...shoot me when I start sounding like an old fogey like Dominic Lawson
Here's a summary of what he says: 'comedy I like: good, comedy I don't like: evil'
I did post a comment, but knowing the Indie's hideous posting system I thought I'd leave something for posterity here
It's the same old routine - 'everyone is out to shock these days', 'nothing is pleasant like Morecambe and Wise, or Dad's Army, or intelligent like Monty Python' etc etc
Save for Michael McIntyre - who talks about everyday life, without swearing, and he's openly posh! I must admit I like McIntyre, not many men can do a 15 minute skit on how great their hair is, but that doesn't mean I disparage everything else - Lawson admits he doesn't actually watch comedy (and so is presumably informed by the Mail and the ridiculous 'Sachsgate') he knows of Little Britain and that's about it - he even foolishly describes Mock the Week as a show unsuitable for him (his kids clearly know he's a bore), apparently not realising that's the very show that launched McIntyre (on television at least)
It may feature the controversial-because-we-say-he-is Frankie Boyle, who does like to swear, but most of the comedians are quite moderate such as Russell Howard, McIntyre, Dara O'Briain and Andy Parsons - Boyle was very funny though
That's MY OPINION, of course - the difference is I don't complain about the stuff I don't like, I just don't watch it, I don't claim that 'mainstream' non-sweary comedy should be taken off the air for not being edgy enough and that all should be provided with what Lawson comically refers to as 'alternative comedy' (setting up a false dichotomy as well, eh?)
So it's hypocrisy - railing against people forcing certain types of comedy on us....by wanting to force certain types of comedy on us, but it's also based on complete myth
This is called 'fogeyism', Dominic - when you grow old new generations come in with new ideas and values that you can't get your head around, exactly like I'm sure your daddy did in the 1980s - it is at this point, when I'm old, and young people start changing society and I want to restrict their ideas with some silly ideas about my ways 'being better', that you should shoot me
Who knows, I may not become such a person, not being as privileged or true-blooded conservative as Dominic, but I will grow old, I hope
It is also based on ignorance - the idea that someone who is deliberately shielded from such 'alternative comedy' should bemoan it is rather ridiculous, Daily Mail ridiculous, he doesn't even know what he's criticising - as I've said, Mock the Week is hardly edgy and is generally quite mild
All Lawson can think of is Little Britain, Jonathan Ross (not even a comedian), and presumably Jimmy Carr
Completely ignoring the long-running Have I got news for you (which I'm sure he's been on), or a decent sketch show like Armstrong and Miller, or even the recent Harry Enfield show (though I didn't find it that great), there's also family sitcoms like Gavin and Stacey, Outnumbered or even the rubbish My Family
So what if Little Britain is in it for shock value? Some people like it...some people like Big Brother - i's called 'taste' (or lack of) - as much as I'd love to ban stupid people from voting, I know it's wrong
Then of course Lawson completely misses other comedians in his assumption that all comedians are vulgar for the sake of it, having not seen them, this isn't surprising...
Such as Peter Kay - he may not be posh and southern, but he's just as soft and family-friendly as McIntyre, and he's been around since, what - 2000?
There's also Jack Dee, who's given people like McIntyre a national audience on his Live at the Apollo show, as well as the family-friendly, somewhat intelligent Lead Balloon sitcom
Go back to the nineties and the Vicar of Dibley was the most successful of the more recent things Dawn French has done, most of which is now family-friendly, unlike her older stuff (yes that's right, Dom - the older French and Saunders stuff was more vulgar)
Other shows that Dominic might have missed in his younger days might be the popular the Young Ones? That was really offensive to some, and yet on at the same time as the delightfully witty Yes, Minister and Blackadder
Or what about Benny Hill? Love thy Neighbour (1972)? Til Death Us Do Part (1965)? (Both satirical, and a point missed in both by millions) - or Jim Davidson jokes? Dave Allen was supposedly offensive...need I go on?
Even the much hailed Monty Python had its critics - surprisingly enough from the older generations, I know we may think that all people loved Python, because now it's hard to find an older person who doesn't like it, but back then it's strange surrealism had its critics (remember it had frontal nudity...in its opening sequence...), it was like all good comedies, for the young - surely anybody who loves Python while badmouthing modern comedy as offensive sees the rather delicious irony? The Life of Brian was completely uncontroversial of course - does Dominic want that blasphemous filth removed from existence?
He has become the very thing that shows like Python existed to mock - I admit the intellectualism of Python is hard to find nowadays, but let's face it, it's always been comedy for the more educated classes, but the best comedy always is - the Thick Of It is genius, but not as popular as Little Britain once was, and it never will be
I do miss Mary Whitehouse....
*As a side-note, it must be great being Lawson's kids, whenever they get annoyed with his 'dad' views they can just go to his column to see the flak he gets
Showing posts with label Indie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indie. Show all posts
18 November 2009
05 November 2009
A Parliament of liars, by liars, for liars
Denis MacShane's ridiculous article in the Indie has to be given some prominence
it.is.complete.bollocks
I seriously can't believe the Indie would allow such partisan rubbish on it's pages - they may be extreme on climate change and some leftie stuff but this is really Mirror territory and won't go down well with anyone with a shred of intelligence
Once again, the issue of renting has been ignored:
Firstly, the demand is on all MPs, so isn't it a bit misogynist to imply women are weak? I'd rather meet Cameron than Widdecombe down a dark alley
Poor, innocent Gordon! One word: McBride
Like people who claimed over 18 grand a year to run an office out of their own garage for eight years? That's his 'office running costs' - so rent, heating, electricity, despite owning the property himself he still managed to rack up costs of £18,000 (smack bang in the middle of the table), oh and he claimed every last penny of the ACA
2008-09 session: 128 days = Six *working* months, the shortest session since 1979-80
Speak...never vote
And you weren't given your seat by the party at all? And you would stand a chance without your little red rosette? Most MPs (except perhaps, this year) face absolutely no challenge from their constituents, who will never eject their favoured party
Have a read...If you have a strong stomach
it.is.complete.bollocks
I seriously can't believe the Indie would allow such partisan rubbish on it's pages - they may be extreme on climate change and some leftie stuff but this is really Mirror territory and won't go down well with anyone with a shred of intelligence
Once again, the issue of renting has been ignored:
If Labour MPs have to stay in boarding houses while Tory MPs retire to their Notting Hill homes, so be it.Right...
The report is deeply misogynist with its demand that women MPs of all ages who live within a 60-minute train journey from London should leave the Commons after late-night votes to travel home to arrive at one in the morning to unstaffed, unlit stations on a cold night in November.
Firstly, the demand is on all MPs, so isn't it a bit misogynist to imply women are weak? I'd rather meet Cameron than Widdecombe down a dark alley
If that means David Cameron's and Nick Clegg's employees cease putting out partisan press releases attacking Gordon Brown I suppose I should welcome Kelly.
Poor, innocent Gordon! One word: McBride
thanks to the stupidity and cupidity of some MPs who abused the allowances and expenses system, we are well on our way to achieving this.
Like people who claimed over 18 grand a year to run an office out of their own garage for eight years? That's his 'office running costs' - so rent, heating, electricity, despite owning the property himself he still managed to rack up costs of £18,000 (smack bang in the middle of the table), oh and he claimed every last penny of the ACA
In the 19th and much of the 20th century, the Commons met only six months a year. Now we expect our MPs to do a five-day week and be in their constituencies most weekends, and constituents want instant replies to their emails 365 days a year.
2008-09 session: 128 days = Six *working* months, the shortest session since 1979-80
For five years, an MP is accountable to his or her constituents and to no one else. Whips may bully. The ambitious may toe the line. But there are plenty of MPs who can plough their own furrows and speak their own minds.
