I've just been reading Policy Exchange's report on the AV system (that's the Cameron-favoured think-tank)
Now, I agree AV is a pile of manure, but the report is full of pro-FPTP bias and patronising statements regarding reformers, have a full read here
As I said, and have already outlined, AV is a crock, and broadly their analysis of that system is correct - AV is just FPTP with a 50% threshold, any chump can see that - but it's the subtle digs at any other form of voting (MMP, STV, PR etc) and assumed fairness of FPTP that I take offence with
The concept of wasted votes, and safe seats, are brushed aside for the airy belief that MPs are fairly elected to represent us, and that a proportional system is the 'all must have prizes' system - this very statement is evidence of the inherent bias present before the report was even written, it's a belittling comment that one expects to hear about a primary school sports day where everyone gets a medal
To use it in reference to an electoral system is at best crude, and at worst plainly offensive
Is STV or another proportional system 'all must win prizes'? No - the concept is solely that for every vote you receive, you gain a proportion of a seat - every vote counts, if you get 10% of the vote, you get 10% of the seats
Is that really a patronising, egalitarian idea? The concept is not that the Greens are given equal footing with the Tories or Labour, but that if they can get a decent share of the popular vote, they are represented - the Tories get 40%, they get 40%
And note 'decent' - a proposed benchmark at 5% would see very few minority parties win a 'prize', but supported nationally by at least a million people (that's based on a low turnout)
Nothing vindicates this more than the Lib Dems - in the present three party system say they were to receive 20% in every single seat - they could potentially win none - that's 20% of the population missing out, or about 5-6 million voters, in actuality they got 23% of the popular vote, seven million, and 8.5% of the seats so I balanced it a bit
There is little defence for this anomaly, it's certainly not a patronising 'all win prizes' system, but one that recognises every vote, which is something people do note, otherwise they wouldn't even count the national shares - the only true argument against it is the local one, hence the defence of constituency MPs
That is where we move into the ideological and opinion-based concepts of elections - whether or not it is important, and fair to elect one person in a winner-takes all election in a small geographical region
For my money, and as I've said before, there's nothing wrong in principle with that system - but it's no longer reflective of modern society - we look at the national picture in elections, we have leaders' debates, MPs have virtually no freedom from the party, bizarrely even defenders of our antiquated system say we elect governments, therefore smashing a defence of constituency-based FPTP
If you are electing one person for one role (say, a mayor) then FPTP, or it's 50% threshold brother, AV, works, but we have taken this individual aspect away from Parliament so now that the main parties benefit on a national scale from traditional local voting patterns
If you are looking at a national party, and a government, not an individual MP, then the case for FPTP is dead, and I think you'll struggle to find many who don't vote on the 'national' level, therefore I feel that we need a fairer national system, and that's why I formed my subjective opinion, look at the broad picture and decide what is fairest, there's no 'true' answer - but I didn't feel it necessary to belittle my opponents with patronising phrases
In short we already have the result of a PR system, just without the fairest aspect of it, as far as I see
This article was biased from the start, and picked on the easy target of AV to belittle all reform - expect more of these tactics from both the Conservatives and their various supporters and think-tanks for the next nine months
And yet I have decided to vote NO on AV - the reason I didn't bother fully fisking the report was because I agree AV is wrong, for most of the reasons outlined, and I don't want to settle on a weak system, believing politically it's better if the Tories actually win, but disagreed with their obvious bias and patronising attitude towards reform
Personally I want to see a system that retains a direct election, thereby preventing ultimate safe seats like the EU Parliament system, but that is also proportional - stopping situations like in East Anglia, where there are two main parties and one just happens to lose 48 times out of 52, mostly on slim majorities, thanks to the boundaries - I think a multiple constituency system, possibly even based on FPTP, that brings in the most popular candidate(s) from hard-done by parties would be fairest. This 'FPTP+' system I have created would see slightly enlarged constituencies, grouped together returning those who win each seat, and the best runner-ups, representing the share of the vote and keeping direct elections, removing the need for a dreaded list system
In my example, this would see the Lib Dems move from about 7% of the seats based on over 25% of the vote, to about 15 seats, while the Tories would go down from a ridiculous 92% of seats to a more realistic level (forgive me, limited time, and I'm basing this on memory - they were rather close overall, and clearly nobody got near 92% of any popular vote)
And I also have to ask, Policy Exchange is fully staffed and has many professionals working for it, this was written by 'Director of Research' Natalie Evans and edited and proof-read - why then was a relatively short document (no more than 10,000 words) riddled with fairly obvious typos? I'm writing this in half an hour, for free...how many did I make?
Showing posts with label Cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cameron. Show all posts
13 October 2010
11 October 2010
What Cuts?
I keep seeing (sob) stories on the news, and newsnight, various other articles about how this and that will suffer from 'cuts'
Exactly what cuts are these? As far as I'm aware, the spending review is still days away, people are assuming everything is going to lose funding, including healthcare (Newsnight participant), and it's all the good stuff the police do, 'how I need my benefits' yadda yadda
All very well - but I don't see why good programmes need to be cut - the government spending plan will not even be cutting expenditure, as highlighted by Guido, among others, merely reduce the rise in spending to nearly zero with inflation adjusted (even Thatcher only 'cut' in real term spending in one year) and for years we have been going on about waste and inefficiency - as soon as they announce what is effectively a balancing of the books, all spending is good!
Fact is, we have debt, we pay interest on that debt, it is good to not have to use our tax revenue to pay said interest - therefore we are either spending too much, or need to raise more
We need to decide in a grown-up way what we can do without - unfortunately everyone seems to have jumped the gun and believes the welfare state will no longer exist in a few years
This is despite the fact most cuts will come from general budgets - it is up to the budget holders, often the local government, government agency or whatever bureaucratic authority it is, to decide what to spend, what is necessary and what is not - this is common sense for any institution, whether private or public, or indeed personal, when available money shrinks
Cutting everything across the board, and for political gain, is not - it'll just make the situation worse, and for what it's worth the reverse, which is 'ring-fencing' the bloated NHS, which everyone thinks is wasteful, but wants, was a weak, if politically necessary, move
Nobody, except the media and Labour are saying all this will happen...
Exactly what cuts are these? As far as I'm aware, the spending review is still days away, people are assuming everything is going to lose funding, including healthcare (Newsnight participant), and it's all the good stuff the police do, 'how I need my benefits' yadda yadda
All very well - but I don't see why good programmes need to be cut - the government spending plan will not even be cutting expenditure, as highlighted by Guido, among others, merely reduce the rise in spending to nearly zero with inflation adjusted (even Thatcher only 'cut' in real term spending in one year) and for years we have been going on about waste and inefficiency - as soon as they announce what is effectively a balancing of the books, all spending is good!
Fact is, we have debt, we pay interest on that debt, it is good to not have to use our tax revenue to pay said interest - therefore we are either spending too much, or need to raise more
We need to decide in a grown-up way what we can do without - unfortunately everyone seems to have jumped the gun and believes the welfare state will no longer exist in a few years
This is despite the fact most cuts will come from general budgets - it is up to the budget holders, often the local government, government agency or whatever bureaucratic authority it is, to decide what to spend, what is necessary and what is not - this is common sense for any institution, whether private or public, or indeed personal, when available money shrinks
Cutting everything across the board, and for political gain, is not - it'll just make the situation worse, and for what it's worth the reverse, which is 'ring-fencing' the bloated NHS, which everyone thinks is wasteful, but wants, was a weak, if politically necessary, move
Nobody, except the media and Labour are saying all this will happen...
06 September 2010
Would I vote for, or against
MPs are currently voting (actually, it just passed) on the electoral reform bill that will put forward a referendum on the AV system
I have a dilemma
Naturally I want to back reform, I want to rid us of the rotten boroughs and minority victories (2/3s of MPs do not have a majority)
I admit AV is a step in the right direction, majority verdicts are preferable in my view - and breaking down Labour's gerrymandered seats is a good thing
However, I have seen AV in action, in Australia - and I have two main worries
Firstly, if we adopt a modern, relatively 'fair' system, where it is harder to show blatant problems and inherent unfairness, as we can now, will we simply accept it? Reformers, for the most part, do not want this system, nor do the traditionalists - but if we pass this, I fear we may be stuck with it, as they are in Australia, where this relatively modern electoral system has little opposition and yet produces confusing results - it may well be that we are better off arguing with something far worse and waiting for something much better than taking what is effectively, a sticking plaster, right now
Secondly, as I mentioned - AV produces confusing results, while they may be more legitimate in theory, the weighting element adds a confusing layer of jargon to the electorate and encourages even more tactical voting, in Australia, parties can hand over preferences that aren't allocated, for example
As you can see with the argument over legitimacy between Abbott and Gillard down under, it's hard to see who has more votes, or is more preferred - and their two-party system is even more ingrained than ours, so AV doesn't seem to help dissenting voices, or provide better politicians
I don't want AV, and personally I think if were we to accept it it would badly damage the cause for reform
But then, if it's defeated....there's no public attitude for reform, is there?
