Harriet Harman [regarding Phil Woolas]:
"It is not part of Labour politics to try to win
elections by saying things that are not true."
'Nuff said, really
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
05 November 2010
27 September 2010
It's a race!
This is a very good poster against AV (or rather for FPTP), that Tom Harris posted:
It is rather excellent, highly emotive and plays on our sense of fairness - the idea of a race being won by the first across the line
Only...it's not true, it's a bloody brilliant campaign idea but it's not true, far from it
I've said before, I don't really like AV - but I cannot defend FPTP
I think it should be obvious why the concept is quite wrong but here's a summary
1. Unlike an actual race, the finish line is not fixed - in a race between two candidates, there is a fixed line of 50%, but once it becomes say, four, like in the poster, it becomes a lot lower
Let's say three candidates occupy the centre-right, one occupies the left - the right has a natural advantage in the population, say 65%, but in the election the right vote is split into 15%, 20% and 30% for our three losers - the leftie crosses the line first at 35%, despite being the minority viewpoint - the finish line has been moved, if we want to use images such as this maybe that should be made obvious when less than a third of MPs have a true majority (and a lot less than my made-up 35%, which is usually enough for a win)
2. The metaphor is simply misleading - yes they share a theme of crossing a line, but in an election the distance travelled by a loser is people's votes - win by .1 of a second, great, you're better than the other bloke, win by one vote, then nearly half (or worse, more than half), didn't actually want you and are denied representation - races are about winning, elections are not winner takes all
3. To tactically hold back an opponent is called 'cheating' in a race
and lastly, Tom even defends FPTP being used in the general election, when virtually all other elections, including his own party leadership, use AV or PR
Apparently 'AV is a good system for filling a single position. If Britain had an elected president, for example'
Last time I checked, we did vote for a single position - that of an MP to represent his/her constituency
But he quantifies this brand of logic by saying we elect a government, not individual MPs really
Right...despite that being the primary reason for using FPTP - governments are formed by the relatively tiny swing in seats that can be changed by this system, resulting in a situation where a party with less votes can in fact win, and indeed the reverse happened this year, where the Tories got the biggest majority since 1997 and yet couldn't get enough seats - if you deny the election of single MPs as relevant then you call into question the supposed election of governments on FPTP, Cameron was clearly over the line first...
In fact his argument is a fairly clear one for PR, he openly says
So the individual MPs are pointless, and the FPTP system is therefore working against the election of governments - move away from local MP elections and you support PR, or a brazenly unfair national system
This is Labour logic at work, he just wants to keep hissafe seat rotten borough, where he believes he is winning a race (forgot to point out the geographical boundaries that have no similarities to a true race) - in reality he's being given a 99m head-start
Unfortunately this will also become Tory logic soon enough
Although AV is pretty crap
*Highlighted by Dizzy
It is rather excellent, highly emotive and plays on our sense of fairness - the idea of a race being won by the first across the line
Only...it's not true, it's a bloody brilliant campaign idea but it's not true, far from it
I've said before, I don't really like AV - but I cannot defend FPTP
I think it should be obvious why the concept is quite wrong but here's a summary
1. Unlike an actual race, the finish line is not fixed - in a race between two candidates, there is a fixed line of 50%, but once it becomes say, four, like in the poster, it becomes a lot lower
Let's say three candidates occupy the centre-right, one occupies the left - the right has a natural advantage in the population, say 65%, but in the election the right vote is split into 15%, 20% and 30% for our three losers - the leftie crosses the line first at 35%, despite being the minority viewpoint - the finish line has been moved, if we want to use images such as this maybe that should be made obvious when less than a third of MPs have a true majority (and a lot less than my made-up 35%, which is usually enough for a win)
2. The metaphor is simply misleading - yes they share a theme of crossing a line, but in an election the distance travelled by a loser is people's votes - win by .1 of a second, great, you're better than the other bloke, win by one vote, then nearly half (or worse, more than half), didn't actually want you and are denied representation - races are about winning, elections are not winner takes all
3. To tactically hold back an opponent is called 'cheating' in a race
and lastly, Tom even defends FPTP being used in the general election, when virtually all other elections, including his own party leadership, use AV or PR
Apparently 'AV is a good system for filling a single position. If Britain had an elected president, for example'
Last time I checked, we did vote for a single position - that of an MP to represent his/her constituency
But he quantifies this brand of logic by saying we elect a government, not individual MPs really
Right...despite that being the primary reason for using FPTP - governments are formed by the relatively tiny swing in seats that can be changed by this system, resulting in a situation where a party with less votes can in fact win, and indeed the reverse happened this year, where the Tories got the biggest majority since 1997 and yet couldn't get enough seats - if you deny the election of single MPs as relevant then you call into question the supposed election of governments on FPTP, Cameron was clearly over the line first...
In fact his argument is a fairly clear one for PR, he openly says
Whether we like it or not, the general public believe that the general election is there to elect a Prime Minister, not your own MP. That’s why we had the televised leaders’ debate (an innovation I opposed, incidentally) – because most people saw May 2010 as a contest among three men to become (or remain) Prime Minister.
So the individual MPs are pointless, and the FPTP system is therefore working against the election of governments - move away from local MP elections and you support PR, or a brazenly unfair national system
This is Labour logic at work, he just wants to keep his
Unfortunately this will also become Tory logic soon enough
Although AV is pretty crap
*Highlighted by Dizzy
25 September 2010
Has 'Red Ed' Played the Clever Game?
