Me been reeding!!

I thought I would compile a list of stuff I found interesting

Clarkson is worth a read this week, with a bizarre list of rules that Brown has apparently imposed on farms, I never knew it was so complicated...

The Fink pointed me out to strangemaps.com - and I found this one which removed the bottom 5% of global GDP, rather intriguing

Roy Hattersley made me chuckle, telling Labour to rediscover its old principles and stop worrying about gaining votes and winning elections, the problems started back in '94 - right...

Bias aside, I liked David Elstein's particular take on the BBC, so much I want to write about it myself (maybe later..)

William Rees-Mogg demonstrates why having a life-peer system that naturally favours the elderly has it's problems, oh and something about banking regulations...

And that's enough for the Times - they must be very happy that they managed to direct me towards several good articles

The only thing in the Independent I particularly liked was Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's criticism of Israel's nuclear arsenal - I tend to avoid anything about Israel as it's always the same boring tripe from both sides, so I thought it worth noting

Guido reminds why he's so popular with this bitchslap to the media who are having a go at Marr over 'that' question (Guido and Marr...now that's a weird scenario)

The Mail...ummm...admittedly they did a good job with the Ofsted idiocy, they have a reasonable piece about saving the pint, but not from the EU! - Albeit very prematurely...

I also can't help but agree with this on the birthmark/human rights issue - especially considering it's basically my last post..

and finally in the Sun - Rihanna's in her Nundies

Brilliant piece on the new paedophile scheme

Chris Stevenson, the detective who was responsible for the capture of Ian Huntley, puts it brilliantly in the Times today

Commentators constantly refer to Huntley and the events in Soham as the reason for this. I am sure Sir Michael Bichard, who chaired the inquiry into the murders, did not intend such a wave of recrimination over one case. Yes, changes were necessary: Huntley lived a charmed life in Humberside, where he was investigated for a number of crimes. He was charged with rape, but after he spent a week in custody the case was dropped for lack of evidence.

As a result of poor intelligence, Huntley was appointed a school caretaker in Soham. Did that give him access to children? Yes, hundreds. Did he abuse them? No. In fact he reported to the headteacher that several teenage girls had made inappropriate comments. What Huntley did to Holly and Jessica was as bad as it gets, but did he come into contact with them through being a caretaker? Not exactly — he was caretaker of Soham Village College, a school for the over-11s. The two girls attended St Andrew’s Junior School. Different building, different caretaker. Huntley had contact with them because Carr was employed at St Andrew’s as a classroom assistant.

Speaks for itself...

Some musings

While I was at the Times reading for that last post, I found a few articles that piqued my interest

First Dominic Lawson argues to stop the segregation of men and women in sport - somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but centred on the gender issue of South African 800m winner, Caster Semenya - wherein lies the problem of 'females' who have extra chromosomes or genetic conditions that give them extra testosterone (not to say that Semenya actually has anything, but it raises the issue)

It is somewhat of a grey area - are they really women? Quite a dilemma, and I think he's right that in true meritocratic style we should let women try to get in men's teams - why not? We'd get the best performers regardless of sex

But oh no, men's natural advantage (which they don't have...) would be a handicap to the women, and they would unfairly be kept down

Now I do happen to think women should be able to play sports, segregation is the only way you'll achieve that - however I wish the feminists would shut up about giving female sports equal coverage, they are not going to be able to match the men in sports simply because men have more muscle - it's not a competitor, nor is it equal and they have been given a chance to do the same things at a lower level, they shouldn't be whinging for equal television and news coverage

You never hear men complaining they are under-represented in the shopping industry...

---

Then there's this, a review of a show called '16: too young to vote?'

It's not much of a debate starter, as it's just a bland review of a BBC3 show, despite being linked from the politics page, but it's always a good question

Should they vote? Part of me knows that 16 year-olds are a fair bit more immature than even 18-year-olds, some are better than others, but generally they're still children

But that said, maybe I'm getting old and will probably soon start thinking 21 year-olds are too immature, and after that 25-year olds, 30 year-olds - considering I have always viewed this derision by the older generations as arrogant I don't really think maturity is a valid concern

The same goes for intelligence - the capabilities of our brain and behaviour don't bar anyone else from voting so why should they suffer? I know some right idiots who are well over 18

Then it must come down to where we draw the line - we have to say where the child becomes an adult, clearly a 5-year-old doesn't have an informed opinion, although it's somewhat strange logic when you think most voters don't have an informed opinion anyway - but regardless, they couldn't care for themselves