The Tories have got this one wrapped up, I think - and I don't think they even know it, because a victory would both put the constituencies back in their favour, and set back proportional systems
methinks the wily Cameron may know that, even if the backbenchers don't
I have a dilemma
Naturally I want to back reform, I want to rid us of the rotten boroughs and minority victories (2/3s of MPs do not have a majority)
I admit AV is a step in the right direction, majority verdicts are preferable in my view - and breaking down Labour's gerrymandered seats is a good thing
However, I have seen AV in action, in Australia - and I have two main worries
Firstly, if we adopt a modern, relatively 'fair' system, where it is harder to show blatant problems and inherent unfairness, as we can now, will we simply accept it? Reformers, for the most part, do not want this system, nor do the traditionalists - but if we pass this, I fear we may be stuck with it, as they are in Australia, where this relatively modern electoral system has little opposition and yet produces confusing results - it may well be that we are better off arguing with something far worse and waiting for something much better than taking what is effectively, a sticking plaster, right now
Secondly, as I mentioned - AV produces confusing results, while they may be more legitimate in theory, the weighting element adds a confusing layer of jargon to the electorate and encourages even more tactical voting, in Australia, parties can hand over preferences that aren't allocated, for example
As you can see with the argument over legitimacy between Abbott and Gillard down under, it's hard to see who has more votes, or is more preferred - and their two-party system is even more ingrained than ours, so AV doesn't seem to help dissenting voices, or provide better politicians
I don't want AV, and personally I think if were we to accept it it would badly damage the cause for reform
But then, if it's defeated....there's no public attitude for reform, is there?
The Tories have got this one wrapped up, I think - and I don't think they even know it, because a victory would both put the constituencies back in their favour, and set back proportional systems
methinks the wily Cameron may know that, even if the backbenchers don't
22 November 2009
Can you blame them?
I rarely defend politicians, particularly Messrs Brown and Cameron, and I hardly condone using armistice day as a photo-op
(Slightly more moderate article from the BBC here)
But I am in reflective mood, and when I think about it - it's hardly their fault is it?
They do it because they know we want it - Brown is a clumsy fool and always comes off insincere when he talks to real people, Cameron is a smarmy PR man, but they both play the game, our game
But much like how football's lax rules allow the Henrys, Maradonas and Ronaldos to get away with it while we watch, so too does the political game allow Brown and Cameron to perform these stunts
In reality I want a thoughtful, rational government that doesn't resort to appealing to the lowest common denominator - but if that happened what would we get? They'd be ripped to shreds, they'd be seen as ditherers, weak, boring and so on - because image is king
And we ask for it, we let the media peddle their stories - had Brown and Cameron not showed some heartfelt compassion they would've been seen as ingrates, this time they misjudged it, but for the most part people want them to do completely pointless gesture politics, such as visiting flood victims... or talking to Mumsnet
What the hell can Brown do about floods? Nothing could've prevented a month of rain within a day, this was basically a morale booster - and faced with the choice between our two unelected leaders, I'd prefer the unused, neutral one was put to some use (and while I remember, Peter Hitchens really shows his true colours in this week's column)
But we want our leaders to be 'human', to show compassion - and that ultimately is going to come down to who is the best actor (or not in Brown's case)
I doubt that Brown could ever be an effective leader, but who knows, either way we get useless politicians who can't make a decision for fear of the media and its various agendas, and this is only compounded by the fact that the nature of the game drives away the best sort of people for the job
So I don't blame Brown and Cameron for being shameless media manipulators - we get the politicians we deserve
(Slightly more moderate article from the BBC here)
But I am in reflective mood, and when I think about it - it's hardly their fault is it?
They do it because they know we want it - Brown is a clumsy fool and always comes off insincere when he talks to real people, Cameron is a smarmy PR man, but they both play the game, our game
But much like how football's lax rules allow the Henrys, Maradonas and Ronaldos to get away with it while we watch, so too does the political game allow Brown and Cameron to perform these stunts
In reality I want a thoughtful, rational government that doesn't resort to appealing to the lowest common denominator - but if that happened what would we get? They'd be ripped to shreds, they'd be seen as ditherers, weak, boring and so on - because image is king
And we ask for it, we let the media peddle their stories - had Brown and Cameron not showed some heartfelt compassion they would've been seen as ingrates, this time they misjudged it, but for the most part people want them to do completely pointless gesture politics, such as visiting flood victims... or talking to Mumsnet
What the hell can Brown do about floods? Nothing could've prevented a month of rain within a day, this was basically a morale booster - and faced with the choice between our two unelected leaders, I'd prefer the unused, neutral one was put to some use (and while I remember, Peter Hitchens really shows his true colours in this week's column)
But we want our leaders to be 'human', to show compassion - and that ultimately is going to come down to who is the best actor (or not in Brown's case)
I doubt that Brown could ever be an effective leader, but who knows, either way we get useless politicians who can't make a decision for fear of the media and its various agendas, and this is only compounded by the fact that the nature of the game drives away the best sort of people for the job
So I don't blame Brown and Cameron for being shameless media manipulators - we get the politicians we deserve
19 November 2009
I'm not turning into a socialist am I?
The Times Money Central has a list of the top ten millionaires on the Tory front bench (out of a staggering 19)
Is it wrong to feel a slight bit worried about being run by millionaires?
I have no objection to people earning this amount of money, or indeed inheriting it, but it's the influence of money on power that I have a problem with - nineteen millionaires, it's about two thirds of the shadow cabinet, and includes all the big guns - is it not somewhat unrepresentative to have a country run by people in the top 0-point-something percentile?
Equality aside, it's more the fact that it's clear that we are still being run by money and the landowning classes, people like Hague and Philip Hammond were successful in business, but most, like Cameron, Osbourne and Strathclyde (a surviving hereditary peer, great) are merely 'from money' - how does this serve the people?
Fortunately Labour lost their working credibility decades ago so I have no need to consider them, and this certainly isn't a tory-specific problem, but it really is galling to see how we are still being run by the landed interests, as it were
I feel very strangely socialist writing this, but I don't want to be run by a bunch of privileged politicos who've never done a days work in their lives
---
A.N Wilson, the Mail's most sensible (non-MP) commentator, says we really should stop being offended so much, in the Daily Mail
Anyone seeing any irony here?
---
The Mail also have a comedic list of funny exam answers - but they just can't help getting a kick in at today's 'dumbed down' questions, it must therefore be a proven fact, of course (because they're still not dumbed down enough!!)
Some things: firstly, it's belittling each successive generation's efforts, so if I say I'm smart and probably have more qualifications than them, and used to write silly things in either R.E. exams or questions I had the foggiest in (who didn't?) they can say everything is 'dumbed down' and I'm stupid too
and secondly, can you answer these questions:
'What did Gandhi and Genghis Khan have in common?' (aside from unusual names, of course)
'What is the highest frequency noise that a human can register?'
Some seriously useful questions there, good old standardised testing - and one day I'll find a use for algebra...
And I do wonder if smarty-pants writers at the Mail know what a nitrate is
Is it wrong to feel a slight bit worried about being run by millionaires?
I have no objection to people earning this amount of money, or indeed inheriting it, but it's the influence of money on power that I have a problem with - nineteen millionaires, it's about two thirds of the shadow cabinet, and includes all the big guns - is it not somewhat unrepresentative to have a country run by people in the top 0-point-something percentile?
Equality aside, it's more the fact that it's clear that we are still being run by money and the landowning classes, people like Hague and Philip Hammond were successful in business, but most, like Cameron, Osbourne and Strathclyde (a surviving hereditary peer, great) are merely 'from money' - how does this serve the people?
Fortunately Labour lost their working credibility decades ago so I have no need to consider them, and this certainly isn't a tory-specific problem, but it really is galling to see how we are still being run by the landed interests, as it were
I feel very strangely socialist writing this, but I don't want to be run by a bunch of privileged politicos who've never done a days work in their lives
---
A.N Wilson, the Mail's most sensible (non-MP) commentator, says we really should stop being offended so much, in the Daily Mail
Anyone seeing any irony here?
---
The Mail also have a comedic list of funny exam answers - but they just can't help getting a kick in at today's 'dumbed down' questions, it must therefore be a proven fact, of course (because they're still not dumbed down enough!!)
Some things: firstly, it's belittling each successive generation's efforts, so if I say I'm smart and probably have more qualifications than them, and used to write silly things in either R.E. exams or questions I had the foggiest in (who didn't?) they can say everything is 'dumbed down' and I'm stupid too
and secondly, can you answer these questions:
'What did Gandhi and Genghis Khan have in common?' (aside from unusual names, of course)
'What is the highest frequency noise that a human can register?'
Some seriously useful questions there, good old standardised testing - and one day I'll find a use for algebra...
And I do wonder if smarty-pants writers at the Mail know what a nitrate is
Looks like a chicken again
Seriously, he does!
Clegg looks sad....awww, bet he hates the whole thing
10 November 2009
Still Alive! I think...
I have finally risen from my bed, thankyou to those who expressed concern (and don't worry spidie I wouldn't go near any hastily-manufactured vaccines), I was sick a bit longer than I anticipated - a mild case of food poisoning which seemingly led into other issues, nothing major, but it was 'unpleasant' and I shall leave it at that
Think I'll be keeping blogging light for today, I'm still slightly malnourished - some things I noticed at the weekend
Is it just me or do both Cameron and Brown look ridiculous? Brown is obviously trying to look solemn and is pulling a fierce frown, for fear of disrespecting the dead (you were never going to get out of that one, Gordie) while Cameron looks like a plucked chicken
Now, I know I should not be judging on looks, but they do have some relevance and Cameron looks like such a wannabe to me, he just looks weak
Conclusion: based on looks, Clegg all the way...
Secondly I noticed this over at Nick Robinson and you know when your net drops out and the site doesn't load very well, all the scripting fails or something and the banners and pictures don't load (or not, maybe it's me)
Well here's what we normally see
and here's what I saw yesterday
Can you read that?
Is someone at the BBC being silly with their descriptions, or are they just being very literal? Either way struck me as an odd thing to put there
Think I'll be keeping blogging light for today, I'm still slightly malnourished - some things I noticed at the weekend
Is it just me or do both Cameron and Brown look ridiculous? Brown is obviously trying to look solemn and is pulling a fierce frown, for fear of disrespecting the dead (you were never going to get out of that one, Gordie) while Cameron looks like a plucked chicken
Now, I know I should not be judging on looks, but they do have some relevance and Cameron looks like such a wannabe to me, he just looks weak
Conclusion: based on looks, Clegg all the way...