If you hadn't heard, Ed Miliband has pipped his brother to the post by 50.65% to 49.35% of the rather abstract Labour vote
This is widely seen as a win for 'the left' - as David Miliband was the only notable Blairite, favoured in the polls of both Labour voters and the general public, the opposition parties will be gleeful at the prospect of Labour's so-called return to the left
Likewise the fact that this result was essentially created by the unions, mainly the ones led by Whelan and Simpson, whereas the more pragmatic Labour party members and MPs overwhelmingly backed his older brother, will reinforce the view that he is the unions' man, a vain, self-interested choice likely to lose the election four years away
But I'm left wondering, after hearing his rather blatant attempt to appeal to the right in tomorrow's Telegraph if he simply hasn't played this all rather well
Yes, the unions won it for him - but what loyalty does he now owe to them?
He espoused some more left wing policies than his brother, and the unions put their support on the one most likely to win who wasn't a Blairite, but he's now leader and he can get away with whatever he wants, if he wants to adopt the same line (which is pretty vague) as his big bro then essentially, he can - he's just played it incredibly well when David was the massive favourite throughout the race
He's now leader, the unions do not control the party, and nor are the unions the be-all and end-all of Labour thought - they like their symbolic victories like today, but the membership is mostly indifferent these days, and unless he's particularly weak, then there's little reason he'll be in the pocket of Whelan and co. It's a potential ploy worthy of Blair himself
That of course, doesn't mean he'll fare better than his brother, we'll never know - undoubtedly the press will make sure he is seen as a left-wing and union choice, but what this relative unknown says between now and an election may well be more important, it may be that his small stature and geeky voice cause him more harm than the tabloids could
So I'm not writing him off as the next Kinnock, just yet
(I don't think he'll win the election, I'm just going to be impressed if he has manipulated the system so well)
This is widely seen as a win for 'the left' - as David Miliband was the only notable Blairite, favoured in the polls of both Labour voters and the general public, the opposition parties will be gleeful at the prospect of Labour's so-called return to the left
Likewise the fact that this result was essentially created by the unions, mainly the ones led by Whelan and Simpson, whereas the more pragmatic Labour party members and MPs overwhelmingly backed his older brother, will reinforce the view that he is the unions' man, a vain, self-interested choice likely to lose the election four years away
But I'm left wondering, after hearing his rather blatant attempt to appeal to the right in tomorrow's Telegraph if he simply hasn't played this all rather well
Yes, the unions won it for him - but what loyalty does he now owe to them?
He espoused some more left wing policies than his brother, and the unions put their support on the one most likely to win who wasn't a Blairite, but he's now leader and he can get away with whatever he wants, if he wants to adopt the same line (which is pretty vague) as his big bro then essentially, he can - he's just played it incredibly well when David was the massive favourite throughout the race
He's now leader, the unions do not control the party, and nor are the unions the be-all and end-all of Labour thought - they like their symbolic victories like today, but the membership is mostly indifferent these days, and unless he's particularly weak, then there's little reason he'll be in the pocket of Whelan and co. It's a potential ploy worthy of Blair himself
That of course, doesn't mean he'll fare better than his brother, we'll never know - undoubtedly the press will make sure he is seen as a left-wing and union choice, but what this relative unknown says between now and an election may well be more important, it may be that his small stature and geeky voice cause him more harm than the tabloids could
So I'm not writing him off as the next Kinnock, just yet
(I don't think he'll win the election, I'm just going to be impressed if he has manipulated the system so well)
16 September 2010
Questionable Time
I'm a bit perplexed by Question Time's Labour special
Now at first I found it rather amusing, watching them all scramble over each other over 'left-wing', 'new labour' and unions
However, once they started talking about Tory cuts it became very apparent this was a mistake - as much as Dimbleby tries to play devil's advocate you have five people who are, as D. Mili says, 'all united on this' - that they are all anti-Tory
Allowing them to set up a narrative against 'cuts' and the government was questionable in my view
I think Dimbleby has done reasonably well steering them away from unopposed Tory bashing, and it was inevitable they would bash their main opposition, but it makes me uneasy letting them say 'jobs are going', 'harsh cuts' etc without response
We knew it wasn't going to be balanced, so fair play, but this feels very strange on QT
By the by, Andy Burnham is by far the most appealing to me - not politically, of course, but he's honest, he admits mistakes of the past and he's got a more rational stance - he could've done a lot more before, while in government, but compared to the other three men he's a bloody saint
I like Abbott's sincerity, but she's just too far gone for me
Now at first I found it rather amusing, watching them all scramble over each other over 'left-wing', 'new labour' and unions
However, once they started talking about Tory cuts it became very apparent this was a mistake - as much as Dimbleby tries to play devil's advocate you have five people who are, as D. Mili says, 'all united on this' - that they are all anti-Tory
Allowing them to set up a narrative against 'cuts' and the government was questionable in my view
I think Dimbleby has done reasonably well steering them away from unopposed Tory bashing, and it was inevitable they would bash their main opposition, but it makes me uneasy letting them say 'jobs are going', 'harsh cuts' etc without response
We knew it wasn't going to be balanced, so fair play, but this feels very strange on QT
By the by, Andy Burnham is by far the most appealing to me - not politically, of course, but he's honest, he admits mistakes of the past and he's got a more rational stance - he could've done a lot more before, while in government, but compared to the other three men he's a bloody saint
I like Abbott's sincerity, but she's just too far gone for me
08 May 2010
Well this is fun...
