tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-50156301046142636462024-03-05T09:56:20.356+00:00Politico-manian. A passion for or obsession with politics.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-30819688875350263892011-08-08T20:07:00.003+01:002011-08-08T21:19:12.523+01:00#LondonRiots : Not acceptable, but understandableThere are not many people who'll stand up for the rioters and the looters at the moment, but I'll give it a shot. I don't want to stand up for the rioting and the looting, merely recognise that when people feel powerless, have no opportunities, and have nothing to lose, it doesn't take much for them to step into lawlessness. We live in a country with great disparities between rich and poor, where a right-wing goverment is seen to be hitting the poorest hardest, and where a rabid right-wing press talks constantly about scroungers and chavs. The question shouldn't be "Why are they rioting?", but rather "Why aren't they rioting more often?"
<br />
<br />Most people can't put themselves in the shoes of the rioters. They can't imagine having nothing to lose. They only find their individuality lost to the crowd in the relatively safe environments of concerts or football matches, rather than in Tottenham at night amongst a crowd who feel equally persecuted. Yet people are quick to say they wouldn't behave that way, or to continue the Daily Mail's discourse about the working class scum, the need to repeal the human rights act, and calling for water-cannon on the streets of London.
<br />
<br />The right are equally products of their environment, the difference is that they have far more opportunity to escape their ignorance...yet amazingly few choose to do so.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-86072644584180138202011-04-30T11:34:00.006+01:002011-04-30T16:16:29.150+01:00Why I will be Voting #No2AVFollowing a pro-royalist blog post with a #No2AV blog post runs the risk of my being mistaken for a Tory by the innocent who stumbles across my blog. After all, aren't the 'progressive' parties supporting the proposed Alternative Vote, whilst those conservative Conservatives are standing in the way of voting reform? The problem is that AV is not a black and white issue, and whilst the #No2AV campaign has been full of crap, that does not mean that #Yes2AV is inevitably good. There are both good and bad points for voting for AV, both in terms of the system itself, and in the context of the current parliament. <br /><br />Under the AV system candidates will need to get 50% of the votes as the second and later preferences of the least successful candidates are counted in turn. In theory this will mean that candidates are forced to engage more with the electorate as their seats inevitably become less secure. This is seen as a good thing, re-enfranchising many people who found themselves in previously safe constituencies. However appeasing 50% of the population is no easy thing, and seems likely result in the election of the candidate who offends the least number of people rather than does the best job. I should, at this point, out myself as an <span style="font-style:italic;">elitist</span>, not in the Tory-inherited-wealth mould, but rather in the mould of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Jenkins">Roy Jenkins</a>. Sometimes governments need to make decisions and pass laws that do not necessarily have the backing of the masses. Whilst we may associate such unpopular decisions with decisions to go to war, or the current spate of cuts, they also include the passing of many of the UK's most liberal laws.<br /><br />Jenkins is seen as one of the driving forces behind a wide range of social reforms in the late sixties by the Labour party, such as the decriminalization of homosexuality and government support for the legalisation of abortion. However it is important to recognize that such bills, which most Liberals would now support, would not have been popular with the majority of the population. Jenkins did what he thought was right, not merely what the people wanted. A government's job is to lead and sometimes make unpopular decisions, and it's easy to see how this could become more difficult if MPs are expected to appease a wider range of people.<br /><br />The question is whether the benefits of greater engagement are outweighed by the disadvantage of having to appease the masses, and that is not as black and white as the #Yes2AV campaign would have us believe. However I do believe that #Yes2AV could prop up the Liberal part of the government, and without an overwhelming case for #Yes2AV I am not willing to do that. <br /><br />The Conservative Party must feel as though it's Christmas every day at the moment. They are getting to make huge cuts in public services with the support of an increasingly weak bunch of Liberal Democrat MPs, who are taking a disproportionate amount of the blame. They are taking the blame because the public believes that Lib-Dems should know better. So why do the rank-and-file members of the party put up with it? Because they are holding out for one scrap from Cameron's table, the largest of which is electoral reform. It's not the sort of electoral reform Liberals want, or would give them a real voice in parliament, but it's the only reform they were being offered. If, however, they fail to get even the meagre scrap of AV, it's hard to see how the coalition will last another four years. Especially when Liberals feel the #No2AV campaign to have been so dishonest.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />When AV is not the electoral reforms that the Liberals ever wanted, and by no means an unadulterated good, it is hard to see it as anything more than support for Nick Clegg and the Liberal support of the coalition. Neither of which I am willing to support.</span>Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-63612953079041543112011-04-25T17:33:00.002+01:002011-04-25T19:14:22.102+01:00Why I will be watching the Royal WeddingThis Friday, unless Prince William is jilted at the alter (currently a 100-1 outside bet according to <a href="http://www.oddschecker.com">Oddschecker</a>), the second in line to the British throne will marry Kate Middleton. Half the country will watch, and half the country will be doing everything they can to make sure they don't watch. Along with the non-republican half of the country I will be hanging up the bunting, eating cucumber sandwiches and cream cakes, and drinking tea out of my William and Kate mug. Despite my near-communist beliefs, and a general distaste for inherited privilege, I am (at least for the present) a Royalist. <br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEvtq4rHoE3VRjGPdoLXu1f8bfs4B49c_8jF325nlRL_AYWTL93lwYKjIfVnGDXHii_VeYlmdCppdECsK6fQt3LcIwxynpzBKcZuAPzUES71u-MVynbmkPijPdSF0buiCa7J2N7hBhX2I/s1600/RoyalWedding.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 303px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEvtq4rHoE3VRjGPdoLXu1f8bfs4B49c_8jF325nlRL_AYWTL93lwYKjIfVnGDXHii_VeYlmdCppdECsK6fQt3LcIwxynpzBKcZuAPzUES71u-MVynbmkPijPdSF0buiCa7J2N7hBhX2I/s400/RoyalWedding.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5599560692992675938" /></a><br />Wealth and opportunity are extremely unevenly distributed in the UK, and whilst it may appear unfair for the head of state to be based on the luck of the womb, most of the people who 'have done well for themselves' have in fact done well in their 'choice' of womb. There are far better places to start if we want to root out inherited privileges than doing away with the Royal Family; let us impose 100% inheritance tax, abolish private schools, do away with jobs and interns through the old boy network, nationalize industries rather than subsidize corporations. When we bring about a real socialist utopia, then let us deal with the rather minor point of the royal head of state.