Well finally the day is here. In just a few hours, Labour will have a new leader, and the future of the party will be pretty much in his (or her...) hands. It is a pivitol political moment.
Not being a member of any political party, I can of course keep my objective eye on the matter and not have to worry too much about who they choose. But at the same time, I'm very interested, and curious how it is all going to turn out.
In my head, it will clearly be one of the Milibands - not that I can honestly say I've been following British politics much at all of late (the shame), but that is still my gut instinct. And as much as I remain fairly impartial to politics, having voted Labour in the last election, I do want to see a good strong leader who I think will be able to square up to Mr. Cameron appropriately. And so I admit that I fall into what seems to be the typical Labourite category, who wants one of the Milibands to win. And if I'm honest, I want it to be David.
I met Ed Miliband some months ago - or at least, observed him from across our table at Paul Blomfield's victory celebration, and I didn't think he was all that. Airy and aloof and I don't like to say it, but seeming to be very into himself, and the speech he delivered wasn't amazing either. I certainly can't say I felt inspired, or that I felt like I was watching a future prime minister, or even a future leader of the Labour Party. But then strange things can happen...
I've always had a sort of soft spot for David Miliband. Alright, so the media paint him as a hardcore Blairite, but he's not really. And even if he is, I like a lot about his personal traits and characteristics, that make him his own person, and show brilliant leader potential. Besides, Blair's charisma and powerful optimistic talk was a huge part of what brought Labour that landslide victory in '97. So maybe having a Blair associate wouldn't be such a bad thing after all, especially considering the widespread contempt for Gordon Brown, particularly outside the Labour Party.
David Miliband talks a lot about justice and fairness, and his own Jewish heritage, which he seems prouder of and to be more relevant to his identity than his younger brother. I think these things are all really important at such a worrying political era, with the rise of far-right parties such as the BNP. I also think he has more experience and would be a better contender at challenging Cameron. His public speaking skills far outshine any of the other Leadership contenders.
Ed Balls would be a hazard to Labour, and it enrages me that he thinks he can just speak out against Iraq now, when he didn't say anything about it at the time. He was clearly only doing that to win votes, and it makes me sick. He is not popular or charismatic enough to steer Labour into a favourable, vote-grabbing position. And the unfortunate truth is that charisma and rhetoric does count for an awful lot these days; I'd say more so than it used to, what with the rise in digital media and focus on physical appearance.
I don't know enough about Andy Burnham to comment really, but I think that speaks for itself. On the odd occasion I have seen him speaking, he has come across as startlingly mediocre. His ideas may be excellent, but unfortunately I have not heard too much about them, and so can comment no further.
In all honesty, I'd love to live in a society which would see Dianne Abbott get elected, and for it to be a good thing. But that isn't the world we're living in. If that happened, it would obviously be a disaster for Labour (and almost certainly a fluke!). So I'll leave it to the Milibands' mother and mark my hypothetical 'x' against her oldest son's name. Modernisation of Labour is crucial at this stage, and in less than half a day, we'll find out whether it's going to happen...
The fate of the Labour Party is in its members hands, and more specifically, pens.
Saturday 25 September 2010
Tuesday 10 August 2010
Education desperately needs a shake-up. But not in the way the government is doing it.
It has been announced in The Guardian today that five leading universities are already completely full on all their courses, 9 days before A level results are even published.
This news, as shocking as it may initially seem, does not really come as a surprise when the coalition government's educational amendments are taken into consideration. By slashing the September student intake by 50% - from 20, 000 spaces to 10, 000, they have effectively deprived thousands of the nation's most academically able from fulfilling their dreams.
I understand that we are not living in the healthiest economic climate - to put things rather mildly, but something strikes me as completely unfair when top-achieving students are cast off from university, yet those with lower grades can still get in. The competition for top places has now completely spiralled out of control; such is the severity of the problem that Conservative MP David Willetts has suggested that should a student not secure a place at university, then he or she should consider "starting a business" or "going for an apprenticeship."
These ideas, as well as being absolutely ridiculous and unfair, also appear completely unworkable. How is an 18 year old - most I imagine without any background in business - with a primarily academic background, supposed to simply "start her own business", as Mr. Willetts so casually puts it? Or similarly, would this same individual be confident and happy about starting an apprenticeship? It's unlikely. Because the student has spent the past two years poring over academic textbooks and working extremely hard for those top grades, in order to get to university. To rob a child of her future in such a way at the drop of the hat is frankly unfair and downright mean. Mr. Willetts is not even being practical.
The amount of pressure we are exerting on this generation of students is phenomenal. I thank my lucky stars I wasn't born 10 years later, because education, which in my opinion pretty universally stands as a sad state of affairs in Britain, has been even further messed up now. The new award of an A* grade for those achieving over 90% - designed purely to mark out the 'academic elite' to university admissions tutors is a preposterous, soul-destroying measure which crucifies any remaining scraps of genuine education left remaining. Education is now so geared up to exams and ability-obsessed that we have lost all sight of other markers of intellect and are seeming to forget that there are many different types of intelligence, not to mention qualities, that are also sought after for competitive university courses.
It's no wonder that mental health problems are on the rise in this country. The pressures of the modern world are enough without forcing young people into studying themselves into insanity -and then not even being guaranteed a place at university. It must be completely demoralising for a whole generation.
Of course, these changes have been made without serious thought - because what is such a huge factor that always seems to be overlooked is the examining boards. These can differ drastically which therefore means that a student with 90% with OCR is in no means equivalent to a student with 90% on Edexcel. How can they be, when they don't ask the same questions, or even cover the same syllabus?
My own French exam board contained no French literature. Despite the fact we had to list our examining body on our UCAS forms, when I started at the first university I attended, many staff and students alike seemed very surprised that I'd never studied any French Literature before. Consequently I seemed to struggle a lot more with the course materials than many other students; my 'A' at A level had come from discussing current affairs in France, and no textual analysis or literary criticism whatsoever. I didn't mind learning this 'on the job' as it were, because it's what I expected. But it seems that the admissions tutors themselves did not. And all the time I couldn't help but feel I was still the lucky one - because there was no way anyone could deny that an A on WJEC was easier to come across than an A on AQA. And yet, because no-one seems to know the facts about examining bodies, I didn't even need to try to deny it, because it wasn't an issue.
Perhaps a solution to the problem - as well as re-examining the examining boards process - would be to change the requirements for admissions to all universities. I broadly believe that education should be available to all, but when it comes to Higher Education, it is slightly different. You are entering into an academic institution and selected on your ability. It therefore is only fair to be upfront and honest with people and only admit people who are suitable to the degree programme. But with so many completely suitable candidates being turned away because courses are 'full up', we have to look at students entering 'lower end' institutions with 3 Ds with no problem. There does seem to be an injustice there, and it's not one that makes sense. Perhaps what we need is an approach as with the transfer from GCSEs to A levels - if you do not achieve upwards of a C grade, you simply cannot enter into an academic future. There are many other alternatives; academia is by no means 'the only way forwards'. And while I'm not as unrealistic as David Willetts and would not casually suggest setting up your own business to these people, there are indeed other things that would probably suit these students more, instead of focusing on something which does not appear to be moving them very far forwards.
Something has to be done here. The bottom line is is that things cannot continue to go on in this way, where children are forced to stay on at school until they're 18, and those who were likely to have chosen to anyway then be deprived of their envisaged future because they have not achieved 100% in an exam (but became clinically depressed trying to). The issue of exam boards really needs to be assessed, but most importantly, the most academically minded and hardest working of A level students should get what they deserve; not the other way round.
We are in the process of letting down a generation.
This news, as shocking as it may initially seem, does not really come as a surprise when the coalition government's educational amendments are taken into consideration. By slashing the September student intake by 50% - from 20, 000 spaces to 10, 000, they have effectively deprived thousands of the nation's most academically able from fulfilling their dreams.
I understand that we are not living in the healthiest economic climate - to put things rather mildly, but something strikes me as completely unfair when top-achieving students are cast off from university, yet those with lower grades can still get in. The competition for top places has now completely spiralled out of control; such is the severity of the problem that Conservative MP David Willetts has suggested that should a student not secure a place at university, then he or she should consider "starting a business" or "going for an apprenticeship."
These ideas, as well as being absolutely ridiculous and unfair, also appear completely unworkable. How is an 18 year old - most I imagine without any background in business - with a primarily academic background, supposed to simply "start her own business", as Mr. Willetts so casually puts it? Or similarly, would this same individual be confident and happy about starting an apprenticeship? It's unlikely. Because the student has spent the past two years poring over academic textbooks and working extremely hard for those top grades, in order to get to university. To rob a child of her future in such a way at the drop of the hat is frankly unfair and downright mean. Mr. Willetts is not even being practical.
The amount of pressure we are exerting on this generation of students is phenomenal. I thank my lucky stars I wasn't born 10 years later, because education, which in my opinion pretty universally stands as a sad state of affairs in Britain, has been even further messed up now. The new award of an A* grade for those achieving over 90% - designed purely to mark out the 'academic elite' to university admissions tutors is a preposterous, soul-destroying measure which crucifies any remaining scraps of genuine education left remaining. Education is now so geared up to exams and ability-obsessed that we have lost all sight of other markers of intellect and are seeming to forget that there are many different types of intelligence, not to mention qualities, that are also sought after for competitive university courses.
It's no wonder that mental health problems are on the rise in this country. The pressures of the modern world are enough without forcing young people into studying themselves into insanity -and then not even being guaranteed a place at university. It must be completely demoralising for a whole generation.
