation, which owns the library, and includes Stahlman Lux from the Corporation. He insists that the Doctor and Donna have to agree that their experiences in the library are copyright of the Corporation, but when his PA, Miss Evangelista, hands them the contracts, they simply tear them up.

The Doctor tells the team they should go home, and explains that the library is infected by the Vashta Nerada, which he describes as "pirahnas of the air", and that, as a swarm, they form shadows. He notes a shadow with nothing that casts it, and throws a chicken leg from River's lunchbox into the shadow- the bone clatters to the floor.

He also notes River's diary- which has covers that look like the TARDIS doors. She asks him whether he has seen the crash of the Byzantium yet, or been to Asgard. She won't let him look in her diary, citing "spoilers". And she tells her team that she trusts the Doctor as he's an old friend of hers. But the Doctor is clear that he's never met her before.

River admits to sending the message, but that it went to too early in the Doctor's timeline. She also reacts strangely to Donna, implying that something bad happens to her in the future.

The Doctor tries to contact the central computer, and the first time he tries, the girl hears a phone ringing, but neither her father nor Moon do. When the Doctor tries to contact again, she sees him on a TV screen- but no-one else can. All that the Doctor can find out is that 4022 people were saved, and there were no survivors.

Evangelista sees a door open up and goes to explore. Moments later, the others hear her screaming, and find her skeleton. Then they hear her voice, which freaks Donna out, but this is simply the neural relays that the team wear on their spacesuits- what they are hearing are the thoughts of the last moments of Evangelista's life. The team call it a "data ghost."

Moon tells the girl that the real world is a lie and her nightmares are the reality. And that there are people in the library and she is the only one who can save them, with the shadows moving again.

The Doctor notes that Dave, the pilot, has two shadows. One of them is the Vahsta Nerada, locked onto its next meal. He tells them to increase the protection on their spacesuits, and is surprised when River produces a sonic screwdriver- he tells her that it's just like his, and she replies that it is his and he gave it to her in the future.

In order to protect Donna, the Doctor teleports her to the TARDIS. However, she phases, screams and vanishes, with the girl telling Moon that Donna has been saved.

Inside Dave's spacesuit is a skeleton, which is walking towards the Doctor and the team. As they flee, they find a node with Donna's face on it, which announces to them that Donna has left the library and she has been saved. And the lights start going out....

The Unicorn And The Wasp

From the Doctor's daughter to his father, as Sandy McDonald has a small role in The Unicorn And The Wasp, the Doctor Who adventure of three weeks ago.

The Doctor and Donna arrive at a garden party in 1926, hosted by Lady Clemency Eddison and her husband Hugh Forbes-Curbishley. There is some talk of "the unicorn" the name given to a jewel thief who has been active in the area.

But, Eddison announces a special guest- Agatha Christie. The Doctor notes to Donna that this is the day that Christie disappeared, abandoning her car at a lake near there, and then appearing a few days later in Harrogate with no idea of what had happened.

However, there is news that there has been a "Murder in the Library". While doing her own investigating, Donna finds a locked room, and is told by a servant that about 40 years earlier, Eddison returned from India with tuberculosis and spent 6 months in that room, and ordered it to be locked. Donna gets it opened, and hears a buzzing noise behind the curtains. She makes comments about the bees disappearing (which she has mentioned before) and opens the curtain, leading to a giant wasp smashing the window and getting in.

She tells the Doctor that anyone could be the murderer- that it's just like "Murder on the Orient Express", which Christie thinks is an interesting idea.

The Doctor persuades Christie that she can help them find the murderer.

Miss Chandrakala, who returned from India with Eddison, is killed by a falling gargoyle, but has enough time to say "the poor child."

As the Doctor, Donna and Christie continue their investigation, they learn that Eddison, when in India, met and fell in love with a man who could turn himself into a giant wasp. The Doctor identifies the species as a Vespiform. And she fell pregnant by him, and was confined to the room and gave birth to the son, whom she gave away.

The Doctor notes that the vicar, Golightly, had been brought up in an orphanage and surmises that he is the son, and is a Vespiform. One of the presents that his father had given Eddison was the firestorm, an extraterrestrial jewel that she wears round her neck. When Golightly was enraged by two young men stealing from his church, he transformed into a Vespiform for the first time and was able to read from Eddison's mind- and she was reading The Murder of Roger Ackroyd at the time. So he believes that real life is like a Christie novel.