<br /><br />It's not just about wealth and opportunity, people will argue, it's about the right for people to choose our own head of state to represent the country around the world. Putting aside the fact that the British public aren't even allowed to choose the Eurovision Song Contest entry these days due to their appallingly bad taste, let us suppose for the moment they have the right to choose a head of state. It seems the options are either to have a ceremonial head of state, or combine the post with the head of government. Neither sounds particular appealing.<br /><br />A ceremonial head of state either promises a future where the British public recognizes the post's non-political role and elect one celebrity candidate after another, or alternatively recognizes the gravity of the role and vote for more politically minded individuals. I do not want a political head of state, whether ceremonial or combined with the head of government, if for no other reason than when they represent this country I don't want to confuse the person and their politics with the office. <br /><br />Having a political head of state necessarily brings forward confusing allegiances. It was interesting to read some Democratic bloggers when the Iraqi journalist threw a shoe at George W. Bush. Whilst they disliked Bush, they couldn't help but see the shoe being thrown at the office of President. If someone takes a pot-shot at David Cameron I don't want to see it as a shot at the British way of life represented by the British head of state, but rather see it as the death of nothing more than a crap Prime Minister. As long as would be assassins leave the monarch alone, I promise not to take it as a personal slight.<br /><br />When I watch the royal wedding this Friday I will be watching the continuation of the British tradition. I will be celebrating the fact I am not French with tea and sandwiches. If the monarch of the day starts to abuse their royal privileges, or a socialist utopia is built on these shores, we can revisit the situation again, but until then, as long as the Queen and all who follow her continue their current apolitical position, I will continue to wave my union jacks at the appropriate national occasions.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-92033776414593614012010-10-05T08:46:00.002+01:002010-10-05T10:12:15.723+01:00Child benefit cuts is not the story!There were two big pieces of news in George Osborne's speech yesterday: 1) child benefit is going to be taken away from the top earners; 2) benefits are to be capped at £26,000. Whilst everyone is talking about child benefits, it's the benefit cap which is most concerning and disgusting. The difference, however, is child benefits are being taken away from nice hard working families(i.e., people like us), not from the workshy benefit scrounging scum (i.e., people like them).<br /><br />The Daily Mail would have people believe that we live in an age where those on benefits are "<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317740/Child-benefit-cuts-Stay-home-mums-fury-plans-strip-middle-class-families.html">living high on the hog at taxpayers' expense</a>". Of course it's rubbish, unless 'high on the hog' means having no money 90% of the time - not 'no money' as in "I'm having to holiday in the UK this year because we have <span style="font-style:italic;">no money</span>", but "I can't buy a pint of milk because I have no money". The sort of poverty that grinds you down and kills any ambition to get up in the morning, let alone get on in life. The sort of poverty that when you are born into, is very difficult to get out of. The sort of poverty that we should help people out of, not point and blame people for being in. If you're not in that situation remember it's got more to do with the family you were born into and the chances you've had along the way than anything you have done yourself.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Why should a family be allowed to claim more in benefits than the average working wage?</span><br />Because some families <span style="font-weight:bold;">need</span> more than the average working wage. If you have four kids and are living in private accommodation in central London, £26,000 isn't going to get you very far - whatever the 'average wage' is. And what do we do in situations where £26,000 is not enough? Where people can't get a job? Do we take children into care? Do we have compulsory sterilisation for poor people after they've had two kids? Do we put families in workhouses?<br /><br />I don't doubt that there's a benefits trap, that some people find that they can get more on benefits than by working - generally because their earning potential is far below £26,000. The answer to the problem should be to increase people's earning potential, not reduce people's standard of living on benefits to the point that any wage is better. By Tory logic reducing benefits to £5 per head and a bottle of milk would stop anyone being in a benefits trap!<br /><br />Breaking the link between need and benefit entitlement is wrong, and should be a far bigger story than the loss of child benefits to the better off. Unfortunately the poor are not particularly pretty and don't have much political muscle. Whilst I can imagine some back-peddling on child benefits, the £26,000 cap will probably stay.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-40704087097987726402010-09-25T17:09:00.010+01:002010-09-25T18:30:18.792+01:00Ed Miliband - Prime Minister in 19 months?At last the Labour Party has a new leader and can start buildig an effective opposition. Despite the public having no idea the direction the Labour Party would take, Labour have already been catching the Tories in the polls, and one can't help but be excited about the potential for a significant Labour surge. Especially as the cuts start to bite and the coalition starts to fall apart. <br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj96yIX5EyCL5wxzSBtjLV2nhLQ8QisLY1cZGTj6lIBojNDaJJRRGnIIrDLuyGhcFSb3RsUgjHgAeEHPvW1Hg_WRC4oy146UiM431zjZaXgVFmSKgnOwltFq8ygXsnfH5xh42GTEAZsdQo/s1600/UKpolling.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 212px; height: 339px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj96yIX5EyCL5wxzSBtjLV2nhLQ8QisLY1cZGTj6lIBojNDaJJRRGnIIrDLuyGhcFSb3RsUgjHgAeEHPvW1Hg_WRC4oy146UiM431zjZaXgVFmSKgnOwltFq8ygXsnfH5xh42GTEAZsdQo/s400/UKpolling.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5520885856760306034" /></a><br /><br />When the Alternative Vote referendum gets a resounding NO, the Lib Dems will very quickly begin to wonder what they sold their soul for. AV was never first choice for the Lib Dems, but even that will fail to get through next May. Not only will the Tory Party and the Labour Party campaign against it, but there will be few who want to put the choice of Prime Minister in the hands of the third-party leader, especially a leader like Nick Clegg. As the dream of voting reform disappears so will the stomach for the coalition, a Lib Dem will cross the floor or challenge for leadership before next year's Lib Dem conference. <br /><br />Right now I'd put my money on May, 2011, for the next election, a little over 19 months away, and I have no doubt that Ed Miliband can win it. He was always my choice as party leader: Left enough to make a difference, centre enough to actually have a chance of being voted in. Also, as it was his brother in second place, I doubt there will be much appetite for in-fighting. It'd be especially nice if Cameron loses in 2011 as it'd mean he was in office for less time than Gordon Brown, although I must admit part of me wants him to hold out for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_term_length">2 years 221 days</a>.