So the votes have been counted, but I am not going to bore you with tales of what Clegg should demand, or point out the Tory idiots who refuse to compromise despite not winning a majority
Instead, here's a few facts and figures:
Cons got 10.7 million (36%) - up 2 million, swing of 3.8% - gain 113 seats to 306 (47%)
Labour got 8.6 million (29%) - down 800,000, swing of -6.2% - lost 98 seats to 258 (39.7%)
Libs got 6.8 million (23%) - up 900,000, swing of 1% - lost 5 seats to 57 (8.8%)
More and more this system looks incredibly unfair - we have a national election, with televised leaders' debates and campaigns focused on the leaders, but yet we hold on to a flawed local system that is not reflective of the national vote (although in some ways this is the most reflective for years, as there's no majority)
This may sound like a cry for the Lib Dems (and quite frankly, why shouldn't it be?) but look at this:
in 2005 Labour got 9.5 million votes (35.3%)
Tories got 8.7 million (32.3%)
a difference of less than 800,000 votes - it gave Labour 158 more seats and a majority of 22 - in this election, Gordon Brown has got fewer votes than Michael Howard had, despite a vastly higher turnout, Cameron has beaten him by nearly three times the amount that Blair beat Howard by, and yet Labour only go down to 258 - despite this being their worst poll since 1983, and second worst since the first world war, meanwhile the Tories get a higher share of the vote than the last Labour majority, and indeed all their own majorities after Thatcher's initial win, and yet are still short of the winning post.
Clearly something is not right, Labour have blatantly been gerrymandering the boundaries to suit themselves and effectively cannot get anywhere near Hagues tiddly 166 seats - and yes, you guessed it, even he got more votes than Brown
I say this not as a disgruntled Tory (and nor do I believe that 36% should give you carte blanche in Parliament), but out of horror that we have got a system that is so blatantly biased that a margin that gave Blair his whopping majority in 2001 cannot even give Cameron a simple majority - it's insane, and frankly the Tories are fools for supporting it, the country has clearly moved on from local constituency voting, the television debates only confirmed that, and more importantly for the Tories it is now in their best interests to support reform
And seriously, a million extra votes, a 1% gain...five seats lost and a reduced share of seats
People are going to start getting pissed at this - the young in particular are becoming less tribal and are seeing a national party who they gave nearly seven million votes to get dicked around because they could only finish a strong second in a hundred safe seats - why the bloody hell should it be right that the biggest minority in a seat get full control, where a difference of 1 vote (yes, several seats were under a margin of 100) can see over half the population's vote wasted simply because of where the arbitrary geographical line is drawn around them? In the east of England, where Labour don't exist (save for some now-defeated parts of Norfolk and Basildon) the Lib Dems are the second party - they got just over half the vote the Tories did, otherwise known as a ratio of 1:2 - the Tories got 52 seats...the Libs got 4
It's an old argument, but I feel now the case is stronger than ever - we have a record vote for the Lib Dems (and a record piss-take), and it's now seriously affecting the Tories, electoral reform is more important than ever
...not that it means it will happen
Instead, here's a few facts and figures:
Cons got 10.7 million (36%) - up 2 million, swing of 3.8% - gain 113 seats to 306 (47%)
Labour got 8.6 million (29%) - down 800,000, swing of -6.2% - lost 98 seats to 258 (39.7%)
Libs got 6.8 million (23%) - up 900,000, swing of 1% - lost 5 seats to 57 (8.8%)
More and more this system looks incredibly unfair - we have a national election, with televised leaders' debates and campaigns focused on the leaders, but yet we hold on to a flawed local system that is not reflective of the national vote (although in some ways this is the most reflective for years, as there's no majority)
This may sound like a cry for the Lib Dems (and quite frankly, why shouldn't it be?) but look at this:
in 2005 Labour got 9.5 million votes (35.3%)
Tories got 8.7 million (32.3%)
a difference of less than 800,000 votes - it gave Labour 158 more seats and a majority of 22 - in this election, Gordon Brown has got fewer votes than Michael Howard had, despite a vastly higher turnout, Cameron has beaten him by nearly three times the amount that Blair beat Howard by, and yet Labour only go down to 258 - despite this being their worst poll since 1983, and second worst since the first world war, meanwhile the Tories get a higher share of the vote than the last Labour majority, and indeed all their own majorities after Thatcher's initial win, and yet are still short of the winning post.
Clearly something is not right, Labour have blatantly been gerrymandering the boundaries to suit themselves and effectively cannot get anywhere near Hagues tiddly 166 seats - and yes, you guessed it, even he got more votes than Brown
I say this not as a disgruntled Tory (and nor do I believe that 36% should give you carte blanche in Parliament), but out of horror that we have got a system that is so blatantly biased that a margin that gave Blair his whopping majority in 2001 cannot even give Cameron a simple majority - it's insane, and frankly the Tories are fools for supporting it, the country has clearly moved on from local constituency voting, the television debates only confirmed that, and more importantly for the Tories it is now in their best interests to support reform
And seriously, a million extra votes, a 1% gain...five seats lost and a reduced share of seats
People are going to start getting pissed at this - the young in particular are becoming less tribal and are seeing a national party who they gave nearly seven million votes to get dicked around because they could only finish a strong second in a hundred safe seats - why the bloody hell should it be right that the biggest minority in a seat get full control, where a difference of 1 vote (yes, several seats were under a margin of 100) can see over half the population's vote wasted simply because of where the arbitrary geographical line is drawn around them? In the east of England, where Labour don't exist (save for some now-defeated parts of Norfolk and Basildon) the Lib Dems are the second party - they got just over half the vote the Tories did, otherwise known as a ratio of 1:2 - the Tories got 52 seats...the Libs got 4
It's an old argument, but I feel now the case is stronger than ever - we have a record vote for the Lib Dems (and a record piss-take), and it's now seriously affecting the Tories, electoral reform is more important than ever
...not that it means it will happen
23 April 2010
Sleep sound
Honestly, I didn't watch the debate...global affairs? Who cares, there's little between them on the EU, there's no cold war anymore, this election is wholly domestic for me
All I've really come to say is that I am amazed Brown actually said Clegg threatens our safety by opposing Trident
Seriously? ...That year I spent in Australia I was in constant fear...