An adult is 18 - this is where you can do anything you want, buy alcohol, see any film you wish, marry without consent, and now you can even buy fags, and with Labour's new rules on leaving education it's becoming increasingly clear that adulthood is 18, not 16 - you can hold a job, but it's likely to be a part-time one while you remain in education under the newest laws

But nevertheless you are a taxpayer, with enough responsibility to hold a job, clearly you have a case for some political engagement

And some 16 year-olds are very into it, you couldn't really deny them the vote on maturity grounds - and again, a hell of a lot of adults don't care, so if there's some who really do care then why not let them vote?

The situation also barely affects people - it will matter to a minority of people, assuming this government takes the maximum five years then they have a 60% chance of being either 15 or above 18 (as I was, I got to vote at 19) - but I suppose more regularly it would be half of them, but two years out of a lifetime is hardly a huge issue - but then...I keep asking myself 'why not?' - I see no harm in it, just a few more wasted votes in the pot

But then, I think those under 18 get more political representation anyway - they get the youth parliament, who actually get to sit in parliament on occasion, once they're over the 18 mark their representation will turn to zilch as they realise politics is monopolised by those over 30 and the 'youth' vote is meaningless

So, my view: I have no problem lowering the voting age, but frankly the kids are better off sticking with it at 18

Beckett doesn't get it either

Well there's no news (it's still August...) - thank God for the Kelly report, from which we can look at what all our MPs think about their 'remuneration'

Margaret Beckett found her way to the top of the pile - saying

"Political campaigns, by-elections, public functions or conferences, prizes, sponsorships and donations incur costs, not just in hundreds but probably totalling thousands of pounds, from the MP's own pocket."

Now remind me, which of these things are Parliamentary duties?

Campaigns...nope, by-elections are exactly the same, functions and conferences - forgive me but are not all these party commitments, NOT the work of an MP?

So an MP should be paid more to campaign for re-election? So sorry, but a person who already has the strongest position as an incumbent should get their campaign factored into their salary? What about those other little candidates? They don't get anything, and major party candidates get funding from the party - that's the whole point!

Does she not realise how ridiculous she sounds? This is a typically Labour view* that the party is paramount, no consideration for independents or the fact that party business should not be a salaried part of an MP's job

As for prizes and sponsorships - what? What do MPs give out prizes for? They hand out prizes at schools and stuff, I wasn't aware they actually bought the schoolchildren prizes as well (I can't find a thing on this, if someone wishes to enlighten me)

And donations?? That would be the mandatory donations to your own party?? Do I even need to bother with that?

But this is hardly surprising from the woman who:

claimed £72,537 for her Derby South constituency cottage between 2004 and 2008, despite having no mortgage or rent to pay

— This included £711 to paint her summer house, shed and pergola; £600 on plants for hanging baskets, tubs, pots and planters; £57 to prune an apple tree; £190 to rebuild a rockery; £1,421 for “tree and hedge works”.

(From the Times)

Do not believe a word of the pity pleas that come out of their mouths - I am a fair man and do not wish a 'blight on all their houses', but they really are taking the biscuit with some of these 'poor me' claims - they are disconnected from reality and have ridiculous expectations of their own worth

*In the interests of balance, a typical Tory view is that they would be earning far more in the outside world and are therefore worthy of more, usually feeling only they are capable of occupying large 19th century leather chairs and smoking cigars (slight improv from this in the Times) - I have a suggestion for them: stay in the bloody outside world if you want to earn more, taking a pay cut doesn't entitle you to fiddle the books

They still don't get it

Following on from the Alan Duncan 'Rations' story, the broadsheets are of course falling over themselves to defend the political classes from what some might call, reverse snobbery

Now I really have no beef with Duncan himself - he, like Vince Cable, has a background in oil and is pretty valuable compared to a lot of MPs

My frustration is aimed at the broadsheet journos who defend the culture - what's wrong with being a barrister, city trader or lord of the manor

Well nothing really, as Matthew Parris points out - you wouldn't begrudge a doctor, teacher, nurse, fireman etc still doing a bit of their own work to keep in touch with constituents - but direct a company...