Golightly transforms himself again, and Christie takes the firestorm and drives to the lake, followed by the Doctor and Donna. She surmises that as the Vespiform draws itself from her imagination, her imagination will destroy it. But when it arrives, Donna simply throws the firestorm into the lake and the Vespiform goes in and drowns.

Christie's memory is damaged, and she finds herself in Harrogate with the Doctor and Donna.

The Doctor shows Donna some things in the TARDIS. There is a Cyberman's breastplate. The crystal ball with the Carrionites trapped in it. And a Christie novel republished 5 billion years in the future.

Some thoughts:

• Another time paradox, although a minor one. Christie gets the ideas for Miss Marple and Murder on the Orient Express from Donna, who knows about them as from her perspective, they are history.
• The Cybermen, the Carrionites- both having come through to our universe from elsewhere. A hint? Of course, the Doctor doesn't know that Rose is back in the universe.

The Doctor's Daughter

One thing I have got out of the habit of is writing up my comments of recent episodes of Doctor Who.

Four weeks ago, it was The Doctor's Daughter, with Georgia Moffett as Jenny, the eponymous daughter. Moffett is the daughter of Peter Davison, the fifth Doctor, so, as Russell Davies was fond of noting, the Doctor's daughter is played by the Doctor's daughter.

With the TARDIS in flight, Martha takes the opportunity to explain to Donna about the Doctor's hand. Fans know the background- in The Christmas Invasion, the Doctor's right hand was cut off in the fight with the Sycorax leader, but, as he had only recently regenerated, he was able to grow another one (which must explain how Romana could change her appearance post-regeneration a few times in the opening minutes of Destiny of the Daleks). The hand was found by Torchwood, and Jack Harkness was able to build a "Doctor detector" from it, and when the TARDIS landed near the Cardiff rift (at the end of the Torchwood episode End of Days and the start of the Doctor Who episode Utopia) the hand got active and the water in the jar was bubbling away.

At the end of Utopia, the Master escaped with the hand in the TARDIS back to the present day, and in The Sound of Drums was able to use it to extract the Doctor's genetic code and age the Doctor.

Whereas the Master uses the Doctor's right hand to bring death, the humans of the planet Messaline use his current right hand to bring life- namely Jenny.

When the Doctor, Donna and Martha emerge from the TARDIS, General Cobb orders that they are processed, and the Doctor's right arm is shoved into a machine, which extrapolates his DNA and then Jenny walks out from a set of doors. The Doctor works out quickly what has happened.

It is interesting that this is in an adventure straight after one with the Sontarans. Like the Sontarans, the humans on Messaline reproduce asexually for war. However, while the Sontarans are an all-male race, the humans are mixed.

Jenny is ready to start fighting, and we see the enemy- the Hath, a race who can best be described as having the heads of dolphins but humanoid bodies. Martha is taken by them, and Jenny sets off an explosion, despite the Doctor telling her not to. When the Doctor tells her that Martha is his friend, and they need to rescue her, Jenny dismisses Martha as "collateral damage."

Martha is able to win the trust of the Hath by healing her captor, who dislocated its shoulder in the explosion.

The Doctor is uncomfortable with Jenny and unwilling to recognise her as his daughter. Donna says that she is generated artificially, and then says "jenny-rated" and that is how Jenny chooses her name!

Cobb is suspicious of the Doctor and Donna, suggesting that they try to "infect" the people with "peacemaking". But he does tell them enough of a war between humans and Hath which has been going on for generations. Both sides are looking for the "Source", the "breath of life", which is explained that when the Great One created, she looked at what she had done and sighed, with that sigh being in the Source. The only peace Cobb is interested in is that which he believes will come when the Hath are all destroyed.

The Doctor tells Cobb that genocide will only happen over his dead body, and so he, Donna and Jenny are locked up. While locked up, Donna uses the Doctor's stethoscope to show that Jenny has two hearts. And so, he can no longer deny that Jenny is a Time Lady, and that he is no longer the last of the Time Lords. He tells her some of the history about there being a Time War and how he had to fight.

Jenny is able to seduce the guard and they escape to try and find the "Temple" where the Source is hidden. Donna notes that there are 8-digit numbers on various parts of the wall.

The Doctor and Donna discuss what will happen to Jenny. The Doctor isn't keen on taking her with them, as she reminds him of his family, who are all gone (including his grand-daughter, Susan Foreman??), and that that would be too painful for him. But Donna feels that he will, in time, come to terms with that and move on.

Jenny asks Donna about what she and the Doctor do, and Donna explains and adds that it involves a lot of running.

