It's for your own good

I will take this opportunity to point out that several of my comments on the Peter Hitchens blogs about the 'hacking scandal' are being censored

Literally all I did was point out to people Guido's interesting post obtained via the Information Commissioner's office regarding the press and recorded offences of 'blagging' - that's it, in fact I didn't even mention details, but advised people to seek out information on the blogs

Absolutely nothing libellous, offensive, rude etc nor is anything in Guido's chart, it's all freely available government information - yet it didn't make it through

When I made the comment (which is often found on the Hitchens blog from a variety of posters) that my posts were disappearing without notice, this too failed the mods - I deliberately kept it that brief because I was pretty confident it would happen, I don't know of a way to prove this, I'm not that tech-savvy and didn't bother taking a screenshot, but I am hopeful a couple of other people had the same problem

I am not outraged by this behaviour - I think it perfectly reasonable that a company choose not to publish harmful information about itself - that's the job of others - isn't it?

Not if you listen to Hitchens arguments, last week he was warning us of the big bad politicians and how they need to be held to account

All true, but as we've just seen - nobody is holding the press, who lie, cheat and flout the law, to account and I can see no condemnation of this behaviour from Hitchens - he seems to take a 'better the devil you know' approach, and seems to justify the culture of silence between the press as a necessary evil to maintain commercial success

If we criminalise the press, and take away a vast resource of information from them (the tabloids at least) then they will not have the power to scrutinise the government

But I'd like to know who is meant to scrutinise the press - controlled by a tiny elite, they have vast power themselves and arguably papers like the Mail have a detrimental effect on our society by reducing debate to that of childish name-calling and scaremongering, we need these publications and they need to be allowed to do what they want? It's all for your own good you see

Hitchens, supposedly a man of strong moral conviction (something I've always questioned seeing as he opts to work for probably the least moral paper of them all), is quite happy to allow the press the freedom to make up s h one t, so they can make money and scrutinise the politicians, but yet won't allow people on his own blog to scrutinise one of the most powerful and influential industries in our society? The press do not scrutinise themselves ('dog eat dog'), that would just bring chaos - so how exactly do the public bring newspapers to account? They can't, which is why this hacking scandal has been quietly kept away from the public for the best part of ten years

Nobody is denying that politicians are scum, but the media are also scum, and it can quite easily be shown that the law has been violated for decades to make grubby stories about royals and celebrities to line pockets 'hold the government to account', this is not a price we must pay - scrutiny of the press will not bring about a North Korean situation, in fact the British press is infamous for it's cut-throat behaviour, you don't find it in perfectly free countries like the US, Australia, Japan or Sweden, a few ethical rules, such as those that we are supposed to already have and don't enforce, would quite easily control them

The real truth behind this is that the press in Britain need to behave in this manner to be successful, not because nobody would pay them without their gossip/nonsense, but because competition is fierce - Britain has a huge amount of national dailies, all vying for a piece of a dwindling readership - they need to be shocking, and therefore their tactics verge on the desperate - if the Sun doesn't do it, the Mail, or the Express, or the Mirror will

Whereas, in Australia for example there is only one populist rag - the Telegraph (or it's local NI equivalent), then there are two 'high-brow' papers - one left, one right - all controlled by one of the two main media players

While we're on it, virtually nothing the press do scrutinises politicians anyway, 'investigative journalism' essentially means celebrity/royal sex scandals - in fact I am struggling to think of an example of illegal activities bringing us a story for the public good (eg expenses scandal, WMD) - public interest arguments easily override this anyway, the crux of Hitchens defence (which I regard as a squeal) is that they need to be able to generate revenue, but the revenue is fixed - they just compete for a share, and in doing so engage in a race to the bottom (declining moral standards eh?)

Proper rules would not stop scrutiny, I find that scenario incredibly hard to believe when our media is so powerful anyway - it would just rid us of a few silly newspapers that are, in essence, solely there to sell smut

Losing a few unpopular (intelligent) papers might be bad for decent opinion you might say, but there'll be no trashed murder victims either

I know I have posted a few times before regarding Hitchens, first I lost respect, then I came to see him as a troll, but now I'm struggling to even take a word he says seriously - this act of self-serving deflection and hiding behind supposed 'freedom of the press' and an Orwellian nightmare is pretty abhorrent

Actually why do I keep going back? Silly boy

I'm kind of glad...

...That we lost out on the world cup

or rather, that we lost out in such abysmal, ridiculous, painful and disgusting fashion

Oh yes, I am - don't get me wrong, I wanted the cup here as much as the next fan, and I even thought we might get it (although I bet on Russia, as is my rule), I was always expecting Russia to win

And so was every self-respecting football fan with an ounce of intelligence - deep down, we all knew that Russia would take it, because we are England, and they are FIFA, that is the natural order of things

For the last few years we have been hoping, even believing, that it was 'our time', that we would finally be allowed to host the biggest competition in the world again

But alas, reality bites - nothing was going to beat that map of world cups and those Russian puppy dog eyes (note: not actual map used), Prince William be damned

So. why am I glad about how we lost?

