After Alistair Darling became the latest senior political figure to come out against High Speed 2 (HS2), pressure is rising on the government and the opposition to withdraw their support for the project. Darling wrote in yesterday's Times: "The next government and the one after that will be very short of money to spend on the infrastructure we desperately need. To commit ourselves to spend so much on a project which rules out other major schemes seems foolish."

In an interview on BBC News following the former chancellor's intervention, Ed Balls refused to guarantee that Labour would support the new £42.6bn rail line in its general election manifesto. He said: "There’s no blank cheque from a Labour Treasury for HS2 — it’s got to be value for money. If the case is not strong enough, if you don’t see the gains, if, as we’ve seen in recent weeks and months, the cost is going up and up and up, that’s something which we have to keep under review."

But in a piece for the New Statesman, Andrew Adonis, the former transport secretary and the architect of HS2, warns that it would be an "act of national self-mutilation" to cancel the project.

The Labour peer, who is leading a review of growth policy for the party, writes that "the case for High Speed Two is as strong now as when Labour committed itself to the project in March 2010, and virtually none of the arguments of the latest critics, including the Institute of Economic Affairs, affect it."

He adds: "[T]he key justification is not speed but capacity. There will be an acute shortage of transport capacity from the 2020s to convey freight, commuters and other passengers into and between the major conurbations of London, the West Midlands, the East Midlands and South and West Yorkshire. Since there is no viable plan, let alone political will, to build new motorways between these places, or to dramatically increase air traffic between them, this additional capacity must largely be met by rail or Britain will grind to a halt."

After Darling suggested that the £42.6bn cost would be better spent on upgrading existing lines and other smaller scale infrastructure projects, he points out: "Detailed costings that I commissioned in 2009 suggested that to secure just two-thirds of HS2's extra capacity by upgrading existing lines would cost more in cash terms than building HS2. So there is no free lunch - or pot of gold which can be diverted to other projects in anything but the very short-term, with more costly consequences thereafter."

Adonis also rejects the former chancellor's claim that the economic benefits of the new 225-mph line, which will run between London and Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, are "highly contentious". The former chancellor argued that "The business case depends on an assumption that passengers aren’t productive — that is, that they don’t work on the train. That may be true on a commuter train but not on long haul intercity services. Arguably, more work is done on the train than in the office." But Adonis writes: "Debates about the benefits of faster journey times to Birmingham, and whether or not business travellers work productively on trains, are beside the point. If the additional capacity is required, it ought to be provided in the most cost-effective manner.

"However, the additional benefits of HS2 are considerable. As HS2 proceeds further north, the time savings become steadily greater: nearly an hour off every journey between London and Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds. The connectivity benefits are also dramatic. HS2 transforms links between the Midlands and the north, as well as between London and those conurbations. HS2 includes a direct interchange with Crossrail  the new east-west underground line through London, opening in 2019 which will convey passengers to the West End, the City and Canary Wharf in a fraction of the time, and with far less than congestion than presently."

Adonis warns Ed Miliband not to repeat the mistakes of Harold Wilson's Labour government, which cancelled plans for the Channel Tunnel and the new London airport at Maplin Sands that it inherited from the Heath administration in 1974. He writes: "[T]he temptation for Labour to claim it is 'saving' £42bn by proposing to cancel a 'Tory' project will be intense. It was at a similarly early phase in their construction that the incoming 1974 Labour government cancelled the Channel Tunnel and the new London airport at Maplin Sands in the Thames Estuary, inherited from the Heath government. They were dubbed 'Tory extravagance' although, like HS2, their origins lay in the previous Labour government and there was nothing remotely right-wing about them.

"These were stupid short-termist decisions. In the case of Maplin, the last best opportunity to relocate the UK's principal international gateway to a far larger and more suitable site was thrown away. We are still paying the price in the current impasse over a third runway at Heathrow when the international airports serving Amsterdam. Paris and Frankfurt have six, four and four runways respectively.

"It would be a similar act of national self-mutilation to cancel HS2 in 2015, six years into the project."

During a Q&A session with Labour activists in Edinburgh yesterday, Ed Miliband said that he remained a supporter of HS2, describing it as "part of being a modern country". But he added: "We have to scrutinise it for value for money and we are going to keep doing that and that’s something we do with any government project."

An updated cost-benefit analysis of the project, the budget for which has risen from £32bn to £42.6bn, will be published by the government before the end of the year. George Osborne is reportedly planning a campaign this autumn to shore up political support for the line.

High Speed Two (HS2) is going through the classic 'cold feet' period which bedevils every major British infrastructure project and which, with our short-termist political culture and poor project management, often leads to them being cancelled.

This phase will continue until the 2015 election, when the temptation for Labour to claim it is 'saving' £42bn by proposing to cancel a 'Tory' project will be intense. It was at a similarly early phase in their construction that the incoming 1974 Labour government cancelled the Channel Tunnel and the new London airport at Maplin Sands in the Thames Estuary, inherited from the Heath government. They were dubbed 'Tory extravagance' although, like HS2, their origins lay in the previous Labour government and there was nothing remotely right-wing about them.

These were stupid short-termist decisions. In the case of Maplin, the last, best opportunity to relocate the UK's principal international gateway to a far larger and more suitable site was thrown away. We are still paying the price in the current impasse over a third runway at Heathrow when the international airports serving Amsterdam. Paris and Frankfurt have six, four and four runways respectively.

It would be a similar act of national self-mutilation to cancel HS2 in 2015, six years into the project.

The case for High Speed Two is as strong now as when Labour committed itself to the project in March 2010 and virtually none of the arguments of the latest critics, including the Institute of Economic Affairs, affect it.

For the key justification is not speed but capacity. There will be an acute shortage of transport capacity from the 2020s to convey freight, commuters and other passengers into and between the major conurbations of London, the West Midlands, the East Midlands and South and West Yorkshire. Since there is no viable plan, let alone political will, to build new motorways between these places, or to dramatically increase air traffic between them, this additional capacity must largely be met by rail or Britain will grind to a halt. Rail is, in any case, the most efficient and green mode of transport for mass passenger and freight movements.

To meet this capacity crunch there is a simple choice: upgrade existing (mostly Victorian) rail lines and stations, or build entirely new lines and stations. Upgrading existing lines is hugely expensive and yields far less additional capacity than building new lines: the last major upgrade of the West Coast Main Line from London to Birmingham and Manchester was recently completed at a cost of £10bn, after a decade of disruption, and yielded only a fraction of the capacity improvements of HS2.

HS2 trebles existing rail capacity between the conurbations it serves, to the benefit not only of intercity services but also local and freight services because of the capacity freed up on the existing lines. Detailed costings that I commissioned in 2009 suggested that to secure just two-thirds of HS2's extra capacity by upgrading existing lines would cost more in cash terms than building HS2.

So there is no free lunch - or pot of gold which can be diverted to other projects in anything but the very short-term, with more costly consequences thereafter.

Debates about the benefits of faster journey times to Birmingham, and whether or not business travellers work productively on trains, are beside the point. If the additional capacity is required, it ought to be provided in the most cost-effective manner.

However, the additional benefits of HS2 are considerable. As HS2 proceeds further north, the time savings become steadily greater: nearly an hour off every journey between London and Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds. The connectivity benefits are also dramatic. HS2 transforms links between the Midlands and the north, as well as between London and those conurbations. HS2 includes a direct interchange with Crossrail  the new east-west underground line through London, opening in 2019 which will convey passengers to the West End, the City and Canary Wharf in a fraction of the time, and with far less than congestion than at present.

A second, north-south, Crossrail line will be needed in London from 2030, and works needs to start on this in parallel with HS2. But that is no excuse for the IEA confusing the two projects, aggregating them and lumping in other projects for good measure, to claim that HS2 will cost £80bn.

Where Labour should be critical is in the coalition's mismanagement of HS2. After three years, there is still no legislation for even the first phase of HS2 from London to Birmingham. Meanwhile, the projected costs have risen sharply  to the currently projected £42.6bn from London through to Manchester and Leeds  in large part because of a massive increase in provision for unplanned contingencies. This accounts for £14bn of the £42.6bn. If the project were well managed there would be no need for such a large contingency reserve, and advice to the government suggests that including this simply bids up the cost of projects.