Of course, these changes have been made without serious thought - because what is such a huge factor that always seems to be overlooked is the examining boards. These can differ drastically which therefore means that a student with 90% with OCR is in no means equivalent to a student with 90% on Edexcel. How can they be, when they don't ask the same questions, or even cover the same syllabus?
My own French exam board contained no French literature. Despite the fact we had to list our examining body on our UCAS forms, when I started at the first university I attended, many staff and students alike seemed very surprised that I'd never studied any French Literature before. Consequently I seemed to struggle a lot more with the course materials than many other students; my 'A' at A level had come from discussing current affairs in France, and no textual analysis or literary criticism whatsoever. I didn't mind learning this 'on the job' as it were, because it's what I expected. But it seems that the admissions tutors themselves did not. And all the time I couldn't help but feel I was still the lucky one - because there was no way anyone could deny that an A on WJEC was easier to come across than an A on AQA. And yet, because no-one seems to know the facts about examining bodies, I didn't even need to try to deny it, because it wasn't an issue.
Perhaps a solution to the problem - as well as re-examining the examining boards process - would be to change the requirements for admissions to all universities. I broadly believe that education should be available to all, but when it comes to Higher Education, it is slightly different. You are entering into an academic institution and selected on your ability. It therefore is only fair to be upfront and honest with people and only admit people who are suitable to the degree programme. But with so many completely suitable candidates being turned away because courses are 'full up', we have to look at students entering 'lower end' institutions with 3 Ds with no problem. There does seem to be an injustice there, and it's not one that makes sense. Perhaps what we need is an approach as with the transfer from GCSEs to A levels - if you do not achieve upwards of a C grade, you simply cannot enter into an academic future. There are many other alternatives; academia is by no means 'the only way forwards'. And while I'm not as unrealistic as David Willetts and would not casually suggest setting up your own business to these people, there are indeed other things that would probably suit these students more, instead of focusing on something which does not appear to be moving them very far forwards.
Something has to be done here. The bottom line is is that things cannot continue to go on in this way, where children are forced to stay on at school until they're 18, and those who were likely to have chosen to anyway then be deprived of their envisaged future because they have not achieved 100% in an exam (but became clinically depressed trying to). The issue of exam boards really needs to be assessed, but most importantly, the most academically minded and hardest working of A level students should get what they deserve; not the other way round.
We are in the process of letting down a generation.
Tuesday 29 June 2010
Gideon can get his grubby hands off Incapacity
A week since the Budget was announced, and things are looking pretty hairy (to put it lightly). Indeed, it has been described by many as "the toughest budget in decades", which can't fare well for British society by any stretch of the imagination. We were warned all along that this was going to be tough, but reassured that "we are all in it together." Pfft. Ha, bloody ha.
The cuts keep coming thick and fast, and at the moment every waking day seems to be bringing in more painfully depressing news about what important major services are going to see cuts and further unemployment. The sight of Gideon 'George' Osborne's smirking face now actually makes me nauseous.
But then what else could we expect from the ex-member of Oxford's Bullingdon Club? Sadly, little.
But I fail to see how we are "all in this together", as Mr. Cameron is intent on telling us all, time and time again, when the poorest people in society are the ones who are being affected most; who the cuts are really going to bite for, when in fact it was the richest people who got us into the mess of the recession anyway. Typical Conservative logic. Which isn't even logical.
Worst of all though, is the focus on minimising Incapacity benefit and Disability pay, and re-assessing everyone on it in the hope that at least 1 in 5 can be taken off it - which is going to take a lot of money anyway. But that's not even the point. Not everything is about economics. Mr. Osborne here is actually targetting some of the most vulnerable people in society, and making their lives stressful and worse. Terminally ill cancer patients, people with life-affecting heart conditions, the disabled, plus many more, are all to be subjected to vigorous re-assessments and possible/ probable cuts in their benefits, at a time when what we all really need is a boost in morale, and something to look forward to.
Though it may sound extreme, I think this move will go as far as to kill some people. Some of those on incapacity benefit need around-the-clock care, and a move as daring and as extreme as this is really not the kind of stress they can deal with.
It's alright for Dave & George of course, who won't even feel any of these cuts. But you could at least hope for a slice of empathy. Apparently that's out of the question too. "We're all in this together", are we? Then why are they sitting up in Westminster shining their shoes and sipping cocktails while more and more of us are becoming cash-strapped? Did we REALLY vote for this?
The cuts keep coming thick and fast, and at the moment every waking day seems to be bringing in more painfully depressing news about what important major services are going to see cuts and further unemployment. The sight of Gideon 'George' Osborne's smirking face now actually makes me nauseous.
But then what else could we expect from the ex-member of Oxford's Bullingdon Club? Sadly, little.
But I fail to see how we are "all in this together", as Mr. Cameron is intent on telling us all, time and time again, when the poorest people in society are the ones who are being affected most; who the cuts are really going to bite for, when in fact it was the richest people who got us into the mess of the recession anyway. Typical Conservative logic. Which isn't even logical.
Worst of all though, is the focus on minimising Incapacity benefit and Disability pay, and re-assessing everyone on it in the hope that at least 1 in 5 can be taken off it - which is going to take a lot of money anyway. But that's not even the point. Not everything is about economics. Mr. Osborne here is actually targetting some of the most vulnerable people in society, and making their lives stressful and worse. Terminally ill cancer patients, people with life-affecting heart conditions, the disabled, plus many more, are all to be subjected to vigorous re-assessments and possible/ probable cuts in their benefits, at a time when what we all really need is a boost in morale, and something to look forward to.
Though it may sound extreme, I think this move will go as far as to kill some people. Some of those on incapacity benefit need around-the-clock care, and a move as daring and as extreme as this is really not the kind of stress they can deal with.
It's alright for Dave & George of course, who won't even feel any of these cuts. But you could at least hope for a slice of empathy. Apparently that's out of the question too. "We're all in this together", are we? Then why are they sitting up in Westminster shining their shoes and sipping cocktails while more and more of us are becoming cash-strapped? Did we REALLY vote for this?
Thursday 10 June 2010
Disrespect shouldn't mean 'wish for death'
Labour backbencher John McDonnell made headlines this week with his 'assassinate Thatcher' jibe. Many brushed it off as a joke, but it happens that he is no longer standing for the Labour leadership.
A joke it may have been, and as reassuring it is to realise that there are to my knowledge no aspiring, would-be murderers in the Labour party, it was a joke made in extremely poor taste.
While I do not agree with Conservative claims that it was merely a way to try to grab votes 'from the left' in his run-up to the leadership campaign - ironically he is now standing down, and John McDonnell is hardly known for 'pandering to the party' anyway - I do agree on claims that it was insensitive and just downright distasteful. Humour only works when supported by at least small undercurrents of truth, and so I think to even allude to killing anyone - no matter how much you detest their views or the way they are as a person - is extremely unsavoury and by no means a laughing matter.
The ruptuous applause and laughter that followed his comment, however, spoke volumes, and was perhaps even more worrying. What is it in British society that makes us think it's OK to joke about the loss of life? Especially when being pragmatic, taking into account that Margaret Thatcher is now a very frail old woman. Was this really an appropriate comment to make?
Unfortunately it seems that jokes about 'killing off' those we don't like is just commonplace nowadays in British society, and it's one of the many things that I find repulsive about this nation. Only a few weeks ago, I was at a political gathering and overheard jokes - well, I presume they were jokes - but they were certainly said with extreme seriousness - about wanting to shoot David Cameron. I didn't manage to hide my shock and disgust; it was a natural reflex reaction. But as I sat aghast, I couldn't help but witness the smiles and the smirks that surrounded me. I could barely believe everyone was just letting it go as a casual comment, but then I remembered what country we're in, and England's horrible 'laughing stock' culture where people are targeted to such extremes that jokes often lead to talk and speculation about issues completely arbitrary and irrelevant to the issue, such as their 'ugliness', their warped hair style, and casual chinwagging about the most appropriate and interesting way to have them slaughtered.
Perhaps I'm just oversensitive, but I don't think so. As much as you dislike a person, there is a line you can cross. In my mind it is important to always keep perspective and remember to say the things you really mean.
A joke it may have been, and as reassuring it is to realise that there are to my knowledge no aspiring, would-be murderers in the Labour party, it was a joke made in extremely poor taste.
While I do not agree with Conservative claims that it was merely a way to try to grab votes 'from the left' in his run-up to the leadership campaign - ironically he is now standing down, and John McDonnell is hardly known for 'pandering to the party' anyway - I do agree on claims that it was insensitive and just downright distasteful. Humour only works when supported by at least small undercurrents of truth, and so I think to even allude to killing anyone - no matter how much you detest their views or the way they are as a person - is extremely unsavoury and by no means a laughing matter.
The ruptuous applause and laughter that followed his comment, however, spoke volumes, and was perhaps even more worrying. What is it in British society that makes us think it's OK to joke about the loss of life? Especially when being pragmatic, taking into account that Margaret Thatcher is now a very frail old woman. Was this really an appropriate comment to make?
Unfortunately it seems that jokes about 'killing off' those we don't like is just commonplace nowadays in British society, and it's one of the many things that I find repulsive about this nation. Only a few weeks ago, I was at a political gathering and overheard jokes - well, I presume they were jokes - but they were certainly said with extreme seriousness - about wanting to shoot David Cameron. I didn't manage to hide my shock and disgust; it was a natural reflex reaction. But as I sat aghast, I couldn't help but witness the smiles and the smirks that surrounded me. I could barely believe everyone was just letting it go as a casual comment, but then I remembered what country we're in, and England's horrible 'laughing stock' culture where people are targeted to such extremes that jokes often lead to talk and speculation about issues completely arbitrary and irrelevant to the issue, such as their 'ugliness', their warped hair style, and casual chinwagging about the most appropriate and interesting way to have them slaughtered.