Speak...never vote
And you weren't given your seat by the party at all? And you would stand a chance without your little red rosette? Most MPs (except perhaps, this year) face absolutely no challenge from their constituents, who will never eject their favoured party
Have a read...If you have a strong stomach
22 October 2009
Yawn, yawn, yawn
I am getting so fed up with those who speak out at the BBC's decision to invite on the BNP - particularly the BBC insiders, because let's face it, there are plenty of people who don't have a problem with this (unless Mark Thomson is completely alone in this), and they are keeping quiet for fear of being called a racist, while those who I can only regard as being anti-free speech are getting a free ride
Michael Rosen, former Children's laureate and Radio 4 presenter, has said it will erode trust in the BBC which
Yes, you wouldn't be allowed on to your show about the English language with such views, Michael, but neither would a Tory espousing Thatcher or a Labourite praising Marx, you numptie - you are an employee, political guests are allowed political opinions - your point is only valid if Griffin was David Dimbleby - Harriet Harman always offends me when she's on - by his logic I can object to her being on - I seriously can't believe he actually said that
He reckons it will offend millions and erode trust in the BBC in viewers - well, here's something for you, Michael Rosen - were the BBC to deny a legal party, who have the same level of representation as the Greens and UKIP, space on this show simply because they were disagreeable, I would lose trust in the BBC
Steve Richards, meanwhile, gets himself in a muddle by admitting the BBC are right to give the BNP, supported by nigh on a million people at the last election, a platform but then tries to demolish it by saying that they were 'mistaken' as
Dear god, Steve - they still voted for them! Do you go around checking if every Lib Dem voter isn't actually a narked off Labour voter? Or that some of the Labour votes in '97 weren't actually from Tories...should you discount all the protest and swing votes from an election?
They got themselves a million votes - does it actually matter if 'only half were racist'? They have other issues that they talk about - they may well be lying, but what political party hasn't lied and reneged on a promise or pledge...or manifesto commitment
Nearly a million votes is nearly a million votes - you don't have the right to second guess what those voters want
Chris Huhne, who will be facingthe boogeyman Griffin himself, explains why he will be debating with him in the Guardian
Now I appreciate that he is appealing to the Guardian's audience, and so has to say that 'I really don't want to, but I must', and he doesn't criticise the BBC - as I said, Guardian - the cynic in me sees right through it as a watered-down version of a free speech argument to appeal to the typical Gruniad reader who opposes the BNP's right to exist, I think he's just paying lip-service
But, what a true Liberal should say, Chris is this:
---
Why I will debate with Nick Griffin
The decision was not difficult in the least
Because I believe in democracy and free speech, and racism is a part of that free speech, even if I don't like it, because there are always people out there who disagree with us, and the only way to defeat an opinion is to debate it, not censor it
I do not, of course, tolerate racism-based violence, that is a crime - but to hold racist views is not, and even though most of us regard the BNP as merely a legitimate front for something far worse, they are nevertheless a legitimate party with elected representatives
---
Of course, these are my own views and while I disagree with others on this, I respect their right to think and say what they want, unlike them, who seem to miss the irony of their views
Michael Rosen, former Children's laureate and Radio 4 presenter, has said it will erode trust in the BBC which
'is like a public place – we all own it and need to be a part of it. It has a responsibility to everyone. "They make this very clear when you work for them. If I were to say anything remotely similar to the things Nick Griffin has said and will say tonight, I would not be allowed on.'
"The BBC is obsessed with putting things 'through compliance', to ensure no one will find programmes politically, sexually or socially offensive. I have been stopped from reading a poem that contained one swear word before. Yet while they go into palpitations over things Jonathan Ross says, they are allowing Nick Griffin airtime to say things that will offend millions."
Yes, you wouldn't be allowed on to your show about the English language with such views, Michael, but neither would a Tory espousing Thatcher or a Labourite praising Marx, you numptie - you are an employee, political guests are allowed political opinions - your point is only valid if Griffin was David Dimbleby - Harriet Harman always offends me when she's on - by his logic I can object to her being on - I seriously can't believe he actually said that
He reckons it will offend millions and erode trust in the BBC in viewers - well, here's something for you, Michael Rosen - were the BBC to deny a legal party, who have the same level of representation as the Greens and UKIP, space on this show simply because they were disagreeable, I would lose trust in the BBC
Steve Richards, meanwhile, gets himself in a muddle by admitting the BBC are right to give the BNP, supported by nigh on a million people at the last election, a platform but then tries to demolish it by saying that they were 'mistaken' as
Research carried out by YouGov found that roughly half of BNP's voters were truly racist, the other half were people who feel insecure and alienated from the main parties. In other words just one per cent of the electorate last summer were racist BNP voters.
Dear god, Steve - they still voted for them! Do you go around checking if every Lib Dem voter isn't actually a narked off Labour voter? Or that some of the Labour votes in '97 weren't actually from Tories...should you discount all the protest and swing votes from an election?
They got themselves a million votes - does it actually matter if 'only half were racist'? They have other issues that they talk about - they may well be lying, but what political party hasn't lied and reneged on a promise or pledge...or manifesto commitment
Nearly a million votes is nearly a million votes - you don't have the right to second guess what those voters want
Chris Huhne, who will be facing
Now I appreciate that he is appealing to the Guardian's audience, and so has to say that 'I really don't want to, but I must', and he doesn't criticise the BBC - as I said, Guardian - the cynic in me sees right through it as a watered-down version of a free speech argument to appeal to the typical Gruniad reader who opposes the BNP's right to exist, I think he's just paying lip-service
But, what a true Liberal should say, Chris is this:
---
Why I will debate with Nick Griffin
The decision was not difficult in the least
Because I believe in democracy and free speech, and racism is a part of that free speech, even if I don't like it, because there are always people out there who disagree with us, and the only way to defeat an opinion is to debate it, not censor it
I do not, of course, tolerate racism-based violence, that is a crime - but to hold racist views is not, and even though most of us regard the BNP as merely a legitimate front for something far worse, they are nevertheless a legitimate party with elected representatives
---
Of course, these are my own views and while I disagree with others on this, I respect their right to think and say what they want, unlike them, who seem to miss the irony of their views
02 October 2009
More on Auntie
Johann Hari has once again got my attention by agreeing with my post about the BBC a few days ago (all things to all men)
I'm no Hari fan (although I'm seem to be agreeing with him too often lately) but he gave a good answer to some of my worries, but one main question remains in my head - I tried to ask this in the comments but the site was down, so I'll post it here, probably better here anyway:
What I would ask is what should we do about people who do not want to pay for it? They want to watch ITV, or Sky - but quite rightly feel aggrieved when their simple ownership of a tv forces them to fund something they don't want, and indeed the licence is regressive - a flat fee that obviously costs more to the poorer sections of society
My question is - it a fair system? Should we take the view that this is a part of taxation and the opponents should just accept the majority view and be funding something in the public interest, even if they don't use it
My main struggle is with the 'ownership of a tv' bit - it makes no sense, you want to watch another channel and you have to pay, you don't want to watch tv at all and you don't - seems outdated to me and doesn't fit into a public interest argument
Even though I may not always agree with Hari's politics I can least understand his reasoning, he has very different ideas about the world to me - I cannot say the same about the other top leftie commentator at the Indie, Steve Richards - who is an insufferable bore and is just a Labour cheerleader
I'm no Hari fan (although I'm seem to be agreeing with him too often lately) but he gave a good answer to some of my worries, but one main question remains in my head - I tried to ask this in the comments but the site was down, so I'll post it here, probably better here anyway:
What I would ask is what should we do about people who do not want to pay for it? They want to watch ITV, or Sky - but quite rightly feel aggrieved when their simple ownership of a tv forces them to fund something they don't want, and indeed the licence is regressive - a flat fee that obviously costs more to the poorer sections of society
My question is - it a fair system? Should we take the view that this is a part of taxation and the opponents should just accept the majority view and be funding something in the public interest, even if they don't use it
My main struggle is with the 'ownership of a tv' bit - it makes no sense, you want to watch another channel and you have to pay, you don't want to watch tv at all and you don't - seems outdated to me and doesn't fit into a public interest argument
Even though I may not always agree with Hari's politics I can least understand his reasoning, he has very different ideas about the world to me - I cannot say the same about the other top leftie commentator at the Indie, Steve Richards - who is an insufferable bore and is just a Labour cheerleader
26 September 2009
He's got a point
Strong words from Johann Hari this week, now, I am no fan of this ultra-leftie (he's a male feminist for god's sake), but this week he has left an impression on me
Firstly for his language - rarely does one so politically correct as Hari use language like this:
Not the sort of thing I expect from a 'progressive' - although he is often alarmist (we're all dead by 2015, for example..), this was a sort of anti-Littlejohn diatribe, usually such language is being used to scare and vilify, and I don't like it, especially in a broadsheet
But while I found the language distasteful, I have to admit, he has a point - why the hell do we venerate the Queen Mother?