Well, simply because I think we expected decent support in the voting - we expected for it to go to the wire, sure Russia might win, but we'd lose in heroic fashion and say 'fair cop'

Instead, we get one non-English vote, crash out at the first hurdle with not even a look in, showing complete and utter disrespect from the governing body, cue outrage

It is not hyperbole to say that to be dismissed in such a way is outrageous, because it is - the hopeless, virtually token bid of Belgium/Netherlands received more votes than we did, England didn't simply lose, they were snubbed (as indeed were the greenie Low Countries, and symbolic Iberia)

And it is for that reason I find a little glint of hope - because from this we can no longer simply shrug our shoulders like we do after every penalty shoot-out we lose, this calls for drastic and severe action - FIFA needs reforming and we all bloody know it, I was pretty much brought up understanding that FIFA were corrupt to the core - had we lost by a few votes we'd just take it on the chin, say Russia had a point and sit back down, but now we're all rather pissed off*

Is this typical English 'arrogance' or sour grapes that your usual nay-saying smart-arse will claim? No, I've already said that I thought Russia would win, and I don't take issue with them winning, if anything it's Qatar that is the shining example of the absolute bullshit that comes out of FIFA, my real issue is the fact that clearly the FIFA delegates had decided who they wanted, while the bidders jumped through hoops, very expensive hoops

England did have the best bid, that's not my opinion or arrogance, but the opinion of FIFA inspectors - Russia had the worst of the 2018 bidders, and surprise surprise, Qatar had the worst of both

I've admitted Russia had a case, having never hosted it, but my point is what was the bloody point of spending astronomical amounts of money on technical bids and reports when it counted for absolutely zero? Why does FIFA insist on us saying how good we are when they don't even care and give it to the worst one?

We're supposed to be swaying the opinions of 22 (24) men with this, if they aren't neutral judges then what's even the point - they knew where it was going and let us rave on about how much better we are, we even chose stadiums! All that is worth one vote, we might as well have put Afghanistan forward, there's an illusion of a meritocratic system, but it's clearly non-existent and I for one am grateful, unlike Blatter, that 2022 was decided at the same time, because it seriously showed up the weaknesses/corruption in the hosting selection process, the 2018 decision probably wouldn't have alone

They get our hopes up, pretending to have a fair contest, and in reality a dozen or so men long ago decided to give it to Russia and an oil rich micro-state

Why bother with a voting process? It seems to be completely against what FIFA espouse, and let's face it, they have always decided where to send the cup

2002 was effectively decided by Havelange (he before Blatter) deciding to have an Asian World Cup - there was at least a fair fight, but it was only between two nations and of course, resulted in a co-hosted event (so Sepp was wrong on Thursday when he said there must be losers)

2006 (which was ten years ago in voting terms) was the only time since 1992 to feature an actual open contest, in which Germany snuck through thanks to a Kiwi abstaining

That decision resulted in the frankly ludicrous rotation system which ensured that Blatter's choice for 2006, South Africa, was given 2010

This system was then used once more as it proved convenient to give a tournament to Brazil, who faced no competition, and then it was dropped - the rotation of five continents lasted all of two turns...

 And now we have a country that is half the size of Wales, in both area and population, hosting the 2022 cup - there are going to be 'cities' the size of...I can't even think of a famous place small enough for reference - Newmarket? hosting matches with over 40,000 spectators

It wasn't that long ago (about a week actually) that you would be laughed out of town for suggesting a small country could host such a big event - the European championships are deemed too big for Scotland and pretty much all of Europe, yet they give a whole world cup to a desert country the size of Cyprus? Can you imagine Ireland (over six times bigger) bidding? Or how about Kuwait, or Swaziland! The only nations that are smaller are mostly the always overlooked island members of CONCACAF, and the various micro and city-states around the world, invariably the issues of infrastructure and legacy come up

Making my point here? This isn't about new places, arguably there's the middle east angle - but that never seemed to be the agenda, and Saudi and Egypt seem much more sensible choices, Qatar's population of 1.5 million is laughable - how is that bringing football to the people? If it's for the middle east in general it's like playing a European cup in the Vatican, there will be no real home side, it's a bunch of stadiums in a small space for the world to come...actually that would be a good idea, create little zones in regions...

Anyway, do I even need to list the populations of previous hosts? Brazil are about 200 million, South Africa 50, Germany 80, Japan/Korea 180, France 60 and so on and so on, the only host that comes near to this level of anonymity are the first ever hosts - Uruguay, who at least have their own identity and aren't just an oil field full of migrant workers

oh and 2026 has already been earmarked for China supposedly...who knows how they'll decide to make that fit into the rules, a country that is virtually non-existent in the football world...after a country that is virtually non-existent in the football world

Then of course there's the human rights issue - FIFA make great statements about holliganism, racism and the environment - so they pick Russia, who have severe issues with all three, as you may know, and an absolute monarchy, where you can't drink in public, show affection etc, in a desert that will require a dozen fully air conditioned stadiums to be built - go FIFA!...maybe they are bringing gay rights to the Middle East?

So I think we have some right to complain here - and the people who think we're being arrogant really need to understand how this thing works, they are assuming that the meritocratic system that the media for some reason portrayed is true, and that we didn't 'deserve' to win really - nobody ever deserves to win, and this is how it has always been:

Italy were given their second cup in 90, France in 98, Germany in 2006 (so yes, Spain would have been truly a kick in the teeth this time)

The inventors of the game now will have to wait 64 years for a second tournament, longer than any other major power** except Brazil, and I bet Spain will be given the next European one...