Perhaps I'm just oversensitive, but I don't think so. As much as you dislike a person, there is a line you can cross. In my mind it is important to always keep perspective and remember to say the things you really mean.
Friday 4 June 2010
The loss of millions (of lives) is the greater expense.
If you didn't read the bit in brackets, what would you expect this blog entry to be about? I suppose the abstract, figurative association of 'expense' collocates nicely with the idea of money anyway, so it isn't an entirely fair question. But I still think it highlights an important point: Britain is obsessed with dosh.
Sometimes I get a little tired with this country's obsession with money. No doubt many will see (or WOULD see, if 'many' people actually read this blog!) this entry as naive and ill-informed, but I think such critics would be missing the point.
While the expenses scandal is obviously important and needed to be discussed, I think the past tense of 'need' should really be noted here. We've had discussion after discussion about this and they have led to many new laws in parliament to stop such a thing from happening again. It's not as if it's been treated lightly.
But I have heard so much about it that I am almost sick of it now. I think things like this clearly show a huge loss of perspective, and this saddens me deeply.
The revelation of David Laws' so-called shady activities and expenses claims have brought the issue back into the spotlight this past week (as if they ever went away). But they miss the point. I completely agree with Times columnist Matthew Parris that the issue here is not about money; David Laws clearly wasn't doing this for money - it was purely because he wanted to hide his homosexual relationship, and I think the whole thing is really quite tragic.
It angers me that this is so normal; so common-place in our society, that whenever there's a story or a scandal that involves money, that is what is generally perceived as the key issue, no matter what. And it is really for that reason that I am sick of hearing about expenses. Because that is one of the few cases which really is about money, and yet the ongoing row over it is only causing people to confuse its issues even more with other stories which are completely irrelevant to finance and expense.
But then that is not even really the point of this blog entry. What I wanted to highlight was how people lose all sense of perspective. The expenses scandal was awful, and give politicians a bad name. But as bad a name as they should earn for murdering millions in Iraq? For taking human lives away? Come on. We need to remember the issues that REALLY matter; the issues that TRULY *destroy* lives. While we sit and bitch and moan about 'thieving' politicians, the same MURDERER politicians are supporting a barbaric war in Iraq. The expenses scandal was awful and embarrassing and rightly lost politicians a lot of trust. But it WAS about money. You know, that empty medium that buys us material things but has no value in itself. It is an ideological concept. It's a vacant substance; it's only money, for Christ's sake.
The bottom line is that we should think about what matters to us more, really; losing millions of pounds or losing millions of lives.
Britain is an extremely self-centred nation to live in at times.
Sometimes I get a little tired with this country's obsession with money. No doubt many will see (or WOULD see, if 'many' people actually read this blog!) this entry as naive and ill-informed, but I think such critics would be missing the point.
While the expenses scandal is obviously important and needed to be discussed, I think the past tense of 'need' should really be noted here. We've had discussion after discussion about this and they have led to many new laws in parliament to stop such a thing from happening again. It's not as if it's been treated lightly.
But I have heard so much about it that I am almost sick of it now. I think things like this clearly show a huge loss of perspective, and this saddens me deeply.
The revelation of David Laws' so-called shady activities and expenses claims have brought the issue back into the spotlight this past week (as if they ever went away). But they miss the point. I completely agree with Times columnist Matthew Parris that the issue here is not about money; David Laws clearly wasn't doing this for money - it was purely because he wanted to hide his homosexual relationship, and I think the whole thing is really quite tragic.
It angers me that this is so normal; so common-place in our society, that whenever there's a story or a scandal that involves money, that is what is generally perceived as the key issue, no matter what. And it is really for that reason that I am sick of hearing about expenses. Because that is one of the few cases which really is about money, and yet the ongoing row over it is only causing people to confuse its issues even more with other stories which are completely irrelevant to finance and expense.
But then that is not even really the point of this blog entry. What I wanted to highlight was how people lose all sense of perspective. The expenses scandal was awful, and give politicians a bad name. But as bad a name as they should earn for murdering millions in Iraq? For taking human lives away? Come on. We need to remember the issues that REALLY matter; the issues that TRULY *destroy* lives. While we sit and bitch and moan about 'thieving' politicians, the same MURDERER politicians are supporting a barbaric war in Iraq. The expenses scandal was awful and embarrassing and rightly lost politicians a lot of trust. But it WAS about money. You know, that empty medium that buys us material things but has no value in itself. It is an ideological concept. It's a vacant substance; it's only money, for Christ's sake.
The bottom line is that we should think about what matters to us more, really; losing millions of pounds or losing millions of lives.
Britain is an extremely self-centred nation to live in at times.
Friday 21 May 2010
My Moment of the Week
Thrilled as I am to hear that Diane Abbott is standing for Labour party leader, not having witnessed the announcement first-hand as of yet, I am unable to deem it as my moment of the week. But it sounds truly inspirational. I am both proud and happy that someone has stood up to what she sees as a bad thing, and dived in to make a difference.
But my personal political moment of the week has to be the response that Andrew Neil gave to Michael Portillo on This Week when discussing Diane's shock leadership bid - his own moment of the week (and yes, that's where I stole the idea from). Michael Portillo said 'we both went to the modest schools of Harrow School for Boys and Harrow School for Girls'. It was at this point that Andrew Neil pointed out, "I'm sorry, but these are not modest schools, they are elite, highly selective grammar schools" which left Michael a bit stuck for things to say. I could have applauded him for making this point, for it is what I want to say to every person I meet who went to a plush, competitive grammar school and talks about it like it's the 'norm.' Even these days, when we have seen a huge rise in children attending private schools (probably due to the dissolution of the grammar school system, in all fairness), it annoys me to hear grammar school kids talking about their 'modest' schooling. But for Portillo, a product of the 11+ system of the '50s, to sit there and say it, I feel is ludicrous. The grammar schools were for the creme de la creme of the population; only a small minority actually got into them - in a sense you could even analogise them to how it is with grammar/ comprehensives v. public/ private schools now. So for him to make this statement I feel was not really saying much, especially considering the fact that the two Milibands went to a substandard comprehensive (albeit in the post-grammar school era).
It was a point well made by Andrew Neil, and for that, I highly commend him. I believe the dissolution of the grammar school system was a good thing and caused and still CAUSES a rift between people and exacerbates social divisions on the grounds of perceived 'intelligence.' You only had to watch this week's 'This Week' to see that the rift is still strong between that generation, with the remark of 'Well, I don't know that technical phrase Diane, but then I didn't go to a grammar school' by one of the guests. A wounded response, maybe, but a fair and valid point all the same: these highly elite, selective schools divided society. I am eva thankful to the Labour government that we no longer have the compulsory 11+ exam which pretty much decided for you your station in life, as well as how much self-esteem you'd have to gear you through it.
And I am thankful to Andrew Neil for highlighting the inaccuracy of Michael Portillo's point, on a purely factual basis. It was something that was screaming to be said, and I am glad that for once, somebody involved heard its call.
But my personal political moment of the week has to be the response that Andrew Neil gave to Michael Portillo on This Week when discussing Diane's shock leadership bid - his own moment of the week (and yes, that's where I stole the idea from). Michael Portillo said 'we both went to the modest schools of Harrow School for Boys and Harrow School for Girls'. It was at this point that Andrew Neil pointed out, "I'm sorry, but these are not modest schools, they are elite, highly selective grammar schools" which left Michael a bit stuck for things to say. I could have applauded him for making this point, for it is what I want to say to every person I meet who went to a plush, competitive grammar school and talks about it like it's the 'norm.' Even these days, when we have seen a huge rise in children attending private schools (probably due to the dissolution of the grammar school system, in all fairness), it annoys me to hear grammar school kids talking about their 'modest' schooling. But for Portillo, a product of the 11+ system of the '50s, to sit there and say it, I feel is ludicrous. The grammar schools were for the creme de la creme of the population; only a small minority actually got into them - in a sense you could even analogise them to how it is with grammar/ comprehensives v. public/ private schools now. So for him to make this statement I feel was not really saying much, especially considering the fact that the two Milibands went to a substandard comprehensive (albeit in the post-grammar school era).
It was a point well made by Andrew Neil, and for that, I highly commend him. I believe the dissolution of the grammar school system was a good thing and caused and still CAUSES a rift between people and exacerbates social divisions on the grounds of perceived 'intelligence.' You only had to watch this week's 'This Week' to see that the rift is still strong between that generation, with the remark of 'Well, I don't know that technical phrase Diane, but then I didn't go to a grammar school' by one of the guests. A wounded response, maybe, but a fair and valid point all the same: these highly elite, selective schools divided society. I am eva thankful to the Labour government that we no longer have the compulsory 11+ exam which pretty much decided for you your station in life, as well as how much self-esteem you'd have to gear you through it.
And I am thankful to Andrew Neil for highlighting the inaccuracy of Michael Portillo's point, on a purely factual basis. It was something that was screaming to be said, and I am glad that for once, somebody involved heard its call.
Friday 14 May 2010
What does David Cameron understand by the term 'equality'?
Well, well, well.
With only a week gone by since the General election, a lot has already happened. Such is the world of politics.
We've seen Gordon Brown resign, David Miliband put himself forward as possible Labour party leader, David Cameron become PM and do everything with the Lib Dem leader but formally confirm that he and Nick Clegg are officially an item.
But amongst all the trials and tribulations of arranging the so-called 'Con-Dem' cabinet, one appointment more than any other has struck me as being seriously misjudged.
And that is the assignment of Conservative MP Theresa May to the role of 'Women and Equalities Minister'.