<br /><br />For the first time since the election I'm beginning to think there just might be signs of light at the end of a very bleak tunnel. So can we have no one raining on my parade in the comments please!Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-64608591541121029982010-05-12T09:39:00.002+01:002010-05-12T10:34:17.762+01:00'New Politics' in Number 10So Nick Clegg has got into bed with the Tories, and we now have a new Prime Minister: Old Etonian and fifth cousin twice removed of Queen Elizabeth II, Dave "he's just like one of us" Cameron. The <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8676607.stm">BBC notes</a> that he's the first Old Etonian to hold the office since the early 1960s - well aren't we a progressive country! On the brightside the more despicable aspects of Tory policy will undoubtedly be restrained by the Liberal Democrat coalition; although I'd hate to be one of the millions of Liberal Democrat voters who have given such a disgusting Tory party a veneer of respectability. <br /><br />Nick Clegg has been the first of the four Liberal Democrat leaders I have disliked - I've said it long before today. He encompasses so much of what is wrong with modern politics: the gloss, the bullshit, the desire to be seen as your friend. In this, the same as Cameron, he is undoubtedly an heir to Blair - although he is careful to talk of 'new politics' rather than something as trite as a 'third way'. Whereas I was pleasantly surprised with how much the Labour Party achieved under Blair (although I continue to dislike the man), I have less hope of being surprised at the end of the following parliament. Although the is one glimmer of hope: the Tory desperation to form a government. <br /><br />The compromises that have already been made by the Tory party to form a coalition government reek of its desperation. The Tory party has backed 'modernising' Cameron over the past five years purely as a way to get into government, and the government had to be formed - whatever the price. Failure by Cameron would have consigned the party to the wilderness for another 13 years as it ripped itself apart searching for an electable face. It remains to be seen whether the price they are willing to pay today, will still seem such a bargain in six months time. With such a volatile period ahead it seems a bizarre time to propose 5-year fixed term parliaments; it'll be interesting to see whether its workable in 5-months.<br /><br />Personally I would rather have had a passionate, bloody-minded, cantankerous PM who stood for what he believed in. Someone who listened to the experts, made a decision, and if necessary told the ignorant masses to f-off. Unfortunately democracy doesn't allow that, and we seem condemned to a future of Britain's Got Political Bullshit. Forget convictions, just say you're doing it for your gran.<br /><br />I'm not generally a big fan of revolutions, preferring the gradual change that has been the primary characteristic of British politics, but I must admit that the envisioned mediocre politics of the future is almost enough to make me reach for the pitchfork.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-55862425356143851312010-05-08T19:29:00.004+01:002010-05-08T19:35:19.167+01:00Election Wordle: Like a sweary wordsearchIt's a tradition this days to put everything into a <a href="http://www.wordle.net/">Wordle</a>, so I thought I'd put my 320 election night tweets into one<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgl1QSf-nyPXNEHs5hyphenhyphenujGT1GBMp_Gov6m_PHdG5bXC66jlNABF6OmxqY6v7lEMTTc2XTNV1qe_yNYAyyXyzy_LsobWdiDRvp_qHzO5dgJTZv_kqhPBBWhYzvn9T9GohSGacj_umNEHpBI/s1600/electionwordle.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 176px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgl1QSf-nyPXNEHs5hyphenhyphenujGT1GBMp_Gov6m_PHdG5bXC66jlNABF6OmxqY6v7lEMTTc2XTNV1qe_yNYAyyXyzy_LsobWdiDRvp_qHzO5dgJTZv_kqhPBBWhYzvn9T9GohSGacj_umNEHpBI/s400/electionwordle.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5468968766283744322" /></a><br />What's most surprising is that despite all the swearing, and an excessive amount of tweeting, my number of followers didn't actually go down!<br /><br />[nb. I took out the #ge2010 hashtag as it was on most tweets and as such overwhelmed the Wordle].Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-42195087530566893102010-05-08T10:55:00.006+01:002010-05-08T12:38:09.880+01:00Election Reflection: Did Britain win?As anyone who was unfortunate enough to be following my Twitter stream on Thursday and Friday will have realised, I have a love/hate relationship with British elections. I love politics, but I hate the right wing. Unfortunately in the UK a lot of people are ignorant enough to vote Conservative, and every time I see a smug over-privileged face winning a vote I get angry, drunk, and swear a lot [you should have seen the tweets I deleted before sending!]. I don't believe "politicians are all the same" or "there's no difference between the parties". There are the progressive parties such as Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Greens, and there are the reactionary parties of the right. We may not always agree with the progressive parties' policies, but we can identify with their ideologies. During my life I have always voted either Liberal or Labour, because whilst I recognise people do not have equal abilities (after all, there are those ignorant enough to vote Conservative), I passionately believe people should have equal opportunities. Despite a bad night for the Lib Dems and Labour, this election has provided the opportunity for the parties of the right to be locked out of politics (or at least a majority government) for the foreseeable future!<br /><br />Whilst the Conservatives have the biggest number of seats, failing to get a majority can only be considered a massive failure. Three terms of a Labour government and an unpopular Prime Minister and they are still not voted in! As the results show, the British majority are progressive: 30% Labour, 24% Lib Dems despite the best efforts of a disgusting right-wing press. Maybe the daring copyright-busting Mirror front page did just enough to remind us that class politics are still there, however hard our friend Dave told us otherwise:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzhnqJAh18LxMOIl27eZp86j5eK1AJkjzq6l4X9C0QZ-Aj2dSUhQUSBX8bc8wwDfdLexU1P5hjt4U4XrAsGwbWJzTsKnpJofjtbw696URMTsVJuncO552PxbMiq-p5g00_SR6iML8q6Qg/s1600/mirrorfrontpage.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzhnqJAh18LxMOIl27eZp86j5eK1AJkjzq6l4X9C0QZ-Aj2dSUhQUSBX8bc8wwDfdLexU1P5hjt4U4XrAsGwbWJzTsKnpJofjtbw696URMTsVJuncO552PxbMiq-p5g00_SR6iML8q6Qg/s400/mirrorfrontpage.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5468847037109742786" /></a><br />With the Liberals holding the balance of power there is at last a glimmer of hope for the Liberal dream of proportional representation. Whilst the Labour Party have always overly-benefited from the current first-past-the-post system, due to their strong heartlands in the North, it may be time for them to put the country before the party. Whilst the thought of a BNP or UKIP MP makes me feel physically ill, is it a price worth paying for a future of progressive governments?