In fact, if you look at it from the economic side (which FIFA always do) they are incredibly arrogant on this - by giving it to Russia and making western Europe wait even longer (12 years was already a record European gap) they snub their biggest market for probably 24 years, they act with complete disdain for England, but they are a huge market - not a growth area like Asia, and taken for granted, but still worth mega-bucks, there's a reason western Europe is overrepresented, and Blatter is callous by insisting on moving to expanding markets - Germany was the most lucrative cup in recent years and I would bet it stays that way past 2022

Of course, let's not overlook that Qatar was chosen for it economic situation - not only the oil and gas, but it's position in the world - a mere three hours ahead of GMT, meaning that games can be played at 10 or 11pm at a convenient time for Europe, and with that desert heat in the day...

FIFA gets to move in to the middle east, and Asia in general, while catering to its European cash-cows, thus having its cake and eating it

That's why it's unlikely Australia will ever get it - being both a small, already developed market, geographically isolated, and having a poor position in the world clock means they are a very weak prospect, despite being a great choice for many fans they would simply not offer enough to FIFA, even though I doubt Russia will create much wealth with it's known problems in security and travel, there's probably ample opportunity to line the pockets, and Moscow time isn't too bad

Anson's right, it's not even worth bidding without massive reforms to FIFA, and thankfully I can't see Blatter hanging on past this period of office, either professionally or physically, so maybe we'll have less of the supposedly all-powerful dictator with his crusade to take the tournament to such overlooked and under-appreciated members as Qatar

Was it the media?

No, and frankly anyone who has a whinge about out media exposing the truth should go and live in Russia or Qatar and see how they like it - do you want to live in a world where the media are simply yes men to the mighty FIFA so that they may reward us with a tournament once a century?

We have a free press, that should not count against us, and frankly if that has counted against us I don't want the bloody world cup, if all they want is a free ride from their mates in the media then all their talk of human rights is utter bullshit

We should be exposing their corruption, not condoning it, and the real issue here is that FIFA are totally unaccountable, they have no link to the fans and are isolated from the member associations, like some sort of bastard child of the UN and the EU - I'm glad our media stuck it to them (and so did the Spanish by the way) and they need to keep it up, the only way to make FIFA do anything is to hound people like Blatter out, not pander to him


So how do you reform FIFA?

It's complex, a lot people seem to advocate the IOC method, which opens the ballot to a far bigger electorate - but to be honest that has just as many problems these days, the World Cup is just a bigger event, I don't see how allowing 200 votes in itself would help - you would end up with the Eurovision Song Contest where Russia cajoles all it's little satellites into voting for it, while we get Ireland...if we're lucky

24 is a ridiculously tiny number and it should be expanded - that won't solve many problems, but it's a start, I'll give you a very odd, but true, scenario - Australia were the only bidder without representation on the voting panel (the 'ExCo')

Even England were allowed Geoff Thompson, but Australia were guaranteed no votes - Temarii, who was suspended, would have been a cert, despite not even being from the same confederation anymore, but regardless, to have eight of the nine bids represented by their own national associations is just plain wrong - I wouldn't say it's FIFA's worst aspect, but it shows a lack of consideration in the structure, either give them all a vote or none, like the IOC, don't allow a powerful nation like France or Russia to crush you

And there's a lot to be said for letting all members in, the block voting needs to be worked out, but clearly having some countries represented (like...Qatar) and most others not, affects loyalties and effectively skews the result, at least all members would be fairer, the panel of 24 are clearly only acting in self-interest so there's no point in them - let's face it, if Qatar weren't on that committee would they have had Blatter's ear? It's bizarre to think that Australia and Qatar (and indeed Japan and Korea) are both in the same confederation, and yet one is massively handicapped by it's own representative

Basically the whole system of lobbying individuals needs to be ceased, as does the remarkable executive power of the president, it needs to be a fair fight considering all the options - yes someone has to lose, but to waste countries like England, Australia, Spain, the US and Belgium's time is unforgivable when you give it to the countries with the worst technical and economic outlook, at least say beforehand that you want to give it to a country that needs to build 13 stadiums, rather than ones that already have the infrastructure in place because what was the point in even asking for that information when you wanted the converse??

You could weight or rank the bids, weight the confederations by strength, instead of giving crucial votes to minnows (see: New Zealand), anything to stop an old Swiss man and his cronies getting their own way - hell, give it to some external judges to decide, less people from dodgy organisations with their fingers in all the pies

*None of this means a thing will happen, it's politics after all, but I'm an optimist
**Major power being a country that has done well, and can still host it

Quote of the Day

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

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

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 safe 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

When marriage is at all time low, is it a good idea to insult everyone who isn't married?

The Tory marriage plan really irks at me - first and foremost it's based on flawed analysis and shallow reasoning - and secondly, it's just insulting to all those from 'broken homes' (like me!)

The Tories say marriage will become exclusively middle-class, and that will be detrimental to lower-income people, right... Forgive me if I find that a little bit patronising

I'm middle-class (perhaps upper-lower-middle-class) and my mother never married, on principle - she may just be being bloody-minded but we seem to have done quite well, and I'm telling you I know of few people who agree with this 'marriage is great' rubbish - the younger ones who do want to get married have no issue with co-habiters and blended families, they're so common it's impossible not to accept them

The only people likely to go for it are the Tory hardcore - the sort of people who believe Peter Hitchens is real, perhaps it's to shore up the core vote as the Tories drift increasingly to the middle, much like Labour ramp up benefits and protect public sector jobs for their core

This is the one socially conservative policy the Tories have - but I question it, traditional old ladies may agree with it, but I would say a lot of people dislike it and it's probably doing more harm than good by annoying those swing voters who tend to sit in the middle and could see this as old fashioned bigotry