We are all guilty of glossing over our ancestors' indiscretions - 'Grandad was a racist...but he was from a different time, different attitudes' etc - who hasn't said that one? All well and good, but most of us don't write best-selling books in our cover-ups, had Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon been my Granny then it wouldn't have be an issue, let's all laugh at the little old lady with her quick wit and love of horses, we all tend to remember the dead fondly, regardless of the reality, but let's not write a book about it that ignores her true nature and believe she was some sort of idol
This particular old lady spent her whole life mooching off the state, taking advantage of taxpayers' money and being a self-serving elitist - all of what Hari says is true - the quotes from Lamont are true, her spending record is a historical fact, but we just put up with it - why?
What is this irrational love affair with the monarchy? Why do we elevate one family, for no real reason, into such a position, and pay them for the privilege, when we apparently hate unfairness, as shown recently by the reaction to the politicians who lord it over us?
The fact is, the actual monarch has to behave impeccably, if the Queen hadn't done such a good job then she would've been out on her ear a long time ago - that's a testament to her, but it really shows something about our national (or personal) psyche when we defend and even admire people like her mother, who we simply let get away with it - it defies logic, and any monarchist who decries MPs expenses, or people who live off benefits, is a massive hypocrite
I don't usually like Hari, and I didn't like his choice of words, but I am in total agreement with him on this
Firstly for his language - rarely does one so politically correct as Hari use language like this:
He has to present a cruel, bigoted snob who fleeced millions from the British taxpayer as a heroine fit to rule over us. His mind turns to mush.
Not the sort of thing I expect from a 'progressive' - although he is often alarmist (we're all dead by 2015, for example..), this was a sort of anti-Littlejohn diatribe, usually such language is being used to scare and vilify, and I don't like it, especially in a broadsheet
But while I found the language distasteful, I have to admit, he has a point - why the hell do we venerate the Queen Mother?
We are all guilty of glossing over our ancestors' indiscretions - 'Grandad was a racist...but he was from a different time, different attitudes' etc - who hasn't said that one? All well and good, but most of us don't write best-selling books in our cover-ups, had Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon been my Granny then it wouldn't have be an issue, let's all laugh at the little old lady with her quick wit and love of horses, we all tend to remember the dead fondly, regardless of the reality, but let's not write a book about it that ignores her true nature and believe she was some sort of idol
This particular old lady spent her whole life mooching off the state, taking advantage of taxpayers' money and being a self-serving elitist - all of what Hari says is true - the quotes from Lamont are true, her spending record is a historical fact, but we just put up with it - why?
What is this irrational love affair with the monarchy? Why do we elevate one family, for no real reason, into such a position, and pay them for the privilege, when we apparently hate unfairness, as shown recently by the reaction to the politicians who lord it over us?
The fact is, the actual monarch has to behave impeccably, if the Queen hadn't done such a good job then she would've been out on her ear a long time ago - that's a testament to her, but it really shows something about our national (or personal) psyche when we defend and even admire people like her mother, who we simply let get away with it - it defies logic, and any monarchist who decries MPs expenses, or people who live off benefits, is a massive hypocrite
I don't usually like Hari, and I didn't like his choice of words, but I am in total agreement with him on this
10 August 2009
Equality and 'equality' are not the same thing
Hear the news that Mandy wants to give poorer students a two-grade advantage? - in essence those from bad schools or under performing areas will be given an advantage over their privately educated (or even grammar school educated...) peers
A scheme used by some universities (like Leeds) is based on achieving a higher than average score - i.e. therefore you are the pick of your school and could do better in a top school
It's a reasonable idea - but it has flaws, for starters just because you are a good performer at a bad school does not mean you match up to AAA students at private schools (or especially grammar schools), nor is it a solid fact that a bad school or being 'poor' will affect your achievement - I'm clever, poor, went to a private school (on the AP scheme I might add, which already puts me in the top 10% of applicants) and was lazy, so I got Bs - I could've got As, but when you only revise for the subject you might get a C in it kind of limits your potential - my point is that I had potential beyond what I got, why not give lazy, intelligent people a leg up? Start doing it by intelligence tests, because that's basically what they're doing, just for poor people
In effect they are undermining their own standardised testing system - flawed as it is, but saying, 'oh it's because you're deprived' (based on very broad statistics) and then lowering expectations, it's just asking for trouble - maybe they were just lazy, like me? Now they have an advantage - and of course, now what you will get is people abusing the postcode lottery to go to bad schools
I'll stop short of expecting degree standards to sink any further because of this - at least in important areas like medicine - they will get wheedled out at some stage if they can't handle it, but it's certainly opening the door for this sort of thing
I can understand the logic - there is an issue to address, a better background does quite clearly provide an advantage against those with talent who are poorer - but this social engineering is just an acceptance of the status quo
It is a misguided attempt to make the stats look 'right' - a good healthy number of working class people in the best degrees and jobs - only that doesn't address the real social issues at the root of this: the bad schools, it's just accepting them and lowering the standards for all concerned
It will make the equality nuts in government very happy, but they are just dressing up the situation - hiding behind their feel-good figures while the education system rots - this should only be a short term measure to help those who are suffering now - the long term aim should be to provide good education to all, not tolerate poor education, that will help no-one in the long run
(nicely balanced article from the Beeb if you ask me...will it show up in certain people's comprehensive review of BBC bias? We shall see)
---------
Meanwhile, Mark Easton has again gone for the jugular with Hattie's mad ravings
He points out the alarming misuse of statistics, as witnessed by the ONS - this has nothing to do with my views, or Easton's, on equality, but the way in which the government manipulate figures to promote an agenda and basically lie to us - think what you want about the feminist argument, but the figures being used by the government are outright lies and it's criminal - frankly I would still care if it was the other way round, or about harmless things like soil types or some other drudgery
You know, I can understand a government trying to bury bad news with fudged statistics - governments can't admit wrong - they should, because we'd benefit, but that's the sad reality of it - this however, is just lying to make a situation look worse and get away with your own crazy ideas
---
Oh and Janet Street Porter has gone feminist
Attacks on women are always personal...attacks on the fat, lazy, idiotic, northern-loudmouth who is Prescott are completely valid politically, however
p.s. Minette Marrin at the Times says it better than I ever could
A scheme used by some universities (like Leeds) is based on achieving a higher than average score - i.e. therefore you are the pick of your school and could do better in a top school
It's a reasonable idea - but it has flaws, for starters just because you are a good performer at a bad school does not mean you match up to AAA students at private schools (or especially grammar schools), nor is it a solid fact that a bad school or being 'poor' will affect your achievement - I'm clever, poor, went to a private school (on the AP scheme I might add, which already puts me in the top 10% of applicants) and was lazy, so I got Bs - I could've got As, but when you only revise for the subject you might get a C in it kind of limits your potential - my point is that I had potential beyond what I got, why not give lazy, intelligent people a leg up? Start doing it by intelligence tests, because that's basically what they're doing, just for poor people
In effect they are undermining their own standardised testing system - flawed as it is, but saying, 'oh it's because you're deprived' (based on very broad statistics) and then lowering expectations, it's just asking for trouble - maybe they were just lazy, like me? Now they have an advantage - and of course, now what you will get is people abusing the postcode lottery to go to bad schools
I'll stop short of expecting degree standards to sink any further because of this - at least in important areas like medicine - they will get wheedled out at some stage if they can't handle it, but it's certainly opening the door for this sort of thing
I can understand the logic - there is an issue to address, a better background does quite clearly provide an advantage against those with talent who are poorer - but this social engineering is just an acceptance of the status quo
It is a misguided attempt to make the stats look 'right' - a good healthy number of working class people in the best degrees and jobs - only that doesn't address the real social issues at the root of this: the bad schools, it's just accepting them and lowering the standards for all concerned
It will make the equality nuts in government very happy, but they are just dressing up the situation - hiding behind their feel-good figures while the education system rots - this should only be a short term measure to help those who are suffering now - the long term aim should be to provide good education to all, not tolerate poor education, that will help no-one in the long run
(nicely balanced article from the Beeb if you ask me...will it show up in certain people's comprehensive review of BBC bias? We shall see)
---------
Meanwhile, Mark Easton has again gone for the jugular with Hattie's mad ravings
He points out the alarming misuse of statistics, as witnessed by the ONS - this has nothing to do with my views, or Easton's, on equality, but the way in which the government manipulate figures to promote an agenda and basically lie to us - think what you want about the feminist argument, but the figures being used by the government are outright lies and it's criminal - frankly I would still care if it was the other way round, or about harmless things like soil types or some other drudgery
You know, I can understand a government trying to bury bad news with fudged statistics - governments can't admit wrong - they should, because we'd benefit, but that's the sad reality of it - this however, is just lying to make a situation look worse and get away with your own crazy ideas