The Doctor, Donna and Jenny are not the only people seeking the Temple. Martha and one of the Hath are out on the cold, windswept surface, looking for it. Martha falls into something like quicksand, and the Hath rescues her, but drowns in the process.

When the Doctor and team get to the Temple, it is, rather predictably, the spaceship, and then Donna works out the numbers. A computer readout on the wall gives 60120724, and on the walls the number 60120717 is written. And throughout their journey she has seen numbers between these two. And her explanation is that it is 24 July 6012, and the landing was a week earlier. As walls are put up, the date is put on them.

The Doctor accesses the computer records and finds that when they landed- with the aim of building a human-Hath society, the leader was killed, and so war broke out.

Reunited with Martha, they make their way to the Source, which is in a forest. The Source is a glass sphere, designed for terraforming Messaline.

However, both humans and Hath turn up, and the Doctor smashes the sphere, setting off the terraforming. Both armies lay down their weapons, except Cobb, who shoots at the Doctor- but Jenny gets in the way and appears to be killed.

The Doctor points a gun at Cobb's head, but refuses to kill him.

The Doctor, Martha and Donna leave in the TARDIS, and the Doctor reflects that the hand responded to Jenny's presence, but took them to before her birth- creating a paradox. He takes Martha to her home and he and Donna continue with their travels.

Meanwhile, Jenny recovers and takes the spaceship and leaves Messaline for her own travels...

Some thoughts on this:

• Did Jenny regenerate at the end? The gas that came out of her mouth looked like that from the Doctor's at various points in The Christmas Invasion. If so, why did she remain the same? Did she choose to keep her appearance, or is that all she can do when regenerating?
• The female "Great One". Shades of Planet of the Spiders, with the Great One ending up on Sarah Jane Smith's back and controlling her. What does Donna (who in her introductory adventure, The Runaway Bride, had been dosed with Huon particles as part of a plan by the Racnoss- who are spiders) have on her back? Controlling her maybe?
• Another "Bad Wolf" style paradox. Just as Rose, as the Bad Wolf in The Parting of the Ways, sent messages back through her travels to lead her there, Jenny seems to have done something similar. She is created because the Doctor goes to Messaline, and he goes there because the hand indicates she is there.

42 Days Later

Former Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, is not one of these ex-Premiers who feel the need to be a backseat driver. Nor to hang around the green benches at Westminster as the Incredible Sulk.

Indeed, he has effectively dropped off the radar. But, he seems to know well that when he does say something, it is something worth listening to.

And reading his comments on the Counter-Terrorism Bill, I felt something I didn't think I would. I miss him as Prime Minister.

Odd, isn't it? I was one of the natural Conservative supporters who switched to voting Labour for the May 1997 general election (I hold my hands up and admit it, I too was one of those who was deceived by Tony Blair at the time). By 1994 I had definitely had enough of the Major Government. But the question, with hindsight, is why? At the time, it was things like the introduction of the national lottery, and legislation sweeping away much of the law on trading on the Sabbath. Then there was the sleaze.

But the lottery and other policies which I disagreed with at the time (and still do) are tame compared with the way these have been extended by Labour. Now, you could argue that the Major Government simply opened the door and Labour followed. But, given the choice now, I would choose Major over either of his successors as Prime Minister.

The sleaze. Yes, but it was mainly concentrated around backbenchers and junior ministers. And remember that some of the accusations of sleaze came from Mohammed Fayed, who has spent the last 10 years trying to prove his bizarre conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

And the appearance of blandness. OK, at the time we had no idea that instead of being the boring and conventional grey man, he actually often had a late night [Edwina] Currie...

Major had the mishap to fall between two stools, never being able to keep either side happy. Labour-leaning people had a low view of him for being a Conservative. The right have always had the narrative of how, in November 1990, he inherited a massive majority from Margaret Thatcher and lost to Blair in 1997.

Yes, but there was success between those dates. In Thatcher's last month as Prime Minister, Gallup opinion polls gave Labour a lead of 4.2%. In Major's first month as Prime Minister, the Conservative lead was 5.5%.

In March 1992, prior to the general election, the Labour lead was just 0.4%- and Major was able to claw it back and win.

Thatcher was- apart from Winston Churchill- the greatest Prime Minister we have had. But everyone has their time, and she had won all her major battles and transformed Britain. Comparing the opinion polls of November and December 1990, I don't think she would have led the Conservatives to victory a fourth time.