It may be that other issues take precedence in the election, but it does nothing for me but turn me off Cameron - I find it to be judgemental, another minus point for the Tories - not that I'm the sort of voter they want, of course

*Apologies for the lazy entry - it's Christmas, I'm busy and can only devote so much of my time to being angry

Still here

Still having net problems (hopefully sorted next week) and now I'm behind and don't know what to blog about

The only really big news has been of Copenhagen and dear god am I bored of this rubbish

Most of the blogosphere has been raging against 'the lie', while the press have been indulging in it, the politicians are in their element away from their constituents, eating fine dinners and having cosy chats away from all accountability, and bloody annoying activists are...well, bloody annoying

So where do I sit? Am I a 'sceptic' or 'denier'?

Not in the proper noun sense - I am a proper sceptic about pretty much everything, which means I view everything. particularly politics, with one eyebrow raised, much like the Roger Moore-era Bond - I am a very sceptical and cynical person

So I would be a hypocrite to totally and unequivocally accept the assertions of some incredibly preachy people and politicians, in all fairness I probably would accept the science if there weren't such a lot of idiots going around screaming 'we're all going to die'

I'm not sure if I've been reading too many right-wing blogs, and the old saying, 'repeat a lie often enough and you start to believe it', has come true and made me question something quite widely accepted

But as I say, I am not a 'denier' - I can't say I know either way, and I honestly don't believe most of those activists and politicians know a thing about the science either, I don't like blind faith

It's a bit sad that I can't believe scientists, one group I would usually always back - but from what I can tell their science is based on guesswork - what will happen, why this has happened etc - it's certainly not totally conclusive, and that means I can't come to a rock-solid conclusion either

There are a couple of points against it, but generally the 'scientists' quoted by 'deniers' are discredited, and/or in the pay of big oil (e.g Plimer) - it doesn't exactly help the case, I base my view on the evidence that I can see myself, or at least get a grasp of - while I can easily spot a flaw in someone's analysis, I still can't in all certainty agree or disagree that in 50 years Fiji will be underwater

Regardless of the science debate, I have always felt that pumping tonnes of black clouds into the sky is probably not a good thing, regardless of whether it's melting the icecaps, burning dirty things that we have a finite resource of is not the wisest idea, nor is chucking plastic into landfills and the ocean - so I have always wanted to move to clean, renewable energy and sustainable living anyway, the issue of global warming and why it's happening are by-the-by for me

All I have ever wanted the politicians to do is work towards supporting renewable energy with funding, but instead they talk about a few percentage points of emissions, and then tax the consumer to the hilt

This is probably the biggest reason I dislike Copenhagen - I have a similar end to the eco-loons, whether or not we agree on rising sea levels, so I don't hugely have a problem with a big climate meeting

No, my problem is my usual one - politicians, they aren't going to do anything

Their aim is for a 20% cut in emissions - that'll come down for a start, and presumably 20% won't halt anything, merely delay it a few years, if they were really serious, felt it was really urgent and about saving the world then they would actually do something serious

If the threat is real, like a giant asteroid hurtling towards us, as many activists see it, then they don't really fear it, perhaps because it's not visible, perhaps because they'll all be dead by then, as some woman who claimed to represent my generation put it (god, I hate those bloody activists)

Either way, this meeting is about as pointless as the Munich Agreement - there will be no drastic action to save us from the asteroid - no rocket sent up to destroy it, just more taxes to 'combat' the asteroid while we continue living normally

If they were really serious, they'd be wanting rid of all fossil fuels, funding research in more efficient renewable sources - but they won't, it'll be a bit of posturing and a 'pledge' to cut emissions, while the average person is fleeced of more and more money in the name of 'green'

So it doesn't actually matter if it's real or not - Copenhagen is a crock, the politicians involved would have more dignity if they didn't believe in it, rather than just going along with it and then doing nothing but taxing us

and I guess that's a blog - about global warming! Don't expect another one of those for a while

Can you blame them?

I rarely defend politicians, particularly Messrs Brown and Cameron, and I hardly condone using armistice day as a photo-op

(Slightly more moderate article from the BBC here)

But I am in reflective mood, and when I think about it - it's hardly their fault is it?

They do it because they know we want it - Brown is a clumsy fool and always comes off insincere when he talks to real people, Cameron is a smarmy PR man, but they both play the game, our game

But much like how football's lax rules allow the Henrys, Maradonas and Ronaldos to get away with it while we watch, so too does the political game allow Brown and Cameron to perform these stunts

In reality I want a thoughtful, rational government that doesn't resort to appealing to the lowest common denominator - but if that happened what would we get? They'd be ripped to shreds, they'd be seen as ditherers, weak, boring and so on - because image is king

And we ask for it, we let the media peddle their stories - had Brown and Cameron not showed some heartfelt compassion they would've been seen as ingrates, this time they misjudged it, but for the most part people want them to do completely pointless gesture politics, such as visiting flood victims... or talking to Mumsnet

What the hell can Brown do about floods? Nothing could've prevented a month of rain within a day, this was basically a morale booster - and faced with the choice between our two unelected leaders, I'd prefer the unused, neutral one was put to some use (and while I remember, Peter Hitchens really shows his true colours in this week's column)

But we want our leaders to be 'human', to show compassion - and that ultimately is going to come down to who is the best actor (or not in Brown's case)

I doubt that Brown could ever be an effective leader, but who knows, either way we get useless politicians who can't make a decision for fear of the media and its various agendas, and this is only compounded by the fact that the nature of the game drives away the best sort of people for the job

So I don't blame Brown and Cameron for being shameless media manipulators - we get the politicians we deserve

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:

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

Massage, Ms Harman?