(oh and the same line about the economy to Cameron was equally shallow - where's the substance, Gordon? It's all how evil the opposition are and NO POLICY)
All I've really come to say is that I am amazed Brown actually said Clegg threatens our safety by opposing Trident
Seriously? ...That year I spent in Australia I was in constant fear...
(oh and the same line about the economy to Cameron was equally shallow - where's the substance, Gordon? It's all how evil the opposition are and NO POLICY)
01 April 2010
Lies, damn lies
Following on from yet another Labour statistics lie ('mistake') - and for fairness sake I'll point out Chris Grayling was also guilty of such a 'mistake', we have another rebut from an impartial statistics comapany, this time it's Yougov
The Torygraph make some bizarre claims about their 'Labour bias' - I'll let you decide who makes a better case
As usual, I'm backing the person with more intelligence, integrity and experience - which is never the politico
And of course, Yougov will be scrutinised come about 5 weeks, the same can't be said for the tabloids
The Torygraph make some bizarre claims about their 'Labour bias' - I'll let you decide who makes a better case
As usual, I'm backing the person with more intelligence, integrity and experience - which is never the politico
And of course, Yougov will be scrutinised come about 5 weeks, the same can't be said for the tabloids
01 February 2010
Why do they deserve to vote on the system that produced them?
News reaches me that Labour are to try and bring in an AV system
Good, I guess, but my first reaction was - what right do a party elected by this severely flawed system, led by an unelected and unwanted prime minister, who will almost all be thrown out in three months time, have to decide our electoral system, which they have gerrymandered no end?
Meanwhile the opposition are totally against it because...well, they like winning
and Labour are only doing it t paint said opposition as anti-reform
I despair
(in fairness anything Brown tries to introduce makes me wince - because I cannot recognise him as our leader, because he's not, we were never asked)
Good, I guess, but my first reaction was - what right do a party elected by this severely flawed system, led by an unelected and unwanted prime minister, who will almost all be thrown out in three months time, have to decide our electoral system, which they have gerrymandered no end?
Meanwhile the opposition are totally against it because...well, they like winning
and Labour are only doing it t paint said opposition as anti-reform
I despair
(in fairness anything Brown tries to introduce makes me wince - because I cannot recognise him as our leader, because he's not, we were never asked)
29 January 2010
A Labour MP I can agree with
Paul Flynn, who is already somewhat of a legend with his rebellious drugs stance, has come out and said people who use bone-crushing handshakes should be charged with assault
Now of course, I would never support another bloody law, but he's jesting (see, he's not a normal Labour polly) - and let's face it, people who do bone-crushers are, excuse-my-french, wankers out to prove how tough they are, who normally occupy some sort of business role and have small dicks
Personally I always go for the attempt to out-crush said idiot, but I do like his sarcastic approach - just give them a funny look and say 'what are you doing?' Although unfortunately I may have to wait til I'm a bit older, as I generally have to be pleasant
I can't wait to be a cantankerous old git
still easing my way back in...
Now of course, I would never support another bloody law, but he's jesting (see, he's not a normal Labour polly) - and let's face it, people who do bone-crushers are, excuse-my-french, wankers out to prove how tough they are, who normally occupy some sort of business role and have small dicks
Personally I always go for the attempt to out-crush said idiot, but I do like his sarcastic approach - just give them a funny look and say 'what are you doing?' Although unfortunately I may have to wait til I'm a bit older, as I generally have to be pleasant
I can't wait to be a cantankerous old git
still easing my way back in...
17 December 2009
Glug
Ah, good old sir Liam, he was the one who warned us all about swine flu deaths...remember?
Now he's saying parents (specifically middle class ones) who let their teenage kids 'taste' booze will make them more likely to be heavy drinkers as adults
Any stats for that?
I'm not saying he's wrong...but if you've been wrong before you can be wrong again, right?
Far be for me to use anecdotal evidence - but I was tasting booze from about 14, drinking possibly too much at 17 and 18, but nowadays I barely drink at all - I got bored of it once I got away from the first-year student culture, and I'd have to blame my friends and the culture of binge-drinking far more than my parents for my occasional excesses back then, I was a teenager - teenagers are quite stupid
Yet, here I am, faculties in order, with a proper academic degree and writing in prose - we all know alcohol is harmful, worse than a lot of illegal drugs in many ways - but it's not a substantial risk to drink it, particularly in moderation, we have a life expectancy of what? 78? And we've been drinking the stuff for millenia, while kids all over the world do fine after drinking, the stats do show that more liberal countries in Europe don't get nearly as much alcohol-related-violence so there's some balance to this debate, Liam
But don't take my uninformed opinion on it, thankfully the BBC love a good counter-argument
here's Jeremy Todd of Parentline Plus
Quite right, and banning stuff = not talking, I'm not sure if Sir Liam has ever met a teenager
I particularly liked Professor Ian Gilmore:
Spot on - why isn't this man Chief Medical Officer? (He's already president of the Royal College of Physicians)
What we do not need is more bloody preachy adverts:
Stop wasting our bloody money on 'don't drink' adverts! Unless they actually return a profit through less cost to the NHS then they are a frivolous drain on our ever-growing deficit - don't they know there's a recession on?
Now he's saying parents (specifically middle class ones) who let their teenage kids 'taste' booze will make them more likely to be heavy drinkers as adults
Any stats for that?
I'm not saying he's wrong...but if you've been wrong before you can be wrong again, right?