<br /><br />The next 12 months in politics as I would like to see it:<br />- A Lib-Lab coalition with smaller parties for 1 year (Caroline Lucas for Environment secretary?)<br />- A referendum on PR<br />- An election on May 5th 2011 under PR<br /><br />None of these stages will be easy. The coalition will probably require the loss of Gordon Brown. A shame not only because I believe he is a great and honest Prime Minister, but because he is an intellect any government would be poorer without. Ideally I would like to see him return to the Treasury, with Alan Johnson as PM, but I recognise that it'll never happen. There is a difference between Charles Kennedy and William Hague returning to the front benches of their parties, and a former PM doing it. <br /><br />Then comes the referendum. The right-wing press will recognise the potential for the Conservatives to spend years in the wilderness, whilst the Murdoch empire will lose much of it's influence in government whichever party he supports. It'll be a very close run event, but I think ultimately fair-play and people's realisation that every vote will count will tip the balance in favour of PR.<br /><br />Finally the election. Under a PR system we'll have even greater responsibility for engaging in the electoral process. For too many of us politics is something that happens only at election time. When the progressive population says nothing it allows the politics of hate, fear, and ignorance raise its head. More of us should be taking an active interest in the day-to-day politics of Westminster, and at a local level, and not just when a particular bill grabs our interest. <br /><br />It'll be a while before we know the outcome of this election, but for now Gordon Brown is still Prime Minister, and the future is far from as bleak as it could have been.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-43325102878557829082010-05-04T09:58:00.006+01:002010-05-04T10:54:30.932+01:00Don't just vote tactically, tell people!The polls are not looking good, in fact we could be waking up on Friday morning to the sight of David Cameron walking into Downing Street with a Conservative majority government. Like many progressive-minded people, who dream of a more equal society, I will be voting tactically on May 6th: I will be voting Labour.<br /><br />Unlike many people I'm in a privileged situation. I like both Gordon Brown, and the current Labour MP for Wolverhampton South West - <a href="http://www.robmarris.org.uk/">Rob Marris</a> - and on Thursday Rob will be getting my vote. But even if I didn't, if I was a disillusioned Labour voter, or I had previously voted Liberal Democrat*, Rob would be getting my vote on Thursday. This will be the closest election for many years, and if you are in a marginal constituency you must vote with your head.<br /><br />In my own constituency, Wolverhampton South West, it's a two horse race between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. That's not the message the Lib Dems are sending out in their ward leaflets that constantly tell me "Conservatives can't win here", but it's a fact.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0QbH7NQFEYtmQpK9eTcRmuvKsUGQS6Gely3xxHp9LE-5hTj9hf5p43N8EfXp73mfwwSwjsWW0Ev01q6wtDmGofy6FEhUZNGP3RrLMAjhnlvheWC4fsopdoirQvFrGaGUr9L3dJ9NiEcs/s1600/robmarrisresults.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 289px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0QbH7NQFEYtmQpK9eTcRmuvKsUGQS6Gely3xxHp9LE-5hTj9hf5p43N8EfXp73mfwwSwjsWW0Ev01q6wtDmGofy6FEhUZNGP3RrLMAjhnlvheWC4fsopdoirQvFrGaGUr9L3dJ9NiEcs/s400/robmarrisresults.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5467343557173983458" border="0" /></a><div style="text-align: center;">[via <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/constituency/1449/wolverhampton-south-west">guardian.co.uk</a>]</div><br />In Wolverhampton South West a progressive vote for the Liberal Democrats may as well be a vote for the Tories. The Labour government has, not surprisingly, made mistakes during its thirteen years in power, but as <a href="http://twitter.com/TheFagCasanova">@TheFagCasanova</a> so eloquently stated:<br /><blockquote>Voting Conservative, because you're angry with Labour is like sawing your balls off because your trousers are too tight.</blockquote>Without a doubt, if the Conservative Party win the election on Thursday, it will be partly attributable to the continuing power and fear-mongering of the right-wing newspaper industry in its death-throes; this election is a long way from being a social media election. Maybe it's something to do with British reserve, and the old mantra of "<span style="font-style: italic;">don't talk about politics and religion</span>". Well politics is too bloody important to be quiet about. Change your avatar! Twitter your views! Let people know if they're in a marginal, let people know who you're voting for, and if you're voting Conservative, expect to be called a wanker.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgA61c6Hfeuhvmvpj3l_fHoLjwZlcLPjR3mcvJVS7A0ciB3fhmn1gqiqE3oPat_WPyeBKM_DkHFRbZZNb7Uv5PXfLTaqDq0S1eZXIDkR-dqa8jjEhiBXhIVCgm2USapj6o_WUN5emaYQg/s1600/voterob.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 300px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgA61c6Hfeuhvmvpj3l_fHoLjwZlcLPjR3mcvJVS7A0ciB3fhmn1gqiqE3oPat_WPyeBKM_DkHFRbZZNb7Uv5PXfLTaqDq0S1eZXIDkR-dqa8jjEhiBXhIVCgm2USapj6o_WUN5emaYQg/s400/voterob.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5467349080207621666" border="0" /></a><br />And if you know people in Wolverhampton South West, let them know who they should be voting for: Rob Marris.<br /><br />*In fact, I have voted Liberal Democrat at every previous general election.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-33972721110371236572010-05-01T13:20:00.006+01:002010-05-01T15:15:21.215+01:00Why I Will Never Vote ConservativeUnfortunately the General Election has coincided with a massive influx of work, so I haven't had the time to knock out any of the political blog posts that have been bursting to get out. However, with only a few days to go, I felt I should really at least say why I would never ever vote Conservative.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Conservative Party is fundamentally a party for the justification of society's inequalities.</span><br /><br />They regularly repeat the myth that people are a success through their own hard work, whilst those that are unsuccessful or unemployed have no one to blame but themselves. Such a myth is very appealing to voters. Not only to the rich who want to feel good about society's inequalities, but also to those who feel they deserve more. After all, "if it wasn't for the dole scroungers we'd all be better off". The truth, however, is that success has very little to do with some innate hard work ethic, and far more to do with sheer blind luck.<br /><br />It's easy for David Cameron to stand at the Prime Ministerial Debate and tell us that unemployed people, if offered a job, should be forced to take it. Easy because at no point in David Cameron's life was he ever likely to be forced to take a minimum wage job working in a factory with no prospects. Easy because David Cameron was never brought up in an environment where there were no prospects and no opportunities, not only for the individual but for the whole family, street, area. <br /><br />It is, of course, too easy to pick on David Cameron; his life has been one long list of privilege unknown to the average man in the street. Surely the rest of us got where we are today through our own hard work? Personally, I think you'd have to be pretty arrogant to think so; failing to recognise the role of the people who you've met along the way.