In January 1988, Willie Whitelaw had a stroke and resigned as Deputy Prime Minister, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords. With hindsight, I believe that Thatcher should have taken that moment to announce her own resignation. It was the Thatcher/Whitelaw partnership which changed Britain for the better. She had just passed the record set by Herbert Asquith and become the 20th century's longest-serving Prime Minister; she had three successive election victories in the handbag; the Thatcher Revolution was firmly in place. The logical successor would have been Geoffrey Howe, at the time the Foreign Secretary- and the terrible divisions of 1989 and 1990 which saw Howe leave the Cabinet and make that speech that brought Thatcher down would have been averted. The bitterness, the acrimony within Conservatism over the past 15-plus years would not have happened.

We don't give Major enough credit for his 1992 victory. The alternative would have been a Labour government- and does any Conservative believe that Britain would in any way, shape or form, be a better country for having had Neil Kinnock as Prime Minister?

With that out the way, what has Major been saying?

He has been speaking out over the Government's plans to allow people suspected of terrorism to be detained for 42 days without charge. Note the italics- some of those who back 42 days will write to newspapers to portray it as whether or not terrorists should be detained for 42 days. There was once a principle of innocent until proven guilty.

When talking about complicity in extraordinary rendition, Major comments:

..such action is hardly in the spirit of the nation that gave the world Magna Carta or the Parliament that gave it habeus corpus.

Sadly, Major's words are true.

The Government is scratching around trying to find a suitable "Britishness day." Well, the one day they aren't enthusing about is 15 June. How about a Magna Carta Day holiday? Starting in 2015, the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta itself?

No wonder. Now, the late-twentieth and early-twenty first centuries are a good time to live. I'd rather be living now that at any other point in the past eight centuries.

Modern Labour has little knowledge of the past, and even less interest in it. There is the adage about history having to repeat itself if you don't listen to it first time. The nations that make modern Britain have been through a lot since 1215. Magna Carta. Habeus Corpus. The foundation of what we are.

Who believes that a nation can best be saved by digging up and smashing the very foundations it is built on?

There have been worse crises in British history. There has been the Black Death. Civil War. It is foolishness of Labour to imply that we are suddenly at the worst crisis ever.

Major also comments:

If we are seen to defend our own values in a manner that does violence to them, then we may run the risk of losing those values. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it will serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to.

Hmm. Again, quite right. All Labour needs to do is look back into ancient history (the 1970s) and see how effective internment in Northern Ireland was at recruiting terrorists.

We do not defend what makes Britain what it is by destroying what we are.

In addition:

The Government has introduced measures to protect against terrorism. These go far beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular- and no less violent- assaults from the IRA. The justification of these has sometimes come close to scaremongering.

Now, Major knows what he is talking about. In early 1991, the IRA attacked Downing Street while the Cabinet was in session. He lost friends and colleagues in the IRA bombing of the Grand Hotel in October 1984 when they tried to assassinate Thatcher.

Terrorists strike home. Indeed, when I was at Oxford University, in May 1993 the IRA planted a bomb in the main shopping area. Fortunately it was defused in time, but if it hadn't had been...

And Labour does resort to scaremongering. I expect that, a few hours before the vote on 42-days, either Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, or Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, will announce that a major terrorist plot has just been foiled, and this proves that we need the 42-day rule...

When a Government cries wolf over terrorism, people don't believe it when al-Qa'eda's wolf is really about to pounce on the sheep.

But it is not only the case for 42 days' detention that is bogus. So is the case for identity cards. They were to be voluntary. Now they are going to be compulsory. Yet the Government has admitted that such cards would not have stopped the London bombers.

Indeed, but it doesn't stop supporters of produce-on-demand-or-go-to-prison ID cards using terrorism as a reason.

Compulsory ID cards. For the past 10 years, they have been Labour's solution in search of a problem.

The Government has been saying, in a catchy, misleading piece of spin: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." This is a demagogue's trick- we do have something to fear- the total loss of privacy to an intrusive State with authoritarian tendencies.

The old "If you have nothing to hide.." which Labour and its fans trot out is a poor argument.

Major is right. We have seen too many cases of the Government losing sensitive personal data- the Child Benefit data fiasco, the learner driver confidential details being sent to the state government in Minnesota, CDs being lost left, right and centre...

In his article, Major says two very profound things.

The first is:

This is not a United Kingdom that I recognise and Parliament should not accept it.

Now, this is putting into words a nagging feeling I have had for a while- what has happened to this nation? How did we get from where we were in 1997 to where we are 11 years down the line? Some will blame "Europe", some will say "immigration". I think the answer lies with us. It's the freedom you willingly give up which you won't get back.