Harriet Harman's office has been told to stop using that ridiculous 22.9% pay gap figure

But what I wanted tp pick up on was this:

The Government's equality watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the ONS report was 'important' but insisted it should also have compared the pay of full-time men with part-time women - which gives a 39.9 per cent pay gap in men's favour.

Now the logic of including this escapes me - it's clearly designed to simply maximise the gap - is it fair to compare part-time jobs with full-time ones? Considering men earn even less part-time surely it reflects the gap between full and part-time, not gender?

But I thought I'd work out the alternative

Full-time men vs part-time women = 39.9% gap
Full-time women vs part-time men = 33.5% gap [in favour of women]

Surely Harriet should be using both?

Unless she just has an agenda...

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

Cameron's shameless, amid other things

Am I going to say David Cameron 'reneged' or 'betrayed' eurosceptics?

Nope - as Hague says:

'now that the treaty is going to become European law and is going to enter into force, that means that a referendum can no longer prevent the creation of the President of the European Council...'

The referendum was about the treaty, it was always said in the 'cast-iron' guarantee that if the treaty had been ratified then they couldn't do anything, there is no 'U-turn' or reneging here, I believe it is in fact, worse than that

Maybe they have honestly been scuppered by the final ratification, or, as I theorise, this was the plan all along, promising a referendum in the Sun, of all places, to get the backing of the eurosceptic majority in this country two years ago - while knowing full well they would never have to go through with such a dangerous idea

Now time will tell how this pans out - he will suffer an initial backlash for seemingly 'betraying' people, but what he will be betting on is having made enough anti-EU noise to keep the support of the voters, while not actually having to do anything but make a few vague sentiments about 'repatriating powers' - clever, huh?

Cameron just wants power, anyone who actually bought that he had any intention of giving us a referendum on the treaty was being played for a fool

---

Maybe people WANT a new TV

Apparently the digital switchover in the North-West, which will affect 7.2 million people, may cause 'chaos' as TVs are needlessly thrown away

I remember talking about this back in 2007, when a YouGov survey revealed that 57% of people believed that the government had provided 'insuffiecient or no information' about the switchover, and 83% did not know when the switch would be in their region (survey at YouGov archives, Society - 2007)

Neither do I in fact...but does it really matter, because in 2007 '80% of adults [had] digital television in their home'

So while a majority don't have a clue about how and when (like me), they are already completely covered and already watch digital - surely all that matters is that they have digital

The fear is that people will throw away a perfectly good tv when they could just buy a set-top box

In the past year in Cumbria, 50,000 TVs wee recycled - 'This represents an increase of nearly 70 per cent compared to same period last year.' (so that's an extra 20,500 TVs), in the south west they had an increase of just under 40,000 TVs - so we can say 60,000 extra TVs were recycled

Of the ones in Cumbria, 30,000 could have been converted - so that's at least ten thousand TVs that would have been recycled anyway, curiously the Mail do not report how many could have been saved in the South-West

So we have 20,000 'wasted' TVs reported - is that a bad amount? Does that indicate that people are confused, after adverts every five minutes saying 'all you need is a set-top box' for what, five years?

I happened to throw away a convertible (?) TV last year, it even had a digi-box on it, the reason I got rid of it? - because it was crap and we got a new LCD, it was damaged and of no use to anyone, but this would've been counted as a TV that could have received digital and was 'needlessly thrown away' - plug it in and you would throw it away too

And when the switchover happens, would you not expect a few people to think, 'time to update the TV' - maybe they don't actually want a box on their old TV and decided to get a new one - I can't honestly believe little old ladies haven't had it drilled into their skulls that they don't need a new TV, I've never met anyone who thought they need a new one - but I know plenty who bought a new one - a little upswing in dumping TVs is surely expected

It could also be explained by the chucking of bedroom tvs - I have a little old sony, I have no intention of upgrading it - would you seriously go out and get 3 or 4 boxes for every tv in the house? No, I'd just buy a new one, it's 200 quid either way - I'm not surprised if a few of those get chucked out (mine isn't btw, it can be put to other use)

I can't find good figures for the populations of the TV regions, but you can assume there are at least 1 million households in the South-West and Cumbria combined, so that's 60,000 extra TVs thrown away - 6% of households threw away more TVs than the previous year, at a ridiculously conservative guess, and assuming they were all compatible (and how many TVs are there in the regions, let alone houses)

Is that such a catastrophe?
 
---

The Mail really do need to stop trying so hard

More BBC controversy - they attacked the Queen!! (again!!1!1!!)

Miranda Hart, on HIGNFY, described the Queen and the DoE as 'that Greek twit and his Kraut wife'

ooh, nasty racist jibe there - which in fairness it is, stinks of hypocrisy after they pulled that silly Hobnob joke doesn't it?

Only, the Mail left something out until a bit further down the story (after the outrage comments...)

At a Buckingham Palace event in honour of Indian president Pratibha Patil, Philip said to businessman Atul Patel: 'There's a lot of your family here tonight.'
Miss Hart joked: 'There is no place for racism in the modern world and the sooner that Greek twit and his Kraut wife realise it, the better.'