An Equalities Minister, to me, is there to represent all groups; all sectors of society and ensure that there are equal opportunities for all. By definition, it is not a select group of people who are blessed with this 'privilege' of equality. It should be for ALL citizens.
However, I am forced into using the modal verb 'should' precisely because of who we have as our new Equalities Minister.
Theresa May has never been one to hide her homosexual views. Over the course of her career, she has made many different comments on different occasions which have offended both homosexual, bisexual and straight people. But perhaps even more worryingly, she has also voted against gay rights in the last parliament on at least three occasions - against repealing section 28, against lowering the age of consent for gay couples to 16, against civil partnerships. The fact that these views are abhorrently homophobic is not even the issue here. The issue is that this woman supposedly REPRESENTS homosexuals as well as straight people, and ensures that they have equal rights. The irony of how she has voted in the last parliament and her new cabinet position is painfully horrific.
The fact that she is pro-life with regards to abortion doesn't in my view put her in good stead as a representative for women, either.
I feel (almost) confident that David Cameron ought to be able to find just ONE Conservative MP who believes in equality, and votes according to his or her conscience. So why is it, instead of such a person, we have Theresa May holding the post of Women and Equality Minister?
This is more than a mistake. It is a dangerous and shameful shambles of a decision.
With only a week gone by since the General election, a lot has already happened. Such is the world of politics.
We've seen Gordon Brown resign, David Miliband put himself forward as possible Labour party leader, David Cameron become PM and do everything with the Lib Dem leader but formally confirm that he and Nick Clegg are officially an item.
But amongst all the trials and tribulations of arranging the so-called 'Con-Dem' cabinet, one appointment more than any other has struck me as being seriously misjudged.
And that is the assignment of Conservative MP Theresa May to the role of 'Women and Equalities Minister'.
An Equalities Minister, to me, is there to represent all groups; all sectors of society and ensure that there are equal opportunities for all. By definition, it is not a select group of people who are blessed with this 'privilege' of equality. It should be for ALL citizens.
However, I am forced into using the modal verb 'should' precisely because of who we have as our new Equalities Minister.
Theresa May has never been one to hide her homosexual views. Over the course of her career, she has made many different comments on different occasions which have offended both homosexual, bisexual and straight people. But perhaps even more worryingly, she has also voted against gay rights in the last parliament on at least three occasions - against repealing section 28, against lowering the age of consent for gay couples to 16, against civil partnerships. The fact that these views are abhorrently homophobic is not even the issue here. The issue is that this woman supposedly REPRESENTS homosexuals as well as straight people, and ensures that they have equal rights. The irony of how she has voted in the last parliament and her new cabinet position is painfully horrific.
The fact that she is pro-life with regards to abortion doesn't in my view put her in good stead as a representative for women, either.
I feel (almost) confident that David Cameron ought to be able to find just ONE Conservative MP who believes in equality, and votes according to his or her conscience. So why is it, instead of such a person, we have Theresa May holding the post of Women and Equality Minister?
This is more than a mistake. It is a dangerous and shameful shambles of a decision.
Thursday 6 May 2010
5 more years of Gordon Brown? Yes, please!
It is my last entry before the general election and I'm a sack of nerves. I will try to write this with as much sobriety as possible, given the circumstances.
So today is polling day. Finally the day of the general election is upon us and those of us who aren't completely apathetic, spineless or disillusioned with politics will be turning out to exercise democracy and cast our vote for who we want to govern the country for the next 4-5 years.
While this blog wasn't designed with the intention of supporting a particular party, I feel it my democratic duty to express my reasons for voting for Labour in this election.
David Cameron has been using his usual trick of scare-mongering (I'm not saying the other parties aren't also guilty of this) the public with his rhetorical quip of '5 more years of Gordon Brown.' But in all honesty, this prospect doesn't scare me at all. What does is the threat that his party would bring to the country if they are elected tonight.
Leading economists say that if Gordon Brown hadn't taken the steps he'd taken in order to aid recovery from the current recession, Britain would have fallen into a slump greater than the 1930s, after the Great Depression. The steps being taken to combat it are working, however, if the Tories were to get in, they would kill the recovery. This personally is not something I would like to see.
But then I wouldn't like to see anything they have to offer. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in Britain as a 'reward' for working hard? Oh, spare me. PAYING certain couples to get married? How moralistically judging is that - and it doesn't even take into account the fact that there could be domestic violence involved; in fact, in some cases it would be funding it. Absolutely disgusting. But unfortunately not even really shocking, even in this day and age, because this is the Conservatives we are talking about.
That's not even mentioning the fact that they'll take away child tax credits, are the party the least likely to keep the cap on tuition fees, and would probably take away the minimum wage and bring back fox hunting given the right opportunity. Besides, this is Thatcher's party; responsible for wrecking Britain in the 80s, completely safeguarding the interests of the wealthy and shitting all over the unions, crushing people's rights. And the racism and homophobia of the party over the years is just phenomenal. Griffith's campaign of 'If you want a nigger for your neighbour, vote Labour' in the 60s isn't referred to nearly as often as Powell's 'Rivers Of Blood' speech, even though it is equally, if not more, awful. And we only need to look back to 2001 with William Hague talking about 'a different people' 'taking over' 'the British person's' 'land,' in a bid to curb immigration. Staggering.
But then this is also the party who want to introduce a cap on immigration. This sends out such a negative image, not to mention is unfeasible; our economy depends on immigration and the NHS would go to shit without it (not that they care, of course, because they weren't the ones who brought in free health care. Don't trust their support for it). Immigration is wonderful and we should be proud of our ethnically and culturally diverse society. I know I am.
The Tories talk about 'Broken Britain.' What they forget to mention is that they were the ones who broke it. I am sick and tired of hearing about what Labour 'have done to the country' over the past 13 years. What they have had to FACE, is the enduring effects of TOO many years of Conservative rule beforehand. And yes, it does actually take a while to amend the cuts the Tories made to the NHS and to Education, but Labour have pumped so much money into these institutions and really improved them from how they were. People need to stop focussing on the negative, and realise what Labour HAVE achieved.
They've also brought in a national minimum wage - it was one of the first laws they passed when coming to power in 1997. In Sheffield, previously, jobs were advertised for as little as £1 an hour. That isn't nearly enough to live off. But the minimum wage was brought in in 1997 and Gordon Brown pledges to raise it to £7 an hour in the next parliament.
Labour also banned the barbaric and bloodthirsty sport of hunting with hounds.
They have also tripled our financial contribution to international aid and the developing world.
These are some amazing achievements, and things that people, albeit understandably, seem to forget amongst the scandal of the Iraq war, the attempted law on ID cards and the 28-day detention plan.
I do not support any of these things. However, I support a party founded on fairness; founded on the fight for fairness, not one born out of privilege. It disgusts me how Cameron has arranged his Front Bench MPs to contain so many Etonians. It doesn't even really matter that it's Eton; the principle of so many people who went to the same school and grew up together running the country is daunting and dodgy enough in itself.
Don't even get me started on the Lib Dems. They are a different party under Clegg; he has changed their party politics drastically. I was proud to cast my anti-war vote for Kennedy's party in 2005, but Clegg is an economic liberalist who deserts the social democratic side to them and cosies up to Cameron. His praise for Thatcher's 'victory' over the unions is enough to put me off, but luckily I had more than enough reason not to trust him before he even came out with that. There's something eerily suspicious about the guy; people treat him as some sort of saviour but I'm not sure about him at all. The wealthy upbringing, the private education, the flirtation with the Conservative party while at Cambridge... it just doesn't bode well for me. It's for this reason that I like Cameron more than Clegg, or at least that I trust him more: at least Cameron *admits* he's a Tory.
It's a shame because many individual Lib Dem MPs are a lot more Charles Kennedyesque and the sorts of people I wouldn't mind running the country. But the front benches of course cosy up to Clegg, and Clegg disgusts me. I just can't help having this really strange feeling that there's something he's not telling us. Something sits under the surface about him that I can't quite place my finger on. Why doesn't he just join the Conservatives? Is he one of these people who cares more about power than about politics?
Liberal Democrat policies just don't seem to add up in my eyes, either. They don't explain a lot of their spending in their manifesto, and I don't see how they can just pull the money from thin air in the middle of a recession.
The television debates have changed politics. They've brought it more into the public eye, but they haven't necessarily swayed people's votes. Or at least I would be surprised if they did. Polls are shit, you can't trust them. But what scares me is the amount of backlash stirred up by the media following them, and how people just gobble it up as if it's fact. I severely dislike how the media puts their own spin on things. I'm just frightened that people might be voting on public performance rather than on policies and personality; the debates were in a sense too presidential; I think that's why the UK has never had them before. Politics doesn't really work like that in this country. I only watched them for entertainment purposes; I don't see how anyone could decide who they're voting for by watching them because they don't really tell you much. Still, it's good that they're being aired because it gets more people talking about and engaging with politics, even if not voting, which can only be a good thing.
And finally, on 'bigotgate'... I can't even believe I have to defend this. Do you not think all politicians talk about people like this? They are human after all, and have thoughts and feelings and opinions, like you and me. David Cameron should think himself lucky he didn't get caught on microphone after his argument with a guy about special needs schooling, because I'll bet you that if he did, he'd have been caught calling the guy something much more unsavory and less accurate than a 'bigot', which, after all, was what that woman was. Again though, it's an example of how the press stirs things up. If you watch the footage, he doesn't even say she is a bigot. I believe 'sort of bigoted' was the expression used. Blimey. The fuss created from an embarrassing blunder that anyone could have so easily done, and done so much worse and with so much less grace.