Secondly I noticed this over at Nick Robinson and you know when your net drops out and the site doesn't load very well, all the scripting fails or something and the banners and pictures don't load (or not, maybe it's me)
Well here's what we normally see
and here's what I saw yesterday
04 November 2009
Cameron's shameless, amid other things
Am I going to say David Cameron 'reneged' or 'betrayed' eurosceptics?
Nope - as Hague says:
The referendum was about the treaty, it was always said in the 'cast-iron' guarantee that if the treaty had been ratified then they couldn't do anything, there is no 'U-turn' or reneging here, I believe it is in fact, worse than that
Maybe they have honestly been scuppered by the final ratification, or, as I theorise, this was the plan all along, promising a referendum in the Sun, of all places, to get the backing of the eurosceptic majority in this country two years ago - while knowing full well they would never have to go through with such a dangerous idea
Now time will tell how this pans out - he will suffer an initial backlash for seemingly 'betraying' people, but what he will be betting on is having made enough anti-EU noise to keep the support of the voters, while not actually having to do anything but make a few vague sentiments about 'repatriating powers' - clever, huh?
Cameron just wants power, anyone who actually bought that he had any intention of giving us a referendum on the treaty was being played for a fool
---
Maybe people WANT a new TV
Apparently the digital switchover in the North-West, which will affect 7.2 million people, may cause 'chaos' as TVs are needlessly thrown away
I remember talking about this back in 2007, when a YouGov survey revealed that 57% of people believed that the government had provided 'insuffiecient or no information' about the switchover, and 83% did not know when the switch would be in their region (survey at YouGov archives, Society - 2007)
Neither do I in fact...but does it really matter, because in 2007 '80% of adults [had] digital television in their home'
So while a majority don't have a clue about how and when (like me), they are already completely covered and already watch digital - surely all that matters is that they have digital
The fear is that people will throw away a perfectly good tv when they could just buy a set-top box
In the past year in Cumbria, 50,000 TVs wee recycled - 'This represents an increase of nearly 70 per cent compared to same period last year.' (so that's an extra 20,500 TVs), in the south west they had an increase of just under 40,000 TVs - so we can say 60,000 extra TVs were recycled
Of the ones in Cumbria, 30,000 could have been converted - so that's at least ten thousand TVs that would have been recycled anyway, curiously the Mail do not report how many could have been saved in the South-West
So we have 20,000 'wasted' TVs reported - is that a bad amount? Does that indicate that people are confused, after adverts every five minutes saying 'all you need is a set-top box' for what, five years?
I happened to throw away a convertible (?) TV last year, it even had a digi-box on it, the reason I got rid of it? - because it was crap and we got a new LCD, it was damaged and of no use to anyone, but this would've been counted as a TV that could have received digital and was 'needlessly thrown away' - plug it in and you would throw it away too
And when the switchover happens, would you not expect a few people to think, 'time to update the TV' - maybe they don't actually want a box on their old TV and decided to get a new one - I can't honestly believe little old ladies haven't had it drilled into their skulls that they don't need a new TV, I've never met anyone who thought they need a new one - but I know plenty who bought a new one - a little upswing in dumping TVs is surely expected
It could also be explained by the chucking of bedroom tvs - I have a little old sony, I have no intention of upgrading it - would you seriously go out and get 3 or 4 boxes for every tv in the house? No, I'd just buy a new one, it's 200 quid either way - I'm not surprised if a few of those get chucked out (mine isn't btw, it can be put to other use)
I can't find good figures for the populations of the TV regions, but you can assume there are at least 1 million households in the South-West and Cumbria combined, so that's 60,000 extra TVs thrown away - 6% of households threw away more TVs than the previous year, at a ridiculously conservative guess, and assuming they were all compatible (and how many TVs are there in the regions, let alone houses)
Is that such a catastrophe?
---
The Mail really do need to stop trying so hard
More BBC controversy - they attacked the Queen!! (again!!1!1!!)
Miranda Hart, on HIGNFY, described the Queen and the DoE as 'that Greek twit and his Kraut wife'
ooh, nasty racist jibe there - which in fairness it is, stinks of hypocrisy after they pulled that silly Hobnob joke doesn't it?
Only, the Mail left something out until a bit further down the story (after the outrage comments...)
Now, does that not make a teeny bit more sense? It's satire - I am not foolish enough to believe the writers at the Mail actually think it's offensive in any way, but if anyone actually found that offensive they need a humour-rectomy
It's not actually racist, so it doesn't become an inconsistent piece of handling or 'double standards', as the Mail conclude, once again they wilfully mislead their readers in their attacks on the Beeb
There are of course some that feel that the Queen is out-of-bounds for humour - fortunately most people are not annoying royalists
...only Rebecca Adlington is granted such status
Nope - as Hague says:
'now that the treaty is going to become European law and is going to enter into force, that means that a referendum can no longer prevent the creation of the President of the European Council...'
The referendum was about the treaty, it was always said in the 'cast-iron' guarantee that if the treaty had been ratified then they couldn't do anything, there is no 'U-turn' or reneging here, I believe it is in fact, worse than that
Maybe they have honestly been scuppered by the final ratification, or, as I theorise, this was the plan all along, promising a referendum in the Sun, of all places, to get the backing of the eurosceptic majority in this country two years ago - while knowing full well they would never have to go through with such a dangerous idea
Now time will tell how this pans out - he will suffer an initial backlash for seemingly 'betraying' people, but what he will be betting on is having made enough anti-EU noise to keep the support of the voters, while not actually having to do anything but make a few vague sentiments about 'repatriating powers' - clever, huh?
Cameron just wants power, anyone who actually bought that he had any intention of giving us a referendum on the treaty was being played for a fool
---
Maybe people WANT a new TV
Apparently the digital switchover in the North-West, which will affect 7.2 million people, may cause 'chaos' as TVs are needlessly thrown away
I remember talking about this back in 2007, when a YouGov survey revealed that 57% of people believed that the government had provided 'insuffiecient or no information' about the switchover, and 83% did not know when the switch would be in their region (survey at YouGov archives, Society - 2007)
Neither do I in fact...but does it really matter, because in 2007 '80% of adults [had] digital television in their home'
So while a majority don't have a clue about how and when (like me), they are already completely covered and already watch digital - surely all that matters is that they have digital
The fear is that people will throw away a perfectly good tv when they could just buy a set-top box
In the past year in Cumbria, 50,000 TVs wee recycled - 'This represents an increase of nearly 70 per cent compared to same period last year.' (so that's an extra 20,500 TVs), in the south west they had an increase of just under 40,000 TVs - so we can say 60,000 extra TVs were recycled
Of the ones in Cumbria, 30,000 could have been converted - so that's at least ten thousand TVs that would have been recycled anyway, curiously the Mail do not report how many could have been saved in the South-West
So we have 20,000 'wasted' TVs reported - is that a bad amount? Does that indicate that people are confused, after adverts every five minutes saying 'all you need is a set-top box' for what, five years?
I happened to throw away a convertible (?) TV last year, it even had a digi-box on it, the reason I got rid of it? - because it was crap and we got a new LCD, it was damaged and of no use to anyone, but this would've been counted as a TV that could have received digital and was 'needlessly thrown away' - plug it in and you would throw it away too
And when the switchover happens, would you not expect a few people to think, 'time to update the TV' - maybe they don't actually want a box on their old TV and decided to get a new one - I can't honestly believe little old ladies haven't had it drilled into their skulls that they don't need a new TV, I've never met anyone who thought they need a new one - but I know plenty who bought a new one - a little upswing in dumping TVs is surely expected
It could also be explained by the chucking of bedroom tvs - I have a little old sony, I have no intention of upgrading it - would you seriously go out and get 3 or 4 boxes for every tv in the house? No, I'd just buy a new one, it's 200 quid either way - I'm not surprised if a few of those get chucked out (mine isn't btw, it can be put to other use)
I can't find good figures for the populations of the TV regions, but you can assume there are at least 1 million households in the South-West and Cumbria combined, so that's 60,000 extra TVs thrown away - 6% of households threw away more TVs than the previous year, at a ridiculously conservative guess, and assuming they were all compatible (and how many TVs are there in the regions, let alone houses)
Is that such a catastrophe?
---
The Mail really do need to stop trying so hard
More BBC controversy - they attacked the Queen!! (again!!1!1!!)
Miranda Hart, on HIGNFY, described the Queen and the DoE as 'that Greek twit and his Kraut wife'
ooh, nasty racist jibe there - which in fairness it is, stinks of hypocrisy after they pulled that silly Hobnob joke doesn't it?
Only, the Mail left something out until a bit further down the story (after the outrage comments...)
At a Buckingham Palace event in honour of Indian president Pratibha Patil, Philip said to businessman Atul Patel: 'There's a lot of your family here tonight.'
Miss Hart joked: 'There is no place for racism in the modern world and the sooner that Greek twit and his Kraut wife realise it, the better.'
Now, does that not make a teeny bit more sense? It's satire - I am not foolish enough to believe the writers at the Mail actually think it's offensive in any way, but if anyone actually found that offensive they need a humour-rectomy
It's not actually racist, so it doesn't become an inconsistent piece of handling or 'double standards', as the Mail conclude, once again they wilfully mislead their readers in their attacks on the Beeb
There are of course some that feel that the Queen is out-of-bounds for humour - fortunately most people are not annoying royalists
...only Rebecca Adlington is granted such status
22 October 2009
Discrimination is discrimination
David Cameron is ready to use that Labour favourite - the all-women shortlist, to get more ladies in Parliament
Allison Pearson, like most people from the middle through to the right, says she is totally against giving women a leg-up, it's patronising
Quite right, Allison, it is - so why do you support it?