Whilst Major is often ridiculed for his comments about old ladies cycling to communion in the early morning mist; cricket etc. those words are often taken out of context. He was not describing his vision of Britain- what he was emphasising that being in the European Union would not suddenly make us like the French, the Germans, the Italians, but that we will remain what we are.

The second is:

Francis Pym [the Conservative Foreign Secretary from April 1982 to May 1983] once spoke of the democratic deficit of any government having too large a majority. He was right. In a parliament with more balanced representation, the undermining of personal privacy, lengthy detention without charge, identity cards and a DNA register would never have been passed.

Two phrases jump out. The first is "democratic deficit" which is often used in the context of the relationship between the European Parliament and other European Union institutions. It is interesting to hear a former Prime Minister apply the term to our national parliament.

And "balanced representation." Hmm. Now, if a Liberal Democrat were to say that, that would mean a call for Proportional Representation. Is that what Major means?

The stance the Government is taking over 42 days is very odd. Smith has said that if it were turned into a vote of confidence then there would be massive support for the Government.

Now, although Brown writes in The Times about how these powers are needed to protect us from terrorism, it seems odd that it gets emphasised to Labour MPs that this is all about ensuring the Government survives- if they vote against it, then Brown might have to resign.

Jack Straw, the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, has emphasised that it would be "unconstitutional" to replace Brown as Prime Minister without there being a general election.

Interesting- in June 2007 it was "constitutional" for Labour to change Prime Minister without a general election; in June 2008 it would be "unconstitutional" for Labour to do just that! Has "the constitution" changed so much in 12 months??

What Straw and Smith are getting at is that this could be (and probably will be, in sheer desperation), turned into a confidence matter, and that if the House of Commons votes down the measure, then Brown would be forced to resign as Prime Minister or ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament and call a general election- and from what Straw says, the threat is of Brown doing the latter. So, Labour MPs who believe in our traditional rights and freedoms can do one of two things:

• go against their principles and vote for the measure
• stick to their guns, and run the risk of an early general election, which Labour would lose. Moreover, any Labour MP who did vote against the Government on a confidence issue would suddenly become an Independent MP and would not be able to be a Labour candidate at the election which would follow.

One of the worst responses to Major's common-sense approach is that of Tony McNulty, the Minister for the Police, who sneers that he would rather listen to the "experts" (i.e. those in the police who want more powers) than to someone whom he dismisses as being "out of the loop" for the past 10 years.

Earlier in the week I watched Question Time and one of the panellists was the Conservative member of the House of Lords, Douglas Hurd. Now, he has had to deal with terrorism when he was Northern Ireland Secretary and when he was Home Secretary. And he made the point that you have to balance the requests of various groups- including the police. It is not, as McNulty seems to believe, a matter of going along with whatever the police ask for.

But McNulty has a lot riding on next week. Not only is there the Counter-Terrorism Bill which he is in charge of, but the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill is back in the House of Commons. What has the latter got to do with him?

At first sight, nothing. However, there is much media speculation that Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, will resign over it.

Before he got his current job, McNulty was Minister for Transport. If the Government wins the 42-days vote, then he is Brown's hero. If Kelly quits, then there is one obvious candidate for her Cabinet post...

Driving People To Drink?

One of the unpleasant things on trains can be the alcohol. If I work late, then the train I'll get back from Basingstoke to Southampton Central has come a long way and is often filled with empty beer cans over the floor. And there have been a couple of unpleasant journeys (one from Salisbury to Southampton Central and the other from Aberdeen to Dundee) which have become a bit frightening due to the behaviour of groups of rowdy, drunk and abusive football fans.

The British, as a rule, don't do alcohol well. By that, I mean there is the drinking to excess- in any newspaper there will be the pictures of city centres which become "no-go areas" on Friday and Saturday nights.

When Tessa Jowell was Culture Secretary, she oversaw the sweeping away of restrictions on pub opening hours, with the rather twee and naive idea that once "continental" drinking hours were introduced, then a "continental cafe culture" would follow- instead of getting drunk and fighting, young pubgoers would sit around and discuss the works of great philosophers.

Yeah, right. Jowell also believed that Las Vegas-style casinos across the length and breadth of the country would not encourage gambling.

Now one senior politician has decided to crack down. This is Boris Johnson, the Conservative Mayor of London, who banned the drinking of alcohol on the London Underground.

You might think that this is a move which would be welcomed. Why it hasn't been takes us to the heart of the socialist dogma on moral responsibility.

Sadly, before the ban came into force, there were several "parties" on the Underground which involved drunkenness, vandalism, and sadly, attacks on rail staff.