<br /><br />I always think that if anyone has the right to be arrogant, I do. Brought up on an estate in a single-parent family, kicked out of home at 17, before spending years on the dole and working in food processing factories. Then, 10 years ago, I decided to sort my life out: an evening class at the end of a 12-hour shift in chicken factory, a degree, a PhD, and at the end I get more for a day's work than my mother ever has ever earned in a week. On one level the story I've just told is complete: there was no hidden pot of cash or opportunities that aren't available to everyone in this country. On the other hand, the story misses a lot. It misses the the important details that are so often missed when we promote ourselves as deserving what we've gotten. It ignores the middle-class aspirational values I had drummed into me as a child, it forgets the person who persuaded me not to drop out of my undergraduate degree, and that part of the reason I ever got to do a PhD was my undergrad supervisor wrote my research up as a journal article. Whilst my life has been far less privileged than most, I've also had my share of luck on the way. <br /><br />I don't deny we need to deal with problems such as unemployment, anti-social behaviour, and crime. But if you start the conversation from the point of view that you deserve what you have, and others don't, then you're a fool and you'll probably vote Conservative. Personally, I never will.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-71412994839435697252010-03-03T11:10:00.005+00:002010-03-03T11:59:36.358+00:00'Jon Venables' on Twitter: The public disgust meJon Venables is back in prison after <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8546834.stm">breaching his licence conditions</a>, and a look at the Twitter comments would seem to suggest that the majority of the British public are thrilled. Without a doubt <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Bulger">the murder of Jamie Bulger</a> was a horrendous crime, but let us not forget the murderers were also children.<br /><br />Some of the comments on Twitter are just disgusting:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlgzgQQt4ckEDZL48SyEkRNpTyMBbnJq6RprXHQRm3igwI6yuoG-sxDtmgjb2aixEmiY3_7W_sV7N6O42FWJ9v1tn8NrgAUqrfVebzTRdZ0YYHEr00qB85gNphKPxIRgyVVPKZDTfSm54/s1600-h/hung.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 61px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlgzgQQt4ckEDZL48SyEkRNpTyMBbnJq6RprXHQRm3igwI6yuoG-sxDtmgjb2aixEmiY3_7W_sV7N6O42FWJ9v1tn8NrgAUqrfVebzTRdZ0YYHEr00qB85gNphKPxIRgyVVPKZDTfSm54/s400/hung.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5444368373145775794" /></a>Whatever the crime committed, do we really want to live in a world where 10 year olds are hung? Or even sent to prison for life?<br /><br />Despite the public's desire for simplicity, people are not either 'good' or 'evil', they are products of their society. When even the most rational people can behave badly under certain circumstances (<span style="font-style:italic;">see</span>:- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment">Milgram experiment</a>), can we really justify calls for hanging or life imprisonment, whatever the crime? Prison should be about rehabilitation and protection of the public, not making the public feel good about their relative 'goodness'. Creating a set of people we can label 'evil' means that we don't have to look so closely at our own behaviour, or our own contributions to society. <br /><br />We don't yet know the reason why Jon Venables is back in prison, but like the general public I'm not surprised. Not because I think he necessarily has some innate 'evilness', but how could we expect anyone to integrate back into such an irrational society.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-71304348733172101602010-02-18T10:44:00.003+00:002010-02-18T11:15:59.623+00:00SHOCK: Tories Want to Turn Back TimeIt's not surprising that over the course of almost 13 years the Labour government have done a few things I have not been pleased about. I'm not talking about the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, both of which I believe to have been the right decision, but rather the ban on fox hunting. <br /><br />My stand on fox hunting is not based on the irrelevant economic arguments that were bandied around by the Tories at the time, but rather the fact that foxes are vermin and need to be controlled. Fox hunting may be a very ineffective method of controlling foxes, but if people want to spend their time dressing up and chasing through fields on horses, then I'd have let them. The pleasure I get from duck, faggots and haggis means I am highly unlikely to be tempted by the cult of vegetarianism. <br /><br />That does not mean however, that I want even more parliamentary time wasted on the topic. If the Conservatives get elected (and I still believe it is far from a certainty), do we really want them spending their time in office revisiting every earlier decision? Or would we prefer them to deal with the issues of the day?<br /><br />Unfortunately the Conservative Party will always look to the past, because in their minds that's where the world was always better.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-20261942113761268922010-01-31T13:43:00.004+00:002010-01-31T15:04:21.574+00:00Property v. PeopleThe polls seem to be suggesting that the gap in the polls between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party is <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/31/labour-in-poll-rise-as-tories-slip-115875-22007739/">narrowing</a>. The Tory solution: appeal to their core voters with a return to the traditional policy of hang 'em and flog 'em.<br /><blockquote><a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gmERCxL2wuOUE8f1hGYjZjrhqjFQ">Burglars <span style="font-weight:bold;">"leave their human rights outside"</span> the moment they break in to someone else's property</a></blockquote>In a world of constant change it is nice to see that some things remain the same: Tories value property over people. <br /><br />The prosecution of people defending their property has been a running topic in the press in recent weeks. Especially amongst those papers catering for the home-obsessed middle-classes, for whom Myleene Klass (and her idiotic knife waving antics) is some sort of pin-up girl. <br /><br />With reasonable force already allowed under English law for the protection of property, we really don't need Cameron peddling his crap. Without a doubt I would be as shocked and scared as the next person on finding intruders in my home, but that doesn't negate the worth of the intruder as a human being.<br /><br />We are all products of our environments, and it is more by luck than good judgement that people turn out as 'good' citizens. Cameron's own position in life owes much more to his background than any innate effort on his part, we can but wonder how he - who is so quick to dismiss other's human rights - would have turned out if he had been brought up on a rough council estate. It doesn't mean I condone theft or burglary, merely recognise that <span style="font-style:italic;">there but for the grace of God, go I</span>.<br /><br />Hopefully this is merely the bluster of a party leader in the run up to an election, and we can rely on the usual lack of a particular policy.