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.
Friday 21 May 2010
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)