In 2015 Labour will need to get a grip on HS2 to accelerate progress and reduce costs. But it should not forsake an infrastructure project vital to our economic and social future. After all, the 1970s are no inspiration.

Andrew Adonis was transport secretary in the last Labour government

Open any newspaper, current affairs magazine or political website and it soon becomes clear that things are not right in the UK. Pictures and idle speculation concerning new-born princes aside, it’s a quagmire of unhappiness directed towards the government, the opposition, the public sector, the private sector, our own country, foreign affairs, ourselves, each other, and One Direction. There are complex and important issues surrounding the environment, the future of the NHS, youth unemployment, the economy, how we deal with an aging population and more, yet apart from lightly grumbling when asked our opinion, we seem to be in tacit acceptance of all that’s imposed upon us.

It didn’t always used to be like this. In the 20^th Century, we – the people – got things done. From the success of the Suffragette movement, to the Jarrow march, through to the miners’ strikes of the 1970s and 80s, it’s fair to say we made sure our voices were heard when we weren’t happy with how things were going. In 1976, racist statements by high-profile musicians of the day provoked a number of artists to play a series of concerts under the Rock Against Racism banner. In Thatcher’s Britain, a new generation of musical names disillusioned with Conservative rule and the country’s growing apathy towards politics formed the pro-Labour Red Wedge collective.

Protest was commonplace and activism was the means to achieve the aims of the populace. In 1979, UK trade union membership stood at an all-time high of 13 million, but as time has gone on, interest in the unions has waned. Last year, there were fewer than 6 million active trade union members, the lowest figure since the end of the Second World War.

This is mirrored by the lack of modern-day activism. The standard riposte is that people today are less politically engaged, but general election voter turnout has been on the rise since the dark days of 2001’s 59.4 per cent. We’re a rich and varied country with a high standard of education and our own individual opinions, so why do we no longer take it upon ourselves to make things happen?

There’s no one simple answer. For starters, the double-edged sword of the internet means that whilst it everybody is given a platform to make their views known, it also gives the impression that a simple show of opinion is enough. Thirty years ago, you had to invest time and effort to truly support a cause, thus fostering an environment of solidarity amongst like-minded people. However, if you want to show your frustration 2013 style, why not simply "Like" on Facebook an article you agree with? The truly passionate could always offer up a retweet as well. We can then all sleep soundly at night knowing that we’ve made a statement, we’ve done our bit and, lo and behold, awareness has been raised.

Perhaps the problem is that, as a population at large, we’re generally quite comfortable these days? This isn’t intended to trivialise the daily injustice and struggle, government legislations that severely deteriorate people’s quality of life, and issues with poverty, unemployment and crime, amongst others. We certainly have problems, but we live in an aspirational society seemingly sponsored by Apple and maybe for a lot of people, making a stand is just a bit too much effort right now, actually. Obviously we’re against a lot of the stuff that’s going on – incensed, even – but those HBO boxsets don’t watch themselves.

It also seems that a handful of major events from the early years of this century may be shaping our collective malaise. On 15^th February 2003, one million people descended upon London to march against the impending invasion of Iraq. Similar marches took place in various cities around the world, meaning the events of the day formed part of the largest protest in history. It is estimated that up to thirty million people took part in anti-war events that weekend, yet subsequent events taught us that it was all in vain. You may have also noticed that demonstrations against the rise in university tuition fees and the G-20 summit achieved little more than adding the term “kettling” to people’s vocabularies. It’s little surprise that protests and grand political gestures aren’t high on people’s priority lists.

A mere five weeks after history’s largest protest, 45,000 British troops were deployed as part of the coalition that invaded Iraq – a key moment in the 21^st Century’s ongoing “War on Terror”. The phrase “War on Terror” was first used by George W. Bush just nine days after the attacks of 11^th September 2001. However, in a similar way to the “War on Drugs” (originally declared by Richard Nixon in 1971), a war on terror can never truly be won. Neither drugs nor terror will ever be fully eradicated and, in the case of terror, it’s simply a concept and thus a war against it has no tangible measure of success.

Waging war upon a noun coupled with the more impersonal nature of modern conflict (people can be killed with a few taps on a computer keyboard rather than hand-to-hand combat being necessary) means that concepts of the enemy and what’s being fought against have become much more generic and fuzzy. This has been exacerbated by the deaths in the last decade of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi and Osama Bin Laden – no more recognisable “bad guy” to nominally fight against means the agenda becomes less clear, both for the personnel doing the fighting and for us, the people they’re supposedly fighting for.

What happens in America still has a big say in setting the agenda for the UK, and these woolly definitions of war have now permeated into mainstream protest in this country. People no longer protest against particular events with a clear objective in mind; they too are preoccupied with fighting nouns. Much of the civil action in the UK over the past few years has been to campaign against capitalism, yet the focus is on being anti-capitalism rather than pro-anything else. Critics of the system recognise the need for something different, yet there appears to be no widespread agreement of what that something different might be. It isn’t unilaterally socialism, communism, anarchy, or anything else set up to oppose what’s currently in place.

This devolution of a single, coherent idea was aptly demonstrated by the Occupy London camp set up outside St. Paul’s Cathedral. Rather than be united behind a single message, cause or aim, it was more like the protest equivalent of a Best Of album, railing against capitalism, lack of democracy, war, the actions of large corporations, the treatment of animals and crimes against the environment. These are all important issues facing the world today, yet it’s unlikely that things will change if everybody’s clamouring to make their voice heard in the same place at the same time.

Despite this picture of 21^st Century protest being a mess of non-specific sloganeering with no thought to a solution from the few who can be bothered to turn up in the first place, there are areas where activism appears to be flourishing. A century after Suffragette Emily Davison was fatally knocked down by King George V’s horse, Anmer, during the Epsom Derby, protests in support of feminism and against sexism are plentiful. The tactics of radical protest group, FEMEN, may be controversial, but they cause a stir and are forcing people to take notice of important issues. Whilst their enemy may again be a concept – the patriarchy – they choose to fight it by campaigning against particular aspects of it: sex tourism, international marriage organisations, FGM, and more. FEMEN have also staged events in support of Russian feminist punk outfit, Pussy Riot, who have performed a series of guerrilla gigs attacking the leadership of Vladimir Putin, criticising the Russian Orthodox Church and in support of LGBT rights. These events haven’t gone unnoticed in this country, with FEMEN the subject of articles in The Guardian and on the BBC News website, and a documentary on Pussy Riot, entitled A Punk Prayer, premiering on the opening night of this year’s Sheffield International Documentary festival, which also included a Q&A with one of the band.

In terms of activism focused in the UK, Take Back The Night events and SlutWalks have been growing in prominence and popularity, with many marching against sexual violence and rape culture (admittedly, that is a concept too but it’s protest with a clear goal – the eradication of victim blaming in cases of sexual assault). Such activism shows there is still a place for well-coordinated protest in the 21^st Century, and that not all people believe widespread collective effort is doomed to failure.

Perhaps other areas of society need to take note. As we’ve seen, there’s plenty to be angry about in this country right now and it’s no use just voicing dissatisfaction; nothing will change without a viable, sustainable alternative. But if a protest is planned, considered, focused and has an agenda or tangible objective that people can support, generations before us have proved that social activism and the power of numbers is still the best thing we have to effect change. Let’s get to it.

Emma Woolf,  Supersize vs Superskinny presenter, recovered anorexic and author of the recently published Ministry of Thin, is under attack. So she wrote a book in which it was argued that thin people face discrimination in the same way fat people do. Then she wrote a piece for the Guardian reiterating this, and one for the Daily Beast, in which she claimed to have “discovered that even to hint that fatness might be anything [other] a cause for celebration is a big mistake” and that “the plus-size sisterhood can be frightening – not unlike playground bullies”.  So now it’s all blown up into fat versus thin – a literal supersize vs superskinny – despite the fact Woolf’s main aim (which I don’t doubt) has been to support those with eating disorders. It’s all deeply unpleasant, and hard for outsiders to approach (not least if one dreads being cast as a plus-sized bully). Nonetheless, if this really is how some thin people feel, isn’t it time we engaged with it?