Who is to blame? Well, from the Rail Maritime & Transport Union's General-Secretary, Bob Crow, we have the answer.

You see, for a socialist, the Government's role is to do practically everything for you. The converse of this is that if someone is violent or abusive, then it's not their fault (at least socialists are consistent). The moral responsibility has been abdicated by the individual and their actions are a consequence of the Government.

So, Crow and his RMT cronies put the blame firmly at Johnson's feet. It is he who they demand should apologise.

No, Johnson did not force anyone to be drunk and violent. People are morally responsible for their own actions.

A Tale Of Two Cities

In Kent, the county at the extreme south-east corner of England, there are two cathedral cities, each cathedral being the seat of two vastly different bishops.

The first, and most senior, is Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The second is Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester.

And they have both been in the news this year, taking different stands on the same issue. Nazir-Ali warns of areas of Britain becoming "no-go areas" for Christians, and gets criticised for this. Williams can sing the praises of recognising shari'a law (er, does that include the bits about killing apostates, e.g. people who convert from Islam to Christianity?)

In late 2005, Tony Blair was responsible for the Racial & Religious Hatred Bill, as it was called at the time. One of its key features was that "incitement to religious hatred" was drafted in such a way that it would cover so many things, including being "insulting" to another religion. So, if you said that Jesus is the only way to salvation, thta would be "insulting" and therefore "inciting religious hatred." Of course, with a lawyer's background, there is no way that Blair could have been ignorant of how that law would have been used it it had come into force the way he wanted it to.

In October 2005, the House of Lords amended it to protect freedom of speech, and importantly, the freedom to evangelise. The emphasis was on that someone had to intend to stir up hatred towards people of a particular religion- which evangelism clearly is not.

In January 2006, despite Blair's best efforts, the House of Commons accepted the Lords' amendments, and so this was the form that they ended up in the Racial & Religious Hatred Act 2006.

However, the police are taking a different line. There was a disturbing article in today's Sunday Telegraph about two evangelical pastors in Birmingham handing out Gospel literature in a predominantly Muslim-majority area. Nothing against the law, but the police felt differently, and, according to the pastors, were told that they were committing a "hate crime" and that they were not allowed to spread the Christian message in a Muslim area.

The truth is, you have the freedom to proclaim the Gospel. Since when has telling people about Jesus' death on the cross been a "crime"?

As Tony Blair enjoys his latest trip to the USA, getting cooed over by his evangelical fans as they fall hook, line and sinker for his portrayal as a Christian politician frustrated by dealing with a secular Britain, I wonder whether he will take the time to be thankful that what he intended with the Racial & Religious Hatred Act appears to have come to pass- that this is now a nation where proclaiming the Gospel is a "hate crime."

Equal Representation

It was interesting to read in Sunday Times that Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, is being urged to cut the number of Scots at high levels of Government and bring in English people instead, with the idea that the "regions" should be properly represented.

How true is it that the "regions" are not represented?

Well, if you assume that Cabinet seats should be allocated in proportion to the number of voters in a "region", then you would get the following representation:

South East England

Entitled to 3 Cabinet members. Represented by 1:

• John Denham (Innovation & Universities Secretary).

North West England

Entitled to 3 Cabinet members. Represented by 7:

• Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor/Justice Secretary)
• Ruth Kelly (Transport Secretary)
• Andy Burnham (Culture Secretary)
• John Hutton (Business & Enterprise Secretary)
• Hazel Blears (Communities & Local Government Secretary)
• James Purnell (Work & Pensions Secretary)
• Shaun Woodward (Northern Ireland Secretary)

London

Entitled to 2 Cabinet members. Represented by 1:

• Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal/Leader of the House of Commons/Minister for Women)

Eastern England

Entitled to 2 Cabinet members. Unrepresented in the Cabinet.

West Midlands

Entitled to 2 Cabinet members. Represented by 1:

• Jacqui Smith (Home Secretary)

South West England

Entitled to 2 Cabinet members. Unrepresented in the Cabinet.

Scotland

Entitled to 2 Cabinet members. Represented by 4 (including Brown):

• Alistair Darling (Chancellor of the Exchequer)
• Des Browne (Defence Secretary/Scottish Secretary)
• Douglas Alexander (International Development Secretary)

Yorkshire & Humberside

Entitled to 2 Cabinet members. Represented by 5:

• Ted Miliband (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster)
• Ed Balls (Children & Schools Secretary)
• Hilary Benn (Environment & Rural Affairs Secretary)
• Alan Johnson (Health Secretary)
• Yvette Cooper (Chief Secretary to the Treasury)

East Midlands

Entitled to 2 Cabinet members. Represented by 1:

• Geoff Hoon (Chief Whip)

Wales

Entitled to 1 Cabinet member. Represented by 1:

• Paul Murphy (Welsh Secretary)

North East England

Entitled to 1 Cabinet member. Represented by 1:

• David Miliband (Foreign Secretary)

Northern Ireland

Not entitled to any Cabinet members, and doesn't have any.