She says it's because the Tories, despite having the second biggest party and nearly a third of the seats, have only 19 female MPs (and one is Ann Widdecombe...) - out of the total 125 females - only 15% of the entire female collective, and only 9% of their own seats
The Lib Dems are marginally better, with nine out of their 63, but it's barely any better - Labour of course, have 94 female MPs, so they win!
Clearly with this dire situation, something must be done, and for now all-women shortlists solve the problem, in Allison's view
In other words she's happy to go against her own judgement because the situation is so bad and we really need some women in there
So say we get 300+ women in there - great, women are represented!
Except, why should they have my respect? They would be there as a result of a 'leg-up' as she describes it, simply because some people feel that Parliament should be numerically representative of society, it's almost like 'picking' our MPs (which, I admit, is hardly worse than at present)
I could understand that logic if we were a draconian nation where our women were oppressed, but I'm fairly sure they're not anymore - they are in fact, given every advantage and are increasingly dominating the best jobs - even if they don't run the banks, Hattie
Where are the hordes of women demanding a fair go, saying that they get no representation? I've never actually met one, those most keen on it, ironically, seem to the ones who are already elected - but apparently the silent majority of women sit at home, just wishing there were more of them to speak up for them
Because, the truth is, women can get elected, in the same way that they can get onto boards and run businesses - only most don't - now there are two likely explanations for this - either society is inherently sexist and keeps women out, or less women are actually interested
Now considering that every single party has been mad keen on women MPs for over a decade it seems a rather strange piece of reasoning for it to be the former, maybe the party say one thing but then in private say 'look, I know we said we wanted you, but you really don't have the balls for this and we'll be putting forward my old Oxford chum, Percy, forward instead'
So either this is happening in the old boys' clubs, or just women are really turned off by politics - perhaps that is bad in itself, and should be addressed - but that, in my view, then assumes that women are somehow a homogenous, special-interest group that need their collective needs pushed - it basically says that somehow Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith and Ann Widdecombe are representatives of all women (rather than their electorate) - yet, I don't think I've ever met a man who think David Cameron or Alan Johnson or Vince Cable, 'represents' them as a male, nor have I ever heard them talk about men's interests - they seem to like political debate, economics, the law, and so should all MPs even if they 'have boobs'
Do we assume that all women voters vote for women and are drowned out by the gerrymandered constituencies, of which they always represent half? It's not like there is an actual party out there that gets over six million votes and only a tenth of the seats or anything, women are far more disenfranchised
Why is it that women are a collective group, but men are individuals? The domination by middle aged white men does not mean that we men (or white men, or middle-aged men) are any better represented because we share a few physical traits, we are not Freemasons! Fact is, I have about as much chance of getting into these elite clubs as a goldfish does, despite being a white male - so why exactly does replacing a few male members with ones with ovaries balance anything? We are basically saying that 'this half of Parliament represents women', when no one would ever say the men in there represent males, I would find it quite offensive if it wasn't so ridiculous
And of course, the irony is that if indeed less women are interested in politics, then promoting them by positive discrimination is not only patronising and unfair, it is actually making Parliament less representative, as the bulk of the candidates (men) are being denied a voice
So if we wish to say that it is somehow right that 50% of the electorate are proportionally represented, then surely the fairest way to do this would be to make men and women vote in separate elections for their own genders - it seems to me the only way to fairly produce a parliament without second-class citizens, if we assume that it is a fair outcome in the first place
Or how about you stop voting for parties that are dominated by an elite that happens to be male, and support a party formed by real people?
(it'd probably still end up mostly male though)
Allison Pearson, like most people from the middle through to the right, says she is totally against giving women a leg-up, it's patronising
Quite right, Allison, it is - so why do you support it?
She says it's because the Tories, despite having the second biggest party and nearly a third of the seats, have only 19 female MPs (and one is Ann Widdecombe...) - out of the total 125 females - only 15% of the entire female collective, and only 9% of their own seats
The Lib Dems are marginally better, with nine out of their 63, but it's barely any better - Labour of course, have 94 female MPs, so they win!
Clearly with this dire situation, something must be done, and for now all-women shortlists solve the problem, in Allison's view
In other words she's happy to go against her own judgement because the situation is so bad and we really need some women in there
So say we get 300+ women in there - great, women are represented!
Except, why should they have my respect? They would be there as a result of a 'leg-up' as she describes it, simply because some people feel that Parliament should be numerically representative of society, it's almost like 'picking' our MPs (which, I admit, is hardly worse than at present)
I could understand that logic if we were a draconian nation where our women were oppressed, but I'm fairly sure they're not anymore - they are in fact, given every advantage and are increasingly dominating the best jobs - even if they don't run the banks, Hattie
Where are the hordes of women demanding a fair go, saying that they get no representation? I've never actually met one, those most keen on it, ironically, seem to the ones who are already elected - but apparently the silent majority of women sit at home, just wishing there were more of them to speak up for them
Because, the truth is, women can get elected, in the same way that they can get onto boards and run businesses - only most don't - now there are two likely explanations for this - either society is inherently sexist and keeps women out, or less women are actually interested
Now considering that every single party has been mad keen on women MPs for over a decade it seems a rather strange piece of reasoning for it to be the former, maybe the party say one thing but then in private say 'look, I know we said we wanted you, but you really don't have the balls for this and we'll be putting forward my old Oxford chum, Percy, forward instead'
So either this is happening in the old boys' clubs, or just women are really turned off by politics - perhaps that is bad in itself, and should be addressed - but that, in my view, then assumes that women are somehow a homogenous, special-interest group that need their collective needs pushed - it basically says that somehow Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith and Ann Widdecombe are representatives of all women (rather than their electorate) - yet, I don't think I've ever met a man who think David Cameron or Alan Johnson or Vince Cable, 'represents' them as a male, nor have I ever heard them talk about men's interests - they seem to like political debate, economics, the law, and so should all MPs even if they 'have boobs'
Do we assume that all women voters vote for women and are drowned out by the gerrymandered constituencies, of which they always represent half? It's not like there is an actual party out there that gets over six million votes and only a tenth of the seats or anything, women are far more disenfranchised
Why is it that women are a collective group, but men are individuals? The domination by middle aged white men does not mean that we men (or white men, or middle-aged men) are any better represented because we share a few physical traits, we are not Freemasons! Fact is, I have about as much chance of getting into these elite clubs as a goldfish does, despite being a white male - so why exactly does replacing a few male members with ones with ovaries balance anything? We are basically saying that 'this half of Parliament represents women', when no one would ever say the men in there represent males, I would find it quite offensive if it wasn't so ridiculous
And of course, the irony is that if indeed less women are interested in politics, then promoting them by positive discrimination is not only patronising and unfair, it is actually making Parliament less representative, as the bulk of the candidates (men) are being denied a voice
So if we wish to say that it is somehow right that 50% of the electorate are proportionally represented, then surely the fairest way to do this would be to make men and women vote in separate elections for their own genders - it seems to me the only way to fairly produce a parliament without second-class citizens, if we assume that it is a fair outcome in the first place
Or how about you stop voting for parties that are dominated by an elite that happens to be male, and support a party formed by real people?
(it'd probably still end up mostly male though)
30 September 2009
Sorry...What?
Gordon Brown has made his decision about televised debates, but he isn't going to tell us what that is
eh? Maybe he realised that Ollie Cromwell was right and that this implied he has to call an election
But seriously - shall I add 'na-na-nah-nah!'?
eh? Maybe he realised that Ollie Cromwell was right and that this implied he has to call an election
But seriously - shall I add 'na-na-nah-nah!'?
09 September 2009
I see you, Cameron
Cameron to axe MPs subsidised food and drink (and a load of other wastes of money)
Great, finally something we can agree with - the idea that somehow MPs should have taxpayer funded chips and beer is preposterous and they're bloody lucky they kept this sweet deal until now
So all in all a great vote winner for Cameron - attacks qangos, expenses, salaries all in one go
Good lad - one thing I will say about Cameron is, even though I think he's a truly shameless opportunist (that's a compliment btw) he is at least very in tune with the public (compared to his various bumbling 'grandees') - he's giving the people what they want, and in that regard he's already light years ahead of Brown
But there is still no substance - opportunism is all well and good to achieve your ends, but what are your ends? All I can see is power for the sake of it - there is no vision, no desire to reform anything major - Cameron has taken a few harmless populist measures - great, but where are the brave decisions? Where are the major cuts to public spending? Things that will actually hurt people and cause a backlash, these require bravery and commitment - there are no principles behind this, it's just a shameless vote-winner - Cameron has yet to show me that he has anything to offer
True, against Brown I'm happy we've got someone doing anything remotely sensible - but this isn't enough to warrant 4-5 years of government...at least Blair had plans
Great, finally something we can agree with - the idea that somehow MPs should have taxpayer funded chips and beer is preposterous and they're bloody lucky they kept this sweet deal until now
So all in all a great vote winner for Cameron - attacks qangos, expenses, salaries all in one go
Good lad - one thing I will say about Cameron is, even though I think he's a truly shameless opportunist (that's a compliment btw) he is at least very in tune with the public (compared to his various bumbling 'grandees') - he's giving the people what they want, and in that regard he's already light years ahead of Brown
But there is still no substance - opportunism is all well and good to achieve your ends, but what are your ends? All I can see is power for the sake of it - there is no vision, no desire to reform anything major - Cameron has taken a few harmless populist measures - great, but where are the brave decisions? Where are the major cuts to public spending? Things that will actually hurt people and cause a backlash, these require bravery and commitment - there are no principles behind this, it's just a shameless vote-winner - Cameron has yet to show me that he has anything to offer
True, against Brown I'm happy we've got someone doing anything remotely sensible - but this isn't enough to warrant 4-5 years of government...at least Blair had plans
03 September 2009
This is truly brilliant
'Webcameron' have put up a video charting the great things the Conservatives have done for us in the last two hundred years
It is rather one-sided - considering the 20th century was dominated by them you would think we had a perfect century, even Eden gets a positive spin
But what I would take issue with is Peel - the founder of the Conservatives
Now, hands up who knows what that did? Yes, that's right it tore the Tories in two and resulted in the Conservative party being in the wilderness for nearly thirty years, while the 'Peelites' split off and eventually became the Liberal party, you may as well be calling Gladstone a Tory
They actually take credit for Peel facing down the 'landed interests' - this is nonsensical, the Conservatives were the landed interests, they always had been (and still are) and Peel stood up against them and committed political suicide - the repeal of the Corn Laws should never be credited to the Conservatives (look it up, more Whigs and Radicals voted for it)
It's this that I take most issue with because it's ridiculous, if any person watching that went and looked up that period they'd realise the Tories were very much the bad guys - they even tried to keep up with protectionism until Disraeli dragged them away from it - now there's the true Conservative hero, and he hated Peel
They also do Disraeli a bit of a disservice by saying he granted working men the vote - true he did, but only because if he didn't during his short lived minority government, Gladstone would have a year later - they ignore Disraeli's political brilliance, which probably saved the party, for a vague assumption that he was 'progressive' - he was far better than that
I also take issue with several others, Burke, Pitt and Churchill in particular, but I don't want to go there now, and they're nowhere near as bad as the Tories venerating Peel, it's like Labour praising Thatcherism for saving them...