Now, does that not make a teeny bit more sense? It's satire - I am not foolish enough to believe the writers at the Mail actually think it's offensive in any way, but if anyone actually found that offensive they need a humour-rectomy

It's not actually racist, so it doesn't become an inconsistent piece of handling or 'double standards', as the Mail conclude, once again they wilfully mislead their readers in their attacks on the Beeb

There are of course some that feel that the Queen is out-of-bounds for humour - fortunately most people are not annoying royalists

...only Rebecca Adlington is granted such status

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'

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

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:

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...

School daze

According to the Mail, History is 'in danger' with only 30% taking it at GCSE, while 30% don't teach history as a stand-alone subject at key stage three (years 7-9), and one in three primary school children thought Churchill was the first man on the moon

Amazingly even the Independent have taken a negative view, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown writes:

History may soon become extinct in our secondary schools, go the way of domestic science and handwriting classes, only less missed and less lamented than either. A major new study by the Historical Association and teacher training experts found that three out of 10 comprehensives no longer bother to teach the subject, which isn't part of the core curriculum after the age of 13. Only 30 per cent do GCSE history.

Right, so only 30% take history, pretty bad eh?

Well actually considering it's totally optional that's not a bad figure is it? 30%...

Let's have a look at the top 10 GCSEs (2008), sorry I couldn't find percentages:

1. Maths
2. English
3. English Lit
4. Science
5. Additional Science (that replaced 'double science' we oldies did)
6. DT
7. History
8. Art
9. Geography
10. French

So it's seventh - and five of those above it are compulsory...

So basically it's the second most popular optional subject - hardly dying is it? It's beating French, which became completely optional more recently than history, and even Geography (and gasp...media studies!)

So where exactly is the problem here? I can understand the argument that more people should appreciate their history, but the fact that 30% of kids are choosing to take it is not a bad thing taken in context - it's actually doing very well at GCSE, if the argument is that all kids should do it then take that to the government and the people who made the curriculum - because right now all you're saying is that every optional subject (bar perhaps D.T) is 'dying'...

If it's a shame that so few are taking it then lobby the government to make it compulsory because you believe it is more important than geography and art, but don't try and present a 30% take-up as a failure simply because you believe everyone should study it

Speaking as someone with a GCSE, A-level and even a bachelor's degree in the subject I am a tad biased, I admit - but somewhat oddly you might think, I would not want all kids to do the subject - history, while I may love it, is not as vital as Maths, English and the sciences to our skills or understanding of the world, it's close, but you simply won't get all kids to 'do' history as a proper subject if they aren't into dates, wars and dead people - I'm pretty sure we had under 50% of my year doing when I did it ten years ago, and of that there were probably only a handful of us who really were interested - 100% of kids doing history would just relegate it to the forced battle we already have in English and maths classes, things which we actually need to try and teach the blighters, it's not as important so it wouldn't be worth the bother, frankly

Yes, a basic knowledge of history is a good thing, but you don't need to force kids to learn something they don't see as ever needing (and possibly won't) and you can teach history in far more ways than as a formal subject - we can see history in the sciences - I remember learning about Newton, Faraday, Darwin, Curie, Einstein, Boyle et all and how they discovered things, and likewise English literature basically is history - we all learn bloody Shakespeare! The man was a historian, just put him and Dickens into a bit of context and you're pretty much there, and you can use religion just as easily with the reformation, 'Bloody Mary' and other various religious wars, even geography uses historical case studies (e.g. migration in the industrial revolution, general world trends etc...) - history is all around us!

As for one in three primary schoolchildren kids thought Churchill went to the moon - here is the old story about it

It was a survey of 4-10 year olds (I think - I can't find the actual survey there) and 30% got Churchill wrong - now forgive me but within that age range 30% would approximately represent 2 years - I would hazard a guess that more 4-6 year olds got it wrong than 8-10 year olds - would I expect my 6-year-old nephew to know about Churchill? He might, but I don't expect him to - I would hope he'll know soon, but six is still pretty young, he's still learning writing and numbers...hardly reciting 'we will fight them on the beaches...'

Indeed if I remember the early 90s correctly I'm pretty sure year 6 was very heavy on World War 2 and I can't remember doing it before then - Romans in year 3 or 4, dinosaurs before that, the reformation and Henry VIII was in year 5...

So if they would like this figure to have any real weight how about they just test kids leaving primary school at ages 10-11, rather than asking 4-year olds about Winston Churchill

Jesus wept...

----

In other related news, there's been some backlash from 'the right' with regard to a survey that

'found three-quarters of teachers believed it was their duty to warn pupils about the danger of patriotism ' (Mail)

Intriguing, here you can read the lovely Melanie Philips' take on it, and it's even doing the rounds in the blogosphere, here's Cranmer's take (see: Sat 12 Sept 09)

Bad lefties ruining our national pride, that sort of stuff

But why exactly should we promote 'patriotism' - or love of one's country? Why in particular, should a science/maths/art teacher be interested in promoting a patriotic view - 'here we have Newton's first law, he was English you know, BE PROUD OF BRITAIN!'