So, the way these are over/under-represented are:

• North West England- overrepresented by 4
• Yorkshire & Humberside- overrepresented by 3
• Scotland- overrepresented by 2
• London- underrepresented by 1
• West Midlands- underrepresented by 1
• East Midlands- underrepresented by 1
• South East England- underrepresented by 2
• Eastern England- underrepresented by 2
• South West England- underrepresented by 2

Now, one thing to note is that the Cabinet is changing with time. Look at this a year ago, and it could be said that North East England (e.g. Tony Blair, Hilary Armstrong) and East Midlands (e.g. Margaret Beckett, Patricia Hewitt) were overrepresented.

And, does it matter where an MP's constituency is? Ultimately, these are members of the British Government. I didn't suddenly feel more represented when Denham joined the Cabinet. I don't know in what sense he can be said to "represent" South East England.

As this is a Labour Government, it would be fair to ask whether the distribution of Cabinet seats, matches the distribution of Labour MPs. If it did, we would expect:

• North West England- 4 (overrepresented by 3)
• London- 3 (underrepresented by 2)
• Yorkshire & Humberside- 3 (overrepresented by 2)
• Scotland-2 (overrepresented by 2)
• West Midlands- 2 (underrepresented by 1)
• Wales- 2 (underrepresented by 1)
• North East England- 2 (underrepresented by 1)
• East Midlands- 1
• South East England- 1
• Eastern England- 1 (underrepresented by 1)
• South West England- 1 (underrepresented by 1)

However, if it is seen that Scotland is somehow overrepresented, what do Brown's critics expect him to do? Yes, he could sack Alexander and Browne to deal with that, but would it be fair if their Cabinet posts went to MPs from already overrepresented English regions?

I was amused to read that Lindsay Hoyle, Labour MP for Chorley (in North West England) was one of those unhappy with the overrepresentation of Scottish MPs, and says that voters want a better balance within the Cabinet to ensure that the English regions are properly represented.

Hmm. An MP from North West England- the most overrepresented region at the Cabinet table- calling for better balance for the regions. OK, what Hoyle can do is arrange a meeting with Straw, Kelly, Burnham, Hutton, Blears, Purnell and Woodward, and tell them that there are too many North West England MPs in the Cabinet, and ask 3 of them to resign.

Sorry, but if an MP from North West England feels there are too many Scots in the Cabinet, then three words spring to mind- pot, kettle, black.

Instead of being obsessed with where Cabinet members are based, let's concentrate on whether they are doing the job properly.

It Comes With The Territory

One thing I should have been following, but haven't closely, are the disputes in the Episcopal Church in the USA. The reason I should is that to see what the Church of England will be like in 10 or 20 years time (unless there is revival) one should look at ECUSA today.

There are now missionary Anglican bishops who have been consecrated by Anglicans outside ECUSA, and Anglican groups such as CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America) and AMIA (Anglican Mission in America) who remain faithful to the Gospel, but have to be outside ECUSA.

Now, the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA, Katharine Jefferts-Schori, is a big fan of the idea of a bishop having complete ecclesiastical control over his or her diocese. Which is the justification for taking action against CANA, AMIA and other Anglicans who chose to remain faithful to Jesus.

One would assume, that having taken the "moral high ground" on territorialism, Jefferts-Schori would be a firm believer that a Church of England bishop has complete ecclesiastical control over his diocese.

Territorially, the Church of England is quite large. What is its largest diocese?

To reflect its size, the largest diocese has the longest name- the Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe.

Under the oversight of Geoffrey Rowell, the Bishop of Gibraltar, this covers all of Europe (outside of the Anglo-Celtic Isles) and extends into parts of Africa and Asia.

However, as well as the Church of England, there is another Anglican church operating in this Diocese. It's ECUSA, with its Convocation of American Churches in Europe.

But, if Jefferts-Schori remains true to the principle of territorialism which she uses as a stick to beat evangelicals, then she would object to ECUSA having churches within a Church of England diocese's boundaries.