Intriguingly at the end, Heath took us into the common market, but Hague helped save the pound...oh and Howard created a disciplined fighting force for the 2005 election - I ask: so?
But the best is at the end - all about Cameron's brilliance
I'm glad it's still got less than 8,000 views - who do they make these things for? (except me)
It is rather one-sided - considering the 20th century was dominated by them you would think we had a perfect century, even Eden gets a positive spin
But what I would take issue with is Peel - the founder of the Conservatives
'repealed the corn laws and faced down the landed interests...'
Now, hands up who knows what that did? Yes, that's right it tore the Tories in two and resulted in the Conservative party being in the wilderness for nearly thirty years, while the 'Peelites' split off and eventually became the Liberal party, you may as well be calling Gladstone a Tory
They actually take credit for Peel facing down the 'landed interests' - this is nonsensical, the Conservatives were the landed interests, they always had been (and still are) and Peel stood up against them and committed political suicide - the repeal of the Corn Laws should never be credited to the Conservatives (look it up, more Whigs and Radicals voted for it)
It's this that I take most issue with because it's ridiculous, if any person watching that went and looked up that period they'd realise the Tories were very much the bad guys - they even tried to keep up with protectionism until Disraeli dragged them away from it - now there's the true Conservative hero, and he hated Peel
They also do Disraeli a bit of a disservice by saying he granted working men the vote - true he did, but only because if he didn't during his short lived minority government, Gladstone would have a year later - they ignore Disraeli's political brilliance, which probably saved the party, for a vague assumption that he was 'progressive' - he was far better than that
I also take issue with several others, Burke, Pitt and Churchill in particular, but I don't want to go there now, and they're nowhere near as bad as the Tories venerating Peel, it's like Labour praising Thatcherism for saving them...
Intriguingly at the end, Heath took us into the common market, but Hague helped save the pound...oh and Howard created a disciplined fighting force for the 2005 election - I ask: so?
But the best is at the end - all about Cameron's brilliance
I'm glad it's still got less than 8,000 views - who do they make these things for? (except me)
29 July 2009
Is it obvious?
Looking over this report on the widening social gap which has been doing the rounds of late, I can't help feeling there's a very obvious answer to the issue
It does seem to be a noticeable trend that those educated during or prior to the 70s are from a wider section of society than those in their thirties - i.e. educated in the 80s - more or less consistent with the removal of Grammar schools
I don't claim this is the only factor, I am merely noticing a rather obvious correlation between the decline of Grammar schools and the increase in privilege in the professional classes - it may be nothing to do with it, but I think it's hard to ignore when it was such an important change in schooling
I can understand some of the arguments against them, even if I don't agree - but it's pretty clear that all forcing the poor and bright into comprehensives did was worsen their chances and left the opportunities to only the wealthy...the Grammar school system may not have been perfect but simply removing them made it worse if you ask me
I never got the chance to go to Grammar school, I only had the option of my two local comps - fortunately I was eligible for the Grammar school replacement - the Assisted Places Scheme, which basically gave those who would pass the 11+ a subsidised or free entry to independent schools
Had I been a year younger I would not have been eligible for this, because Tony Blair scrapped it because it was 'elitist' (this...from a Fettes man) - so I would have gone to one of those comps
Now I'm not knocking state education as a whole, there are many excellent comps - just none of them happened to be where I lived, I would've been sent to one of the underachieving pits where my local friends went, none of whom did A-levels or went to university, only one teacher was ever murdered though..
It does sound elitist, I admit - but the government are insistent on giving the poorest of us better chances, I don't see how forcing us to go to the local comps did that - unless of course the removal of both Grammar schools and the AP scheme meant that state education considerably improved - and I'm not aware that it did?
From the few socialists that I've met they seem to think that the complete removal of private schools and total use of state education would somehow create a better system - it's a pipedream, and the rich would still use their influence to play the postcode lottery, go abroad, or hire tutors - you can never remove the influence of the wealthy, unless we head down the communist route...
All that happened was the brightest were sent to the comps, while the richest got the best education - in principle maybe it was unfair to pay for the brightest to go to 'posh' schools, but the reality was it was a much more effective system than some grandiose dream about brilliant state education - all that has happened is the rich now get more opportunities while the rest of us form part of the mediocre average
Basically the government want more people from poor backgrounds to have the best they can achieve, i.e. on merit - and yet to classify people by their intelligence (a fairly big part of 'merit' if you ask me) is 'elitist' - seems a bit of a conundrum to me - they would rather just get more poor people in, regardless of talent, to fill their quotas - seems like another form of discrimination to me, just as bad as the rich paying for their kids achievements
Two things stand out to me: Firstly look at the last two Tory Prime Ministers: both Grammar school educated and with working-class origins, now compare that to the current Tory leader and his band of Eton educated cronies, from a demographic coincidentally educated mostly in the late 70s and 80s - maybe it's nothing to do with it, but I always find it quite a striking comparison (and I didn't even need to swing at Labour's last two)
Then, on a more personal note, and I can give no evidence of this, note my school's performance after my year group - it dipped considerably and the few long-term teachers I occasionally see whinge no end about falling standards - I accept that this may well be down to the growing class sizes in the school's pursuit of money, and also the fact that my teachers are old and naturally regard everything as being worse now - but I choose to see the decline as having a link to the removal of academic qualification and the allowing of all those whose parents merely pay up, in
I don't claim it's a valid study, I may well be wrong, but that's my life experience and I'll stick to it until otherwise proved
At the risk of being labelled a Tory elitist I'm going to say this - Grammar schools anyone?As an example, the report shows that doctors and lawyers who are in their late-30s today are drawn from a more affluent slice of society than their colleagues in their 50s.
Why should this be the case? Why should the gap be widening
It does seem to be a noticeable trend that those educated during or prior to the 70s are from a wider section of society than those in their thirties - i.e. educated in the 80s - more or less consistent with the removal of Grammar schools
I don't claim this is the only factor, I am merely noticing a rather obvious correlation between the decline of Grammar schools and the increase in privilege in the professional classes - it may be nothing to do with it, but I think it's hard to ignore when it was such an important change in schooling
I can understand some of the arguments against them, even if I don't agree - but it's pretty clear that all forcing the poor and bright into comprehensives did was worsen their chances and left the opportunities to only the wealthy...the Grammar school system may not have been perfect but simply removing them made it worse if you ask me
I never got the chance to go to Grammar school, I only had the option of my two local comps - fortunately I was eligible for the Grammar school replacement - the Assisted Places Scheme, which basically gave those who would pass the 11+ a subsidised or free entry to independent schools
Had I been a year younger I would not have been eligible for this, because Tony Blair scrapped it because it was 'elitist' (this...from a Fettes man) - so I would have gone to one of those comps
Now I'm not knocking state education as a whole, there are many excellent comps - just none of them happened to be where I lived, I would've been sent to one of the underachieving pits where my local friends went, none of whom did A-levels or went to university, only one teacher was ever murdered though..
It does sound elitist, I admit - but the government are insistent on giving the poorest of us better chances, I don't see how forcing us to go to the local comps did that - unless of course the removal of both Grammar schools and the AP scheme meant that state education considerably improved - and I'm not aware that it did?
From the few socialists that I've met they seem to think that the complete removal of private schools and total use of state education would somehow create a better system - it's a pipedream, and the rich would still use their influence to play the postcode lottery, go abroad, or hire tutors - you can never remove the influence of the wealthy, unless we head down the communist route...