On the face of it, this feels a tremendously pointless debate to be having, Who’s got it worst, fatties or thinnies? Seriously, is that where we’re at? And yet the level of disgust, resentment and bullying faced by fat people seems to me so high that Woolf’s position requires a response.

Woolf’s failure to acknowledge the difference between sniping at thin people and the constant discrimination faced by those who are fat is a real slap in the face to anyone who’s been on the receiving end of the latter. Hence the real pain and anger her comments have unleashed. It’s not a competition, no, but honestly – the scales just aren’t evenly balanced here.

Allow me to be clear: I’m not fat. I mention this, not because this makes me more or less authoritative, but to nip all those ad hominem “you’re just jealous” arguments in the bud. After all, Woolf has used the apparent envy of her fat friends as evidence for her thesis (she quotes one token fat friend as saying: “it’s jealousy, pure and simple. Skinny-minnies are fair game because we all want to lose weight”). I write this as a relatively slim person. I might have issues with my body but I see no need to stick a thinspirational photo of Woolf on my fridge. However, I have been fat. What’s more, I’ve also been very, very thin.

Like Woolf I suffered from anorexia for a decade. Unlike Woolf, upon recovery I went through a phase of not being able to stop eating. What happened to me – an extension/distortion of the original eating disorder – is not uncommon in former anorexics. Even so, I would like to stress that I do not think fatness or thinness in itself is indicative of an eating disorder. Woolf seems to suggest otherwise:

I see clear parallels between fatness and thinness. I believe that out-of-control eating may work in the same way as out-of-control starving, as a defence mechanism against the world, a place to retreat when it all gets too much.

For someone like me – and indeed Woolf – that might be the case, but most fat people do not get fat the way I did. Body size does not tell us everything about a person’s relationship with food and their psyche. My fatness was not another person’s fatness. I do, however, think the responses I got when I was big – and the ways in which I felt myself to be positioned in relation to slimmer people – are pretty typical when it comes to the fat person’s experience of the world.

Woolf is correct in claiming that “fat-shaming” (as in directly accusing an individual of being repulsive/unattractive/morally deficient etc. because of their size) is officially more frowned upon than “thin-shaming”. That’s not to say we don’t do it (the fat and famous are always fair game), or that we don’t find ways to get around it (the passive-aggressive indirect fat-shaming of Heat, Closer, Now etc. is aimed at all of us, not just that one starlet who failed to get sufficiently beach body ready). More important than this, though, is the fact that what we don’t say out loud to people’s faces can be far more damaging than the things we’re comfortable expressing. Antipathy towards fatness is ingrained. We don’t even need to voice it.

The moment you start – as Woolf has done – saying things like “if it’s OK for you to be fat and proud of it, it’s OK for me to be slim and proud of it, too”, you’re misunderstanding the whole concept of fat pride. You’re treading on the same ground as Straight Pride UK, with their laughable assertion that the heterosexual community need to get more “out there” and confident in their sexuality. What next? When someone mocks me for having pale skin, should I start googling “white pride”? I don’t wish to suggest race, sexual orientation and body size are equivalent attributes (many people can and do change their body size), or that fattism has the same heritage and  structural implications as racism or homophobia. What I mean is that the pride that comes from facing up to disadvantage and dismissal isn’t the same as merely feeling “woo-hoo, look at me with my slim legs / white skin / heterosexual partner!”. It’s pride not in the attributes, but in your own fundamental worth and courage. It’s something I, as a fat person, aspired to but never achieved. I didn’t want to love my flesh – it’s just flesh – but I wanted to love myself enough to face down the world (instead I resorted to chain-smoking and self-induced vomiting. The worst thing of is, given how much more accepted I feel as a smaller person, I often find it hard to regret such abuse).

Mockery of the thin –  my size zero hell, return of the lollipop ladies, etc. etc. – is not acceptable. Nonetheless, it sits within a broader context of absolute veneration of thinness. Hence there’s a curious double edge to thin-bashing. When I returned to work after nine months of breastfeeding – for once not anorexic yet underweight – I became very much aware of this. Colleagues were split between admiration (“you look fantastic!”) and rather rudely expressed concern (“you’re way too thin, you look terrible!”). Sometimes I sensed both sentiments to be coming from the same person at the same time. I felt uncomfortable not least because I felt, unwittingly, I’d made them uncomfortable, just by being there in that thin body. I worried that people would assume I was judging them for not being skinny like me (Woolf is certainly not helping thin people on that score). But – and this is a big but – I did not feel like a transgressor. I did not feel as though I was looked down on, rejected or seen as comically irrelevant (all of which I felt when fat). If anything, my discomfort was connected to the sense that I’d become, quite inappropriately, one of the chosen people.

I’d switch on the TV or flick through magazines and all I’d see were other women who were thin – thin! – like me. And then there I was, in real life, walking round the office, suddenly back among the lesser mortals, the normal people with their muffin tops and cankles. Being thin is a privilege, however you achieve it. It’s a weird one, especially if you’ve tortured yourself to get there, but it’s a privilege all the same.

I think, deep down, Woolf knows all this. She knows she’s on the side of the 100 per cent fat-free angels. In Ministry of Thin she even claims to feel pity when she sees fat children. I was a fat child, an anorexic teen, a fat adult, now a slim one. At no stage have I wanted or needed the pity of a thin woman based purely on what I look like. Acceptance, yes, pity, no. Pity implies superiority. It suggests fat children are losing on their own, self-contained grounds when actually it’s someone else’s gaze – your gaze – that seeks to rob them of their dignity. If you are too weak to see a fat child as an individual human being, someone to be responded to on his or her own terms, then I’d really question who’s most in need of sympathy.

Healthy bodies and minds aren’t defined by shape. Our outline is an indicator, and a poor one at best. The normalisation that Woolf depicts as healthy – and the fake equivalence she posits between life on the extremes – simply feeds our delusions. And yet of course, this isn’t an argument we should even be having. Aren’t we all bigger than that?  

During the Equal Marriage debate we heard much from opponents of equality about how dreadful it would be for teachers to have to tell pupils that same-sex marriage was as equal and valid as straight marriage.  Much was made of the need to protect the religious beliefs of teachers over and above the rights of same-sex couples to marry the person that they love.

Now Neil Davenport, a teacher at a north London school, has asked in an article why it is that faith schools should not be allowed to criticise homosexuality.  This is in response to research from the British Humanist Association which has found that 46 schools had Section 28 type provisions in their SRE policies banning the “promotion” of homosexuality.

I am a passionate supporter of freedom of speech and expression.  But freedom of speech does not mean freedom for a teacher to express any opinion whatsoever to pupils within a classroom.  Surely no one, including those who support Mr Davenport’s position, seriously believes that.

Those who believe homosexuality to be wrong are perfectly within their rights to publish unlettered diatribes on Spiked Online, or to stand on the corner of Oxford Circus with a sandwich board and a megaphone proclaiming the sinfulness of the “homosexual lifestyle”.  What they are not entitled to do is tell the children in their care that some of them are inherently flawed based upon their nature.

If you disagree with that then fine, but I suspect you may find yourself in some difficulty.  Because if you believe that schools and teachers have a right to promote a specific religious belief system then where do you turn to for protection when they start preaching ideas that victimise your own children?

The real conundrum for those like Mr Davenport who think it’s perfectly fine for teachers to express criticism of homosexuality in the name of faith is that it was not so long ago that religion was used to in the same way to justify the most appalling racism.

Until as recently as the 1960s it was the official doctrine of the Catholic Church that the Jewish people were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, a doctrine based on one line in the Gospel of Matthew (“Let his blood be upon us and our children”).   This doctrine was responsible for centuries of anti-Semitism, and was finally repealed by the Church in 1965 (after which, of course, they returned to being infallible). 

The Mormon Church forbade the ordination of black priests until 1978 on the grounds that black men and women had inherited the Curse of Ham (the same curse which was used to justify slavery).

Would Mr Davenport have been content with either of these doctrines being taught in schools of those religions?  One hopes and assumes not.  Yet he is content for religion today to be used as an excuse for schools to criticise, and therefore victimise, their gay pupils.

Indeed, there are a plethora of verses in any religious text that can be quoted in defence of beliefs and practises that would be abhorrent to the vast majority of people, including those of faith.  So why is homophobia an exception?

