Run with Eric + TIME

Politics both sides of the Atlantic remains as hostile as ever as politicians bite, punch and scratch each other, grappling and grasping on the greasy pole of power for a slightly better purchase and a slightly better view before inevitably slipping, sliding and falling, falling, falling into public shame and ignominy, a seat on the back benches and an autobiography explaining how none of it was their fault and they're the nice guys really – it's the other ones you want to watch out for.

Elections mean one thing, and that's politicians electing to destroy one another. Or at least to kill their rivals' careers. This week, David Miliband elects to kill off Gordon Brown, John McCain elects to kill off Barack Obama and wives electing to kill off their abusive husbands get some good news from the Government.

All in all, it's enough to make you think that Britain's much-publicised problem with knife crime could be helped if Cabinet ministers stopped plunging them into each other's backs.

Miliband begins to play
On the negative campaign trail
Getting away with manslaughter

"It came to me in a dream," Foreign Secretary David Miliband told me over tea at high noon the other day. "I was contemplating the Lisbon Treaty when Tony Blair appeared in front of me, arms outstretched, clutching a sharp instrument. 'Is this a dagger which I see before me,' I asked, 'the handle toward my hand?' 'Yes,' said Tony. 'Now use it. Use it, David, and never look back.' And he disappeared to the Middle East, leaving only his smile.

"I crept by night into Southwold, thinking of nothing but power and glory – and on occasion the future of the Labour Party – as I drew closer to my goal. There lay Gordon, asleep, wearing a jacket and open collar shirt. I knew what I had to do. I thrust my dagger into his cold, Scottish heart. Then I turned to the crowd behind me and proclaimed myself King – of Labour, of the Government, and of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 'Brown is dead,' I cried. 'Long live David Miliband, Prime Minister.' And the crowd went wild."

But it didn't quite work out like that, did it, David? No – instead your article in The Guardian was seen for the weak challenge to the premiership it was, nobody got behind your cause and rather than hoist you on their shoulders, your colleagues threw you out on your arse. And then a poll showed that your adoring public have even less faith in you than they do in Gordon Brown.

(This poll also indicated that the most popular Labour leader at the moment would be Blair ("Come back, Tony, all is forgiven"). Strange, since twelve months ago everybody hated him and couldn’t wait for him to resign. It just goes to show that hindsight is a wonderful thing.)

I would call it unfortunate that Miliband gauged the opinions of party and public alike so spectacularly badly, but it's just too funny. It must have seemed like such a good idea. But the fact is, despite voters coming to terms with politicians being on the whole sly, devious and ready to do anything for a vote, still no one likes a backstabber.

Miliband's reputation with the public at this stage in his career is as something of a nonentity. Foreign Secretary he may be, but he has not captured the public's attention. That's why he should have waited until he had more of a following, or learnt from the Yes Minister Christmas Special and organised a (better) publicity stunt and then waited for the press to tout him as a potential leader before presenting himself as one to an uninterested public.

However, while British voters can shrug their collective shoulders at his machinations, they can't actually punish his vaulting ambition. His party can. And that’s where the folly in his plan lay. With Miliband revolting and Harriet 'This is my moment' Harman changing the locks at No.10, Gordon Brown probably can't wait to get back from what is essentially a forced holiday (does he look like the kind of person who enjoys going on holiday?), and since he urgently needs to reinforce his authority and wouldn't be likely to suffer much of a backlash, his first act upon returning – apart from informing the milkman – might be to sack David Miliband as Foreign Secretary.

That would certainly be the sensible thing to do. But rumours abound that the PM might just give his errant Foreign Secretary a slap on the wrists and forget – publicly at least – the whole affair. This would be a sign of weakness, not strength. It's time for the chop.

Special offer this week: John McCain's oven chips, best served on his shoulder with a side salad of negative campaigning (and a dressing of poor metaphors).

McCain has hit out again at Barack Obama’s celebrity status. His new TV ad, 'Celeb', uses pictures of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to accuse Obama of being all mouth and no trousers (though admittedly that worked for Bill Clinton until Hillary found out).

Obama has shrugged this off, but has unfortunately been drawn into a bit of negative campaigning himself, accusing the McCain camp of making his race an issue. While this is quite possibly true, it's not been obviously clear in McCain's campaign, so in pointing it out Obama runs the risk of doing his job for him, appearing to have a chip on his shoulder about perceptions of his colour, and playing The Black Candidate.