---
Oh and Janet Street Porter has gone feminist
Attacks on women are always personal...attacks on the fat, lazy, idiotic, northern-loudmouth who is Prescott are completely valid politically, however
p.s. Minette Marrin at the Times says it better than I ever could
01 August 2009
19 July 2009
My First Century
Woo, I've written 100 rants about various topics
I could use this as a reflection, but I'd rather ignore this special occasion to point out how arbitrary it all is to mark randomly assigned numbers and dates
So anyway, with all this nonsense over apparent ageism, Sarah Sands has written an excellent piece - pointing out that we all must go at some point and that Baby Boomers are the most evil of generations
It's true, they are the ones with the sense of self-entitlement, we young are a cynical and resentful mobile workforce
So what if Arlene Philips was sacked? Apparently if you sack a 66-year old it's always for the wrong reasons and the equalities minister has to stick her oar in
We are talking about a show already presented by a 103-year old here, but then it's sexism because it's a woman thing - men don't need to be pretty or young
So the logical conclusion is to never sack anyone over the age of 40...and certainly not over the mandatory retirement age - which I might add the employer has the ultimate right to enforce (although not for much longer)
As the Beeb rightfully point out - the remaining judges are 65, 53 (Bruno is 53??) and 44 - if anything that show could do with some equality below the middle-age mark, but equality doesn't work like that does it?
I could use this as a reflection, but I'd rather ignore this special occasion to point out how arbitrary it all is to mark randomly assigned numbers and dates
So anyway, with all this nonsense over apparent ageism, Sarah Sands has written an excellent piece - pointing out that we all must go at some point and that Baby Boomers are the most evil of generations
It's true, they are the ones with the sense of self-entitlement, we young are a cynical and resentful mobile workforce
So what if Arlene Philips was sacked? Apparently if you sack a 66-year old it's always for the wrong reasons and the equalities minister has to stick her oar in
We are talking about a show already presented by a 103-year old here, but then it's sexism because it's a woman thing - men don't need to be pretty or young
So the logical conclusion is to never sack anyone over the age of 40...and certainly not over the mandatory retirement age - which I might add the employer has the ultimate right to enforce (although not for much longer)
As the Beeb rightfully point out - the remaining judges are 65, 53 (Bruno is 53??) and 44 - if anything that show could do with some equality below the middle-age mark, but equality doesn't work like that does it?
09 July 2009
Johnson says something useful
I'm beginning to like Alan Johnson, here he is promoting proportional representation
Already he is a marked improvement on Jackboots - first a climb down on ID cards and now support for electoral reform, and I haven't noticed him making nonsensical arguments for destroying our liberties - I feel so much safer these days
But of course the cynic in me refuses to trust a politician - perhaps the whole reason he's there is to improve Labour's image, which couldn't be done with the fascist stylings of Smith without looking hypocritical
Maybe we are being abused, that's what politicians do - but I have a creeping belief that Johnson actually means these things, he's a bit of a reformer and has some actual politics in him, unlike Smith who was politically inexperienced and purely a tool of the party, AJ actually has opinions
Note at the end he admits his colleagues do not particularly endorse his ramblings - so don't expect anything out of Labour, despite Brown's pledges to be a reformer, there have been none, and nor will there be any
Whether this is him setting his stall for personal benefit, or an attempt by Labour to butter up the increasingly reform minded public is debatable
On the one hand I think John Rentoul is right - it makes sense to appeal to the gay, Liberal Democrat vicars, like me, that read the Indie, while not actually making any commitment to policy - it's a no loss situation
But then I remember just how bad Labour are at these things - Brown and Balls are as about as agile as a twenty ton truck, they don't change gear, and when they do you can watch it in painstakingly slow-motion from several angles, and there is nothing else to suggest that the bunker mentality has changed much
So that leads me to naturally believe that this is Johnson's work - he plays his cards too close to know whether this is for him or the party, regardless, it's working on people like me
Now it doesn't mean I would actually vote Labour if Johnson were in charge, so no jumping the gun, I'm going to be biased towards Johnson over Brown anyway - but I wouldn't be quite so rabidly anti-Labour if they had a leader who had a shred of decency and one who I know has reformist leanings
That doesn't mean I actually trust him, politics is always about compromise - and in my compromise if I had to accept another Labour government I'd be a lot happier with the postie than the...ummm...whatever he was....researcher, the same way that I would be a lot happier with David Davis than smarmy Cameron, and the same in which I would rather the Tories over Labour, despite not remotely being a Tory
It's a sad, cynical world, but there it is - either way I think right now Labour should take the advice of the media and fall back on Johnson, politically it would be best for them to have him while they're in opposition - I doubt I'll trust Labour for at least many decades, but he's their best chance in my eyes, maybe the Tories will be dire and I'll be forced to back Labour, Johnson would certainly help get the swingers like me on board
Already he is a marked improvement on Jackboots - first a climb down on ID cards and now support for electoral reform, and I haven't noticed him making nonsensical arguments for destroying our liberties - I feel so much safer these days
But of course the cynic in me refuses to trust a politician - perhaps the whole reason he's there is to improve Labour's image, which couldn't be done with the fascist stylings of Smith without looking hypocritical
Maybe we are being abused, that's what politicians do - but I have a creeping belief that Johnson actually means these things, he's a bit of a reformer and has some actual politics in him, unlike Smith who was politically inexperienced and purely a tool of the party, AJ actually has opinions
Note at the end he admits his colleagues do not particularly endorse his ramblings - so don't expect anything out of Labour, despite Brown's pledges to be a reformer, there have been none, and nor will there be any
Whether this is him setting his stall for personal benefit, or an attempt by Labour to butter up the increasingly reform minded public is debatable
On the one hand I think John Rentoul is right - it makes sense to appeal to the gay, Liberal Democrat vicars, like me, that read the Indie, while not actually making any commitment to policy - it's a no loss situation
But then I remember just how bad Labour are at these things - Brown and Balls are as about as agile as a twenty ton truck, they don't change gear, and when they do you can watch it in painstakingly slow-motion from several angles, and there is nothing else to suggest that the bunker mentality has changed much
So that leads me to naturally believe that this is Johnson's work - he plays his cards too close to know whether this is for him or the party, regardless, it's working on people like me
Now it doesn't mean I would actually vote Labour if Johnson were in charge, so no jumping the gun, I'm going to be biased towards Johnson over Brown anyway - but I wouldn't be quite so rabidly anti-Labour if they had a leader who had a shred of decency and one who I know has reformist leanings
That doesn't mean I actually trust him, politics is always about compromise - and in my compromise if I had to accept another Labour government I'd be a lot happier with the postie than the...ummm...whatever he was....researcher, the same way that I would be a lot happier with David Davis than smarmy Cameron, and the same in which I would rather the Tories over Labour, despite not remotely being a Tory
It's a sad, cynical world, but there it is - either way I think right now Labour should take the advice of the media and fall back on Johnson, politically it would be best for them to have him while they're in opposition - I doubt I'll trust Labour for at least many decades, but he's their best chance in my eyes, maybe the Tories will be dire and I'll be forced to back Labour, Johnson would certainly help get the swingers like me on board
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'
16 June 2009
A Calm Chat
Bruce Anderson has written a good article about constitutional reform
In it he makes the oft-stated point that reform needs to be calmly thought out, not a knee-jerk response to the expenses fiasco - very true
However, while he plays the realist he forgets probably the one most realistic feature of this debate: we will not get any reform without strong public backing, the establishment parties will never voluntarily give up their monopolies, that much is evident
The Jenkins Report was calm and thorough, however it never went anywhere because Blair and Labour had no need to use it - anybody who expects politicians to nobly reform the system for the good of the people is frankly barking, and yes I agree with him that the Libs support PR because it benefits them, but that doesn't mean they don't make a valid point
The truth is this public sentiment will not last long, hopefully it will carry into the next election, but apathy with soon return after that - we reformers can go on arguing forever but the wider public won't care about such issues for long, and no longer under threat, the governing party can simply forget the issue
It is true that 'hard thinking in a calm atmosphere' will provide the best result - however who exactly will be doing this? Unfortunately any reformers have to strike while the iron is hot, Bruce Anderson seems to show a remarkable naivety (which means it's deliberate) about how politics is done - in theory all politics should be calm and rational, but it never is, it's based on populism and strategic thinking, the ideal of good governance for the sake of it is an incredibly rare trait - and so reform must be debated now, otherwise it won't be at all
If you wish to see Bruce's not-so-subtle dig at reform you only have to note his example of what happens with proportional systems - Israel
We all know about Israel, with its dozens of parties and not having made it to the end of a term in 20 years, all very bad
But I'm afraid Israel is the extreme, it is often used to stymie proponents of PR but in reality you are comparing a small state, set up under controversial conditions and with pretty extreme racial and religious divides to the one of the stablest countries in the world
Also Israel uses a very basic model of PR - it's a closed-list system based on the national vote, with only a 2% electoral threshold (which was only just introduced) - there are a lot of systems out there that work a lot better
Germany is probably the best example, and which do you think is a better comparison to Britain? The large European nation or the small Jewish state in the middle-east?