If Mr Davenport had written an article asking “why can’t schools criticise black people,” he would rightly no longer be a teacher.  Yet it is still considered acceptable for teachers to demand the right to homophobia on the grounds of personal belief. 

Ultimately I would like to see an end to faith schools so that all children have the right to go to their local school regardless of the beliefs of their parents.  However, in the absence of a fully secular education system the Department for Education must make it clear to all schools that discriminating against LGBT pupils is as unacceptable as discriminating against pupils based on disability, race or gender.

1. It's Left-wing prats who are defending our freedoms (Telegraph)

The visit by national security agents to smash up computers at the Guardian newspaper is shocking, like something out of East Germany in the 1970s, writes Janet Daley

2. The question Syria asks us: what sort of country are we? (Telegraph)

The images of the Ghouta massacre are intolerable – but David Cameron still faces a tough task in persuading his fellow world leaders to act, writes Matthew D'Acona

3. In an age of coalition, our leaders will have to change their tune (Observer)

The strong possibility of another hung parliament challenges the parties to think again about how they do politicsasons for states to monitor cyber space, writes Andrew Rawnsley

4. Let Peru judge our 'drug mules', not Britain's press (Observer)

The two young women accused of drug smuggling are being punished by the tabloids for enjoying a night out, writes Barabara Ellen

5. Children pay for our failure over Syria (Independent)

For too long we have sent mixed messages to the dictator in Damascus, writes Joan Smith

6. The Lib Dems used to keep us honest. Not any more (Observer)

The party was once the home of reasoned dissent. Power sharing has now emasculated it, writes Nick Cohen

7. Before we board HS2, tell us the true cost (Sunday Times)

The High Speed 2 rail project, HS2, is losing supporters at a speed faster than a 225mph train, writes a Sunday Times editorial

8.  Enough, Citizen Dave: we know you’d prefer Bolly on a yacht (Sunday Times)

Your first reaction to the sight of David Cameron struggling to put his trunks on without frightening the locals might well have been one of sympathy, writes Matt Rudd

9. Cricket? That's only a bonus - I came for the junk food and the beer (Independent)

A seat for the Ashes reminded me of the primary difference between football and cricket, writes Simon Kelner

10. This is where the slavery battle begins (Sunday Times)

Modern-day slavery is, first and foremost, a story of appalling and heartbreaking exploitation. Last week we highlighted the plight of the Vietnamese manicurists who are forced to work in nail bars in Britain, writes a Sunday Times editorial

Tessa Jowell has warned that attacks on Ed Milliband from inside the Labour party are creating an impression of "toxic disunity".  In a piece for the Observer today she writes that Labour's "so-called summer crisis" had been helped a great deal by Labour's own members, too open in attacking their leader. These were people, she says, "who should know better", as "publicly offered criticism is only ever destructive". It remains to be seen whether Jowell's own publicly offered criticism will do the trick. She writes:

There are complementary rights and obligations when it comes to the leadership of the Labour party: anyone may stand for the leadership, but once the winner is chosen, he or she is entitled to the loyalty and support of the party at every level. "Loyalty is what keeps the boat afloat; disloyalty the rock against which it breaks. And disloyalty comes in many shapes, most of which artfully ape the gestures of friendship. There is, however, nothing constructive in publicly delivering "helpful advice" which could be much better delivered quietly in private. For the public it creates an unappealing sense of toxic disunity.

She draws a distinction between Westminster's media coverage and the business of politics, suggesting, in her piece for a national broadsheet, that the party stay away from the former:

We are not commentators on a Westminster game of who is up and who is down, of who has coined the best soundbite or delivered the sharpest put-down. We are, rather, participants in a political contest whose outcome will affect the lives of millions of people. It is not the political class but our constituents who will pay the price if we allow David Cameron and the Conservatives another term in office – to squeeze living standards as prices rise faster than wages, to abandon families with elderly relatives and children waiting on trolleys in hospitals, or to take no responsibility towards our those of our young people who are without jobs or hope of a home of their own.

This comes as Meg Hillier, a senior Labour party backbencher, criticises the Labour party for its lack of an "Alistair Campbell-style figure", in senior advisory circles.

On 1 January 2013, the presidency of the Group of 20 (G20) developed and developing countries passed from Mexico to Russia. After a series of uninspiring and largely overlooked G20 finance ministers’ meeting, the highlight of the year will be the gathering of the leaders in St Petersburg from 5 to 6 September. But what can we expect of this eighth summit of G20 leaders?

The G20’s decision to meet in St Petersburg this year is part of a longer process by which Russia has become a central member of the various alphanumeric configurations that have come to characterize global governance. Rewind to the end of the Cold War and it was the Group of 7 (G7) that provided the mechanism by which moral support and financial assistance was extended to the former Soviet Union. Since then, Russia went through a series of different statuses within the G7 from invited observer via full member, thereby creating a Group of 8 (G8) in 1998, to host of the 2006 St Petersburg Summit (famed for the "Yo Blair!" incident when President George W. Bush was caught on microphone hailing Prime Minister Tony Blair). Despite numerous calls along the way for Russia’s membership of the G8 to be rescinded for its poor record on human rights, it was a natural and original member of the first G20 leaders’ summit and its presidency this year can be seen as a culmination of a process by which it has become an integral and recognized member of international society.

At the same time, Russia’s hosting of the G20 will also play out domestically. Leaders of all political shades have attempted to enhance their reputation and standing at home, often with elections in mind, by exploiting the tailwind that hosting a successful summit provides (pace Gordon Brown "saving the world" at the 2009 G20 London Summit). Considering that Russia will host both the Winter Olympics and G8 in the Black Sea resort of Sochi in 2014, Vladimir Putin will be blessed in the near future with numerous opportunities to showboat both internationally and domestically.

Then there is the actual agenda. The exact focus of the summit’s agenda has been developed over the year and will be a mixture of legacy issues from previous summits and new issues that the Russians hope to add. No doubt the leaders will continue their efforts to stimulate economic growth, as well as combat tax evasion. However, this is an agenda that differs only slightly from that of the G8 leaders when they met by Loch Erne, Northern Ireland earlier this year. Since the first summit of the G20 leaders in November 2008, there have been repeated claims of the G8’s irrelevance and predictions of its ultimate demise. However, it appears as if reports of the G8’s death have been greatly exaggerated, and in fact the G8 may in fact be functioning as a caucus of the "developed" nations within the larger forum of the G20.

Looking beyond St Petersburg, Australia will host the G20 in 2014 and Turkey in 2015. Thereafter, the presidency will rotate on a regional basis with the Asian grouping (China, Indonesia, Japan and South Korea) set to host in 2016. South Korea welcomed the G20 to Seoul in 2010 so is unlikely to host again so soon. Both China (seeking to increase its voice in international affairs) and Japan (scheduled to chair the G8 in 2016) have declared their interest in hosting the summit. Indonesia, as a rising middle power, might be the compromise figure everyone can agree to. Whatever the outcome, the process of confirming a host will require a degree of cooperation. Although seemingly minor, this development could provide some optimism in terms of regional cooperation within a group of Asian countries that have historically and recently shown little interest in cooperating unless strategically required to do so.

Imagining Asian regional cooperation in the future inevitably requires a shift in thinking beyond a single-country perspective, which is exactly the approach that the School of East Asian Studies at the University of Sheffield of which I am proud to currently be Head has sought to develop since its establishment as a Centre of Japanese Studies fifty years ago this year. Next month our Vice Chancellor, Professor Sir Keith Burnett, will open the Kyoto Science and Technology Forum, as part of a delegation from the university forging links with science and industry in a country uniquely poised to tackle the big issues facing the world – energy, health and sustainability. Engaging with countries like Japan has never been more important.

The East Asia region of 1963 and that of today are barely recognizable as a result of Japan and China’s rise. However, some important issues remain unresolved whether they be the divided Korean Peninsula or the continued American military presence. These changes and continuities inevitably cut across a single country’s concerns and make the region not only one of the most dynamic in the world today but also one necessary to understand for all our futures, not just the G20’s.

Michael Gove has some cheek. Yesterday he threw around cheap smears about the Labour Party when in fact it’s the Tories that need to get their house in order.