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-35151193215494733642010-01-10T14:52:00.008+00:002010-01-10T15:58:43.031+00:00Where do the general public truly engage?During the last week there has been a four-part <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/">In Our Time</a></span> special on Radio 4, celebrating the 350th anniversary of The Royal Society. Towards the end of the final part one of the contributors emphasised the need for the general public to:<br /><blockquote>...learn to engage with the issues and make their own decisions such as they do in other areas of their life.</blockquote>The need for public understanding of science to move beyond tabloid rhetoric is obvious, but I think the notion that there are great swathes of 'other areas' of public life where the general public are already making their own decisions is misguided.<br /><br />The inability of the general public to "engage with the issues and make their own decisions" is reiterated on the web every minute of every day where it sometimes seems as though the amount of ignorance is only topped by the amount of hate - both reflecting the public's spoon-fed opinion from the country's right-wing press. Just a couple of minutes on the BBC's (moderated) <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm">Have Your Say</a> will make the greatest optimist despair at the state of humanity. They are not engaging with the issues, but rather ranting like a drunk in a pub.<br /><br />The solution for both would seem to be education, but whereas a little may help with a person's understanding of science, far more would be needed to help them look beyond their own vested-interests in the world of politics. Science should aspire to many things, but the fear and ignorance that people exhibit in the rest of their lives shouldn't be one of them.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-63808895673214233392010-01-05T09:35:00.003+00:002010-01-05T10:22:34.856+00:002010 - An annus horribilis?From a political point of view I can't help but dread the coming general election, and the prospect of a Conservative government. Unfortunately the people, or rather 'the mob', want change. After twelve glorious years of a Labour government (which has far <a href="http://www.robmarris.org.uk/?p=1705">exceeded my expectations</a>) we are on the brink of a return to the dark days of Conservatism. <br /><br />After twelve years people have forgotten what a Conservative government really means. The masses find the oxymoronic 'caring conservatism' an appealing idea when it is fed to them by a right-wing press that looks to benefit from a Cameron government. That Cameron has the affront to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8438965.stm">campaign on the NHS</a> shows how hard the Conservative machine has toiled to keep its army of BUPA members quiet whilst it says what is necessary to get into power.<br /><br />But when the people want change, for little more than the sake of change, who else are they meant to turn to? The Liberal Democrats? They are losing credibility by the day. Rumours abound of a collaboration between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats if it would otherwise mean a hung parliament. For a party that has been gaining respect over the last 20 years, such a move would see it lose all credibility. Even the possibility of such a collaboration is likely to alienate the core Lib-Dem voters.<br /><br />So, worse case scenario - and the most likely: 2010 could bring a Conservative government, the destruction of the Liberal Democrats, and the inevitable infighting that would follow a Labour defeat. Democracy really is bloody stupid.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-89511753219241837692009-11-29T12:54:00.003+00:002009-11-29T13:26:30.493+00:00Is there anything likeable about the Swiss?One of the top stories over at the BBC today is the Swiss <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret">minaret</a> vote; according to exit polls the Swiss have voted to ban the building of the Islamic spires:<br /><blockquote><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8385069.stm">the BBC's correspondent in Berne says if it is confirmed, it would be a surprise</a></blockquote><br />I can only suggest that the BBC needs a new Berne correspondent. The Swiss are a particularly conservative country (never a nice quality), with a tendency towards isolationism, and their particular form of direct democracy enables some of the more abhorrent public opinions get passed into law. I would have been surprised if the vote went the other way.<br /><br />Switzerland is one of those countries Europe would be better off without.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-26671857925676168772009-10-23T09:25:00.004+01:002009-10-23T10:33:11.423+01:00BNP on Question Time: Reflections on a sad day for the BBCThanks to a ratings-hungry BBC, the revolting British National Party have now become a legitimate part of the political establishment. Despite the best efforts of <a href="http://www.uaf.org.uk/">Unite Against Fascism</a> and others, last night the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, took his place at the Question Time table. For the sake of an evening's bear baiting, and the name of 'free speech', the liberal(-ish) majority have given a platform to a party that can't help but gain from the exposure.<br /><br />Unsurprisingly I followed the live event, and about five hours of preamble, on Twitter. I even set up <a href="http://twitter.com/AlmostCommunist">a new Twitter account</a> so, if I felt the need, I could call Nick Griffin a 'Fascist Cunt' without offending my more sensitive regular Twitter followers. By the end, however, I was equally exasperated by the mainstream Twitterati. There were two main twittering themes:<br />1) Unite Against Fascism were as bad as the BNP.<br />2) Nick Griffin showed himself to be a bigoted fool and he would lose credibility.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">"Unite Against Fascism were as bad as the BNP"</span><br />This sort of comment was particularly forthcoming from Tories (probably because they have much in common with the BNP), although seemingly no faction was immune to such stupidity. The problem is that the majority banging on about 'free speech' come from very secure white middle-class liberal backgrounds, and are unlikely to suffer the repercussions of a rise in racism. If I had been the victim of the sort of rascist crap that the BNP peddle, and I was worried about the rise of the BNP, I would go to bed happier knowing that there were people willing to take to the streets rather than sitting on the sidelines twittering 'tut tut, bad show'.<span style="font-weight:bold;"><br /><br />Nick Griffin showed himself to be a bigoted fool and he would lose credibility</span><br />Whenever Griffin looked uncomfortable, or gave an un-PC response, I thought Twitter would melt from the unrestrained joy of the people updating about Question Time. However whilst the middle class Twitterati were seeing a man showing himself to be a moronic racist, there will have been great swathes of the population seeing a man being ridiculed by 'the establishment' and the 'politically correct majority' for having similar opinions to them. There are concerns about immigration and changes in modern Britain, and in the bear pit of Question Times these concerns were not addressed. <br /><br />Last night's Question Time was news because it was the BNP's first appearance. Next time it won't be such a big deal. Thankfully there are organisations like Unite Against Fascism that won't take it lying down.