Germany is, you might say, a peaceful and industrious nation these days - it's only had two Chancellors since 1998, both pretty strong, and both elected, in a marked difference to what we've had to put up with, and it doesn't appear to be collapsing
Germany uses the mixed-member system (MMP), which is far more robust than the simplistic PR system - it uses FPTP for 299 seats, then tops up the remaining 299 with the share of the vote, meaning that a party with a higher share of the vote but less seats (like the Lib Dems) would receive their extra seats, but also that Labour would keep their directly elected members in 'overhang' seats - there are also stricter thresholds (5% or three seats) that prevent minor fringe parties splitting the parliament, a response to the weaknesses that brought the Weimar Republic to its knees
This is basically the system that has been proposed in Britain since the 70s, and the AV+ system proposed by Jenkins in 1999 was pretty similar, as it is a good way of keeping politicians linked to constituents - it is this system (watered-down, I might add) that is used in Scotland, Wales and London, so when critics start talking about the failures of Israel or Italy just remember it's not the same thing and we've been using it for years already
This system is widely seen to be one of the best - no system is perfect, of course, but in it you get to ensure there is a local link to MPs as well as ensure fairness at the national level - Andrew Neil did raise the point that you can fail to win your own election and then end up in parliament through this system - (so despised people, eg. Mandelson, if he wasn't already appointed Lord Protector, can still win) but this could be balanced with an open-list system as well as 'best-runner up' spots
In the end it may well be seen as a necessary evil of the system, it's a matter for debate whether the flaws of our own system are any better, one can argue that it would be quite fair that the most popular Lib Dem who didn't win an election deserves a seat based on the national vote, as the arbitrary geographical divisions are what separate the electorate
As such, this system has been adopted in New Zealand and is strongly supported in Canada (by a majority, but not a big-enough majority)
So while Israel may have an epic failure of an electoral system, let's look at who among the western world manage a proportional system:
Australia (upper house, run-off in the lower house)
Austria
Belgium
Croatia
Czech Rep
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India (upper house)
Ireland/N.Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
Malta
New Zealand
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
South Africa
South Korea (mixed with FPTP)
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
FPTP (or plurality voting) is used, at least in some part, in 43 nations, less than a quarter of the UN, a select list:
Canada
India (lower house)
Singapore
South Korea (partly)
UK
USA
oh, and Pakistan...
That's about it, the rest are generally former British colonies in the Caribbean and Africa - and as I say, New Zealand have moved away from the British model, Canada seem willing to, and most liberated Eastern European countries have opted for some sort of PR
It leaves the US and the UK as the two major proponents of the system
We can argue all we like over the best system, but it's pretty clear that the world is moving away from the arcane system we dragged out of the Middle Ages
PR may not be the right answer, but we can be pretty sure that FPTP, on its own at least, is the wrong one
In it he makes the oft-stated point that reform needs to be calmly thought out, not a knee-jerk response to the expenses fiasco - very true
However, while he plays the realist he forgets probably the one most realistic feature of this debate: we will not get any reform without strong public backing, the establishment parties will never voluntarily give up their monopolies, that much is evident
The Jenkins Report was calm and thorough, however it never went anywhere because Blair and Labour had no need to use it - anybody who expects politicians to nobly reform the system for the good of the people is frankly barking, and yes I agree with him that the Libs support PR because it benefits them, but that doesn't mean they don't make a valid point
The truth is this public sentiment will not last long, hopefully it will carry into the next election, but apathy with soon return after that - we reformers can go on arguing forever but the wider public won't care about such issues for long, and no longer under threat, the governing party can simply forget the issue
It is true that 'hard thinking in a calm atmosphere' will provide the best result - however who exactly will be doing this? Unfortunately any reformers have to strike while the iron is hot, Bruce Anderson seems to show a remarkable naivety (which means it's deliberate) about how politics is done - in theory all politics should be calm and rational, but it never is, it's based on populism and strategic thinking, the ideal of good governance for the sake of it is an incredibly rare trait - and so reform must be debated now, otherwise it won't be at all
If you wish to see Bruce's not-so-subtle dig at reform you only have to note his example of what happens with proportional systems - Israel
We all know about Israel, with its dozens of parties and not having made it to the end of a term in 20 years, all very bad
But I'm afraid Israel is the extreme, it is often used to stymie proponents of PR but in reality you are comparing a small state, set up under controversial conditions and with pretty extreme racial and religious divides to the one of the stablest countries in the world
Also Israel uses a very basic model of PR - it's a closed-list system based on the national vote, with only a 2% electoral threshold (which was only just introduced) - there are a lot of systems out there that work a lot better
Germany is probably the best example, and which do you think is a better comparison to Britain? The large European nation or the small Jewish state in the middle-east?