All that happened was the brightest were sent to the comps, while the richest got the best education - in principle maybe it was unfair to pay for the brightest to go to 'posh' schools, but the reality was it was a much more effective system than some grandiose dream about brilliant state education - all that has happened is the rich now get more opportunities while the rest of us form part of the mediocre average
Basically the government want more people from poor backgrounds to have the best they can achieve, i.e. on merit - and yet to classify people by their intelligence (a fairly big part of 'merit' if you ask me) is 'elitist' - seems a bit of a conundrum to me - they would rather just get more poor people in, regardless of talent, to fill their quotas - seems like another form of discrimination to me, just as bad as the rich paying for their kids achievements
Two things stand out to me: Firstly look at the last two Tory Prime Ministers: both Grammar school educated and with working-class origins, now compare that to the current Tory leader and his band of Eton educated cronies, from a demographic coincidentally educated mostly in the late 70s and 80s - maybe it's nothing to do with it, but I always find it quite a striking comparison (and I didn't even need to swing at Labour's last two)
Then, on a more personal note, and I can give no evidence of this, note my school's performance after my year group - it dipped considerably and the few long-term teachers I occasionally see whinge no end about falling standards - I accept that this may well be down to the growing class sizes in the school's pursuit of money, and also the fact that my teachers are old and naturally regard everything as being worse now - but I choose to see the decline as having a link to the removal of academic qualification and the allowing of all those whose parents merely pay up, in
I don't claim it's a valid study, I may well be wrong, but that's my life experience and I'll stick to it until otherwise proved
21 June 2009
Class Dismissed
I couldn't help but comment on Janet Street Porter's analysis of the expenses saga - to her it shows that the class system hasn't changed
The class system still existing is an interesting theory - I don't see how you can regard those who own moats or servants' quarters as representative of a broad social class - no doubt they are 'upper class' but they represent such a tiny minority it is hardly worth noting, they are the remnants of it, and are mostly left in just the political arena
The true debate over class has always been the middle vs working classes, who make up 99% of the population - the items she describes the Labour MPs as claiming for are no different to what any average middle class person would consider (e.g. treating dry rot), few in the 'middle' classes would be claiming for silver tea trays and moat cleaning
Janet presents the Labour MPs, who claim for biscuits and jellied eels, as essentially working-class heroes (although she herself says only 10% of MPs are working class, don't ask me how she worked out that figure) - while the Tories claim for conservatories, duck pond houses and moat cleaning - therefore they are middle or upper-class toffs
I fail to see what exactly that proves - the Tory party is stuffed full of millionaires and toffs, the core theme being that their status is inherited rather than earned, it always has been this way
Does that really show a class divide? Tory voters are the average middle-class person, they tend to work, own their homes and dislike paying tax - nothing about the average voter relates to the fact that the average Tory MP lives in a castle
What it does show is that Tory voters are idiots for being duped into allowing the landed wealth to represent them - these people are a tiny proportion of society, if they are actually a class, they do not represent the broader class divisions across society - they merely show that parliament is for the old elites and the wealthy
This has little bearing on the Labour members - who may all feast on jellied eels, but have the niece of the 7th Earl of Longford on their front bench (that'd be Hattie), as well as 'Son of the Manse' Brown, and of course Blair, almost as privileged as Cameron himself - for every Prescott or Johnson, there's a Blair or Harman
You want to make this about class? Then the real facts are that most MPs are professional middle-classes, gaining their second home and buying big tellies, granted a fair chunk of Tories are gentry, but there are plenty of those middle-class people who don't own half of Oxfordshire on the blue side - the fact is, almost all of them are in there through privilege or contacts, the rest came in from the unions (which presumably is the 10% Janet mentioned)
If you need any further evidence of Janet's slant - note her argument, she starts 'comparing' food - listing the apparently working class food (pork pies, biscuits) of Charles Clarke (privately-educated Cambridge man) and Nick Brown, but then compares that to a Tory buying orchids and getting an aga serviced, nothing about the food they bought - she also omits the fact that Nick Brown has claimed £19,000 in food bills in four years, considering few think 'food' is a legitimate expense ('do you eat twice?') this seems pretty suspect - oh and using the Tory leader as pretty much the sole named example...he who is descended from William IV, hardly a representative sample - my (Tory) MP claimed for a £300 washing machine - yes, he actually does his own washing!!
I don't know why she picks on the aga - I wouldn't be surprised if Janet had an aga herself, they're a common staple of the middle-classes, any MP could afford one on their salary, or indeed a house big enough for one - they're in the top 10% of earners after all
But she goes on to paint the Labour MPs as 'desperately trying to claw their way up the property ladder' - the use of the term desperate for someone on double the average household salary, with one of the best pensions you can get, seems a tad extreme, especially considering over half of the Labour party have been in government, meaning they earn even more! But no, no Labour MPs struggle to make ends meet - employing mates to do some plumbing on the cheap - does this not hint of someone engaging in complete fantasy? I am unashamedly middle-class, my parents combined income is below an MPs salary, and they live the middle-class dream pretty well - if Labour MPs are having trouble paying the mortgage I suggest they seek a financial advisor
The article is also misleading, for all Janet's disparaging of Labour's failures over the past 12 years there's some rather obvious psychological warfare buried in this - the basic premise is: criticise Labour, because they're crap - but the Tories are toffs, Labour are decent people, so keep the faith in Labour, all wrapped in what seems like a general swipe at politics...not very subtle
The average person is not represented by any party, Labour are no more 'the working man's party' than the Tories (or even the Lib Dems), so don't be duped by Janet that Labour is full of hard-working commoners representing us humble peasants - they are all members of the 'political class'
The class system still existing is an interesting theory - I don't see how you can regard those who own moats or servants' quarters as representative of a broad social class - no doubt they are 'upper class' but they represent such a tiny minority it is hardly worth noting, they are the remnants of it, and are mostly left in just the political arena
The true debate over class has always been the middle vs working classes, who make up 99% of the population - the items she describes the Labour MPs as claiming for are no different to what any average middle class person would consider (e.g. treating dry rot), few in the 'middle' classes would be claiming for silver tea trays and moat cleaning
Janet presents the Labour MPs, who claim for biscuits and jellied eels, as essentially working-class heroes (although she herself says only 10% of MPs are working class, don't ask me how she worked out that figure) - while the Tories claim for conservatories, duck pond houses and moat cleaning - therefore they are middle or upper-class toffs
I fail to see what exactly that proves - the Tory party is stuffed full of millionaires and toffs, the core theme being that their status is inherited rather than earned, it always has been this way
Does that really show a class divide? Tory voters are the average middle-class person, they tend to work, own their homes and dislike paying tax - nothing about the average voter relates to the fact that the average Tory MP lives in a castle
What it does show is that Tory voters are idiots for being duped into allowing the landed wealth to represent them - these people are a tiny proportion of society, if they are actually a class, they do not represent the broader class divisions across society - they merely show that parliament is for the old elites and the wealthy
This has little bearing on the Labour members - who may all feast on jellied eels, but have the niece of the 7th Earl of Longford on their front bench (that'd be Hattie), as well as 'Son of the Manse' Brown, and of course Blair, almost as privileged as Cameron himself - for every Prescott or Johnson, there's a Blair or Harman
You want to make this about class? Then the real facts are that most MPs are professional middle-classes, gaining their second home and buying big tellies, granted a fair chunk of Tories are gentry, but there are plenty of those middle-class people who don't own half of Oxfordshire on the blue side - the fact is, almost all of them are in there through privilege or contacts, the rest came in from the unions (which presumably is the 10% Janet mentioned)
If you need any further evidence of Janet's slant - note her argument, she starts 'comparing' food - listing the apparently working class food (pork pies, biscuits) of Charles Clarke (privately-educated Cambridge man) and Nick Brown, but then compares that to a Tory buying orchids and getting an aga serviced, nothing about the food they bought - she also omits the fact that Nick Brown has claimed £19,000 in food bills in four years, considering few think 'food' is a legitimate expense ('do you eat twice?') this seems pretty suspect - oh and using the Tory leader as pretty much the sole named example...he who is descended from William IV, hardly a representative sample - my (Tory) MP claimed for a £300 washing machine - yes, he actually does his own washing!!