Wouldn't simply allowing children to know Newton was English suffice? There are plenty of reasons to be proud of our country - why do teachers need to tell us to be proud? And does that mean we should view Newton and Darwin as 'better' than Einstein or the Curies? It doesn't seem to fit in the remit of a teacher to me

Certainly the most obvious area for this would be in history - now history to my mind is all about analysis, debate and critical thinking - saying 'the British Empire was excellent' like they did in 1950s O-levels is opinionated rubbish and barely anything to do with understanding history - force-feeding sentiment about our past is not a good thing for historical studies

It is of course, great for the Right in this country, because it's what they want to hear - in reality people should be given the facts and make up their own minds on whether they are proud of their country or not - brainwashing kids into saying 'Britain's great' is not particularly worthwhile - kids get enough nationalism through the press as it is, and younger ones aren't capable of understanding why it's great except that's what they're told - it's like religion, even I came out of school pretty nationalistic and ignorant about this country

And can you blame teachers for avoiding patriotism when they have the fun of teaching the two world wars? - Both were fuelled by blind patriotism and nationalism - and to those who say there's a major difference, I say poppy-cock - both encourage blind loyalty to a nation, nationalism is just the political principle that has been marred by its association with modern far-right groups - in its very essence it simply believes in the nation as a sovereign political entity, patriotism is the love of that nation (in our case anyway) - they're interlinked, how can a child who is told that their country is worth loving more than others not view other countries as lesser and end up with some degree of nationalism?

Of course, they hype it up to say that these teachers are lefties bent on communism and strengthening the EU, when in reality they are probably just being mindful of the fact that telling impressionable young children to be proud of their country just breeds trouble - I am proud of my country, hate the EU and yet would want my children to be wary of unquestioning patriotism - so am I a Marxist?

It's not that I mind British patriotism, I am proud of my country - but I can make up my own mind, and I don't think everything this country has done is great - surely telling children to be unquestioningly proud for reasons they can't question yet is just brainwashing, and I would be a hypocrite to suggest pushing my point of view on children when I oppose religion for doing the exact same thing

Give them the facts, this doesn't mean that you have to teach that Britain is bad - nor does that survey indicate anything of the sort, it just means letting them make up their own minds about our history

---

I have read lots on this new ISA vetting agency - and let's face it, I agree with pretty much everyone in this country, and would only echo the press with my views on it, it's Orwellian and pretty sickening

But what I will ask is this: Is this a step towards needing a licence to have children?

You are being vetted based on pretty limited contact with kids, even to the point where other parents are being vetted for being near your kids - surely the next logical step is to vet all parents - probably one of the biggest risk areas for abuse?

Answers on a postcard...

Labour don't understand non-conformity

Whoops...now Dan Hannan is praising Enoch Powell

Labour, in the form of Mandelson, immediately jumped on it describing the Tories as 'two-faced'

That seems a little extreme to me - are you not allowed opinions any more? Simply because one renegade MEP says something does that mean Dave Cameron secretly agrees with it?

Are you seriously telling me that all 349 Labour MPs (and their 13 MEPs) agree with Brown and his chums? There must still be a few proper socialists in there, and is Frank Field 'on message'?

Like hell he is - and dissent is an excellent thing in a rigidly controlled party system, and so yet again, despite Hannan doing something pretty controversial, to the moderate like myself Labour come off looking worse by not supporting dissenting opinion within their own ranks (and lying about it to boot)

This is how Labour think - yet another reason not to vote for them (not that I'm supporting Dave, but he is doing an excellent job at letting Labour do all their own demolition work)

Beckett doesn't get it either

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But this is hardly surprising from the woman who:

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

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

(From the Times)

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

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

Food from your garden is still food!

Dear God the Mail never tire of getting irate at non-issues

A man placed waste apples FROM HIS GARDEN, into THE GARDEN WHEELIE-BIN and the big scary men at the council had a go at him (actually they stuck a sticker on the bin and didn't empty it)

This of course equates to:

Officials at Flintshire County Council in North Wales decreed that just because something is waste and comes from the garden, it doesn't necessarily qualify as garden waste

Yes, the Stalinist overlords decreed it...

Now I'm not one to normally stick up for government but doesn't this seem entirely sensible? There are rules on which bins are for what - garden waste is rather different to food waste - it refers to branches, leaves, cuttings, flowers, grass and so on - plant material which can be used for mulch and other stuff, it's also a helpful way of getting rid of bits of cumbersome tree when you do some gardening - rather than take it to that special bin at the dump (yes, the special bin full of branches where you wouldn't be throwing apples, would you??) - think of it as like council gardeners who trim back hedges and trees, they only take away this sort of stuff

Apples meanwhile are food, which may or may not have come from the shop, do you really expect the bin-men to ask? Most people are aware that you don't put the compost in the garden bin (it's usually written on it!), like they should be aware that you shouldn't put lemons in a compost bin (too acidic) - but not in Mail world, instructions must be more explicit and nothing must be done to correct the faultless citizens who get it wrong, that's communism...

Now in the simple world of Mail readers, because it comes from the GARDEN, it must go in the 'garden bin', so presumably any crappy fruit and veg from your veggie patch should be going in there? Rather than in compost or general waste....(keen gardener in question was of course using composting already and had filled it, thus making him immune to criticism) - these are two rather different bins going to different places for different purposes, I have an 'organic material only' bin - shall I throw in my leftover organic chicken?? This is thinking worthy of Neanderthals

Dear lord people, these are quite clearly different processes - the only crime here is that the council have clearly thought too highly of these idiots

I know it's silly season...but this is regular fare for the Mail, they fill their pages full of crap about pretty women and their boobs and still they can't find a real issue to whinge about

Update: the comments are fun as always - worst rated are the sensible ones, top rated are the ones spewing forth hatred at councils (and somehow they've got onto uncooked meat) - good to know even the mail online sticks to type

Tax hikes to save your soul

Ahh, the Tories have announced a policy!