Germany is, you might say, a peaceful and industrious nation these days - it's only had two Chancellors since 1998, both pretty strong, and both elected, in a marked difference to what we've had to put up with, and it doesn't appear to be collapsing
Germany uses the mixed-member system (MMP), which is far more robust than the simplistic PR system - it uses FPTP for 299 seats, then tops up the remaining 299 with the share of the vote, meaning that a party with a higher share of the vote but less seats (like the Lib Dems) would receive their extra seats, but also that Labour would keep their directly elected members in 'overhang' seats - there are also stricter thresholds (5% or three seats) that prevent minor fringe parties splitting the parliament, a response to the weaknesses that brought the Weimar Republic to its knees
This is basically the system that has been proposed in Britain since the 70s, and the AV+ system proposed by Jenkins in 1999 was pretty similar, as it is a good way of keeping politicians linked to constituents - it is this system (watered-down, I might add) that is used in Scotland, Wales and London, so when critics start talking about the failures of Israel or Italy just remember it's not the same thing and we've been using it for years already
This system is widely seen to be one of the best - no system is perfect, of course, but in it you get to ensure there is a local link to MPs as well as ensure fairness at the national level - Andrew Neil did raise the point that you can fail to win your own election and then end up in parliament through this system - (so despised people, eg. Mandelson, if he wasn't already appointed Lord Protector, can still win) but this could be balanced with an open-list system as well as 'best-runner up' spots
In the end it may well be seen as a necessary evil of the system, it's a matter for debate whether the flaws of our own system are any better, one can argue that it would be quite fair that the most popular Lib Dem who didn't win an election deserves a seat based on the national vote, as the arbitrary geographical divisions are what separate the electorate
As such, this system has been adopted in New Zealand and is strongly supported in Canada (by a majority, but not a big-enough majority)
So while Israel may have an epic failure of an electoral system, let's look at who among the western world manage a proportional system:
Australia (upper house, run-off in the lower house)
Austria
Belgium
Croatia
Czech Rep
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India (upper house)
Ireland/N.Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
Malta
New Zealand
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
South Africa
South Korea (mixed with FPTP)
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
FPTP (or plurality voting) is used, at least in some part, in 43 nations, less than a quarter of the UN, a select list:
Canada
India (lower house)
Singapore
South Korea (partly)
UK
USA
oh, and Pakistan...
That's about it, the rest are generally former British colonies in the Caribbean and Africa - and as I say, New Zealand have moved away from the British model, Canada seem willing to, and most liberated Eastern European countries have opted for some sort of PR
It leaves the US and the UK as the two major proponents of the system
We can argue all we like over the best system, but it's pretty clear that the world is moving away from the arcane system we dragged out of the Middle Ages
PR may not be the right answer, but we can be pretty sure that FPTP, on its own at least, is the wrong one
06 June 2009
Shock Horror
So the Dutch released their results a bit early, naughty them
Turns out the far-right 'Freedom Party' (of Geert Wilders fame) got a 'whopping' 17 per cent of the vote
A small loss for the ruling Christian Democratic party and a three point dip in turnout - this really isn't that exciting, or evidence of Europe going fascist, as the Indie and others would have you believe
Firstly, the Freedom Party are not the BNP, they're more like the Dutch equivalent of UKIP, if a little more extreme - they however don't espouse all-white membership and 'voluntary repatriation' - they're a protest vote, much like UKIP are
But I really wanted to pick up on this
It is the fundamental flaw with the EU parliament - people across Europe do not regard it as 'their' parliament - they see themselves as only being represented in the minority from their own country
In short, no one sees the EU as their nation - which is really the principle behind a parliament
Take Britain - it doesn't matter if a government isn't supported in one area, let's say nobody on the south coast votes for Labour - that doesn't mean they refuse to accept the current government, I doubt they'd like it, but it's still their government and they accept its decisions - the EU is not seen in this fashion, it's seen as 'foreign' - and that's by pretty much all the people in all the countries
Until people regard 'Europe' as one nation then such a situation will not be possible - I don't support or oppose this, that's just how I see the situation
Turns out the far-right 'Freedom Party' (of Geert Wilders fame) got a 'whopping' 17 per cent of the vote
A small loss for the ruling Christian Democratic party and a three point dip in turnout - this really isn't that exciting, or evidence of Europe going fascist, as the Indie and others would have you believe
Firstly, the Freedom Party are not the BNP, they're more like the Dutch equivalent of UKIP, if a little more extreme - they however don't espouse all-white membership and 'voluntary repatriation' - they're a protest vote, much like UKIP are
But I really wanted to pick up on this
Here is the great European paradox. European voters complain that the EU is too distant and too abstract; the more power their elected representatives in Brussels and Strasbourg are given, the more the voters shun the European elections. In 1979, turnout was nearly 62 per cent. In 2004, it was 45 per cent. Yet the European Parliament has acquired considerable new powers to amend European legislation.You wonder why? Yes the EU has gained more and more power over the years, likewise so has the parliament - but it's still pretty feeble, it's not sovereign in any sense of the word, and people don't want it to be
It is the fundamental flaw with the EU parliament - people across Europe do not regard it as 'their' parliament - they see themselves as only being represented in the minority from their own country
In short, no one sees the EU as their nation - which is really the principle behind a parliament
Take Britain - it doesn't matter if a government isn't supported in one area, let's say nobody on the south coast votes for Labour - that doesn't mean they refuse to accept the current government, I doubt they'd like it, but it's still their government and they accept its decisions - the EU is not seen in this fashion, it's seen as 'foreign' - and that's by pretty much all the people in all the countries
Until people regard 'Europe' as one nation then such a situation will not be possible - I don't support or oppose this, that's just how I see the situation
03 June 2009
Raining on my parade
Some feminist drivel that I'm too enraged to actually write about
I have however, finally found out that Johann Hari is in fact, male (I'm not joking, I honestly didn't know)
I have however, finally found out that Johann Hari is in fact, male (I'm not joking, I honestly didn't know)
30 May 2009
And you wonder why
I remember this article from a week ago, saying that most people felt that cancer advice was constantly changing, and a load of scientists saying that simply wasn't true - it was single studies that keep proposing new ideas that confuse people
Is it any wonder? This is currently the Indie's top story - If that's a respectable paper, god knows how the tabloids will handle it
This is of course the problem - and the scientists questioned in the article were missing the point (or the BBC were performing yet another exercise in futility) - the media loves a new headline about cancer, I remember a few years ago when I read a story about trees causing cancer, and a month or so later read that trees were now good for you...it is dozy
Now it's not the scientists fault for researching and publishing their findings, but the media for reporting it all as actual conclusive proof - it's not, and it's hardly surprising people are highly sceptical of new cancer warnings in such an environment
But the scientists seem to misunderstand, as they say: their advice hasn't changed for over a decade - eat healthy, don't get fat and don't smoke - I don't think people ignore this advice as barmy, but most reports they will read will be in the Sunday health supplement and offer all sorts of weird opinions
It probably really doesn't matter, but I'm just pointing out this is really a non-story
Is it any wonder? This is currently the Indie's top story - If that's a respectable paper, god knows how the tabloids will handle it
This is of course the problem - and the scientists questioned in the article were missing the point (or the BBC were performing yet another exercise in futility) - the media loves a new headline about cancer, I remember a few years ago when I read a story about trees causing cancer, and a month or so later read that trees were now good for you...it is dozy
Now it's not the scientists fault for researching and publishing their findings, but the media for reporting it all as actual conclusive proof - it's not, and it's hardly surprising people are highly sceptical of new cancer warnings in such an environment
But the scientists seem to misunderstand, as they say: their advice hasn't changed for over a decade - eat healthy, don't get fat and don't smoke - I don't think people ignore this advice as barmy, but most reports they will read will be in the Sunday health supplement and offer all sorts of weird opinions
It probably really doesn't matter, but I'm just pointing out this is really a non-story
26 May 2009
Beware the Status Quo
Another article for me to argue with
This time Dominic Lawson is saying the public are too hard on MPs, and that expressions of Rousseau-esque popular will can lead to fascism, see Hitler's speeches against the ineffective politicians of Weimar Germany for evidence
He also points out that celebrity independent politicians offer little - there is no guarantee they will be any better - after all 'power corrupts', right?