So... think that's enough ranting and raving for my last post before the election. I am nervous about tonight but going to spend most of the rest of the day campaigning in favour of Labour and telling people the things I've just explained here, about why I'm voting for Gordon Brown, and not for David Cameron or Nick Clegg. Please don't just take my word for it though. Read around, talk to people, engage with politics, and make your own mind up.
Just remember to VOTE!
So today is polling day. Finally the day of the general election is upon us and those of us who aren't completely apathetic, spineless or disillusioned with politics will be turning out to exercise democracy and cast our vote for who we want to govern the country for the next 4-5 years.
While this blog wasn't designed with the intention of supporting a particular party, I feel it my democratic duty to express my reasons for voting for Labour in this election.
David Cameron has been using his usual trick of scare-mongering (I'm not saying the other parties aren't also guilty of this) the public with his rhetorical quip of '5 more years of Gordon Brown.' But in all honesty, this prospect doesn't scare me at all. What does is the threat that his party would bring to the country if they are elected tonight.
Leading economists say that if Gordon Brown hadn't taken the steps he'd taken in order to aid recovery from the current recession, Britain would have fallen into a slump greater than the 1930s, after the Great Depression. The steps being taken to combat it are working, however, if the Tories were to get in, they would kill the recovery. This personally is not something I would like to see.
But then I wouldn't like to see anything they have to offer. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in Britain as a 'reward' for working hard? Oh, spare me. PAYING certain couples to get married? How moralistically judging is that - and it doesn't even take into account the fact that there could be domestic violence involved; in fact, in some cases it would be funding it. Absolutely disgusting. But unfortunately not even really shocking, even in this day and age, because this is the Conservatives we are talking about.
That's not even mentioning the fact that they'll take away child tax credits, are the party the least likely to keep the cap on tuition fees, and would probably take away the minimum wage and bring back fox hunting given the right opportunity. Besides, this is Thatcher's party; responsible for wrecking Britain in the 80s, completely safeguarding the interests of the wealthy and shitting all over the unions, crushing people's rights. And the racism and homophobia of the party over the years is just phenomenal. Griffith's campaign of 'If you want a nigger for your neighbour, vote Labour' in the 60s isn't referred to nearly as often as Powell's 'Rivers Of Blood' speech, even though it is equally, if not more, awful. And we only need to look back to 2001 with William Hague talking about 'a different people' 'taking over' 'the British person's' 'land,' in a bid to curb immigration. Staggering.
But then this is also the party who want to introduce a cap on immigration. This sends out such a negative image, not to mention is unfeasible; our economy depends on immigration and the NHS would go to shit without it (not that they care, of course, because they weren't the ones who brought in free health care. Don't trust their support for it). Immigration is wonderful and we should be proud of our ethnically and culturally diverse society. I know I am.
The Tories talk about 'Broken Britain.' What they forget to mention is that they were the ones who broke it. I am sick and tired of hearing about what Labour 'have done to the country' over the past 13 years. What they have had to FACE, is the enduring effects of TOO many years of Conservative rule beforehand. And yes, it does actually take a while to amend the cuts the Tories made to the NHS and to Education, but Labour have pumped so much money into these institutions and really improved them from how they were. People need to stop focussing on the negative, and realise what Labour HAVE achieved.
They've also brought in a national minimum wage - it was one of the first laws they passed when coming to power in 1997. In Sheffield, previously, jobs were advertised for as little as £1 an hour. That isn't nearly enough to live off. But the minimum wage was brought in in 1997 and Gordon Brown pledges to raise it to £7 an hour in the next parliament.
Labour also banned the barbaric and bloodthirsty sport of hunting with hounds.
They have also tripled our financial contribution to international aid and the developing world.
These are some amazing achievements, and things that people, albeit understandably, seem to forget amongst the scandal of the Iraq war, the attempted law on ID cards and the 28-day detention plan.
I do not support any of these things. However, I support a party founded on fairness; founded on the fight for fairness, not one born out of privilege. It disgusts me how Cameron has arranged his Front Bench MPs to contain so many Etonians. It doesn't even really matter that it's Eton; the principle of so many people who went to the same school and grew up together running the country is daunting and dodgy enough in itself.
Don't even get me started on the Lib Dems. They are a different party under Clegg; he has changed their party politics drastically. I was proud to cast my anti-war vote for Kennedy's party in 2005, but Clegg is an economic liberalist who deserts the social democratic side to them and cosies up to Cameron. His praise for Thatcher's 'victory' over the unions is enough to put me off, but luckily I had more than enough reason not to trust him before he even came out with that. There's something eerily suspicious about the guy; people treat him as some sort of saviour but I'm not sure about him at all. The wealthy upbringing, the private education, the flirtation with the Conservative party while at Cambridge... it just doesn't bode well for me. It's for this reason that I like Cameron more than Clegg, or at least that I trust him more: at least Cameron *admits* he's a Tory.
It's a shame because many individual Lib Dem MPs are a lot more Charles Kennedyesque and the sorts of people I wouldn't mind running the country. But the front benches of course cosy up to Clegg, and Clegg disgusts me. I just can't help having this really strange feeling that there's something he's not telling us. Something sits under the surface about him that I can't quite place my finger on. Why doesn't he just join the Conservatives? Is he one of these people who cares more about power than about politics?
Liberal Democrat policies just don't seem to add up in my eyes, either. They don't explain a lot of their spending in their manifesto, and I don't see how they can just pull the money from thin air in the middle of a recession.
The television debates have changed politics. They've brought it more into the public eye, but they haven't necessarily swayed people's votes. Or at least I would be surprised if they did. Polls are shit, you can't trust them. But what scares me is the amount of backlash stirred up by the media following them, and how people just gobble it up as if it's fact. I severely dislike how the media puts their own spin on things. I'm just frightened that people might be voting on public performance rather than on policies and personality; the debates were in a sense too presidential; I think that's why the UK has never had them before. Politics doesn't really work like that in this country. I only watched them for entertainment purposes; I don't see how anyone could decide who they're voting for by watching them because they don't really tell you much. Still, it's good that they're being aired because it gets more people talking about and engaging with politics, even if not voting, which can only be a good thing.
And finally, on 'bigotgate'... I can't even believe I have to defend this. Do you not think all politicians talk about people like this? They are human after all, and have thoughts and feelings and opinions, like you and me. David Cameron should think himself lucky he didn't get caught on microphone after his argument with a guy about special needs schooling, because I'll bet you that if he did, he'd have been caught calling the guy something much more unsavory and less accurate than a 'bigot', which, after all, was what that woman was. Again though, it's an example of how the press stirs things up. If you watch the footage, he doesn't even say she is a bigot. I believe 'sort of bigoted' was the expression used. Blimey. The fuss created from an embarrassing blunder that anyone could have so easily done, and done so much worse and with so much less grace.
So... think that's enough ranting and raving for my last post before the election. I am nervous about tonight but going to spend most of the rest of the day campaigning in favour of Labour and telling people the things I've just explained here, about why I'm voting for Gordon Brown, and not for David Cameron or Nick Clegg. Please don't just take my word for it though. Read around, talk to people, engage with politics, and make your own mind up.
Just remember to VOTE!
Thursday 29 April 2010
A plea: DON'T vote tactically. But bear in mind the BNP.
With the upcoming election now only a week away, you've probably heard and read hundreds out documents urging you to vote tactically. This blog intends to persuade you to do precisely the opposite.
Whatever your political standpoint, it makes sense not to deny it to yourself. Not to suppress your opinions in a liberal democracy, for fear of letting another party in, or just because you think it won't make any difference otherwise. I'd like to set you straight now: this is bullshit.
It's bullshit for a number of reasons. First of all, if everyone stopped tactical voting and just voted for precisely who they wanted, the party might not get in, but there'd sure as hell be a message that something was happening. It would make a statement if nothing else. And finally some of the minor parties would be getting recognition for having some really decent policies (in some cases, at least!). So it would certainly not be a wasted vote.
And it wouldn't be a wasted vote anyway. Because voting is such an important thing, so vital and integral to your identity, to vote for a party dubiously who you don't believe in or rather, you don't want to be voting for, would be somewhat fraudulent. So I urge you to please be true to yourself and keep your integrity: vote for who you want to, not who society is telling you to vote for.
That said, the likely consequence of this happening would be a hung parliament - though not necessarily; it depends who you vote for. I should now go off into a little spiel about why you shouldn't vote for Lib Dems but that would be in a way kind of hypocritical so I'll leave that one out for now. But basically I do side with the opinion that a hung parliament would be bad - not because laws would be difficult to pass, and I do appreciate the democratic mix of voices that would make it up - but simply because voting reform, which the Lib Dems are promising to pass, would not be a good thing right now. Perhaps PR would be a good thing to have in theory, in the future. But right now the threat of the BNP really is too real. They only got those seats in the European Parliament BECAUSE the European Parliament uses Proportional Representation. If this voting reform stretches to British Parliament, I'll be terrified. I can see it now - a hung parliament occurring, closet Tory boy Clegg all big and beamy about his success and people praising him while he negotiates a secret agenda with Mr. Cameron. Meanwhile, while everyone's fussing about this, before we know it, we have members of the BNP with seats in the Houses of Parliament. And all because of Proportional Representation - voting reform that the Lib Dems want brought in.
I'm not denying that in an ideal world, it might be a good thing to have. But need I remind you that our world is certainly not ideal. Not yet at least. We need to concentrate on crushing these fascist Nazi thugs that call themselves politicians, before we can resuscitate the sensible world of politics as we once knew it.