Far be for me to use anecdotal evidence - but I was tasting booze from about 14, drinking possibly too much at 17 and 18, but nowadays I barely drink at all - I got bored of it once I got away from the first-year student culture, and I'd have to blame my friends and the culture of binge-drinking far more than my parents for my occasional excesses back then, I was a teenager - teenagers are quite stupid
Yet, here I am, faculties in order, with a proper academic degree and writing in prose - we all know alcohol is harmful, worse than a lot of illegal drugs in many ways - but it's not a substantial risk to drink it, particularly in moderation, we have a life expectancy of what? 78? And we've been drinking the stuff for millenia, while kids all over the world do fine after drinking, the stats do show that more liberal countries in Europe don't get nearly as much alcohol-related-violence so there's some balance to this debate, Liam
But don't take my uninformed opinion on it, thankfully the BBC love a good counter-argument
here's Jeremy Todd of Parentline Plus
So irresponsible and draconian approaches don't work - meaning being responsible does work, unfortunately no amount of government interference can make people responsible - stop trying, Liam
He said: "Parents can have a huge influence on their child's drinking choices.
"Rates of teenage drunkenness are higher amongst both the children of parents who drink to excess and the children of parents who abstain completely.
"Whilst parents have a greater influence on their children's drinking patterns early on, as they grow older their friends have a greater influence.
"It is therefore crucial for parents to talk to their children about alcohol and its effects."
Quite right, and banning stuff = not talking, I'm not sure if Sir Liam has ever met a teenager
I particularly liked Professor Ian Gilmore:
"We know that adults who drink sensibly tend to pass these habits on and that some families choose to introduce alcohol to their children younger than 15 in a supportive environment."
He stressed that not drinking alcohol at all remained the "healthiest option" for children.
Spot on - why isn't this man Chief Medical Officer? (He's already president of the Royal College of Physicians)
What we do not need is more bloody preachy adverts:
"He announced a major publicity campaign on the subject in England, which will get under way in January 2010."
Stop wasting our bloody money on 'don't drink' adverts! Unless they actually return a profit through less cost to the NHS then they are a frivolous drain on our ever-growing deficit - don't they know there's a recession on?
18 November 2009
Fight the gloom
You know something? It can get pretty depressing reading the various stories about this government, and indeed depressing when I think about the future policy-less Tory government and Parliament full of nodding dogs, oh and the increasing power of the EU
It all feels rather hopeless, like I'm looking into a pit of despair - I'm still young, but it feels that there is little I can do - few are willing to protest, and without money or contacts we are restricted to the fairly small world of blogging - the media try a bit but what do they really achieve? Even the MP expenses scandal has resulted in a few slaps on wrists, if such public outrage can't change our political landscape, what can?
No it is very depressing, particularly reading stories at Old Holborn or Dick Puddlecote about our liberties, or Dan1979 about the creeping EU - never mind the right-wing tabloids - some of it may be sensationalist bull but this government IS destroying civil liberties, any quick look at recent legislation and the documented actions of the state will tell you that, however you want to view it, even as well-intentioned perhaps - but it is happening
I can write my blog, I can scream and shout, I can beg, plead and even cry, but short of procuring rocket launchers I will have little impact on these politicians
Except, there is a way, there is a way of damaging the human spirit of those who who wish to control us
Laugh at them
Laugh your bloody head off, the truly British form of protest
Without respect they have no legitimacy
They are only human, and they are as weak as us mere plebs
It all feels rather hopeless, like I'm looking into a pit of despair - I'm still young, but it feels that there is little I can do - few are willing to protest, and without money or contacts we are restricted to the fairly small world of blogging - the media try a bit but what do they really achieve? Even the MP expenses scandal has resulted in a few slaps on wrists, if such public outrage can't change our political landscape, what can?
No it is very depressing, particularly reading stories at Old Holborn or Dick Puddlecote about our liberties, or Dan1979 about the creeping EU - never mind the right-wing tabloids - some of it may be sensationalist bull but this government IS destroying civil liberties, any quick look at recent legislation and the documented actions of the state will tell you that, however you want to view it, even as well-intentioned perhaps - but it is happening
I can write my blog, I can scream and shout, I can beg, plead and even cry, but short of procuring rocket launchers I will have little impact on these politicians
Except, there is a way, there is a way of damaging the human spirit of those who who wish to control us
Laugh at them
Laugh your bloody head off, the truly British form of protest
Without respect they have no legitimacy
They are only human, and they are as weak as us mere plebs
16 November 2009
Plotters
Nick Robinson has finally written an entertaining blog, [almost] satirising the Labour party
Here's my favourite bit:
Here's my favourite bit:
The quitters' view
• We've had a good run... I wonder if there are any directorships I could take on?
12 November 2009
MPs clearly have never worked in the real world
MPs and peers were today engaged in a clash over 'reply to all' emails
An email from Tory Mark Pritchard was sent to everyone in Parliament apparently, and responses were sent 'to all' - meaning that everyone received a constant stream of rubbish emails they didn't want
Lib Dem Greg Mulholland replied with the following
Bad e-mail etiquette perhaps, but have these people never worked in an office? Get in the real world boys, where people your age actually have to learn how to use emails, and put up with nonsense thread emails every day
But this stupidity gets worse, Pritchard got a dig in at the softie Liberals (who oppose his ideas):
This from a man who actually sent a Parliamentary email to about 1300 people and got them all 'replying to all' - really security conscious, Mark
I will be researching this cyber-security plan of his to see if the Lib Dems really are treating it lightly, but initial evidence would point to this being tosh, as:
Right...serious issue then
An email from Tory Mark Pritchard was sent to everyone in Parliament apparently, and responses were sent 'to all' - meaning that everyone received a constant stream of rubbish emails they didn't want
Lib Dem Greg Mulholland replied with the following
"IF I GET ANOTHER UNSOLICTED EMAIL ABOUT THIS CR*P I WILL BE MAKING A COMPLAINT. PUT YOUR BRAINS IN GEAR AND STOP BOTHERING ALL MPs and PEERS WITH THIS!!!! NO MORE REPLY ALL"
Bad e-mail etiquette perhaps, but have these people never worked in an office? Get in the real world boys, where people your age actually have to learn how to use emails, and put up with nonsense thread emails every day
But this stupidity gets worse, Pritchard got a dig in at the softie Liberals (who oppose his ideas):
"I am not surprised by Liberal Democrats treating cyber-security so lightly...It is also clear that some Liberal Democrat politicians need training in answering e-mails correctly without sending the same reply to every Tom, Dick and Harry."