So what should we do? Sit back down and shut up? - Most of the broadsheets tend to advocate this approach: fix the expenses and tighten up the rules a little, then our MPs can get back to work as usual
Only 'usual' was never right - it's not surprising that political classes like Lawson (how could he be anything else?) want to maintain the status quo, because they're the ones who benefit
He is right that we can't expect an independent to be squeaky-clean, although history has shown the safer the seat, the more corrupt the politician - but he is missing the point (deliberately) that we need more voices in parliament - our debating chamber needs to be a debating chamber, an area in which ironically the Lords puts the Commons to shame
I have heard very few voices against independent MPs, and they are almost solely from the right or hard-left - they argue that it would be too hard to pass laws, parliament would be too argumentative and the MPs would eventually cut deals
This is code for: 'bills can't be rubber stamped by parliament' and this is a very good thing, at present we elect a solid majority based on a system that is heavily weighted towards the two main parties, that majority then have absolute power for 4-5 years, which in reality is in the hands of only a few people at the top, who aren't elected and represent the interests of their donors first and foremost
That majority do whatever they feel like, only fighting one battle every 4-5 years - that is not democracy, when the Tories and the Lib Dems oppose Labour there is nothing they can do - it makes you wonder why they are in the legislature at all
To properly represent the people the legislature needs to be effective - that is a fairly widely believed political truth, you can argue the finer points but its function is to check government - I think anyone would agree that it currently doesn't
However in this country we have a bizarre attachment to the idea of a 'strong government' - by which they mean handing absolute authority to the cabinet, and it has been like only since Churchill really - if you actually look at the 'golden age' of the British Empire, which Tories love, our parliament was much more flexible, with members crossing the floor willy-nilly and frequent minorities in power
We are of course fearful of becoming like Italy or Israel, with their weak politics - but we ignore the several countries (like Germany, New Zealand) that operate fine with a 'weaker' system - in truth stability probably comes from the population and somehow I think Britain is closer to German stability than Israeli instability
Of course in the old days politics relied on patronage more than the people, and you can hardly say politicians have ever been whiter than white - but that doesn't really matter, Parliament functioned better because it was working as it should (more or less), now it has been taken over by the professional party system - even though we have a more democratic and fair process, Parliament itself has become worse
I'm not sure if the article really refers to me, but I feel as though I am being attacked for supporting reform, which I have supported since I was a teenager - I am not baying for every politicians' blood or wanting protest votes - I simply want a fair Parliament, I don't want to have to put with a situation where the only way you can beat those who are caught cheating is to vote for a celebrity and where I have to have a government elected by default - it's wrong, and it's been wrong for a long time
The expenses saga is not really the issue - it has merely exposed the reality of politics and given people the best chance of actually changing the system, but people like Dominic Lawson try to twist the situation into saying the BNP will benefit and that oppression by the majority is worse than by the minority - true that, but that is just his opinion, and this is mine: I don't fear the BNP one jot, and all Dom wants to do is preserve the minority (ie. Labour and the Tories)
The irony of course is that independents weaken the power of the oppressors even more, but then we would be too weak - so we should just keep it the way it is - eh, Dom?
*I do agree that 'celebrity' independents are pointless, you are just swapping one elite for another, helping no real people
**Anyone who doesn't see the flaw in comparing the fledging German state that Hitler exploited to Britain should be shot - a very sensationalist bit of spin there
This time Dominic Lawson is saying the public are too hard on MPs, and that expressions of Rousseau-esque popular will can lead to fascism, see Hitler's speeches against the ineffective politicians of Weimar Germany for evidence
He also points out that celebrity independent politicians offer little - there is no guarantee they will be any better - after all 'power corrupts', right?
So what should we do? Sit back down and shut up? - Most of the broadsheets tend to advocate this approach: fix the expenses and tighten up the rules a little, then our MPs can get back to work as usual
Only 'usual' was never right - it's not surprising that political classes like Lawson (how could he be anything else?) want to maintain the status quo, because they're the ones who benefit
He is right that we can't expect an independent to be squeaky-clean, although history has shown the safer the seat, the more corrupt the politician - but he is missing the point (deliberately) that we need more voices in parliament - our debating chamber needs to be a debating chamber, an area in which ironically the Lords puts the Commons to shame
I have heard very few voices against independent MPs, and they are almost solely from the right or hard-left - they argue that it would be too hard to pass laws, parliament would be too argumentative and the MPs would eventually cut deals
This is code for: 'bills can't be rubber stamped by parliament' and this is a very good thing, at present we elect a solid majority based on a system that is heavily weighted towards the two main parties, that majority then have absolute power for 4-5 years, which in reality is in the hands of only a few people at the top, who aren't elected and represent the interests of their donors first and foremost
That majority do whatever they feel like, only fighting one battle every 4-5 years - that is not democracy, when the Tories and the Lib Dems oppose Labour there is nothing they can do - it makes you wonder why they are in the legislature at all
To properly represent the people the legislature needs to be effective - that is a fairly widely believed political truth, you can argue the finer points but its function is to check government - I think anyone would agree that it currently doesn't
However in this country we have a bizarre attachment to the idea of a 'strong government' - by which they mean handing absolute authority to the cabinet, and it has been like only since Churchill really - if you actually look at the 'golden age' of the British Empire, which Tories love, our parliament was much more flexible, with members crossing the floor willy-nilly and frequent minorities in power
We are of course fearful of becoming like Italy or Israel, with their weak politics - but we ignore the several countries (like Germany, New Zealand) that operate fine with a 'weaker' system - in truth stability probably comes from the population and somehow I think Britain is closer to German stability than Israeli instability
Of course in the old days politics relied on patronage more than the people, and you can hardly say politicians have ever been whiter than white - but that doesn't really matter, Parliament functioned better because it was working as it should (more or less), now it has been taken over by the professional party system - even though we have a more democratic and fair process, Parliament itself has become worse
I'm not sure if the article really refers to me, but I feel as though I am being attacked for supporting reform, which I have supported since I was a teenager - I am not baying for every politicians' blood or wanting protest votes - I simply want a fair Parliament, I don't want to have to put with a situation where the only way you can beat those who are caught cheating is to vote for a celebrity and where I have to have a government elected by default - it's wrong, and it's been wrong for a long time
The expenses saga is not really the issue - it has merely exposed the reality of politics and given people the best chance of actually changing the system, but people like Dominic Lawson try to twist the situation into saying the BNP will benefit and that oppression by the majority is worse than by the minority - true that, but that is just his opinion, and this is mine: I don't fear the BNP one jot, and all Dom wants to do is preserve the minority (ie. Labour and the Tories)
The irony of course is that independents weaken the power of the oppressors even more, but then we would be too weak - so we should just keep it the way it is - eh, Dom?
*I do agree that 'celebrity' independents are pointless, you are just swapping one elite for another, helping no real people
**Anyone who doesn't see the flaw in comparing the fledging German state that Hitler exploited to Britain should be shot - a very sensationalist bit of spin there
21 May 2009
Pay Me For Talking
I saw this little piece by Christina Patterson this morning, and to sum it up: what utter guff it is
She is of course talking about the imminent death of the 'fourth estate' - how the newspapers are in terminal decline thanks to the internet, what with it's up-to-date and (crucially) free, information
She bemoans the people who decided to give away the news-stories for free on the net as lacking any sort of business sense
Well, personally I think she's a little naive - firstly, it's not bad business sense, it's far better than simply printing a paper and not offering any online content, or the ludicrous idea that people would pay to read an opinionated rag when they can read everything else for free, surely you should be trying to rake it in with advertising?