I don't know why she picks on the aga - I wouldn't be surprised if Janet had an aga herself, they're a common staple of the middle-classes, any MP could afford one on their salary, or indeed a house big enough for one - they're in the top 10% of earners after all
But she goes on to paint the Labour MPs as 'desperately trying to claw their way up the property ladder' - the use of the term desperate for someone on double the average household salary, with one of the best pensions you can get, seems a tad extreme, especially considering over half of the Labour party have been in government, meaning they earn even more! But no, no Labour MPs struggle to make ends meet - employing mates to do some plumbing on the cheap - does this not hint of someone engaging in complete fantasy? I am unashamedly middle-class, my parents combined income is below an MPs salary, and they live the middle-class dream pretty well - if Labour MPs are having trouble paying the mortgage I suggest they seek a financial advisor
The article is also misleading, for all Janet's disparaging of Labour's failures over the past 12 years there's some rather obvious psychological warfare buried in this - the basic premise is: criticise Labour, because they're crap - but the Tories are toffs, Labour are decent people, so keep the faith in Labour, all wrapped in what seems like a general swipe at politics...not very subtle
The average person is not represented by any party, Labour are no more 'the working man's party' than the Tories (or even the Lib Dems), so don't be duped by Janet that Labour is full of hard-working commoners representing us humble peasants - they are all members of the 'political class'
15 June 2009
Gordon loves you
If there ever were a reason for fixed term parliaments, or just a general reform of politics - this is it
Gordon Brown writes a puff piece for the only remaining Labour stronghold, the Mirror, and attacks the Tories while saying all the great things he's (or rather, Blair's) done
Party politics, I hate it and I always will, but there's not much I can do about it - but my point here is that there is a fundamental unfairness to our system - this is basically a party political broadcast for an upcoming election, only Gordon knows (if he actually does) when an election will be - he gets to wait until the point when he feels he can dig the knife in the deepest, or wait until he's got some good press - that is not healthy for government
Secondly, in a more general point - why should the Prime Minister devote his time to attacking the opposition? He is supposed to run the country, for all of us, and shouldn't be behaving like the leader of the Labour Party first, and the leader of the nation second - this article is blatant, writing about how good your government has been is different to picking up on something the opposition have said and attempting to twist it into a strawman argument - this is simple politicking and should be left to the party apparatchiks
Like any MP, he is expected to represent the interests of all his constituents - an MP cannot use his professional position as an MP to create a political blog and smear the other parties, so why can the PM write an article in a newspaper doing it? And of course, why is such a 'busy' man spending his time writing about party politics in a tabloid? Clearly he had some free time to pen an article for what remains of the believers, and yet he claims the government are getting on with it and incredibly busy
But no, this is simply an opinion piece targeted at the core Labour vote in the run-up to an election, it serves no purpose to government or the British people - it's an abuse of power and thoroughly unprofessional and so when you hear politicians argue against fixed terms, remember this is why they don't want them
Gordon Brown writes a puff piece for the only remaining Labour stronghold, the Mirror, and attacks the Tories while saying all the great things he's (or rather, Blair's) done
Party politics, I hate it and I always will, but there's not much I can do about it - but my point here is that there is a fundamental unfairness to our system - this is basically a party political broadcast for an upcoming election, only Gordon knows (if he actually does) when an election will be - he gets to wait until the point when he feels he can dig the knife in the deepest, or wait until he's got some good press - that is not healthy for government
Secondly, in a more general point - why should the Prime Minister devote his time to attacking the opposition? He is supposed to run the country, for all of us, and shouldn't be behaving like the leader of the Labour Party first, and the leader of the nation second - this article is blatant, writing about how good your government has been is different to picking up on something the opposition have said and attempting to twist it into a strawman argument - this is simple politicking and should be left to the party apparatchiks
Like any MP, he is expected to represent the interests of all his constituents - an MP cannot use his professional position as an MP to create a political blog and smear the other parties, so why can the PM write an article in a newspaper doing it? And of course, why is such a 'busy' man spending his time writing about party politics in a tabloid? Clearly he had some free time to pen an article for what remains of the believers, and yet he claims the government are getting on with it and incredibly busy
But no, this is simply an opinion piece targeted at the core Labour vote in the run-up to an election, it serves no purpose to government or the British people - it's an abuse of power and thoroughly unprofessional and so when you hear politicians argue against fixed terms, remember this is why they don't want them
11 June 2009
The Status Quo Party
And not in the 'good' rock band sense - I refer to the Tory view on electoral reform, which Cameron pretty much outlined here
Now, nobody expects the Tories to accept PR, dear God no, they'd lose all their country safe seats, but they have decided to completely back the FPtP system - 'no electoral reform' is what they say, the current system works perfectly well in their view
For them that is - the Tories have never endorsed electoral reform (although they do ironically have the 1832 and 1867 reform acts to their name, both in a technical sense) and have no incentive to give up their rural safe seats
I personally find it interesting that Cameron has decided to take a line on this, he's gone against the reforming zeal of the current climate and stuck his party's colours firmly to the mast (for once) - it probably won't matter come an election, but championing the status quo seems a bit of a risky business to me
If he's so concerned with an MP having a connection with their constituents why doesn't he back the AV system? That's just first past the post done a bit more fairly, you still get one person for a constituency, and they get a better mandate
It doesn't really limit his ability to hit Brown with cries of opportunism - the Lib Dems are happy to point out Labour abandoned any ideas of reform 12 years ago and haven't mentioned it since, the Tories could do the same, doing nothing about it doesn't exactly help their image
Although at least they are being honest for once...
So the point I would draw from this is that if you want any sort of decent reform then don't vote Tory, all they've backed is a few ideas on tougher scrutiny of MPs and reducing the number of MPs (which works in their favour) - I never expected much but it is now black and white for all to see - so by that logic the only way we'll be seeing decent reform is by voting Lib Dem, who have always campaigned for a fairer system
Now, nobody expects the Tories to accept PR, dear God no, they'd lose all their country safe seats, but they have decided to completely back the FPtP system - 'no electoral reform' is what they say, the current system works perfectly well in their view
For them that is - the Tories have never endorsed electoral reform (although they do ironically have the 1832 and 1867 reform acts to their name, both in a technical sense) and have no incentive to give up their rural safe seats
I personally find it interesting that Cameron has decided to take a line on this, he's gone against the reforming zeal of the current climate and stuck his party's colours firmly to the mast (for once) - it probably won't matter come an election, but championing the status quo seems a bit of a risky business to me
If he's so concerned with an MP having a connection with their constituents why doesn't he back the AV system? That's just first past the post done a bit more fairly, you still get one person for a constituency, and they get a better mandate
It doesn't really limit his ability to hit Brown with cries of opportunism - the Lib Dems are happy to point out Labour abandoned any ideas of reform 12 years ago and haven't mentioned it since, the Tories could do the same, doing nothing about it doesn't exactly help their image
Although at least they are being honest for once...
So the point I would draw from this is that if you want any sort of decent reform then don't vote Tory, all they've backed is a few ideas on tougher scrutiny of MPs and reducing the number of MPs (which works in their favour) - I never expected much but it is now black and white for all to see - so by that logic the only way we'll be seeing decent reform is by voting Lib Dem, who have always campaigned for a fairer system
26 May 2009
Fixed Terms are evil!!1!!1!
Lot of news about Cameron's new proposals today, the Mail were unpredictably gushing
I don't need to explain my view on Cameron - he's an opportunist jumping on the reform bandwagon, but we will get little real reform from him - as the old saying goes: 'turkeys don't vote for Christmas'
I instead wish to debate the finer points of reform, as Paul Waugh points out, the Tories are a bit lukewarm on the idea - saying fixed terms are worth looking at, but also saying that it would mean we couldn't get rid of Gordon Brown or campaign that he didn't have a mandate
Now, I'm going to ignore the fact that as fixed terms should be four years, Gordo would already be facing an election
But Cameron is also missing a major point - does he really think we could just 'swap' Prime Ministers with a fixed term system? We can now because the rules are non-existent and it's all very 'House of Commons' - picking a suitable minister from the ranks is ridiculously outdated, as shown by the public contempt for the situation we are now in
So a change would surely be accompanied by the tightening up of the rules - if you are elected for a fixed term you are obliged to serve that - obviously we can exempt health matters and such, but Blair simply walked, seemingly for the hell of it, after promising a full third term - that is an unacceptable situation
Can you imagine Barack Obama deciding he would quit one year in, then spending a year 'on tour', as it were? - No, because he can't - only in exceptional circumstances
Also note that this implies all Cameron would do, or even contemplate doing, is changing the process from being 'there must be an election within five years', to 'there must be an election at xxxx date' - he doesn't seem to consider the party reselecting a Prime Minister for itself mid-term, you look deep enough and you can see just how shallow Cameron's plans are, the House of Commons remains largely untouched, all that is removed is the present government's advantage of timing - it is a piecemeal offering
Instead, if a Prime Minister does decide to resign, it should trigger an election - while I used America as my example, we are not America, we do not have an elected head of state/government - but as Blair's resignation shows, we effectively have such a situation in the public mind, it's all very confusing and British
But there is no need for us to stick rigidly to four years - the American situation is very different, the fact is we can take a far more realistic approach - what Blair did is uncommon, it's happened twice in thirty years, or once in nearly twenty years, and you can't expect many Prime Ministers would simply quit before they even got halfway - evidence in most countries shows that they tend to know the rules and intend to serve the full term, the only reason Blair and Labour did it was because they could
They could bizarrely rip-off the electorate and change leader after two years simply because the system allows them to - if we changed the situation then 1) it wouldn't have happened in the first place and 2) we would've got our election
You see how Cameron spins? The situation barely changes in Parliament, but he gets his 'reform' to win over the public
There is an argument that being able to call an election at different times is better for government, it prevents lame ducks as it were - but in reality would it be any different? Brown is a lame duck and is clinging on to the very last minute - when was the last time we didn't use the conventional four (or longer) years? It was 1974 if you're interested, and that fact has to be weighed against the fact that most countries accept the system and we'd be removing a massive advantage that is given to the incumbent government
Like I say, a fixed term isn't perfect - but it's better than a government manipulating us, and I would love to see an example in modern British history where it has proved beneficial to the public to allow the government to set the date at their own convenience? Tie that in with the fact that if a government is defeated over a major bill (i.e. a supply bill), an election can be called - likewise if the governing party really feel the need to stab their leader, who is the de facto head of state, in the back, we should get an election - see how often it would happen then....
That, to me would be a better system than even the Americans have
I don't need to explain my view on Cameron - he's an opportunist jumping on the reform bandwagon, but we will get little real reform from him - as the old saying goes: 'turkeys don't vote for Christmas'
I instead wish to debate the finer points of reform, as Paul Waugh points out, the Tories are a bit lukewarm on the idea - saying fixed terms are worth looking at, but also saying that it would mean we couldn't get rid of Gordon Brown or campaign that he didn't have a mandate
Now, I'm going to ignore the fact that as fixed terms should be four years, Gordo would already be facing an election
But Cameron is also missing a major point - does he really think we could just 'swap' Prime Ministers with a fixed term system? We can now because the rules are non-existent and it's all very 'House of Commons' - picking a suitable minister from the ranks is ridiculously outdated, as shown by the public contempt for the situation we are now in
So a change would surely be accompanied by the tightening up of the rules - if you are elected for a fixed term you are obliged to serve that - obviously we can exempt health matters and such, but Blair simply walked, seemingly for the hell of it, after promising a full third term - that is an unacceptable situation
Can you imagine Barack Obama deciding he would quit one year in, then spending a year 'on tour', as it were? - No, because he can't - only in exceptional circumstances
Also note that this implies all Cameron would do, or even contemplate doing, is changing the process from being 'there must be an election within five years', to 'there must be an election at xxxx date' - he doesn't seem to consider the party reselecting a Prime Minister for itself mid-term, you look deep enough and you can see just how shallow Cameron's plans are, the House of Commons remains largely untouched, all that is removed is the present government's advantage of timing - it is a piecemeal offering
Instead, if a Prime Minister does decide to resign, it should trigger an election - while I used America as my example, we are not America, we do not have an elected head of state/government - but as Blair's resignation shows, we effectively have such a situation in the public mind, it's all very confusing and British
But there is no need for us to stick rigidly to four years - the American situation is very different, the fact is we can take a far more realistic approach - what Blair did is uncommon, it's happened twice in thirty years, or once in nearly twenty years, and you can't expect many Prime Ministers would simply quit before they even got halfway - evidence in most countries shows that they tend to know the rules and intend to serve the full term, the only reason Blair and Labour did it was because they could
They could bizarrely rip-off the electorate and change leader after two years simply because the system allows them to - if we changed the situation then 1) it wouldn't have happened in the first place and 2) we would've got our election
You see how Cameron spins? The situation barely changes in Parliament, but he gets his 'reform' to win over the public
There is an argument that being able to call an election at different times is better for government, it prevents lame ducks as it were - but in reality would it be any different? Brown is a lame duck and is clinging on to the very last minute - when was the last time we didn't use the conventional four (or longer) years? It was 1974 if you're interested, and that fact has to be weighed against the fact that most countries accept the system and we'd be removing a massive advantage that is given to the incumbent government
Like I say, a fixed term isn't perfect - but it's better than a government manipulating us, and I would love to see an example in modern British history where it has proved beneficial to the public to allow the government to set the date at their own convenience? Tie that in with the fact that if a government is defeated over a major bill (i.e. a supply bill), an election can be called - likewise if the governing party really feel the need to stab their leader, who is the de facto head of state, in the back, we should get an election - see how often it would happen then....