The difference is of course perception, a company director is an overpaid lump, a trader has no other purpose but to make money, you don't need to be working to understand the City

But it is a fair point - to earn thousands of pounds for a few hours talking to a major company board, probably to further some political aim, is cynical and of little help to the constituents, working as a GP involves treating real people in the community, even if the pay is large

Something that I'll never understand is the defence of those who want more money - so what if they have to take a pay-cut? They can't afford the lifestyle they've become accustomed to...

So? Going down to a mere £64k a year may be a pittance to some people, but why can't they understand that it's a hell of a lot more than most people and if they don't like it, don't bother

Instead they felt that effectively stealing money (or perhaps 'cooking the books') was the correct course to take so that they earned what they felt they deserved?

Do they really think they are worth so much to us? Why do we want so many privileged elites from wealthy backgrounds ruling over us? They have already proved they're not exactly good at their jobs

Parris is right - let them work in real industries and charities, but he overlooks the crucial problem - there are too many career politicians in there, too many people who come from wealth and are from the select group allowed into politics (bar the trade-union route, and even that's becoming hereditary)

The problem is not that they have second jobs, it is that they are the political class - if we actually had more teachers and nurses as MPs we could go down this route, but we don't - we have our MPs drawn from the top per cent of society - money and power circles keep the ordinary folk out of politics, and when they are seen to cheat and steal, then whinge about their conditions how do you expect people to react?

And the journalists are just as bad - they are an extension of the political class (Parris is a close friend of Duncan) - cosseted in the same world, where people like Dominic Lawson, son of the Lawson, feel they have some enlightened opinion, when they are part of the same problem

I'd love more real people in politics - but it's not going to happen by controlling the MPs with rules, which they brought on themselves by being gutless cheats, but nor is it going to happen by giving them their second jobs - that's just the status quo

What we need is politics reopened to the people (something which the conservative types seriously detest) - it is manipulated by the party machine, who choose the candidates they like, trusting that the electorate will only ever vote on the colour of rosette

The political class do not get it, nor do they want to - they have the power, their friends have the power, there is no need to change the people in Parliament

But they do not appreciate that the pendulum has swung too far, there have always been career politicians - in fact there's nothing wrong with it, both Gladstone and Disraeli, our first democratically elected PMs (of sorts) were lifelong politicians - different times, but they were excellent politicians, they were popular with the public, they were wanted. What we have now are not really career politicians, we have cronies - the Millibands, Balls and Osbournes of this world, not there through any particular skill at public speaking or politics, but through their background and contacts - and Parliament is chock-full of them, useless lumps who represent no-one, real career politicians are people like Hague - who made his name making political speeches, and there's nothing wrong with having them as Parliamentarians.

Too many politicians are there through the backrooms of their parties - Cameron, Osbourne, Brown and almost all of the Labour front bench - these are not people who have been engaging with the public for years, but just random people there thanks to their connections, deciding who should go into the chamber, but they have no authority or respect from the people - there is a space in Parliament for those who speak to the people, the dare I say it: Blairs of this world, who talk to a national audience, these are the actual politicians - and then there are those who work for their constituents, but the rest are just bumpf, there for the power and to prop up the machine

People have become fed up with it - but they do not realise they are at fault, yes the system is rigged against change, but people only fuel it by allowing the parties a free ride - they need to wake up and vote with their heads - we need a revolution, and I'd rather it were peaceful

Is feminism an anachronism?

I've been reading across the feminist debate the past day or two, why? Mainly because the other (political) news is boring, and I came across this debate in the Times

Now I'm sorry but I cannot address the issues of sexualisation and the influence of the rise of 'normalised porn' (lads' mags, lap dancing clubs, the internet etc) - it simply doesn't work on my level

As far as I'm concerned I'm a liberal and believe in freedom of opportunity and a broadly free market, I don't like people who want to stop consenting adults doing what they like, and nor am I interested in how society affects the behaviour of girls and if it's bad - it's of little interest to me

What does interest me is politics, if I believe in freedom I cannot believe in discrimination and gender balancing - so as long as women have an equal opportunity to succeed that's fine by me, the outcome only interests me if there clearly is an impediment based on sex, which I struggle to see

On this point Janice Turner points out, briefly:

These are truly boomtime girls, part of that first generation to beat boys at A level, outnumber them at university and often out-earn them in the workplace. A decade of national prosperity won them that feminist ideal: economic equality.