I suggest that at the next Lambeth Conference, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, puts Jefferts-Schori in her place. He should inform her that, with immediate effect, this Convocation of American Churches in Europe will cease to be part of ECUSA, and citing the territorial rule that she is so fond of, inform her that these churches become part of the Church of England under Rowell's oversight.

The Traffic News: The M3 Rule Reaches The End of The Road?

The M3 is famous for being the motorway (or "freeway" if you prefer) from London to Southampton, and gives its name to an interesting political "rule."

Which is that, if a Conservative seat near the M3 falls vacant, then the Liberal Democrats (or their predecessors) will win the by-election.

The first example was in June 1984, when Mike Hancock won Portsmouth South for the Social Democrats. He very narrowly lost it to the Conservatives' David Martin in the June 1987 general election, and there was another very close race between Hancock and Martin at the April 1992 general election- although, of course, Hancock was contesting it as a Liberal Democrat. In the May 1997 general election, Hancock was able to beat Martin and has been MP there since- one of only 3 former Social Democrat MPs left in the House of Commons (the others being Charles Kennedy, Liberal Democrat MP for Ross, Skye & Lochaber; and John Horam, Conservative MP for Orpington).

The second example was in May 1993, when David Rendel won Newbury for the Liberal Democrats. Whether this counts as "M3 rule" is open to question, as Newbury is just off the M4, the motorway from London to Swansea. Rendel held on at the general elections of 1997 and June 2001, but lost to the Conservatives' Richard Benyon in the May 2005 general election.

The third example was in July 1993, when Diana Maddock won Christchurch for the Liberal Democrats, although she lost the seat to the Conservatives' Christopher Chope in 1997.

The fourth example was in June 1994, when David Chidgey won Eastleigh for the Liberal Democrats, holding on at the 1997 and 2001 elections. He retired (and like Maddock now sits in the House of Lords) for the 2005 election, and was replaced by Chris Huhne, now the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman.

The fifth example was in May 2000, when Sandra Gidley won Romsey for the Liberal Democrats, and held the seat at the 2001 and 2005 elections- although both these were very close results.

Those were the "M3 rule" in action.

You will note that I have said nothing about Winchester. This has had a fascinating history. John Browne, who was the Conservative MP from the May 1979 general election until 1992, was deselected prior to the 1992 election, but contested it as an Independent. The seat was won by Gerry Malone for the Conservatives.

At the 1997 election, Winchester was one of the last results to be declared. The seat was won by the Liberal Democrats' Mark Oaten, with a majority of 2 votes over Malone. Malone was able to challenge the result in the courts, and in October 1997 the result was declared void. In the ensuing by-election in November 1997, Oaten convincingly won the seat and has been its MP ever since.

Oaten's career was really on the rise, and he ended up as the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman. And then things went a bit odd. In January 2006, the Liberal Democrats were leaderless, as Kennedy had been forced to resign as leader over his drinking. Oaten was in the race to replace him.

You know how sometimes there's that little story, that thing which Ceefax feels is so unimportant that it can be on page 116, which within days is the front page news for several days in a row. Well, there was that little story, about Oaten resigning as home affairs spokesman and pulling out of the leadership contest, and it was to do with sex and another man. Just a little story, hidden away, which then becomes the headline- with ramifications.

Not only did Oaten fall, but his party was damaged. Since the 1997 election, the Winchester constituency has been co-terminous with Winchester City Council. In the May 2006 local elections, the "Oaten effect" led to the Conservatives gaining Winchester City Council from the Liberal Democrats.

Oaten is resigning at the next general election. And, if the Times is right, then he can't wait that long.

A 6.1% swing is all that we need to snatch this seat from the Liberal Democrats. Once, that would have been beyond any Conservative's wildest dreams, but now...

If there is a Winchester by-election then, this will not be the next by-election. There is one more in the pipeline, which will probably be this summer.

And that is Henley. Since the 2001 general election, it has been represented by Boris Johnson, for the Conservatives. Johnson is, of course, now Mayor of London, and doesn't want to do two jobs. So, somewhen soon, he is resigning as an MP.

Henley- although just off the M4- is in that area where the "M3 rule" would still apply. The Liberal Democrats need a 13.8% swing to win this. This would once have been a walk in the park for them, but the political world's tectonic plates have shifted.

Johnson could be giving us a double-win. Firstly, he wrests control of London from Labour, and shows what a Conservative Government could be like. And secondly, he causes a by-election which would show that the Liberal Democrat progress in South East England can be halted.

Winchester, of course, would be one stage further- showing that not only can the Liberal Democrat progress be halted, but it can be reversed...