The financing of political parties is crying out for serious reform. That’s why Ed Miliband has already challenged David Cameron to bring in a statutory limit of £5,000 on all donations. Anyone would have thought Mr Gove would have welcomed such an opportunity to clean up Tory party finances.

Instead he accused Labour of wanting to introduce the "compulsory confiscation of taxpayers’ money to pay for politicians." But he conveniently forgot to tell us that David Cameron’s Tory party pocketed around £4m of taxpayers' cash a year between 2005 and 2010. Maybe Mr Gove might let us know how much of taxpayers’ money went to fund his own shadow office in opposition?

In government, the Tory party no longer accesses this 'short' money. So instead we’ve seen the number of Tory spin doctors and Tory hacks appointed to the taxpapyer-funded government payroll balloon. And this from a government that promised a "limit in the number of Special Advisers".

We’ve also seen wealthy backers continue to fund David Cameron’s Tory party. Naturally, Michael Gove defends those who donate to political parties as indeed would I. But isn’t it a funny coincidence that Mr Adrian Beecroft donated £700,000 to the Conservative Party and was commissioned to write a government report on employment law, which included a recommendation to make it easier to sack people? What a remarkable coincidence that 50 per cent of Tory funding comes from the City, the same people this government has rewarded with mega tax cuts while ordinary hardworking families continue to see their standard of living squeezed.

Funny old world, eh?

So for the avoidance of suspicion, I hope Michael Gove agrees we should have absolute transparency in the financing of political parties. With that in mind, perhaps he can tell us whether he has attended any of the private Tory dinners for donors that brought in a whopping £1,042,970.93 in the last quarter alone?

Indeed, in recent weeks we have all enjoyed reading about Mr Gove’s dinners out on the town, so I’ve no doubt we would all look forward to learning more about who the Education Secretary wines and dines with when fundraising for Conservative head office.

Of course one reason the Tory Party increasingly turns to ‘big money’ and won’t introduce a £5,000 donation cap is pure self interest – there simply aren’t enough grassroots members left to sustain them. Under David Cameron, Tory membership has dropped like a stone. In some key marginal seats, like Sherwood, they have just 30 members.

While Tory membership is withering away, Labour’s active membership is on the increase. And whereas the Tory party has been forced to rely on big wealthy donors, the biggest chunk of our income is from our ordinary members.

Since we as a party are more rooted in our communities, we’re selecting more Labour candidates from all walks of life such as former soldier Jon Wheale in Burton, teacher Mari Williams in Cardiff North, businessman James Frith in Bury North and stay-at-home mum Lisa Forbes in Peterborough, to name just a few.

Of course our candidates have links with ordinary men and women in the workplace who are members of a trade union. Labour MPs and candidates from all backgrounds and outlooks have such links because we share the same commitment to the values of equality and social justice. That doesn’t mean we all sign up to every union policy, but nor should it come as a surprise when we campaign alongside trade unionists on issues such as employment rights. Despite Mr Gove suggesting otherwise, I rather suspect he actually knows that.

Meanwhile, David Cameron’s attempts at modernisation of the Conservative Party hit the buffers a long time ago. Just this summer we’ve learnt of the existence of a nasty outfit called Traditional Britain that campaigns for "traditional values in the Tory Party". Many of us are somewhat surprised David Cameron hasn’t shown any leadership and insisted membership of Traditional Britain become incompatible with Tory membership.

Given concerns about this fringe group, I wonder if Mr Gove is able to reassure us that no Traditional Britain members have been selected as candidates or taken part in the selections that have so far taken place in the 40 Conservative target constituencies?

But if the Tory Party wants a serious discussion about party funding, I’m sure Labour campaigners would welcome them to the table. So come on Michael, if you are as concerned as you claim about party funding, why not support a £5,000 donation cap – what exactly are you scared of?

Not to get all philosophical about pop, but when Miley Cyrus starting singing "It's our party, we can do what we want" in her MTV VMAs appearance, the question that comes to mind is: oh yeah Miley, whose party? Because by the time the We Can't Stop/Blurred Lines medley is up, Cyrus has been stripped down to a supporting role in Robin Thicke's show.

Dressed in latex pants and bra the colour of her skin, like the models in Blurred Lines' Benny-Hill-goes-to-American-Apparel video, Cyrus ends up bent over in front of a suited Thicke, wiggling and hanging her tongue out the side of her mouth. Is what you want definitely such a close match with King Leer behind you, Miley?

Mind you, it's turn and turnabout in the objectification stakes. Cyrus's segment of the performance includes her bending over a black dancer and spanking her while singing the weirdly slow and mournful line: "To my homegirls here with the big butts/Shaking it like we at a strip club." Oh we're doing the Hottentot Venus thing now, are we? I haven't run the full sums on my Is-This-Racist calculator, but preliminary estimates suggests that yes, this is pretty stinkingly racist.

In fact, if you wanted a six-minute guide to the prejudices of the entertainment industry, this performance has it covered: white men run the show, black men play support, all the women get mostly naked, and black women get to hold up the bottom of the objectification pile. It is, simply, horrible, and made worse by the fact that Cyrus looks wildly awkward. She's at her best as a clowning comedian, a Disney Channel Lucille Ball, and can't play the affectless wanton. No wonder Rihanna seems to be shooting her evils: Rihanna knows sexy, and this isn't it.

But it is one of the only roles that's available to female pop stars – certainly for Cyrus, who's trying to get away from the country-pop sweetheart persona of Hannah Montana that Taylor Swift now occupies. "You're a good girl," croons Thicke ironically over Cyrus's jiggling heiny, and what do ironic good girls do? They get nasty in exactly the way boys want them to, while the boys stay neatly clothed. It makes it drearily obvious just who's in charge.

In this tedious atmosphere where everything tends to women ending up in their bras and pants, even Gaga's giddying performance-of-performance for Applause ends up feeling null when it climaxes with her dancing in bra and pants. Hey, everyone's naked today, Gaga. Next time try blowing my mind by wearing a three-piece suit or something. If the endgame is always a skinny white woman in her underwear, it doesn't seem to make much odds what the hooks are or what wit and gameplaying goes into getting there.

Yes, but pop music is about sex, right? No: pop music is sexy, but that twitching force doesn't always have to be driven into a dull pantomime of rutting, with available female bodies and smugly self-contained male ones. I cheered inside last year when Cyrus spoke up, saying "it’s ignorant not to talk to your kids about [sex] or [not] make it seem as magical or cool as it actually is." The kind of sex on show last night? Not magical. Not cool. Not my party.

Yes, Jaden Smith. We know.

WARNING: This blog is for people currently watching Breaking Bad series 5, part 2. It contains spoilers.

Ah, bank holiday Monday. What better way to spend a lazy day at the end of summer than to the close the curtains and sip coffee while two dear old friends set off on the path towards mutual annihilation. For once, I was able to watch Breaking Bad as soon as it was uploaded to Netflix, at the generally office-bound hour of 10am. The episode, “Confessions”, began calmly, rolling with a detached prologue, the relevance of which was not immediately clear.

Todd Alquist (Jesse Plemons) calls “Mr White” - for reasons that aren’t obvious, approval maybe, or perhaps professional necessity? - to tell him that he has regained control of the meth business, and will cook again now that Declan (Louis Ferreira) is well on his way to Belize. So to speak. In a diner (where else), he tells his uncle Jack and his supremacist buddy the dramatic story of the methylamine train heist - minus the part where he shot and killed Drew Sharp, who saw it all, and whose tarantula he stole. After Jack wipes blood from his heavy boots, the three of them drive into New Mexico with the methylamine tank attached to the back of a pick-up truck.

Back in the interrogation room, Jesse wakes from his moral stupor when Hank reveals that he knows his brother-in-law is Heisenberg. There is a camera in the corner, which Hank turns off, before asking Jesse to inform on his former partner. “Eat me,” Jesse replies, but Hank knows something is up. “Happy people usually don’t go around throwing millions of dollars away”. Saul Goodman bursts in and reminds the two detectives in charge of Hank's previous dealings with Mr Pinkman. “He knocked the poor kid unconscious the last time the two of them were alone together”. Hank hobbles out of the room, and Saul calls after him, “Hey Rocky, keep your dukes up!” He explains to Jesse that the situation has “gone nuclear” before we cut to Walt in his bedroom, instructing Saul to bail Jesse out, whatever the cost.