That for me, is it - that's the goal, and in my view, today, girls are no more discriminated against than boys - if anything the system is weighted towards them - I have yet to find a young woman who feels held back by their gender

It seems pretty clear that most of the issues regarding opportunity come out of those educated prior to the 80s - I know and appreciate that my mother was discriminated against and it prevented her getting very far, but she was educated in the 60s and 70s - there's very little we can do about that now, she still has over a decade left til retirement and so remains a discriminated part of the workforce

And yet still people like Harman push on with these plans and their (dodgy) stats - their plans will only 'benefit' future generations, not those people still in the workforce who did have it worse

Why can't people like her appreciate that? You won't change working habits in the over-50s, those who were denied an education in sciences and told to be secretaries - you should surely be looking at the under 30s and 40s - how are they doing? As Janice points out, it's clear to all that young women are doing pretty well, given an advantage in education, given preferential treatment in the best graduate jobs

But still they persist with their agenda - trying to balance a gender gap that still exists in the cold war, there is no study of age groups used in their publications - which show that younger single women are virtually the same as the males (if anyone would like to wade in with stats, feel free) - and yet they address the gender gap so evident in the older workers by focusing on education and university leavers...

It boggles the mind - it just seems to me that it's common sense to say, 'look at the women coming out of education today' and note that there's obviously going to be a 40-year lag on this issue

And that is also why feminism is pretty much dead - women know that their daughters are facing no real hurdles, all the barriers have gone, they did win, and now people like Janice Turner want to focus on abstract issues about sexualisation and morality - the common person has never really taken to academic debate and it's unlikely the average woman will concern herself with such theories, that's for the chattering classes, for people with too much time on their hands (like me!)

Feminism will continue to exist in academic circles, as pretty much every line of thought does - but it is no longer necessary for the masses, because it has no tangible aims, and that is why Hattie looks absolutely raving, because most women know she's at least 20 years late

Harman is the worst kind of bigot

That being 'one with power'

I promised myself I wouldn't go too mad on this, she's 'in charge' for two weeks and is doing whatever she wants, we all knew this would happen, and plenty of others out there are whinging about it, I don't need to lose sleep over it

But dear god, she's mad!!

Railroading changes to rape law, sticking wife-beating issues into the national curriculum, making hypocritical remarks about men-only leadership

All in the face of the mostly moderate British public, this is a woman with a massive agenda, blinded by her own warped ideas on the world - but it's nothing new, I just wished to express my exasperation

The good news is she'll never be electable and will be gone within the year, but Alice Thomson puts a different spin on it - at least she's sparking debate, even if we do all hate her

I'm not sure what to think - yes, it's been awful having such a pathetic excuse for a government and it's far more fun to get angry at Harman's 'conviction' politics, it's nice to hear some actual views for once, no matter how insane

Only, my concern is that she actually has power - fine, start debate - but this is not just starting debate, this is starting debate by controlling government with your agenda when you have no democratic right to do so - right-wing fascists start debate, would you like to put one in charge of government so we all take notice?

No, I thought not - it's dangerous, and while it may be more entertaining, there is a real crime here - our government are so bad that we actually have people supporting having this looney in charge just for the fun of it

*And in that link, the Mail win this week's Gruniad award:

The Government claims that violanguagelence against women is costing Britain an astonishing £40billion.

**I would also like to lend weight to the theory that this is part of Brown's plot - we'll all be begging for him back by the end of next week

Quick...look busy

What depths will the government sink to to create positive news?

Now they are funding 500 places on Operation Raleigh for graduate bums like me who can't find a job

Now while I am somewhat irked that I once again would've been rewarded by hanging around in Britain as a 'NEET' I can't help but laugh - 500 spots?

The Times lends it weight to the idea that it's to massage the figures - but frankly what's is 500 in the 100,000+ unemployed graduate pool? Not to mention the 2 million+ unemployed

No, this is a cheap gimmick to make a headline and make it look like they are being productive and doing something positive in the recession - I already went on a bloody gap year, because as the Times pointed out: "Careers experts say that 80,000 will hunt in vain for work this summer" - this is just rewarding people who aren't smart enough to have decided on a gap year yet - as always you have to be dim to get any help off the state

Depressing times...as always

Money always attracts honest people

Another bloody one - more broadsheet journos calling for MPs to be paid more, this time it's Danny Finkelstein

I might have to start a link list

The flaws in Parliament

A brilliant and eloquent article by Daneil Finkelstein on what is wrong with Parliament

Add to that a deeply flawed electoral system and you really can see how bad our political system is