This from a man who actually sent a Parliamentary email to about 1300 people and got them all 'replying to all' - really security conscious, Mark
I will be researching this cyber-security plan of his to see if the Lib Dems really are treating it lightly, but initial evidence would point to this being tosh, as:
The Wrekin MP said his new All Party Parliamentary Group for Cyber-Security had attracted support from senior MPs including Keith Vaz, chairman of the home affairs committee, [and] former cyber security minister Tom Watson
Right...serious issue then
11 November 2009
Swearing = 'Assault'?
Apparently, if you feel threatened by me swearing in my own home, you can complain to the police, who will then arrest me, have to release me because they have no evidence, and then issue me a fixed-penalty notice for abusive behaviour
In effect, swearing at someone is an on-the-spot fine
Now, f*** off
(It shames me to say that I live in that council district)
In effect, swearing at someone is an on-the-spot fine
Now, f*** off
(It shames me to say that I live in that council district)
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
04 November 2009
Please Go
I received an e-mail in response to the please go petition I, and more than 70,000 other people signed
Here it is
What has that got to do with a request for a resignation?
I knew he would never go because of it, but he can at least respond to it properly - we already feel shut out because he wasn't even elected and the party we elected have completely changed tack since the election (not that I voted for them, but I do respect democracy, and manifesto pledges)
Just feels like a dictator telling us all to bugger off and leave him alone - but he has no right to do that job
...and they spelt 'focused' wrong
Here it is
I knew he would never go because of it, but he can at least respond to it properly - we already feel shut out because he wasn't even elected and the party we elected have completely changed tack since the election (not that I voted for them, but I do respect democracy, and manifesto pledges)
Just feels like a dictator telling us all to bugger off and leave him alone - but he has no right to do that job
...and they spelt 'focused' wrong
27 October 2009
Bedroom Snooping?
The media are having a bit of a field day with news that the next census will be the 'most intrusive ever carried out'
What outrage! Right, so let's have a look at the ONS site, where the Mail found this information, for it, shall we
Did you get that - overnight visitors 'present on census night'
That's not so bad is it? Just one night, in case that person isn't at home that night, and did you notice the asterisks next to certain questions? Those indicate new questions (some were even mentioned by the Mail) - number of bedrooms is new, but number of rooms is not, evidence available on the old censuses here
Other new questions shown are on civil partnerships and identity, as well as ones for entry into the UK (for non-citizens) - that's it, so I really don't get how this is anymore intrusive - counting bedrooms is apparently wrong
Funny that, because counting rooms never has been - here is 2001:
And just in case this is a despicable Labour plan, here it is in 1991
Pretty standard practice then - counting bedrooms though is too far, because previously you could only count rooms, but not bathrooms or toilets - so you couldn't simply work it out by just taking 2 or 3 off the total - i.e. kitchen and living room, maybe a study/dining room - the rest are what....reception areas?
Seems a pretty reasonable request to me - many people these days have 2 living rooms, and I don't really see how it's intrusive to ask a basic estate agent question
But the Mail (and apparently the Tories) seem to think the government are after all the details of your guests, snooping into who you sleep with every night of the year - despite this only referring to one night, as censuses are based on one single day, and you can even lie and just say you were home - the visitor question is I believe, so that you don't miss out if you're not at home, hence why they take your usual address
But don't let me witter on, here's the evidence, 2001:
1991:
I felt the article was particularly misleading (yes, more than usual) - but I can't find any real way to lodge an official complaint, as they seem to have covered themselves pretty well using implications and faux-outrage, with well placed, non-specific quotes - the bit I really object to is this (red = my words)
The 2011 census will ask these things - but they are implying it's some sort of new thing, this is very misleading to me, but as they only imply it, is there really a case for complaint?
I guess that's what they pay their writers to do instead of actual writing...
The Conservatives said the attempt to find out sleeping arrangements was particularly objectionable. [Tory Nick Hurd] said "An increasingly invasive and intrusive census will erode public support, cost more and result in a less accurate survey."This is in regards to finding out that
'The 2011 survey will demand to know how many bedrooms there are in homes and detailed information about any 'overnight visitors'
What outrage! Right, so let's have a look at the ONS site, where the Mail found this information, for it, shall we
That's not so bad is it? Just one night, in case that person isn't at home that night, and did you notice the asterisks next to certain questions? Those indicate new questions (some were even mentioned by the Mail) - number of bedrooms is new, but number of rooms is not, evidence available on the old censuses here
Other new questions shown are on civil partnerships and identity, as well as ones for entry into the UK (for non-citizens) - that's it, so I really don't get how this is anymore intrusive - counting bedrooms is apparently wrong
Funny that, because counting rooms never has been - here is 2001:
Seems a pretty reasonable request to me - many people these days have 2 living rooms, and I don't really see how it's intrusive to ask a basic estate agent question
But the Mail (and apparently the Tories) seem to think the government are after all the details of your guests, snooping into who you sleep with every night of the year - despite this only referring to one night, as censuses are based on one single day, and you can even lie and just say you were home - the visitor question is I believe, so that you don't miss out if you're not at home, hence why they take your usual address
But don't let me witter on, here's the evidence, 2001:
The most intrusive census ever carried out!