So please, don't be put off by all these leafletty pieces of propaganda. Vote for who YOU want to. Even if you vote in the BNP, if it's democratically voted, at the end of the day, fair is fair. My problem is I truly do NOT believe that people would vote these people in power, if they TRULY understood what they were all about. So if you're going to vote for Lib Dem, do it, and do it decisively - don't let threats of a hung parliament put you off. But do please ask yourself before you do it, whether you have the heart to vote for a party who want to introduce voting reform at a time that the BNP could really use it to their advantage.
Whatever your political standpoint, it makes sense not to deny it to yourself. Not to suppress your opinions in a liberal democracy, for fear of letting another party in, or just because you think it won't make any difference otherwise. I'd like to set you straight now: this is bullshit.
It's bullshit for a number of reasons. First of all, if everyone stopped tactical voting and just voted for precisely who they wanted, the party might not get in, but there'd sure as hell be a message that something was happening. It would make a statement if nothing else. And finally some of the minor parties would be getting recognition for having some really decent policies (in some cases, at least!). So it would certainly not be a wasted vote.
And it wouldn't be a wasted vote anyway. Because voting is such an important thing, so vital and integral to your identity, to vote for a party dubiously who you don't believe in or rather, you don't want to be voting for, would be somewhat fraudulent. So I urge you to please be true to yourself and keep your integrity: vote for who you want to, not who society is telling you to vote for.
That said, the likely consequence of this happening would be a hung parliament - though not necessarily; it depends who you vote for. I should now go off into a little spiel about why you shouldn't vote for Lib Dems but that would be in a way kind of hypocritical so I'll leave that one out for now. But basically I do side with the opinion that a hung parliament would be bad - not because laws would be difficult to pass, and I do appreciate the democratic mix of voices that would make it up - but simply because voting reform, which the Lib Dems are promising to pass, would not be a good thing right now. Perhaps PR would be a good thing to have in theory, in the future. But right now the threat of the BNP really is too real. They only got those seats in the European Parliament BECAUSE the European Parliament uses Proportional Representation. If this voting reform stretches to British Parliament, I'll be terrified. I can see it now - a hung parliament occurring, closet Tory boy Clegg all big and beamy about his success and people praising him while he negotiates a secret agenda with Mr. Cameron. Meanwhile, while everyone's fussing about this, before we know it, we have members of the BNP with seats in the Houses of Parliament. And all because of Proportional Representation - voting reform that the Lib Dems want brought in.
I'm not denying that in an ideal world, it might be a good thing to have. But need I remind you that our world is certainly not ideal. Not yet at least. We need to concentrate on crushing these fascist Nazi thugs that call themselves politicians, before we can resuscitate the sensible world of politics as we once knew it.
So please, don't be put off by all these leafletty pieces of propaganda. Vote for who YOU want to. Even if you vote in the BNP, if it's democratically voted, at the end of the day, fair is fair. My problem is I truly do NOT believe that people would vote these people in power, if they TRULY understood what they were all about. So if you're going to vote for Lib Dem, do it, and do it decisively - don't let threats of a hung parliament put you off. But do please ask yourself before you do it, whether you have the heart to vote for a party who want to introduce voting reform at a time that the BNP could really use it to their advantage.
Friday 23 April 2010
An egg-citing week in politics (cringe)
Fresh from egg-throwing incidents, David Cameron's face filled our TV screens once again last night at the second ever priministerial debate of its kind in our country. I'll wait for a later date to speculate on that, but what I want to focus my attention on in this entry is the first part of the first sentence. Yes, the title of this blog entry does not deceive you, unlike Cameron himself just might be trying to: it will focus on what we might for want of a better word, refer to as the 'eggy incident' that took place this Wednesday afternoon.
Of course, dear David is not the first politician to be splattered with egg yolk, nor is he likely to be the last. But my God, of the other two famous eggings that immediately spring to mind, did he handle it the best. Cool, calm and collected, he appeared as the press put it 'unruffled' and even made a joke about it which saw him somewhat as having the last laugh, feeble as it might have been.
Bear in mind the contrast of Nick Griffin's immature whines when he got egged, referring to the culprit as something like 'none other than a stupid student, what do you expect.' Then of course there was the Prezza Punch, which made John Prescott appear a bit TOO human for most people but got ample amounts of press coverage all the same.
The point is, the way the two polticians (if we can call NG that... which is stretching the limits a bit, to be fair) handled their eggings is regrettably cringeworthy. Nick Griffin talked condescendingly of an entire sub-cultural group and made very sweeping generalisations (but then again, what do you expect?), while Prescott to put it bluntly bawled like a baby. Neither of these reactions will have boded well in the public eye, but David Cameron's response was appropriately sober and non-accusational, with the subtle nuance of it coming 'after' the chicken (ie. the more positive bit) so as to still indicate a very mild judgement on the young boy's actions. It seems something you'd expect politicians to be all geared up for managing, being a fairly common incident, but as the above instances show, only Cameron truly responded with grace.
As for the Lib Dems, their egging day still appears to be yet to come. But hey, sure there'll be plenty of opportunities for Nick to get that splat yet, even if the media love him at the moment. One can dream at least - if only in metaphors...
Of course, dear David is not the first politician to be splattered with egg yolk, nor is he likely to be the last. But my God, of the other two famous eggings that immediately spring to mind, did he handle it the best. Cool, calm and collected, he appeared as the press put it 'unruffled' and even made a joke about it which saw him somewhat as having the last laugh, feeble as it might have been.
Bear in mind the contrast of Nick Griffin's immature whines when he got egged, referring to the culprit as something like 'none other than a stupid student, what do you expect.' Then of course there was the Prezza Punch, which made John Prescott appear a bit TOO human for most people but got ample amounts of press coverage all the same.
The point is, the way the two polticians (if we can call NG that... which is stretching the limits a bit, to be fair) handled their eggings is regrettably cringeworthy. Nick Griffin talked condescendingly of an entire sub-cultural group and made very sweeping generalisations (but then again, what do you expect?), while Prescott to put it bluntly bawled like a baby. Neither of these reactions will have boded well in the public eye, but David Cameron's response was appropriately sober and non-accusational, with the subtle nuance of it coming 'after' the chicken (ie. the more positive bit) so as to still indicate a very mild judgement on the young boy's actions. It seems something you'd expect politicians to be all geared up for managing, being a fairly common incident, but as the above instances show, only Cameron truly responded with grace.
As for the Lib Dems, their egging day still appears to be yet to come. But hey, sure there'll be plenty of opportunities for Nick to get that splat yet, even if the media love him at the moment. One can dream at least - if only in metaphors...
Wednesday 14 April 2010
Vote for personality as well as policy! - and yes, you read that correctly...
There's a lot of stuff out there at the moment promoting the ideology of 'policies, not personalities!'. Indeed, voting for someone as opposed to the party they lead is becoming scorned upon, scoffed at and brushed under the carpet at just plain ridiculous. It's becoming very de rigeur to vote strictly according to policy and very much a 'dirty' idea to vote for personality. But is this really such a good thing?
I would argue definitely not - I'm really quite frightened and intimidated by it in all honesty. First of all, in a country where we don't have very high voter turnout, I see it as much more important and a more useful and worthwhile use of time to instead concentrate on that fact - and instead of telling people how to vote, we should just focus on encouraging then to get off their bored asses and actually use their democratic voice.
Using the term 'vote for policies, not personalities!' is hardly encouraging rhetoric for someone who isn't inclined to vote in the first place. It threatens the viewer that if they don't clue themselves up on every inch of each party's manifesto, they might as well not vote at all. I think this is a ridiculous message to be hammering to people with a voter apathy as high as Britain.
Sites like this don't help: http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/4BC60DB95FE74. Sure, they do a brilliant job of preaching to the converted, but at such a crucial time, that really isn't what we want. It took me 5 minutes short of an hour to fill out the damn thing - and that was with 3 fields (Economy, Europe and Crime) left blank (because I don't feel I understand quite enough about each of these issues to vote on them). Someone who isn't likely to vote would be even less likely to vote in the General Election after filling out that thing - if they did it with any thought whatsoever. Hell, I am less likely to vote after filling it in! It doesn't even tell you which party the manifestos are from at the end - apart from the ones you voted for!
It's as if we are intent to take a step back to the pre-television era of politics, where people were so set on voting for policy that they disliked the idea of the 'idiot box' expanding the conscience of the electorate to a 'less intellectual' class of people who would 'only' vote on public speaking skills and such. We don't want to go back 50 years in time though surely, after all the progress made?
While this next part of this entry may on the surface appear to contradict my previous blog post, it is important to me to choose a leader that I can relate to. In that sense, background is important. I do think it's important that the Prime Minister of our country is experienced in a manner of different socio-economic environments and doesn't just know one field or sector of life: the wealthy elite. I just don't agree that it should be used as a way to segregate people and parties, and certainly isn't a relevant criticism of someone if his or her policies contradict his or her upbringing. But the importance of trust in a politician is paramount, and I'd like to think he knew a little about me too; the common man, and that he or she well and truly knew about what he or she is talking about when they get out there and represent British society.
My results from my 'policies, not personalities' quiz contained no real surprises, and to me just confirmed what I already suspected - that Labour, the Conservatives and Lib Dem policies are all very mainstream and most importantly, frighteningly undistinct. In this instance, even if I wanted to vote purely on policy, it wouldn't be possible because I'm tied. So I'd simply choose my leader by my instincts and who I thought could deliver things best, who I can place most trust in, and also, crucially, who would liase well in international affairs.
