1984 and all that
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" - George Orwell, 1984

Well, thank goodness Orwell's nightmare vision never came true.

Um, except did anyone else notice the following snippet in a speech by our esteemed Home Secretary David Blunkett this morning?

"For the first time in our history we not only have thousands of journalists with our troops, but we have broadcast media behind what we would describe as enemy lines, reporting blow by blow what is happening. We have it reported, by UK media on occasions, as though there were moral equivalents, when there are not. Those of a progressive, or liberal bent, in my view, egged on into believing that this is the right way to get to the true facts. Well it's hard to give true facts if reporters of Al Jazeera are linked into Iraq, and only there because they are provided with facilities and support from the regime."

Or in other words:

People of the world, only one side of the story should be reported. Only the coalition's account is tenable. Everyone else is lying. How do we know? Because we say so. Forget what you may have been told about balanced reporting - it's just a dilution of the truth. Big Brother is watching you.

Now I've been worried for some time about Blunkett's penchant for anti-libertarian policies and proclamations, but this seems to cast him in a harsher light than ever before. I had hoped the UK was above the kind of bias that has had American media desperately trying to avoid allegations of being unpatriotic, but with this kind of thing coming from such a senior member of government, that's apparently not so. Such a blatant denial of the media's right to report opposing views makes our government guilty of just the same kind of disinformation and propaganda as they themselves cite in their demonisation of Saddam.

Quite apart from this, by actively distancing himself from people of a "progressive or liberal bent" Blunkett freely invites the inference that he wants to be thought of as static - maybe even regressive - and conservative.

And this from one of the leading contenders for the top job in the event of Blair stepping down. At least Mr Tony tries to portray himself as having a modicum of compassion and a willingness to argue his point of view in open debate.

No such thing from Blunkett. Time spent arguing his case would just get in the way of passing draconian legislation undermining the fundamental legal principles that all people - no matter what their past contains - have the right to a fair, unprejudiced trial, and are innocent until proven guilty. And of course, if you're an asylum seeker, then don't expect Blunkett's Britain to welcome you with open arms. Don't expect anything except suspicion and intolerance. And you should be grateful for that.

This probably doesn't count for anything, and I don't want to be seen as bigoted against people with disabilities, but Blunkett's blindness only serves to amplify my distrust of him. With all other politicians, whatever their lips might say, one always has the second opinion of the story told by their eyes. Not so with Blunkett, and that makes me uncomfortable.

Balir's government is becoming increasingly controlling and restrictive in response to people growing more cynical about it, and Blunkett is among the worst perpetrators.

Where's the opposition - any kind of strong opposition - when we need it?