Sanctimonious tripe

I was feeling lazy today, Jacqui Smith's defence riled me somewhat, but it's old news - and then I found this little piece of rot from Alice Miles in the Times

She is defending MPs - of course she derides having to pay for the occasional miscreant and bemoans the system - but most are good, she claims, and she bleats on about how the system is wrong and how we need to put this behind us, all fine

But this masks her defence of MPs and ministers -

Political life is cruel to families. Imagine the life of a minister working 18-hour days in London (and often abroad), with a constituency in a far-flung corner of the country and a young family caught in the middle. Imagine the extra childcare costs they must pay when foreign summits demand a spouse at their side: the £8-£10 hourly rate for a nanny, plus up to £5 an hour in tax and insurance - and all for the privilege of not seeing your child all weekend.

Notice how she has referred to ministers, not MPs - very few MPs go to international conventions with their better halves, the senior ministers do, those who are paid more than double your typical MP and allowed first class travel

True it does split up families, and I have never begrudged those living in the far-flung corners of Britain their home comforts, but welcome to real life - many workers have to do ridiculous commutes, and spend weeks away from their families - they do not get such rewards, nor is their worklife so good, or influential

Remember that these are the 650 most powerful people in the country (in theory) - and that their work consists mostly of speaking and listening, there are no managers, overheads or targets chasing them around, just a 'review' after five years - the hours are flexible, and the bar cheap - this is not a bad price to pay for being away from home 3 or 4 days a week, especially considering the almost 20-week period where you can work from your constituency

This is complete fudge from Ms Miles - talking about childcare for when the parents are away on state business - this really only refers to a handful of members, and I repeat - those who are on far more than an MP's salary. Hell, have a childcare allowance - I don't mind

She then defends the renting out of London property for those in grace-and-favour homes, once again she distorts the facts - there is nothing wrong with renting out a property, what is wrong is claiming expenses on the other

As a normal citizen you should be expected to run one home, we all need a home, right? A second one is required to work in two places, so you have an allowance for it - if you are given this second home then you should not be claiming for a third - I don't care if Darling lets out his London flat, but he has no right to claim expenses for his Edinburgh home while he has a freebie provided

Miles shows her true colours when she continues:

It is all very well for David Cameron to promise to remove the second-home allowance from any of his ministers with grace-and-favour properties...and many of his senior colleagues can afford to keep two homes. Labour ministers, on the whole, are not as wealthy.

That old 'Tory elite' chestnut - unfortunately these days Labour is full of wealthy members, many of whom are second generation politicians, Harriet Harman for one, and as I pointed out yesterday - Geoff Robinson. The old argument that Labour MPs are all working class heroes no longer washes, (particularly when you compare Blair and Brown with both Thatcher and Major) there probably are proportionately more of the 'elites' in the Tory ranks, but unfortunately it is Cameron's image that has allowed Labour to claim they are the sole offenders - you will find a pretty similar picture in both these days (sickening isn't it?)

Then we get an impassioned plea for Sarah Brown - who apparently can't afford the £9,000 top she wore to the G20, and had to rent it

'She doesn't have a job so her husband can lead the world' - call me stupid but doesn't her hubby earn over £180k a year? Considering that's in the top 1% of earners and many housewives can live comfortably on much less, I don't think there's a huge issue here - maybe she can't burn nine grand on one top, but believe me she can spend a lot more than 99% of the wives in this country

I think the only point that comes across from Alice's sympathy is that Gordon is tight-fisted, or that she's a feminist and Sarah must not be allowed to live off her husband

This article in a well respected newspaper enrages me - it smacks of arrogance, of the sort that I've seen in several broadsheets recently - I think these writers are getting a little out of touch with reality

She brands the expenses as minor, and says that Jacqui Smith has far too an important job to do - unfortunately I disagree, ignoring the fact that Smith has never once shown any sort of use as Home Secretary, or evidence of being qualified for the role, she has deliberately abused the system - not a few bathplugs (which I'm willing to bet was on a plumber's receipt), but household furniture and decor, and a cable TV package - the porn was a mistake and is not the main issue here. What people like Miles don't seem to get is that it is not the porn that enrages us, it is that she has claimed her family house as an expense - it is not appropriate professional conduct, and the people will not stand for it - I have said it time and again, the fact was she was making personal benefit off expenses - you cannot deny that

Smith and Miles' defences are both a joke hidden behind a pathetic facade of 'the system'