I felt the article was particularly misleading (yes, more than usual) - but I can't find any real way to lodge an official complaint, as they seem to have covered themselves pretty well using implications and faux-outrage, with well placed, non-specific quotes - the bit I really object to is this (red = my words)
The 2011 survey will demand to know how many bedrooms there are in homes and detailed information about any 'overnight visitors'. [already standard practice]
....The Conservatives said the attempt to find out sleeping arrangements was particularly objectionable.
The demand for the number of bedrooms in each home, coupled with a requirement to give the name, sex, date of birth and address of any overnight visitors [again, already a standard question], amounted to 'bedroom snooping', they said.
The 2011 census will ask these things - but they are implying it's some sort of new thing, this is very misleading to me, but as they only imply it, is there really a case for complaint?
I guess that's what they pay their writers to do instead of actual writing...
19 October 2009
This is getting silly
I thought silly season was over?
But apparently not, as Labour MPs seem convinced they are right to try and suppress the BNP, a legal and democratically-elected political party as Peter Hain has shown today by writing a letter threatening legal action against the BBC
Right...that's not remotely fascist at all
Hain's grounds for complaint are a tad thin - Griffin has admitted that their constitution may break 'race-relations legislation', as found by the Equalities and Human Rights commission and will have to reform it in the near future - however, this does not make them an illegal party, as the BBC responded:
Indeed they would, I seem to remember Labour broke certain equality legislation in 1996 by having all female shortlists - were they an illegal party then?
Hain's grounds are so feeble that they do nothing to hide his own bigotry, in his letter he says to the BBC
Moral objections? Moral? Why should I be giving a toss about your moral complaints any more than I should because Jonathon Ross swears? We start listening to morals then we're in big trouble, as for 'unreasonable and irrational' - who is the one providing fair coverage to a legal party based on their electoral successes, and who is the one trying to censor them because they dislike their politics?
Labour don't understand freedom - and unless the BNP are outlawed they have no case here, they don't like racism, and neither do I (and I really hate having to put in disclaimers every sodding time I mention the BNP) but it is not against the law to think racist thoughts or have racist beliefs and so you can't suppress them anymore than I can suppress a socialist because I really dislike their ideas - government cannot pick and choose who to censor, unless we wish to use the proper legal channels - in my view they could do exactly the same thing to Tories or Greens by this 'opinion' criteria, it's far more dangerous than anything a few bigots say on a soapbox
In other 'left-wingers are the most annoying hypocrites ever' news, the broadcasting trade union Bectu has warned that their members cannot be forced to work on the show - now I'm not an expert on current trade union law, maybe they are allowed time-off to protest anything (which is within the realms of probability I guess), but as far as I can see they refuse to work on the show because they dislike the BNP, and maybe want to protest outside
So does that mean that Bectu can do this to any party? What if they dislike Tories? Can members just refuse to work - it's exactly the same grounds, the BNP are a legal party, and if I didn't like the Tories view on, say...inheritance tax, could I refuse to work and get my union to threaten my bosses? If so, fair enough - otherwise it's pretty disgraceful that a union would throw their weight around
But apparently not, as Labour MPs seem convinced they are right to try and suppress the BNP, a legal and democratically-elected political party as Peter Hain has shown today by writing a letter threatening legal action against the BBC
Right...that's not remotely fascist at all
Hain's grounds for complaint are a tad thin - Griffin has admitted that their constitution may break 'race-relations legislation', as found by the Equalities and Human Rights commission and will have to reform it in the near future - however, this does not make them an illegal party, as the BBC responded:
"If there were to be an election tomorrow, the BNP would be able to stand"
Indeed they would, I seem to remember Labour broke certain equality legislation in 1996 by having all female shortlists - were they an illegal party then?
Hain's grounds are so feeble that they do nothing to hide his own bigotry, in his letter he says to the BBC
"in addition to the moral objections that I make. In my view, your approach is unreasonable, irrational and unlawful."
Moral objections? Moral? Why should I be giving a toss about your moral complaints any more than I should because Jonathon Ross swears? We start listening to morals then we're in big trouble, as for 'unreasonable and irrational' - who is the one providing fair coverage to a legal party based on their electoral successes, and who is the one trying to censor them because they dislike their politics?
Labour don't understand freedom - and unless the BNP are outlawed they have no case here, they don't like racism, and neither do I (and I really hate having to put in disclaimers every sodding time I mention the BNP) but it is not against the law to think racist thoughts or have racist beliefs and so you can't suppress them anymore than I can suppress a socialist because I really dislike their ideas - government cannot pick and choose who to censor, unless we wish to use the proper legal channels - in my view they could do exactly the same thing to Tories or Greens by this 'opinion' criteria, it's far more dangerous than anything a few bigots say on a soapbox
In other 'left-wingers are the most annoying hypocrites ever' news, the broadcasting trade union Bectu has warned that their members cannot be forced to work on the show - now I'm not an expert on current trade union law, maybe they are allowed time-off to protest anything (which is within the realms of probability I guess), but as far as I can see they refuse to work on the show because they dislike the BNP, and maybe want to protest outside
So does that mean that Bectu can do this to any party? What if they dislike Tories? Can members just refuse to work - it's exactly the same grounds, the BNP are a legal party, and if I didn't like the Tories view on, say...inheritance tax, could I refuse to work and get my union to threaten my bosses? If so, fair enough - otherwise it's pretty disgraceful that a union would throw their weight around
17 October 2009
Who wants to help expose a Labour councillor?