Walter Jr (RJ Mitte) makes his first appearance of series 5 part two, and is convinced by his father to stay away from his aunt Marie’s house after Walt reveals that his cancer has come back. The young lad is distraught. Breaking Bad has always managed to blend high drama with a backdrop so familiar and kitsch as to almost be embarrassing (think the naff pine decor in Walt and Skyler's bedroom). As the Schraders and Whites come together to discuss next steps, a chipper young servitor named Trent breaks up the discussion to offer them beverages, water and home-made guacamole. Walt makes a second appeal for Hank to drop the investigation: to simply let him die in his own time, to which Marie buts in with the helpful suggestion that he do them all a favour and just kill himself. The entire conversation takes place through gritted teeth. Without ordering a thing (poor Trent will probably have his paltry wages docked), they part ways, but not before Walt hands Hank a DVD.

“We make it right here at the table!” - Trent. Image: AMC.

As the Schraders growled at Walt and Skyler's plea for leniency, I couldn't help but thinking: “C’mon Walt, show a little Heisenberg”. I needn’t have worried. Walt’s “confession” is not, as we were led to expect, a bargaining tool intended to inspire mercy in Hank. It is a threat. In front of the camera (nobody is liable to forget that Breaking Bad began with a similarly-worded admission), Walt explains that he is wrapped up in a drug empire, but that Hank Schrader, a man with both the connections, the know-how, and the perfect alibi, was the mastermind behind it all. Walt even manages to cry. His mention of $177,000 in medical bills provides the final piece of incriminating detail - “the last nail in the coffin” - that will make it impossible for him to prosecute without Pinkman.

Speak of the devil. Out in the desert - “Jesus, it’s always the desert” - Saul and Jesse wait for Walter to pay them a visit. A tarantula crawls towards Jesse's feet: a reminder of Todd’s crimes, and the creeping, manipulative power Walter seems to exert over the both of them. After Walt suggests Jesse make use of Saul’s relocation expert, Jesse breaks down into tears and tells him to “quit with the concerned father bullshit.” He tells Walt to ask him straightforwardly, as a favour, or even a warning, before the two embrace and we are left unsure whether Walter really cares for Jesse, or is simply relieved to be getting his way.

What happens in the desert, stays in the desert. Image: AMC.

Saul makes the call: “I need a new dust filter for my Hoover MaxExtract PressurePro model 60 - can you help me with that?” At the car wash Walter stands in the darkness and announces to Skyler “It worked and we’re fine”, before we cut to Hank looking pensive at the DEA office. One of the qualities of the show that always surprises me is the way it makes you root for everyone, and hope that they win out, while simultaneously making clear that nobody can win, and that sooner or later they all must suffer. In the process of arranging Jesse’s departure (to Alaska, he suggests), Saul and Huell swipe Jesse’s weed so as not to jeopardise things when the professional arrives to pick him up. Looking at the packet of wilmington cigarettes in his hand, a whiskery Jesse figures out that if Huell could swipe his dope baggy, he could easily have switched out the packet with the ricin in, covering for Walter after he poisoned Brock. In the episode's final moments father and surrogate son reach for their weapons: Walt retrieves a gun stored in the A1 vending machine, Jesse a canister of gasoline. Is this how Walt’s house is destroyed? we wonder. Is the house even empty?

Three extra things:

Walt Jr’s reappearance reminded me of this.

The Hoover MaxExtract 60 PressurePro Carpet Deep Cleaner is getting some interesting reviews on Amazon.

Charlie Brooker talks to Vincent Gilligan at the Edinburgh Book Festival.

1. Only a peace conference, not air strikes, can stop further bloodshed (Independent)

The US and Russia should force their respective allies to at least agree to a ceasefire, writes Patrick Cockburn.

2. The hand-wringing has to stop. We must act (Times)

If we do not intervene to support freedom and democracy in Egypt and Syria, the Middle East faces catastrophe, says Tony Blair.

3. America’s Middle East alliances are cracking (Financial Times)

Policy rested on five crucial players but these are pulling in different directions, says Gideon Rachman.

4. Immature advisers, moral indignation and the folly of wading into this bloody morass (Daily Mail)

Unfortunately, for the cause of justice and truth, loose talk about morality is a luxury grown-up governments cannot often afford to indulge, writes Max Hastings. 

5. Don't bet against Ed Miliband doing a Mo Farah in 2015 (Guardian)

Middle East in turmoil, two key referendums and a fragile recovery mean Ed can still go for gold at the next election, writes Jackie Ashley.

6. Living standards - too big an issue for politics (Financial Times)

Westminster struggles with the reality that wage stagnation is not a peculiarly British difficulty, writes Janan Ganesh.

7. By crossing Obama’s red line, Assad has forced the US to act (Daily Telegraph)

For the world’s good, America’s credibility as a superpower must be maintained, writes David Blair.

8. None of the experts saw India's debt bubble coming. Sound familiar? (Guardian)

India's economic problems reflect a global boom-to-bust pattern, writes Jayati Ghosh. Why do policymakers act surprised?

9. The Right Track? (Times)

The government needs a more resilient case on the costs and benefits of HS2, says a Times editorial. 

10. Bric wall: A slowdown in emerging markets could threaten the global recovery (Independent)

A significant slump in the developing world would have knock-on effects, notes an Independent editorial.

The Mayor of London has a vast array of responsibilities, ranging from crime and housing through culture and environment. But the most visible, by far, is transportation. It's an area which affects every Londoner on a daily basis, and one where the Mayor has a huge prerogative, frequently unconstrained by central government or the local boroughs.

As a result, it's unsurprising that the Mayoral elections have been fought largely on the transport record. From Boris' 2008 attack on the western extension of the congestion charge zone to Ken's sally in 2012 over Tube fares, travel is the battleground where the winner is decided. The rest of the Mayor's portfolio only really gets a look-in from the wonkiest of wonks.

In his five years as London's Mayor, Boris Johnson has had the chance to leave his mark on the capital. Some of those attempts have been successful. Some, not so much.

Subsidised travel for men in suits

The first of Johnson's big branded pushes was the introduction, in the summer of 2010, of the Barclays Cycle Hire scheme. The bikes rapidly became known as "Boris Bikes", and were almost immediately popular – as well they should.

The biggest failure of the scheme, really, is that it took so long to happen. For all that Ken Livingstone points out that he was also planning on introducing a bike hire scheme, similar schemes had been in place for well over a decade on the continent by the time London got a cycle hire program; even Paris' Vélib', the most direct inspiration, was three years old in 2010. For all that cyclists need to continually battle for recognition in the city, it is naturally quite bike friendly, with lots of narrow streets, medium distances, and slow-moving traffic. The exceptions (deadly spots like Bow Roundabout or Kings Cross) really do prove the rule.

In other words, the success of the Boris Bikes can't just be measured based on whether people actually use them. That would be like Thames Water declaring they must be a good water company because of at all the people who choose to use water in their baths. Instead, the question is whether the hire programme lived up to the aims laid out for it at launch. In two key areas, it really didn't.

The most obvious problem is cost. Johnson's transport manifesto called for the scheme to happen "at no cost to the taxpayer", like Paris' scheme before it. Across the channel, advertising company JCDecaux paid the scheme's startup costs– $142m – and also provides maintenance for the bikes and stations. In exchange, it got to erect 1,600 billboards, from which the city gets a portion of the revenue.

In London, Barclays got the sponsorship (hence the delightful baby blue of the scheme, which is likely to stay the official colour forever). But the bank is paying just £5m a year for the sponsorship, which expires in 2018. That's less than a fifth of the cost of setting up and running the scheme until 2016, according to the BBC– who also reported that the commercial value of the sponsorship was somewhere between £9m and £15m a year.

So hundreds of millions of taxpayer money have been used to pay for the cycle hire scheme, contrary to Boris' bid in 2008. And that subsidy has overwhelmingly gone to the sort of people who need it least. The Guardian's Tim Lewis, writing in 2011, described the typical user as:

overwhelmingly white men aged between 25 and 44, many of whom earn more than £50,000 a year.