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-61509047603932526642009-10-19T09:15:00.003+01:002009-10-19T09:57:38.145+01:00BNP Debate 'illegal': Hain regains some credibilityOnce upon a time, based on his work as an anti-apartheid campaigner, Peter Hain had a lot of credibility. He then fell from grace in 2008 due to failure to declare donations in his campaign to be Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. As Jeremy Hardy said on the News Quiz at the time (if memory serves me correctly), something strange happens to people when they enter the House of Commons. It is therefore good to see Hain speaking out on a topic he believes in and is respected for.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">There is no place for the BNP in British Politics or on the BBC</span><br /><br />Amongst the majority there is no debate about the BNP: They are a disgusting party built on fear and ignorance. There is however a debate on whether the mainstream parties should engage in political debate with them. Whilst some argue that you can only expose their ignorance through open debate, others argue that providing them with a forum provides them with credibility they don't warrant. I'm with Alan Johnson on this one, as he said on the Politics Show a few weeks ago: "I’ve gone 59 years without sharing a platform with a fascist, and I don’t intend to start doing it now."<br /><br />Question Time will offer a forum for the BNP to offer very simplistic solutions to very complicated problems. It is a format that generally leaves me exasperated by the stupidity of the general population; panelists play to the crowd and those offering the opinions of the most popular papers get the biggest rounds of applause. When the popular papers are the Daily Mail and the Sun, both of which love to support the ignorance of the little Englander, it is easy to see how the stupidity of the BNP can appeal to the stupidity of the masses.<br /><br />Whilst I have little hope that the BNP's trip to question time will be canceled, it's good to hear that there are MPs still willing to say that it is wrong.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-2859937600892252372009-10-09T10:07:00.002+01:002009-10-09T10:52:19.223+01:00Goodbye Conference Season, Hello CampaigningThe conference season is finally over. The parties have stopped dragging out the idiotic <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/08/bono-twitter-tory-conference">celebs</a> and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/6268676/Conservative-party-conference-Dame-Kelly-Holmes-backs-plan-for-Schools-Olympics.html">sports people</a>, and now prepare for the run-in to an election that I believe will be much closer than the polls suggest.<br /><br />At the moment it looks like it will be an easy win for the Conservatives, but as the big day approaches (no later than June 3rd 2010) there will be a sharp narrowing of the polls. It is one thing to vote for the party of privalege in local and European elections (however despicable it may be), but people will hopefully realise that it is another thing to hand over the running of the whole country to a network of Old Etonians.<br /><br />The internet provides an opportunity for every person who wants to see a more equal society to contribute to the online discussion. To highlights the good of the left and the evils of the right. Even if people feel there is a need for change, and don't want to support the current Labour government, then few would disagree that the Liberal Democrats are a more acceptable alternative.<br /><br />There is never an excuse to vote for the right, and it's everybody's job to make sure we get that message across.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-89069869241087503172009-08-21T12:35:00.004+01:002009-08-21T13:35:55.914+01:00A Conservative, is a Conservative, is a Conservative...I can't help but be disappointed by the continuing story of <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/08/21/dirty-dave-s-vultures-will-destroy-the-nhs-115875-21612799/">Conservative attitudes to the NHS</a>. It is not that I don't consider the NHS an important news subject, or that I am not proud of the NHS, but rather that I don't believe a Conservative MEP being disparaging about the NHS is news. It is about as much a news story as the Tories having blue as their official colours, their harking back to the 'halcyon' days of empire, or their disdain for the working classes. The 'news story' is merely the brief slipping of some members' masks. <br /><br />Daniel Hannan was described by Charlie Brooker as “... a boggle-eyed, slap-headed, unpleasant, revolting, heartless, shit-brained, attention-grabbing, foetid excuse for a prick.” Let's just apply the description to the vast majority of the Conservative party and be done with it (excluding 'slap-headed' as necessary). <br /><br />The biggest mistake in the whole affair was not by Daniel Hannan, but seemingly by Channel 4. Charlie Brooker's apt description is seemingly no longer available on YouTube due to copyright restrictions. Such web 1.0 thinking.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-60608148152213623422009-06-08T08:42:00.007+01:002009-06-08T10:14:58.720+01:00We're All to Blame for the BNPIn <a href="http://politico-mania.blogspot.com/2009/06/european-elections-labour-and-proud.html">my last political post</a> I wondered "How ashamed will I be of Britain after today?" The answer: very ashamed. Fear and stupidity ruled the roost as the seats racked-up for the self-serving (Conservatives), the ignorant (UKIP), and the evil (BNP). These are the sort of results that justify every rant I have ever had on the stupidity of democracy and the population in general. So, when fear and ignorance rule, who is to blame? We all are.<br /><br />As always I stayed up late watching the election results, but this time I had a Twitter window open as well. It was interesting to not only see the results, but to see people's reaction to the results. When the BNP got their first seat in Yorkshire and Humber there were the usual "shame on yorkshire" comments from people outside the region, with lots of "don't blame me", "we didn't all vote BNP" and "I voted something-besides-the-BNP" from inside the region. This morning, as the country awoke to the news that a second BNP MEP had also been elected, the comments have blamed the failure of the main parties: "it's all thanks to you expenses-fiddling crooks." But in a democracy it is the fault of every person who fails to engage fully in the political process.<br /><br />Democracy works, in theory at least, by each of us contributing to the political discussion. However, somewhere along the line, we got confused. We've come to believe that in a representative democracy the professional politicians will have this discussion on our behalf. All we have to do to be engaged in the political process is get out and vote according to our national newspaper of choice. Whilst a few 'truly dedicated' people will Twitter comments on election day, and write the occasional blog post complaining about the latest political indiscretion, for the most part we just have to sit back and let the system do the work for us. Last night's results are a reflection of this attitude to democracy.<br /><br />If you are one of the few people who really try to contribute to the political system, and not just the glamorous-Gurkha-politics but all the way down to the wonky-pavement-politics, then you can hold your head up high. For the vast majority of us, who fail to fully engage but instead act as occasional pundits on the sidelines, we must accept our own share of the responsibility for Britain sending fascists to Europe.