Negative campaigning is the way in American presidential elections, of course: it always has been and it always will be. Jeremy Clarkson argued in The Sun – sorry, it was in my Chinese while I was waiting for a takeaway and I've got into the habit of reading whatever paper is put in front of me for the news if not its opinions – that Obama’s pledges are "rabble-rousing gobbledegook" and bet that "no one can name a single one of his policies." He then says McCain is no better. But that’s American elections for you – all character and no politics.

Still, even by normal standards, McCain's campaign is a full-blown attack. He has stayed very quiet about his own qualities, for obvious reasons, perhaps. He is not saying "I can lead", but "Obama can't". He is essentially turning the election into a referendum on whether or not the American public want Obama to president.

Which, sadly, could prove very effective. It's easier to vote against someone than for them, and with McCain still playing the experience card, as Hillary Clinton did with the 3am ad (not that I can find it anywhere on YouTube amidst all the spoofs), there is doubt amongst American voters over Obama's aptitude for the job. As ugly as they are, McCain’s tactics could just win him the election.

Not if Ludacris has anything to do with it, though. It's a shame that Obama has had to distance himself from Ludacris' song Politics As Usual (though he did have to) because it has some absolutely inspired lyrics that confirm Ludacris' place, for me at least, at the top of the American rap pile. "Paint the White House black – I'm sure that's got `em terrified / McCain don't belong in any chair unless he's paralysed."

Brilliant.

Something that concerned me this week were strange changes in homicide laws. The old 'jealous rage' defence is no longer viable for men who murder their partner after finding her in flagrante, reasonably enough, but women living in fear of future violence from their partner could be charged with manslaughter rather than murder if they kill him first. Also charged with manslaughter instead of murder will be parents who kill a paedophile molesting their child and rape victims who kill an attacker taunting them for their misfortune.

First up, that's still murder. Even if you disagree with everything else I say – quite possible – we must agree on the semantics. Deliberately killing someone is murder. Self-defence can bring a charge down to manslaughter. But these cases are not self-defence; they are murders, planned and executed.

Secondly, I apologise for the gender stereotype that men kill their partners in a rage while women wait until the time is ripe, but that's how the law has been made. Melanie McDonagh writes a good piece on the gender generalisation of it all. I’d like to have seen fewer gender-specific words in the plans.

"It will end the injustice of the perpetrators making excuses saying it's not their fault," said Harriet Harman, Deputy Labour Leader, Women’s Secretary and Acting PM. Uh... will it? It will end the injustice of male perpetrators making excuses saying it's not their fault. But it positively encourages women to do it.

Battered wives who kill their husband after years of abuse can now use the defence that they acted in response to "extreme words and conduct" (for some reason, the word "extreme" is in Tuesday’s Telegraph but dropped from the online version of the report). This all sounds a little "He started it" in my eyes. Verbal provocation is not the same as physical abuse in the self-defence stakes.

Besides, what are "extreme words"? "You fucking syphilitic whore"? "I hope you die"? Or does it have to be more personal? "I'm glad you have cancer", for example? How extreme do the words have to be to justify killing the person who says them? The above examples are sickening, but they are still just words, and words are not incitement to murder (or, at least, shouldn't be). It seems that for abusive husbands now, sticks and stones may break your bones, but names can leave you dead.

I don't want to trivialise the issue. But I feel that's what the new proposals are doing. Obviously you will still be punished for killing your spouse, and '’m not saying there will now be a spate of 'justice killings' from raped or beaten women, but the new laws almost encourage people to take the law into their own hands. Allowing the deliberate killing of a rapist to be manslaughter because of his "later taunting" is worrying. It opens the door for people to 'right past wrongs' knowing they won't be charged with murder.

The most serious of crimes has been massively downgraded. Even neighbours' disputes that end in a deliberate killing may now be wiped clean of murder. That is downright scary.

You simply can't legislate for instances that are this specific. What constitutes self-defence? What constitutes provocation? What constitutes incitement to murder? Those are questions for the courts to decide.

This dangerous law needs to be stopped, by any means necessary. Kill it dead. It'll only be manslaughter anyway.