Those statistics won't have been helped by the doubling of the fares, from £1 a day to £2, £5 a week to £10, and £45 a year to £90, leaving a single trip on a bike more expensive than hopping on a bus. And while an upcoming expansion to Southwest London is partially aimed at encouraging "trial and take-up by a wider demographic", that's hindered by TfL's policy of insisting that local councils pay for part of the cost of expanding into their areas. Jonn Elledge reports that:

The eastward expansion cost Tower Hamlets £1.9 million; the latest round will cost Lambeth £200k, and Kensington & Chelsea £400k. Wandsworth and Hammersmith, meanwhile, are paying up to £2 million apiece.

The figures were uncovered by MayorWatch over the course of last year (See here, here and here). Elledge asks:

What if an inner borough, with a Labour council and no spare cash, were to reject the idea of co-funding one of Boris’s pet projects? Would we end up with a hole in the scheme forever more?

The cycle hire scheme is rightly popular. But without some effort, it could end up being a permanent subsidy for besuited men cycling from Waterloo station to their offices in the City – and it deserves to be so much more than that.

Soaring majestically from nowhere to nowhere

Where the cycle hire scheme was always guaranteed a modicum of success, Boris' second major project was not. The cable car – officially the Emirates Air Line, semi-popularly the "Dangleway" – seemed questionable from the off.

The cable car links the O2 Dome, on the Greenwich peninsula, to the ExCel exhibition centre by Royal Victoria Dock. Sort of. It actually links an area six minutes walk away from the western entrance of ExCel and another area about four minutes walk from the O2. That's almost a secondary consideration, however, when one considers the reasons why people might want to make the journey in the first place.

There aren't any.

For one thing, the link actually replicates a pretty strong connection which already exists (one stop on the Jubilee line then one stop on the DLR). But more importantly, there isn't much of a reason why people would be going from an arena/shopping mall/cinema to a conference centre.

There was such a reason, back in the summer of 2012. Both the O2 and ExCel were Olympic venues, and it was to be expected that a fair few people would be travelling between them. With the Jubilee line between Stratford and central London likely to be rammed tight, alternative river crossings were crucial. And, as expected, the cable car was heavily used during the weeks of the Olympics. But after that, usage dropped off sharply:

50,000 passengers a week is roughly equivalent to a good-sized bus route, and a tiny fraction of the total capacity of the cable car. And, as the seasonality makes clear, the vast majority of those using the link are tourists, who treat the car as an attraction in its own right; hence the spikes in ridership during school holidays and the summer months. Excluding engineering, the all-time low currently stands at just 14,755 riders in the week ending 2 February.

As well as the problem of going from nowhere to nowhere, there's a further flaw in the plan to get people in the local area using the cable car: it's really expensive. The cheapest possible tickets, bought in bulk and paid for in advance, are £1.60 a trip; the Oyster single fare is £3.20, twice the cost of a bus journey. Travelcards are not valid at all. Unless you live in Millennium Village, the housing development by the dome, and work in ExCel, you are probably going to find some other way to get to work.

None of this is fully wrecks the case for the cable car, though. Building something which encourages tourists to come to a relatively deprived part of London has value, and if the project pays its operating costs with those high fares, then it might be worthwhile. Locals can continue to use the Jubilee line to cross the river, with tourists safely tucked away in big capsules. (More importantly, the cable car provides a way to get bicycles across the river between the Woolwich and Greenwich links, which is genuinely rather useful)

But there's a cost:benefit decision to be made. Initially, Emirates Airline were supposed to fund the entire thing; as Johnson said in 2010:

The aim is to fund the construction of the scheme entirely from private finance and discussions are ongoing with a number of private sector organisations that have expressed interest in the project.

In the end, Emirates put in £36m on a ten-year sponsorship. For their money, the airline got to name the cable car after themselves, make its official colour Emirates Red (likely to stay that way even after they've stopped paying), and impose some pretty questionable requirements on the Mayor himself. But in the end the money wasn't enough to build the project, let alone run it. Mike Tuffrey, the Lib Dem London Assmebly budget spokesman, told Mayorwatch in 2011 that:

Transport for London admit that this sponsorship deal only meets 80% of the construction cost. This leaves many millions of pounds worth of funding to be found from TfL’s budget.

The total cost of the project is £60m, of which £45m is construction. Given the Mayor needed to promise it would be "entirely" funded from private finance to get approval, it seems unlikely that the final price tag represents the best thing that public funds could have been spent on.

The route master

The Boris Bus – also known as the New Bus for London (its real name), or the New Routemaster (not its real name) – is the most blatantly populist of the Mayor's transport projects. Perfectly combining London's deeply felt, if irrational, love of the old Routemaster buses with London's deeply felt, if irrational, hate of the new bendy buses, he promised in the run-up to the 2010 election to scrap the latter and replace them with the former.

(Bendy buses had some genuine flaws, particularly around fare evasion and manoeuvrability, but also made a great deal of sense for a few routes in outer London. For instance, the 207, a long route running from Shepherds Bush to Hayes, has few corners, and several stations where almost the entire bus is emptied and refilled; the three doors sped up the process considerably. In addition, despite Johnson's claim that "there are many cyclists killed every year by them," there hasn't actually been any cyclist killed by them in London ever. Nonetheless, the bendies are no more, the last one in London having been removed from service in 2011.)

Since the Routemaster is actually a rather terrible bus, inaccessible, polluting, slow and unsafe, it wouldn't do to actually use them widely on London streets. And so the competition to design a Routemaster for the 21st century was launched.

This next part may be familiar. At Mayor's Question Time in 2009, Boris was asked how much public cash would be required to pay for the New Routemaster. His response:

I imagine the cost of the development of that new bus will be borne by the industry… If you look at the current cost of a bus… £250,000, roughly speaking, buys you a new bendy bus. We think we can get a wonderful new bus for London which will be considerably cleaner, greener, lighter, exactly what this city needs… for much less than that."

Even at the time, that wasn't strictly true. TfL had allocated £3m to build the bus, and as the Guardian's Dave Hill points out, if the new buses cost more to run, that would inevitably be reflected in the contracts TfL had to sign with the bus companies.

In the end, the R&D for the bus came to £11m, paid for by London. With the design finalised, TfL placed the initial order for 600 of the buses, at £212m. That makes the average price of the bus £354,500, not only considerably higher than the £250,000 Boris promised, but also around £50,000 more expensive than the average hybrid bus running on London's streets.

But that £50,000 difference will be amortised over the expected 14-year lifespan of the buses. It's a lot, but comparatively little per year per bus. The real bulk of the cost comes from something which TfL is looking increasingly shifty about: the "conductor".

The original Routemasters were operated by a driver, who was isolated from the rest of the bus, and a conductor, who checked tickets and guarded the rear platform at the back. This two-person operation was standard at the time, but over the intervening years, the driver/conductor model became outmoded. It was too expensive to have two members of staff on each bus, and once a bus was full of standing passengers, the conductor couldn't manoeuvre to do their job anyway.

But the New Bus for London returns to the model, because an open rear platform needs someone supervising it most of the time. And those conductors, the Guardian reports, "cost about £62,000 for each bus" each year.

But strangely, TfL doesn't actually call them conductors. Instead, they're advertising for "passenger assistants." The reason why becomes clear when you discover that they are not actually employed to check tickets. Yet with three doors, all for entry and exit, the bus is open to exactly the same problems of fare-dodging as the old bendy buses were. TfL has been insistent that the new buses aren't a "replacement" for the old, despite that being Boris' implication for years; but it's probably a good thing, since it's looking less and less likely that they could hold up as such under scrutiny.

Boris Johnson clearly wants to leave his stamp. By the time he leaves office, he'll have 600 buses, 8,000 bikes and a cable car dotted around the city, all closely associated with him. Thanks to them, he'll stick in London's collective memory for decades. But unless the problems with each of them is sorted out, that may not be the blessing he thinks it will be. For the bikes, fixing the problems is more than possible; a tighter focus on price, on availability in poorer areas, and on making sure that the next sponsor pays a fair share of the costs could well be enough. For the cable car, the best thing to do may be to cut the losses and focus on its potential as a tourist attraction. And for the buses… fourteen years isn't that long. At least we don't have to buy any more.