I won't vote for the Green Party even though according to its policies, I should be doing. I don't warm to their leader. To be fair, I have barely even seen her speaking, but I just don't think a lot of their policies would be workable, hence I didn't vote for them, whereas I did see Labour's as at least feasible even if not necessarily highly desirable. I also don't know if I trust the Greens to really stand up for people on a pragmatic level as well as a preachy principled one (in my opnion, both are important in politics). In a similar way to how I don't trust Labour after their lies over Iraq, or the Lib Dems for changing their views on top-up fees. And it's probably best not to get me started on the Conservatives, but I think having in its history the campaign slogan of 'If you want a nigger for your neighbour, vote Labour' speaks for itself.
The idea of voting policy and not personality-wise promotes none of this - it doesn't focus on the history of the party and what it has done in the past, it doesn't even ask you to bear in mind the general political philosophy behind each of the parties. Voting on policy is certainly something to bear in mind, but it's definitely not everything. And I daresay the same thing can be said about personality - but it should at least get a look-in!
An interesting analogy for it would be in your lovelife - would you rather a guy who spoilt you and gave you exactly what you wanted, but was really dull and who you felt different to and you can't really relate to; or someone who for one reason or other didn't deliver exactly what you wanted, but did it with integrity, meaning, feeling... and genuinely tried his hardest for you? Now this obviously isn't the greatest comparison in the world for a number of reasons, but it gets you at least thinking. Even if you aren't ready to marry a person's policies, perhaps their personality will be enough for you to hang around and at least consider them on terms of what they can do for you in terms of being themself.
There is such a thin dividing line between policies in the three main parties these days. If people want to vote for personality, vote for personality. Hell, it's all I have to go on on May 6th.
I would argue definitely not - I'm really quite frightened and intimidated by it in all honesty. First of all, in a country where we don't have very high voter turnout, I see it as much more important and a more useful and worthwhile use of time to instead concentrate on that fact - and instead of telling people how to vote, we should just focus on encouraging then to get off their bored asses and actually use their democratic voice.
Using the term 'vote for policies, not personalities!' is hardly encouraging rhetoric for someone who isn't inclined to vote in the first place. It threatens the viewer that if they don't clue themselves up on every inch of each party's manifesto, they might as well not vote at all. I think this is a ridiculous message to be hammering to people with a voter apathy as high as Britain.
Sites like this don't help: http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/4BC60DB95FE74. Sure, they do a brilliant job of preaching to the converted, but at such a crucial time, that really isn't what we want. It took me 5 minutes short of an hour to fill out the damn thing - and that was with 3 fields (Economy, Europe and Crime) left blank (because I don't feel I understand quite enough about each of these issues to vote on them). Someone who isn't likely to vote would be even less likely to vote in the General Election after filling out that thing - if they did it with any thought whatsoever. Hell, I am less likely to vote after filling it in! It doesn't even tell you which party the manifestos are from at the end - apart from the ones you voted for!
It's as if we are intent to take a step back to the pre-television era of politics, where people were so set on voting for policy that they disliked the idea of the 'idiot box' expanding the conscience of the electorate to a 'less intellectual' class of people who would 'only' vote on public speaking skills and such. We don't want to go back 50 years in time though surely, after all the progress made?
While this next part of this entry may on the surface appear to contradict my previous blog post, it is important to me to choose a leader that I can relate to. In that sense, background is important. I do think it's important that the Prime Minister of our country is experienced in a manner of different socio-economic environments and doesn't just know one field or sector of life: the wealthy elite. I just don't agree that it should be used as a way to segregate people and parties, and certainly isn't a relevant criticism of someone if his or her policies contradict his or her upbringing. But the importance of trust in a politician is paramount, and I'd like to think he knew a little about me too; the common man, and that he or she well and truly knew about what he or she is talking about when they get out there and represent British society.
My results from my 'policies, not personalities' quiz contained no real surprises, and to me just confirmed what I already suspected - that Labour, the Conservatives and Lib Dem policies are all very mainstream and most importantly, frighteningly undistinct. In this instance, even if I wanted to vote purely on policy, it wouldn't be possible because I'm tied. So I'd simply choose my leader by my instincts and who I thought could deliver things best, who I can place most trust in, and also, crucially, who would liase well in international affairs.
I won't vote for the Green Party even though according to its policies, I should be doing. I don't warm to their leader. To be fair, I have barely even seen her speaking, but I just don't think a lot of their policies would be workable, hence I didn't vote for them, whereas I did see Labour's as at least feasible even if not necessarily highly desirable. I also don't know if I trust the Greens to really stand up for people on a pragmatic level as well as a preachy principled one (in my opnion, both are important in politics). In a similar way to how I don't trust Labour after their lies over Iraq, or the Lib Dems for changing their views on top-up fees. And it's probably best not to get me started on the Conservatives, but I think having in its history the campaign slogan of 'If you want a nigger for your neighbour, vote Labour' speaks for itself.
The idea of voting policy and not personality-wise promotes none of this - it doesn't focus on the history of the party and what it has done in the past, it doesn't even ask you to bear in mind the general political philosophy behind each of the parties. Voting on policy is certainly something to bear in mind, but it's definitely not everything. And I daresay the same thing can be said about personality - but it should at least get a look-in!
An interesting analogy for it would be in your lovelife - would you rather a guy who spoilt you and gave you exactly what you wanted, but was really dull and who you felt different to and you can't really relate to; or someone who for one reason or other didn't deliver exactly what you wanted, but did it with integrity, meaning, feeling... and genuinely tried his hardest for you? Now this obviously isn't the greatest comparison in the world for a number of reasons, but it gets you at least thinking. Even if you aren't ready to marry a person's policies, perhaps their personality will be enough for you to hang around and at least consider them on terms of what they can do for you in terms of being themself.
There is such a thin dividing line between policies in the three main parties these days. If people want to vote for personality, vote for personality. Hell, it's all I have to go on on May 6th.
Tuesday 6 April 2010
Scrub the class politics propaganda and let's all love one another!
OK, so I hope you all realised that last entry was an April Fool and an utterly pathetically rubbish, dire one at that - turning out more as a bad parody than a seriously-facaded publication intended as a joke. As I said in my first entry on here, this blog was not created with the intention of backing any particular party, but more to just observe and analyse and at times bitch or laugh at the crazy world of British politics. However, anyone who knows me even slightly, knows that the opinion I expressed in my last blog entry is completely contrary to my most basic and core beliefs. So I hope you weren't fooled! Anyway, we'll set that one to rest now. Onward and upward, as they say...
Today was a particularly significant date on the political calendar - Gordon Brown has finally called the election date, and it is not surprisingly the widely-anticipated date of May 6th. It is only today that it dawned on me just how close this makes the General Election - exactly a month's time! It's crazy how time flies.
Too bogged down in my Italian work, unfortunately I didn't manage to catch much of the coverage, but from what I can ascertain it was a pretty standard day with nothing too out-of-the-ordinary going on. Labour doing their best to defend their working class roots, as they've become particularly pressured to do so of late, while David Cameron was busy promising a 'fresh start' with 'modern Conservatism'. (tautology, much?). Nick Clegg promised 'real change' but gave no real indication on how the Liberal Democrats plan on delivering this.
Brown and Cameron are extremely close in the polls now; it's dangerous and critical times for both parties. In spite of this, there was no obvious hoo-har between the two leaders, and certainly no real-life spectacle of Gordon Brown telling Cameron to 'Step outside, posh boy' outside Downing Street (as a friend of mine remarked in a Facebook status update yesterday he'd like to happen).
It is the last point here that I intend for this blog entry to focus one. While my April Fool was a reckless, hurried, last-minute jobby with no clever pun or reflection of the times, the Guardian certainly did theirs very differently.
Being the gullible fool that I am, I actually managed to fall for the article (you can view it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/01/labour-gordon-brown-hard-man) for all of two minutes, the caption 'Vote Labour. Or else.' being the bit that really confused me. However, I soon came to my senses and laughed along with the rest of them. Only in all honesty, I didn't really find it that amusing.
Perhaps it's because of the inseparable truth that the joke relies on in order for it to work. Labour *are* using class issues as part of their campaign. And this not only aggravates, but scares me.
While I wouldn't go as far as Ken Clarke on Question Time a few weeks back, declaring it 'discriminatory' and 'ludicrous', comparing the idea to racism, I do see that it perpetuates the divide in our already 'broken' society. While I maintain that class issues are unfortunately still relevant today, I do not agree that it is something that parties should be basing their campaigns on. Even if Labour was originally the party of the working class.
I make a point of using 'originally.' And perhaps that's why they are now resorting to such childish, petty and at certain times irrelevant class politics to play the election campaign game. They want to go against what so many people realised a long time ago - that Labour are nearly every bit as middle class as the Tories nowadays.
By creating this division, Labour are trying to set themselves as far away from their opposition as possible - positioning themselves as the 'fair' party; the 'party of the pauper' while still representing and caring for the interests of the rich and super-rich. But will it work? I have my doubts. What Labour ought to be focussing on is their policies, which should speak for themselves, instead of spending money covering billboards about how they aren't as 'posh' as the Tories.
Because at the end of the day, it isn't about that. The Conservatives couldn't have won the election in 1979 without the working class vote. Margaret Thatcher herself was the child of a greengrocer. I did a charity hitch-hike about a week ago and one of our lifts was from a friendly director of Education and shiny Volvo driver who'd studied Economics at Leeds Uni. My friend was trying to talk economics with him, asking whether he liked the crossover between politics and economics. And what Dave (the Volvo driver) answered was something I am in utter agreement with. Basically, stuff the class politics thing. Stuff the economics. What is mostly relevant to politics is social issues, and whether at the end of the day you think more about other people (Labour) or more about yourself (Conservatives). And there we have it. Not very political, not very technical, but still in my eyes, damn accurate.