That, to me would be a better system than even the Americans have
18 May 2009
Cameron heads into an open goal
You've got to admit - 'Call me Dave' is now running rings around Brown
Cameron has now jumped on the 'call an election' bandwagon, although he has asked Gordon to call one in the past few weeks, this is a big call, and based mostly on the expenses scandals
This will go down ridiculously well with voters, the vast majority are now thoroughly fed up with politics, and Cameron now sounds like the golden boy
It remains to be seen if the Tories will suffer from the expenses themselves, but it seems likely to be negligible (at least at Westminster)
Of course, Brown has now had his hand forced - he will now face massive pressure to call an election, but will never give in before next summer because when he actually calls it Cameron will get the credit - so nothing has really changed except Brown now needs an even bigger miracle in the next 12 months
It was only a matter of time before Brown had his pants pulled down in front of the whole audience - that's what partly annoys me about Brown, not only he is a useless PM, but he's utterly crap at politics - he has no grace, nothing that endears him to people - he just looks like a giant rock in the middle of the road - he wanted to be PM, he is, and now he refuses to face the electorate, and he's never been seen to be doing anything else but clinging on
In my opinion, Gordon - here's what you should of done: Assuming you had cancelled the snap election, you should have then announced an election after a four year term - keeping it like the convention Blair had set up and keeping people happy - indefinitely refusing people their election until the very last minute was never likely to be a popular move was it?
Now I know I despise politics and all the games Cameron is playing - I do, and I agree totally with Cleggy:
Of course it is - it's cynical and manipulative, and I won't be voting Tory - but that doesn't mean I can't respect Cameron's playing of the game, if you're going to do something wrong you may as well do it right
*But no, you're nowhere near Disraeli's brilliance yet, Dave
Cameron has now jumped on the 'call an election' bandwagon, although he has asked Gordon to call one in the past few weeks, this is a big call, and based mostly on the expenses scandals
This will go down ridiculously well with voters, the vast majority are now thoroughly fed up with politics, and Cameron now sounds like the golden boy
It remains to be seen if the Tories will suffer from the expenses themselves, but it seems likely to be negligible (at least at Westminster)
Of course, Brown has now had his hand forced - he will now face massive pressure to call an election, but will never give in before next summer because when he actually calls it Cameron will get the credit - so nothing has really changed except Brown now needs an even bigger miracle in the next 12 months
It was only a matter of time before Brown had his pants pulled down in front of the whole audience - that's what partly annoys me about Brown, not only he is a useless PM, but he's utterly crap at politics - he has no grace, nothing that endears him to people - he just looks like a giant rock in the middle of the road - he wanted to be PM, he is, and now he refuses to face the electorate, and he's never been seen to be doing anything else but clinging on
In my opinion, Gordon - here's what you should of done: Assuming you had cancelled the snap election, you should have then announced an election after a four year term - keeping it like the convention Blair had set up and keeping people happy - indefinitely refusing people their election until the very last minute was never likely to be a popular move was it?
Now I know I despise politics and all the games Cameron is playing - I do, and I agree totally with Cleggy:
"I think we need much, much bigger change in this country than the superficial point-scoring by David Cameron."
Of course it is - it's cynical and manipulative, and I won't be voting Tory - but that doesn't mean I can't respect Cameron's playing of the game, if you're going to do something wrong you may as well do it right
*But no, you're nowhere near Disraeli's brilliance yet, Dave
13 May 2009
Stop, don't do it, it's a trick...you're all bloody sheep!!
Cameron has jumped on this quick, in what has been a reasonably well-received move, he has been decisive and apologetic
Brown has been trumped and looks like a lemon as he reacted with all the speed of a teenager in the morning, (but without the looks), this is, in my humble opinion, a big victory for Cameron
It's all about image, of course, and while Tory MPs are being dragged through the mud, 'Dave' has kept his nose mostly clean and looked far more authoritative than the old Golem
Maybe this will wash with the public, all the majority of Tory voters need is to not be too disgusted to vote Tory and they will waltz to power
And here in lies the problem - this is a con - us political types know exactly what is going on, as Nick Robinson rightly points out:
Precisely, the Tories shouldn't be winning anything based on this - all the big parties should be losing
This is why I have no worries over Labour - this is just another nail in the coffin, a Labour member that's been caught out will be ousted, but unfortunately the Tories are mostly going to be let off the hook - unless they really get hung out and lose the whip it's unlikely typical Tory heartlands will rebel against their MPs in their desire to restore a Tory government and support Dave
So these people we think of as crooks will return, having paid back their loot, people who had pianos tuned, swimming pools cleaned and chandeliers...re-shinied...with public money, will come back to represent constituents once more
I don't support the 'plague on all your houses' line, but each MP must be scrutinised at an election - it isn't enough to allow that MP back because you want a Tory government - they will, on the whole, not be punished by their party, and they will certainly not face prosecution
The only trial they get is that one every four or five years, and people really don't take it seriously enough - it is one of the fundamental flaws within our democracy - where you, in reality, vote for a party and a leader, but elect an MP who you probably don't know the name of
I know I'm a shameless advocate of independents, but if you really need any proof take a look at Dan1979's post on Norman Tebbit telling people to vote for a minor party
Cameron is basically bullying him - admittedly it's hardly surprising within a party, they are what they are - but as you can see, having two major parties with such a stranglehold on our government is incredibly stifling to independent voices - and logically it should raise the question of why we have over 600 'representatives' when they have virtually no voice
One final thing, this clip of Lord Foulkes (now widely known as 'that fat wanker') attacking an admittedly over-paid, BBC newsreader on salaries
I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty, it's all over the blogs - but I will say that he is fundamentally wrong, he claims the BBC and the media undermine democracy, not the 'hard-working' MPs - if he knew anything about politics he'd know about checks and balances, the media, as much as we love to hate them, are the only check we have left on those MPs
If it weren't for the likes of the BBC and the Telegraph who would've told us the truth? They have an agenda, sure - but it shows up those that are thieving bastards for the good of us all
Brown has been trumped and looks like a lemon as he reacted with all the speed of a teenager in the morning, (but without the looks), this is, in my humble opinion, a big victory for Cameron
It's all about image, of course, and while Tory MPs are being dragged through the mud, 'Dave' has kept his nose mostly clean and looked far more authoritative than the old Golem
Maybe this will wash with the public, all the majority of Tory voters need is to not be too disgusted to vote Tory and they will waltz to power
And here in lies the problem - this is a con - us political types know exactly what is going on, as Nick Robinson rightly points out:
None of this, of course, will be enough to silence those who complain that politicians only said and agreed to change after being caught with their hands in the till.
Precisely, the Tories shouldn't be winning anything based on this - all the big parties should be losing
This is why I have no worries over Labour - this is just another nail in the coffin, a Labour member that's been caught out will be ousted, but unfortunately the Tories are mostly going to be let off the hook - unless they really get hung out and lose the whip it's unlikely typical Tory heartlands will rebel against their MPs in their desire to restore a Tory government and support Dave
So these people we think of as crooks will return, having paid back their loot, people who had pianos tuned, swimming pools cleaned and chandeliers...re-shinied...with public money, will come back to represent constituents once more
I don't support the 'plague on all your houses' line, but each MP must be scrutinised at an election - it isn't enough to allow that MP back because you want a Tory government - they will, on the whole, not be punished by their party, and they will certainly not face prosecution
The only trial they get is that one every four or five years, and people really don't take it seriously enough - it is one of the fundamental flaws within our democracy - where you, in reality, vote for a party and a leader, but elect an MP who you probably don't know the name of
I know I'm a shameless advocate of independents, but if you really need any proof take a look at Dan1979's post on Norman Tebbit telling people to vote for a minor party
Cameron is basically bullying him - admittedly it's hardly surprising within a party, they are what they are - but as you can see, having two major parties with such a stranglehold on our government is incredibly stifling to independent voices - and logically it should raise the question of why we have over 600 'representatives' when they have virtually no voice
One final thing, this clip of Lord Foulkes (now widely known as 'that fat wanker') attacking an admittedly over-paid, BBC newsreader on salaries
I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty, it's all over the blogs - but I will say that he is fundamentally wrong, he claims the BBC and the media undermine democracy, not the 'hard-working' MPs - if he knew anything about politics he'd know about checks and balances, the media, as much as we love to hate them, are the only check we have left on those MPs
If it weren't for the likes of the BBC and the Telegraph who would've told us the truth? They have an agenda, sure - but it shows up those that are thieving bastards for the good of us all
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