After cutting short his summer holiday in Cornwall to return to Downing Street, David Cameron is expected to decide later today whether to recall Parliament in response to the crisis in Syria. More than 60 MPs have now signed Labour MP Graham Allen's Early Day Motion demanding "a full debate before any British commitment to military action in Syria". 

But while Cameron may be willing to grant a debate, this leaves open the question of whether a vote will be held before any action is taken. Interviewed on the Today programme this morning, shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander raised the stakes by arguing that there "should be a vote" after the government has set out its case for intervention. Asked whether action could still be taken if MPs refused to vote in favour, he replied: "I don't think it [the government] would have a mandate in Parliament, I can't state it more clearly than that." Significantly, he added that Labour "would whip" its MPs against military action if it was not persuaded by the government's case. Alexander said that he was "unconvinced" that an air campaign could "decisively resolve a conflict that has unfolded in the last two years in Syria." He criticised William Hague for "almost implying force is inevitable without setting out the evidence and the objectives". 

While the government has previously promised MPs a vote on Syria, this commitment was made in reference to arming the rebels, not conducting air strikes. William Hague said in June: "We have a good record on going to the House of Commons for a vote. There would be a vote one way or another. I can't see any reason why it couldn't be before any such decision was implemented. Just for the sake of clarity, we wouldn't use a parliamentary recess to say we can't consult parliament because it's the middle of August, so MPs don't have to be concerned about that." After Alexander's intervention, the government is likely to come under significant pressure from MPs of all parties to also ensure that Parliament has the final say on whether Britain participates in an air campaign against Syria. 

Ackman puts JC Penney stake up for sale (FT)

Bill Ackman has put his stake in JC Penney up for sale as the hedge fund manager prepares to end three years as the biggest shareholder in the department storewhere he has lost at least 40 per cent of his original investment.

HS2: Businesses 'not convinced' of economic benefits (BBC)

A leading business lobby group has called on the government to abandon its controversial high-speed rail project.

The Institute of Directors (IoD) said a survey of its members showed businesses were unconvinced by the economic case for HS2.

UK services firms strongest since boom days of 2007 (Telegraph)

Britain's services firms have enjoyed the fastest rise in business volumes since the boom days of 2007 in the past three months and expect further growth later this year, a survey showed on Tuesday.

JP Morgan told to pay Blavatnik $50m in damages (BBC)

JP Morgan has been ordered to pay Russian billionaire Leonard Blavatnik $50m after losing a claim for damages.

HKEx picks Garry Jones to head LME (FT)

Garry Jones, former chief executive of NYSE Liffe, has been appointed head of the London Metal Exchange.

The Institute of Directors (IoD) has called for HS2 to be scrapped. A survey of its members found little enthusiasm for the £50bn high-speed rail project.
 
"We agree with the need for key infrastructure spending, but the business case for HS2 simply is not there. It is time for the government to look at a thousand smaller projects instead of falling for one grand folly," said the IoD's director general, Simon Walker.

Michael Gove's favoured modus operandi of flattering his opponents into submission (before sticking the knife in) was on full display in his speech on Ed Miliband and the trade unions today. The Education Secretary said of Miliband: 

The sad truth is that, charming, intelligent, eloquent, thoughtful, generous and chivalrous as Ed Miliband may be, in this critical test of leadership he has been uncertain, irresolute, weak. To the question [of] who governs Labour, his answer would appear to be, increasingly: the unions.

It seems that Gove was undeterred by John Bercow's brilliantly accurate mockery of his style during a Q&A with German students at the Hertie School of Governance in February (revealed last week). Bercow observed:

Michael Gove has got a capacity for referring to other members in terms that are elaborate and nominally polite, but which if reflected upon will be seen to be pretty damning," he said. "Now some people think he's patronising.

He has got a habit of saying: 'Well, that's a typically acute observation by the honourable gentleman; well, I congratulate the honourable gentleman, he's certainly brought to my notice a matter of considerable import' – even though the matter brought to his notice is as banal a matter as can possibly have been raised at any time that afternoon.

Michael will sort of lavish the person with superficial praise and then will proceed to explain 'why in this particular case, not withstanding my very real and deep-rooted admiration, he does suffer from the quite notable disadvantage of being wrong'.

Crossrail – the new, £14.5bn rail line due to open in 2019 – has come under fire today for not being fully open to women. Seven of the stations, including four in London, have been designed with a sensor that means it will be physically impossible for anyone without a Y chromosome to cross the platform. Mechanisms to address the censors are available but bosses have no plans to implement them, leaving women without full access. 

Women’s groups are understandably outraged. 

“It’s simple discrimination,” said a spokesperson for Transport for All, the group set up to address the continual exclusion of women from the use of public transport. “It’s offensive that in this day and age a woman can’t gain full access to public transport. And all because of a characteristic a person can’t help that their body has. It just doesn’t make sense. How did the many people behind Crossrail think it was okay to plan a new, major public transport link that excluded a section of the public?”

There are rumours that several other stations will only be accessible to people with light skin due to further sensor problems on the platforms, but, other than platitudes during interviews, the Mayor’s office has failed to provide any concrete commitment to make the necessary changes.

Only joking! None of that’s happening at all, of course. Or rather, it’s only happening to disabled people. Seven of the stations for Crossrail will not have step-free access to platforms, meaning wheelchair users and other disabled people won’t be able to use them. So that’s fine, then. 

It’s not like anyone involved in Crossrail could predict that disabled people might need to get around or that, you know, they even existed. They’re often shut in their house and it’s easy to forget them. 

It’s not like there was a global sporting event that specifically highlighted the inclusion of disabled people, held exactly a year ago in the same city. Or that the accessibility of public transport was actually featured in the bid for that event.

Plus, it’s not as if Crossrail is a long-term or expensive project where these sort of issues had a chance to come up. Massive infrastructure improvements that cost almost £15bn worth of public money are typically designed and approved in one afternoon on the back of a Tube map. And no matter what the PC brigade say, you can definitely put a price on equality and a human being’s right to be part of society. Sure, when it comes to making Crossrail fully accessible that price is only 0.2 per cent of the total cost, but when it comes to public money, you have to be careful not to waste it. Other than building a vast, expensive new piece of public transport that isn’t suitable for some of the public, obviously. 

As Tanni Grey-Thompson told me for the New Statesman last week, no disabled person expects existing public transport to be perfect. But what’s Crossrail’s excuse? At this point, it’s just those in power actively excluding certain people from the transport everyone else uses, and as a consequence, mainstream society. But it’s only disabled people, right? They really should be used to it by now. 

Coinciding with a week of action by Disabled People Against Cuts, on Thursday 29^th August Transport for All are leading a protest against the inaccessibility of Crossrail. You can lend your support here.

Science and technology writer – newstatesman.com

The New Statesman is hiring a science and technology writer, who will work predominantly on the magazine’s website.

This a full-time paid job based in our office in London, with a salary to be determined depending on experience.

The successful candidate will write daily blog posts, as well as commission and edit guest pieces for newstatesman.com on science and technology topics. The position is a junior one on our expanding web desk, and would suit a journalist with some experience in online writing, and a strong interest and background in covering this field.

The ideal candidate will:

• Have excellent writing skills
• Be immersed in internet culture (eg know the correct pronunciation of “gif”, or have strong opinions about it)
• Demonstrate the ability to assimilate new topics at speed
• Be comfortable commissioning and editing guest posts from other writers, and curating a wide range of science and tech coverage
• Have a strong background in science and/or technology (a degree or other qualification is helpful, but not essential)
• Be passionate about your field (know your App.net from your Branch, and care about the existence, or not, of the Higgs Boson)
• Be familiar with how to use a web content management system

Please apply with a CV and a covering letter to Deputy Editor Helen Lewis on helen[at]newstatesman[dot]co[dot]uk by 5pm on Friday 6 September 2013. As part of your covering letter, please include a 200-word outline of how you think newstatesman.com could improve and expand its science and technology coverage. Please don’t send large attachments of cuttings or portfolios – this will be requested at a later date if required.

NB Applications which do not follow this outline will not be considered.