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-54459935688767978832009-06-04T10:53:00.004+01:002009-06-04T11:49:07.966+01:00European Elections: Labour and Proud!Is it my imagination or did the ballot paper have a decidedly isolationist/right-wing feel to it this year? Whilst I fear the Labour party will do badly in the polls (the public/press are now little more than a pack of wild dogs that can smell blood), I am nonetheless interested in the results as an indication of the state of the nation. What is the mood of the British public?<br /><br />As I have mentioned <a href="http://politico-mania.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-many-blogs-does-one-person-need.html">before</a>, I don't particularly like democracy. I would no more give the average person the vote than encourage them to start drilling holes in my head. It is, however, the political system we are stuck with, and whilst the decisions are often disastrous (e.g., ten years of Thatcherism), from a sociological perspective it is an interesting indication of the nation's mood:<br />- Self-interested greedy bastards in the 80s<br />- Confused in 92.<br />- Hopeful from 97.<br />And I think probably:<br />- Scared in 2009.<br /><br />Whilst people may talk about voting to give the government, or all the main parties, a 'bloody nose', they are at the end of the day voting FOR something. Seemingly people will be voting in rather large numbers FOR the far right. I was ashamed last year when enough Londoners voted for the BNP for Richard Barnbrook to get a seat on the London Assembly. How ashamed will I be of Britain after today?<br /><br />Maybe I will be proved wrong. Maybe the electorate who (hypocritically in my opinion) have been ranting about MPs' expenses will vote for the naive idealism of the Green Party rather than the fear of the right. I doubt it.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-17525662930549553282009-04-16T14:58:00.006+01:002009-04-16T15:42:14.959+01:00You can't 'smear' a Tory: They have no credit to discreditIn my busy life 'Politico-mania' always ends up at the end of the queue. Today, however, I finally have a few moments to comment on the McBride & Draper emails. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/12/damian-mcbride-derek-draper-emails">Basically they exchanged emails</a> about possibly having a 'smear' campaign against certain members of the Conservative party on a gossip web site. It is a nothing story that keeps trundling on: today <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8002085.stm">Gordon finally apologised</a>, and still that is not good enough for the Conservatives.<br /><br />Whilst I would have no time for the proposed site, I also have no time for the holier-than-thou attitude of the Conservatives or the media. I am sure that if the emails of Conservative MPs and journalists were open to the public there would be plenty of outrageous suggestions about the government. That doesn't excuse the behaviour of McBride, but it does remind us to keep it in perspective. <br /><br />If the site had launched there would be a case for further investigation. As it is the Tories should accept the McBrides resignation and move on. This is nothing more than the party politics Cameron said he would put aside amid the global financial crisis. <br /><br />Personally I don't see how it is possible to smear a Tory MP anyway. If you are willing to publicly stand for a party which backs the interests of the privileged at the expense of the underprivileged is there really any way down? Of all the suggested smears, I think "is a Tory" is the one I could never live down.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-35696264994617466762009-02-11T19:58:00.003+00:002009-02-11T20:27:17.708+00:00How old was Titian when he died?Surprisingly such a seemingly simple question is worthy of discussion at Prime Minister's questions! The problem is Gordon Brown referred to him as living until at least 90 when in Davos, and Cameron, under the impression he had died at 86 decided to mock the Prime Minister.<br /><br />The truth is that no one knows how old <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/597229/Titian">Titian</a> was when he died, as the Encyclopedia Britannica states:<br /><blockquote>"The traditional date of Titian’s birth was long given as 1477, but today most critics favour the later date of 1488/90"</blockquote><br />Meaning that when he died in 1576 he could have been anything from 86 to 99! Was Gordon Brown wrong? Possibly, but so was David Cameron. Unfortunately Cameron added to his ignorance by choosing to mock the Prime Minister when there are far more important issues in the world, and Cameron's woes have since been compounded by it being discovered that <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7884121.stm">a member of the Conservative Party had changed the Wikipedia entry to fit their version of the facts</a>.<br /><br />Conservatives rewriting history! At least we don't have to rely on Wikipedia to remember how bad it was under the previous Conservative government!Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5015630104614263646.post-35341091033469015152009-02-10T23:23:00.002+00:002009-02-10T23:59:01.979+00:00The Cameron & Voderman Show...I'm lost for wordsWhilst it all happened over a week ago, I only just discovered the buddying up of the new double act of <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKTRE5112R420090202">Carol Vorderman and David Cameron</a>. I am absolutely lost for words. Whilst I appreciate she is perceived as the face of maths in this country, that is exactly the problem: the public thinks someone with a third class degree who can add up is a maths genius! <br /><br />Whilst I have always found Vorderman one of television's most annoying 'personalities', I think on this video she reaches new lows:<br /><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" style="width:421px; height:240px;" data="http://www.conservatives.com/%7E/media/Flash/Flash Applications/videoPlayer_large.ashx"><param name="movie" value="http://www.conservatives.com/%7E/media/Flash/Flash Applications/videoPlayer_large.ashx" /><param name="FlashVars" value="targetSWFLocation=http://www.conservatives.com/%7E/media/Flash/Flash Applications/videoPlayer_large.ashx&imageLocation=http://www.conservatives.com/%7E/media/Images/Content Images/Video stills/still-davidcarol-snow.ashx&videoLocation=http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/videoflv/webcameron/WC_Carol_Snow.flv"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param></object><br />Whilst we should always be striving for higher standards of education, it doesn't mean we can just make things up. Unless my ears deceive me Cameron's dolly-bird states in response to whether exams have got easier(at approximately 1 min 25):<br /><blockquote>"...where in 1988 for instance, if you had been failed at A-level maths, in 2006 you would have achieved a grade B or C"</blockquote><br />Possibly one of the most misleading statements by a 'genius' ever: surely getting zero percent in 1998 would by no means mean you get a B or C in 2006. Obviously the finer points are unnecessary when you are playing to an audience who believe Britain has gone to the dogs, but if you are interested in following up the study the duo are happy to point you in the right direction ("one last year, one a couple of years ago").Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10334427366659410673noreply@blogger.com0