Please dear reader (if there are any) check out this report by Mark Easton
Then read comment 141 by Ultra_Fox and tell me if I'm wrong that this guy is being pretty offensive by calling the interviewees BNP voters - I'd be pretty pissed if that was my councillor, he claims to be a councillor so we have him identified down to one of three New Parks councillors (if he is one), please point out to me if I am mistaken, as I am fairly certain there is absolutely no mention of the BNP in the report
Here is a twitter account by the same name, perhaps a coincidence...
He may of course be lying about who he is, which is why I'm not naming anyone but I would like to expose this guy if it is a real councillor, if mine called me a BNP voter based on apathy (of the electorate: 7% voted BNP, about 12% voted Labour, and 70% didn't vote) I would be rather incensed and I think residents of New Parks should know - any advice from anyone out there on what to do?
and here is his comment in full, jut in case it disappears
Then read comment 141 by Ultra_Fox and tell me if I'm wrong that this guy is being pretty offensive by calling the interviewees BNP voters - I'd be pretty pissed if that was my councillor, he claims to be a councillor so we have him identified down to one of three New Parks councillors (if he is one), please point out to me if I am mistaken, as I am fairly certain there is absolutely no mention of the BNP in the report
Here is a twitter account by the same name, perhaps a coincidence...
He may of course be lying about who he is, which is why I'm not naming anyone but I would like to expose this guy if it is a real councillor, if mine called me a BNP voter based on apathy (of the electorate: 7% voted BNP, about 12% voted Labour, and 70% didn't vote) I would be rather incensed and I think residents of New Parks should know - any advice from anyone out there on what to do?
and here is his comment in full, jut in case it disappears
"141. At 5:01pm on 16 Oct 2009, Ultra_Fox wrote:
30 September 2009
Guido reports that Ben Bradshaw mentioned the name 'Thatcher' and got a small cheer, I can't find the transcript myself unfortunately, but I will ask this:
Are the left still really that thick, or was it ironic?
We can argue about the impact of Thatcher til the cows come home, but is it not time to lay the hatred to rest? It's been twenty years since she left! We had just as many years of Blair, did he save us from the evils of Thatcher? Or was he pretty much the same, just with a worse spending policy?
Unless they can somehow prove that this country was about to collapse when Major came in, and that Blair actually saved us, then this whole 'Thatcher is the devil' thing needs to be laid to rest - it's history, if we have a go at Callaghan it's too long ago, but Thatcher is somehow still relevant when Labour have had more time than she had to 'fix' the wrongs she committed
It's just childish name-calling - their partisan nature really turns me off
Oh and as for Brown's 'commitment' to AV, this is clearly a tactic to hook people like me - I would love electoral reform, and I also like his pledge about hereditary peers, but it's too little, too late for several reasons:
1) AV is not enough
2) You've had 13 years to ask us, don't think I'm going to give you another 5 just for that
3) Blair lied in 1997, so why won't you?
No, I think I'll stick to my anti-Labour beliefs rather than be bought off, thank you very much
Are the left still really that thick, or was it ironic?
We can argue about the impact of Thatcher til the cows come home, but is it not time to lay the hatred to rest? It's been twenty years since she left! We had just as many years of Blair, did he save us from the evils of Thatcher? Or was he pretty much the same, just with a worse spending policy?
Unless they can somehow prove that this country was about to collapse when Major came in, and that Blair actually saved us, then this whole 'Thatcher is the devil' thing needs to be laid to rest - it's history, if we have a go at Callaghan it's too long ago, but Thatcher is somehow still relevant when Labour have had more time than she had to 'fix' the wrongs she committed
It's just childish name-calling - their partisan nature really turns me off
Oh and as for Brown's 'commitment' to AV, this is clearly a tactic to hook people like me - I would love electoral reform, and I also like his pledge about hereditary peers, but it's too little, too late for several reasons:
1) AV is not enough
2) You've had 13 years to ask us, don't think I'm going to give you another 5 just for that
3) Blair lied in 1997, so why won't you?
No, I think I'll stick to my anti-Labour beliefs rather than be bought off, thank you very much
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
To say that we are disappointed with the end products - both the news report and this article - is a massive understatement.
First of all, the sample of residents interviewed by Mark was hardly representative of the New Parks community. If they were, the BNP vote would number several thousands (instead of the actual figure of 788 in 2007), and I wouldn't hold the office that I do.
Secondly, Mark placed rather too much emphasis on the views of drinkers in a local pub - a venue which has been largely unchanged since it opened in the 1960s. And indeed, accents apart, the comments from the clientele would have done Alf Garnett proud. But many other residents treat the saloon-bar bigots with contempt they deserve, instead of venerating them like the distressingly-gullible scribe.
There were many other members of the New Parks community who made considerable efforts to speak to Mark, and indeed went to considerable lengths to accommodate him, yet were completely ignored. It appeared to them, and to me, that the gist of the report was largely preconceived.
Much was made about the extent of adult illiteracy in the area. However, it's a problem which Leicester City Council, partner bodies and many residents themselves are working hard to address - hence the investment in local schools and the construction of the new Library Centre due to open next March (which, strangely enough, Mark also chose to overlook).
In fact, Mark appeared determined to disregard the positive aspects of life in New Parks completely.
Mark concludes by saying he wishes to "foster a thoughtful and intelligent debate about one of the key issues affecting the United Kingdom."
So do I.
But I'm seeing precious little evidence of thoughtful and intelligent debate here."