So when you do vote in the election a month today, vote with your heart and keep this philosophy in mind. I can pretty much guarantee that the policies we will see from whoever our new government is will opeate broadly in accordance with it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8603591.stm
Today was a particularly significant date on the political calendar - Gordon Brown has finally called the election date, and it is not surprisingly the widely-anticipated date of May 6th. It is only today that it dawned on me just how close this makes the General Election - exactly a month's time! It's crazy how time flies.
Too bogged down in my Italian work, unfortunately I didn't manage to catch much of the coverage, but from what I can ascertain it was a pretty standard day with nothing too out-of-the-ordinary going on. Labour doing their best to defend their working class roots, as they've become particularly pressured to do so of late, while David Cameron was busy promising a 'fresh start' with 'modern Conservatism'. (tautology, much?). Nick Clegg promised 'real change' but gave no real indication on how the Liberal Democrats plan on delivering this.
Brown and Cameron are extremely close in the polls now; it's dangerous and critical times for both parties. In spite of this, there was no obvious hoo-har between the two leaders, and certainly no real-life spectacle of Gordon Brown telling Cameron to 'Step outside, posh boy' outside Downing Street (as a friend of mine remarked in a Facebook status update yesterday he'd like to happen).
It is the last point here that I intend for this blog entry to focus one. While my April Fool was a reckless, hurried, last-minute jobby with no clever pun or reflection of the times, the Guardian certainly did theirs very differently.
Being the gullible fool that I am, I actually managed to fall for the article (you can view it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/01/labour-gordon-brown-hard-man) for all of two minutes, the caption 'Vote Labour. Or else.' being the bit that really confused me. However, I soon came to my senses and laughed along with the rest of them. Only in all honesty, I didn't really find it that amusing.
Perhaps it's because of the inseparable truth that the joke relies on in order for it to work. Labour *are* using class issues as part of their campaign. And this not only aggravates, but scares me.
While I wouldn't go as far as Ken Clarke on Question Time a few weeks back, declaring it 'discriminatory' and 'ludicrous', comparing the idea to racism, I do see that it perpetuates the divide in our already 'broken' society. While I maintain that class issues are unfortunately still relevant today, I do not agree that it is something that parties should be basing their campaigns on. Even if Labour was originally the party of the working class.
I make a point of using 'originally.' And perhaps that's why they are now resorting to such childish, petty and at certain times irrelevant class politics to play the election campaign game. They want to go against what so many people realised a long time ago - that Labour are nearly every bit as middle class as the Tories nowadays.
By creating this division, Labour are trying to set themselves as far away from their opposition as possible - positioning themselves as the 'fair' party; the 'party of the pauper' while still representing and caring for the interests of the rich and super-rich. But will it work? I have my doubts. What Labour ought to be focussing on is their policies, which should speak for themselves, instead of spending money covering billboards about how they aren't as 'posh' as the Tories.
Because at the end of the day, it isn't about that. The Conservatives couldn't have won the election in 1979 without the working class vote. Margaret Thatcher herself was the child of a greengrocer. I did a charity hitch-hike about a week ago and one of our lifts was from a friendly director of Education and shiny Volvo driver who'd studied Economics at Leeds Uni. My friend was trying to talk economics with him, asking whether he liked the crossover between politics and economics. And what Dave (the Volvo driver) answered was something I am in utter agreement with. Basically, stuff the class politics thing. Stuff the economics. What is mostly relevant to politics is social issues, and whether at the end of the day you think more about other people (Labour) or more about yourself (Conservatives). And there we have it. Not very political, not very technical, but still in my eyes, damn accurate.
So when you do vote in the election a month today, vote with your heart and keep this philosophy in mind. I can pretty much guarantee that the policies we will see from whoever our new government is will opeate broadly in accordance with it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8603591.stm
Thursday 1 April 2010
Businesses back Tory National Insurance plans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8599447.stm
Something that just might see the Conservatives crawling into power come May 3rd.
It's the prime political news of the day, and was hotly discussed on the BBC's Question Time tonight. But will it work to help the Conservative party whip up support at such a crucial stage, before the date of the General election is called? Many are saying yes.
Big businesses are responsible for a huge part of the British economy and for this reason should be honoured and respected. The fact that many big bosses are now backing the Conservatives' objections to National Insurance is a brilliant thing, giving both themselves and the Tories power and real strength in such questionable times.
After all, money makes the world go around.
Something that just might see the Conservatives crawling into power come May 3rd.
It's the prime political news of the day, and was hotly discussed on the BBC's Question Time tonight. But will it work to help the Conservative party whip up support at such a crucial stage, before the date of the General election is called? Many are saying yes.
Big businesses are responsible for a huge part of the British economy and for this reason should be honoured and respected. The fact that many big bosses are now backing the Conservatives' objections to National Insurance is a brilliant thing, giving both themselves and the Tories power and real strength in such questionable times.
After all, money makes the world go around.
Wednesday 10 March 2010
PMQs 10/3/2010 - Afghanistan
No doubt another Prime Minister's Questions that focused largely on Afghanistan. But with the currently rising death toll starting to sober, can we perhaps hope for less discussion of it?
Not that that would necessarily be a good thing. Denying something is happening does nothing; ignorance is only bliss if you have no conscience.
The only truly ethical way to get Afghanistan out of PMQs would be to stop the war. From the stance of an idealist, it's easy to say that if it had never started, it wouldn't need stopping, but of course, it does nothing now to be so simplistic.
All the same, the amount of lives lost and bloodshed beared out there for the past 8 years and 5 months is horrific and does make you question what it's really all for. Bin Laden is nowhere to be seen and the country is in ruin. Plus, it really is doing nothing to improve our international relations and prevent us from further terrorist attacks.
The harrowing scenes of war which meet our eyes from the relative safety of our television screens have become so engrained in our culture; such a part of our life that we are almost becoming immune to it. But becoming immune to war? What a truly awful concept to fathom. And while politicians habitually debate its merits or its drawbacks in the posh parlours of parliament, people out there are dying, every day.
Another Wednesday, another thought spared within the corners of Parliament for those who lost their lives in Afghanistan. But what will all this thought and 'respect' achieve? Will it stop people dying? Will it bring about a sense of justice?
War: what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
Not that that would necessarily be a good thing. Denying something is happening does nothing; ignorance is only bliss if you have no conscience.
The only truly ethical way to get Afghanistan out of PMQs would be to stop the war. From the stance of an idealist, it's easy to say that if it had never started, it wouldn't need stopping, but of course, it does nothing now to be so simplistic.
All the same, the amount of lives lost and bloodshed beared out there for the past 8 years and 5 months is horrific and does make you question what it's really all for. Bin Laden is nowhere to be seen and the country is in ruin. Plus, it really is doing nothing to improve our international relations and prevent us from further terrorist attacks.
The harrowing scenes of war which meet our eyes from the relative safety of our television screens have become so engrained in our culture; such a part of our life that we are almost becoming immune to it. But becoming immune to war? What a truly awful concept to fathom. And while politicians habitually debate its merits or its drawbacks in the posh parlours of parliament, people out there are dying, every day.
Another Wednesday, another thought spared within the corners of Parliament for those who lost their lives in Afghanistan. But what will all this thought and 'respect' achieve? Will it stop people dying? Will it bring about a sense of justice?
War: what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
Saturday 6 March 2010
Disclaimer
The birth of this blog is thanks to my friend Ivan Pakhotin - together we have created this baby! I'll do the blogging, but I wish to aknowledge that it is he who gave me the idea for it. So really Ivan, thank you.
Before I get to work I wish to issue all readers (if there are any apart from me and perhaps the blog's father every now and then!) with a brief disclaimer about my chosen domain name. I understand that it could be taken the wrong way, and I want to make clear that I in no way uphold the belief that politicians are either universally charmless or all men, or both! But it cannot be denied that this is a gross stereotype of politicians within society and considering the fact that my other blog registered on this same site already has the domain name of thischarmingwoman-smiths, I thought it would be appropriate to apply a similar pun - this time of a Blur song. There is an invisible question mark which falls after the domain name, to show that I do not necessarily agree with this perception of politicians, though I do acknowledge that it is a stereotype. Given that I am such a politically passionate person, the name is somewhat ironic... it just amused me more than anything else.
The purpose of this blog is not to back any political party or to stir up scandal. It is merely for myself; to build up my own views on political issues - to consolidate them by analysing them into opinions through writing. Those who know me will already know I have a great political conscience and so starting this as something of a hobby should satisfy me somewhat (oh dear, so sorry for the sibilance! :P).
In all honesty it is probably something I should have started a long time ago. Thanks again to Ivan for finally kicking my ass into gear...
Before I get to work I wish to issue all readers (if there are any apart from me and perhaps the blog's father every now and then!) with a brief disclaimer about my chosen domain name. I understand that it could be taken the wrong way, and I want to make clear that I in no way uphold the belief that politicians are either universally charmless or all men, or both! But it cannot be denied that this is a gross stereotype of politicians within society and considering the fact that my other blog registered on this same site already has the domain name of thischarmingwoman-smiths, I thought it would be appropriate to apply a similar pun - this time of a Blur song. There is an invisible question mark which falls after the domain name, to show that I do not necessarily agree with this perception of politicians, though I do acknowledge that it is a stereotype. Given that I am such a politically passionate person, the name is somewhat ironic... it just amused me more than anything else.
The purpose of this blog is not to back any political party or to stir up scandal. It is merely for myself; to build up my own views on political issues - to consolidate them by analysing them into opinions through writing. Those who know me will already know I have a great political conscience and so starting this as something of a hobby should satisfy me somewhat (oh dear, so sorry for the sibilance! :P).
In all honesty it is probably something I should have started a long time ago. Thanks again to Ivan for finally kicking my ass into gear...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)