Yes, it's true that paper sales are down - but here is the important point: they would be down anyway! Why do you think people want to buy a paper that's full of yesterday's news when they could read it before they even go bed the night before on the net, or watch a news channel? Papers do not provide news to people anymore, they barely ever reveal anything in the morning release - we already know what has happened, and as a result all a paper is nowadays is a collection of opinions on the stories, anything 'exclusive' will be around non-stories (ie. the tremendous rise of 'celebrity' news that dominates our most popular papers) - the era where one gets their news for the day from the papers in the morning and the six o clock news in the evening is long gone, and I'm afraid the newspapers have to keep up
What Christina wants is for her content to not be read by those not willing to pay for it, and I'm afraid she sounds like an outdated protectionist, akin to the music companies determined to keep profits for themselves in an era when someone off myspace can have more fans than 90% of their clients
The system is simply unworkable - I think she wants to set up a system where the press only provide their online news to paying customers - the idea is frankly ludicrous, I barely need to explain why, but for one: news sites are not just run by newspapers! There are plenty of free news sources out there - the BBC is a slightly odd example as it's public-funded, but nonetheless a valid one, as it's the most used news website in the world - you don't need to go to the Indie, Sun or Telegraph, you can go direct to Reuters if you want
Because let's face it, what do the newspapers offer now? As I said, they don't have the exclusives anymore, and if they do, an online outlet can easily pick up the story, as they have done with MPs expenses - I'd love to know how she would justify stopping someone like the BBC not covering a story broken by the Telegraph.... I digress, my point was that newspapers really have little to offer now - all they have left is opinion, which is exactly what she is peddling - why should I pay for that? I can go all over the net and find opinions, the Indie and all the rest have the benefit of a brand, but opinion is opinion and it means bugger all in reality, I only peruse the newspapers' sites to have a look at how they are manipulating people on any given day, and to have a good rant - I don't need to, and wouldn't pay for the privilege when I have the BBC, Guido and Reuters, to name but a few, available to me for the actual story
No, this is merely another case of what I call 'deer-trapped-in-headlights' protectionism - look at any industry through the past centuries and see how they fight tooth and nail to prevent their own destruction as new technology makes them redundant - it's human instinct to protect your livelihood, but it's also counter-productive and never wins out in the long run
Information will become free, and I don't see anything wrong with breaking people like Murdoch's grip on it - they are at the end of the day only out to serve their own interests and line their own pockets, they have (or had) a monopoly on it
She does make one valid point however - the issue of investigative journalism (which I note, does not seem to be part of her job as a 'cultural commentator') - who will pay people to investigate dodgy dealings? And how can you trust a blogger? These are valid concerns that have been raised occasionally - but as we've seen, the people on the net can do a pretty good job at investigation, all Dizzy does is send off FOI requests and finds great stories - that is actual journalists' work, all done for free, and money can be made with advertising revenue. There are countless examples of information being exposed first on the net (see: Drudge) and at the end of the day that can be used by sites to make money, and no doubt a system of regulation will be built, just as happened around the two centuries we've had of print dominance - and to use a rather cheap and lazy argument: while we have the convenience of the powerful BBC to investigate (scoff if you wish) there remains some authority in the media
She also worries for prose - well, casting aside her obvious snobbery (she's covers 'culture' after all) she is being quite rude to a lot of bloggers out there - many write superbly, and I myself tend not to 'vomit out vitriol' too often (noticed a mistake?), it is simply a case of separating the wheat from the chaff - and let's not forget the ridiculous spelling and grammar issues in those well-respected names, the Mail and the Sun, oh and Gruniad anyone? She is in a very privileged position being paid to comment on her arty topics, but that doesn't mean others can't do it - part of the threat from the internet is that it shows 'real' people can provide just as much insight as those who've been fortunate enough to get their name in lights, as it were - why do you think people in the 'blogosphere' are popular? It's just sheer arrogance to assume those in the papers are really any better
People have always found a way to make money out of information, and I'm sure it will continue, just in a new form that we are only just coming to realise - the newspaper, however, is a dying form, much like typewriters and VCRs once were, and it will take some business nous to properly tap into the new system, but people will, and if an old media outlet does adapt then it will do fine, but there will be casualties, and Christina Patterson is simply a fearful Luddite
*Note: I am aware the FT has an online subscription service - but that is a specialist publication with a dedicated readership and an actual product to sell, there is nothing of that sort in the other papers
She is of course talking about the imminent death of the 'fourth estate' - how the newspapers are in terminal decline thanks to the internet, what with it's up-to-date and (crucially) free, information
She bemoans the people who decided to give away the news-stories for free on the net as lacking any sort of business sense
Well, personally I think she's a little naive - firstly, it's not bad business sense, it's far better than simply printing a paper and not offering any online content, or the ludicrous idea that people would pay to read an opinionated rag when they can read everything else for free, surely you should be trying to rake it in with advertising?
Yes, it's true that paper sales are down - but here is the important point: they would be down anyway! Why do you think people want to buy a paper that's full of yesterday's news when they could read it before they even go bed the night before on the net, or watch a news channel? Papers do not provide news to people anymore, they barely ever reveal anything in the morning release - we already know what has happened, and as a result all a paper is nowadays is a collection of opinions on the stories, anything 'exclusive' will be around non-stories (ie. the tremendous rise of 'celebrity' news that dominates our most popular papers) - the era where one gets their news for the day from the papers in the morning and the six o clock news in the evening is long gone, and I'm afraid the newspapers have to keep up
What Christina wants is for her content to not be read by those not willing to pay for it, and I'm afraid she sounds like an outdated protectionist, akin to the music companies determined to keep profits for themselves in an era when someone off myspace can have more fans than 90% of their clients
The system is simply unworkable - I think she wants to set up a system where the press only provide their online news to paying customers - the idea is frankly ludicrous, I barely need to explain why, but for one: news sites are not just run by newspapers! There are plenty of free news sources out there - the BBC is a slightly odd example as it's public-funded, but nonetheless a valid one, as it's the most used news website in the world - you don't need to go to the Indie, Sun or Telegraph, you can go direct to Reuters if you want
Because let's face it, what do the newspapers offer now? As I said, they don't have the exclusives anymore, and if they do, an online outlet can easily pick up the story, as they have done with MPs expenses - I'd love to know how she would justify stopping someone like the BBC not covering a story broken by the Telegraph.... I digress, my point was that newspapers really have little to offer now - all they have left is opinion, which is exactly what she is peddling - why should I pay for that? I can go all over the net and find opinions, the Indie and all the rest have the benefit of a brand, but opinion is opinion and it means bugger all in reality, I only peruse the newspapers' sites to have a look at how they are manipulating people on any given day, and to have a good rant - I don't need to, and wouldn't pay for the privilege when I have the BBC, Guido and Reuters, to name but a few, available to me for the actual story
No, this is merely another case of what I call 'deer-trapped-in-headlights' protectionism - look at any industry through the past centuries and see how they fight tooth and nail to prevent their own destruction as new technology makes them redundant - it's human instinct to protect your livelihood, but it's also counter-productive and never wins out in the long run
Information will become free, and I don't see anything wrong with breaking people like Murdoch's grip on it - they are at the end of the day only out to serve their own interests and line their own pockets, they have (or had) a monopoly on it
She does make one valid point however - the issue of investigative journalism (which I note, does not seem to be part of her job as a 'cultural commentator') - who will pay people to investigate dodgy dealings? And how can you trust a blogger? These are valid concerns that have been raised occasionally - but as we've seen, the people on the net can do a pretty good job at investigation, all Dizzy does is send off FOI requests and finds great stories - that is actual journalists' work, all done for free, and money can be made with advertising revenue. There are countless examples of information being exposed first on the net (see: Drudge) and at the end of the day that can be used by sites to make money, and no doubt a system of regulation will be built, just as happened around the two centuries we've had of print dominance - and to use a rather cheap and lazy argument: while we have the convenience of the powerful BBC to investigate (scoff if you wish) there remains some authority in the media
She also worries for prose - well, casting aside her obvious snobbery (she's covers 'culture' after all) she is being quite rude to a lot of bloggers out there - many write superbly, and I myself tend not to 'vomit out vitriol' too often (noticed a mistake?), it is simply a case of separating the wheat from the chaff - and let's not forget the ridiculous spelling and grammar issues in those well-respected names, the Mail and the Sun, oh and Gruniad anyone? She is in a very privileged position being paid to comment on her arty topics, but that doesn't mean others can't do it - part of the threat from the internet is that it shows 'real' people can provide just as much insight as those who've been fortunate enough to get their name in lights, as it were - why do you think people in the 'blogosphere' are popular? It's just sheer arrogance to assume those in the papers are really any better
People have always found a way to make money out of information, and I'm sure it will continue, just in a new form that we are only just coming to realise - the newspaper, however, is a dying form, much like typewriters and VCRs once were, and it will take some business nous to properly tap into the new system, but people will, and if an old media outlet does adapt then it will do fine, but there will be casualties, and Christina Patterson is simply a fearful Luddite
*Note: I am aware the FT has an online subscription service - but that is a specialist publication with a dedicated readership and an actual product to sell, there is nothing of that sort in the other papers
11 May 2009
How will I pay for my chef?
Bruce Anderson thinks some MPs cannot afford to live on their salary
Right...the upper classes really don't understand do they?
Right...the upper classes really don't understand do they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