They plan to raise taxes on alcohol to stop binge-drinking - these taxes will of course only apply to 'strong' alcohol - i.e. cheap ciders and beers, and alcopops, which aren't strong, but are evil

Now I have already had experience with this policy - they introduced it in Australia over a year ago (albeit with a ridiculous amount of legislative dithering, but still, at least they have a legislative) and it doesn't appear to have done much - it's too early to tell, but there's still a media panic over violence outside pubs and some pretty tough legislation aimed at it - which would indicate the soft option of taxation is doing squat

Now what I don't get is why don't countries follow the example of others? I understand why they won't accept the Netherlands' version of prostitution (or New Zealand's, or Australia's, or the USA's...) but when it comes to more regular legislative moves why don't they look at how other countries have fared? In Australia they started talking about selling school land to finance the state budget - meanwhile I'm suddenly thinking 'has no-one heard of Thatcher?', this is a country that loves sporting achievement, thinking about doing one of the things that went a good way to nearly wrecking British sports

I do of course know the answer to my question - it's politics. they don't care about long-term benefits, only short-term solutions and easy votes

So with that in mind is it any wonder that this tax hike will see cheap, strong, supermarket-brand alcohol rise in price while traditional alcohol (beer and wine, and presumably spirits) will 'fall in price' (according to the mail) and therefore 'save our pubs!!' Thus appealing to that broad group which is the conservative middle classes

Election won! And with a rise in tax to boot!

It's not that I particularly mind attacking crappy alcohol - but one) don't dress it up as for public benefit and two) also admit it's an easy revenue raiser, which it is, and there's nothing wrong with that

The fact is, alcohol will still be cheap enough - even if white lightning becomes more expensive than Cristal people will still drink to excess, I used to do it on regular beer, as do most students - a few pence here or there makes no real difference

The Mail justify this action by saying this legislation in Australia and Germany has reduced consumption of the worst alcohol by 'as much as fifty per cent' - yes, consumption...nothing in that article about crime or violence - all they did was screw over a few breweries while people drink whatever is cheaper

Have you ever seen someone who binge drinks stick to a budget? No, you will see them go out with twenty quid saying they'll only spend that, only to go out and have a rather cold and wet trip to the cashpoint an hour into the session, then wake up the next morning another fifty quid lighter - unless all alcohol (except perhaps Sherry) costs the Earth then young, naughty people will drink, because at the heart of the matter is that the government still want regular 'decent' people to drink freely and so will always ensure alcohol is affordable

You want to control people, then you have to actually control them - restart the temperance movement, enforce a 3-drink maximum across the country, but don't pretend that aiming at the cheapest, roughest booze will do anything but soothe your conscience

By all means aim at the young - you can address the problem of under-18s with tougher action, and should, but a pretty feeble attempt at social manipulation of young adults will do nothing - people always forget that most alcohol related violence is still perpetrated by adults, even if they are 'young'

Like I say, I don't have a huge problem with the action itself (which is probably why it's such a clever idea - who's going to protest?) - I just think it's virtually pointless and a cheap gimmick to gain votes, it's shameless more than anything

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

Long live public broadcasting (for the over 40s)

Here we go again, 'I don't like something on the BBC so it should go'

Now the Tories are proposing (i.e. it won't happen, but it's a shameless vote-winner) to sell Radio 1

Why, pray tell? Seemingly because Radio 1 doesn't do enough to attract the younger listener, it's average (possibly median, I forget) is 33 - when it's aimed at 15-29 year olds, now why exactly a 29-year-old is closer to a 15-year-old than a 33-year-old I've never understood, but regardless it's failing it's mission

This of course means 'sell it!' - don't stop to think about it, it's not like I've yet to meet a teenager who actually listens to the radio through their ipod or anything - it's not like there is bugger all out their for 30-somethings on radio 2 - who are apparently, alone amongst all society, supposed to listen to commercial radio instead

Radio 1 is the only channel that provides 'popular' music - therefore it's the only one that actually competes with commercial so it does have some issues

But I seem to remember that the BBC is supposed to cater to all of us - we all pay for it you know - what BBC radio output would the under-40s want to listen to without radio 1? It would mean the only place popular music was available would be dreadful commercial radio, that hardly seems fair while oldies get their easy listening from radio 2 without ads, and their classical from radio 3 - sure I can listen to football on Fivelive, or might like something on Radio 4 - but any new music will be on commercial - hardly seems fair

I seem to remember the BBC created Radio 1 in the 60s specifically because the young needed their music played somewhere - now those very people who were young in the 60s want to get rid of something they dislike - can you imagine if I said classical music lovers should bugger off to Classic FM? Ironically they would suffer less than those who would suffer if radio 1 went

There would be no quality content delivered to the large group of people under 40 who like radio 1, and that to me seems unfair, based on some arbitrary demographic banding that targets a group that are highly unlikely to be attracted to radio

Can you imagine if the BBC were told to ship ratings juggernauts like Eastenders and Strictly... - they could be on ITV quite happily, but the BBC is still supposed to make things for the mainstream, competitive market - for some reason this doesn't apply to music

I know I'm jumping the gun here, but this is all part of the Mail's plan, in collusion with some Tories, to demonise the young and get rid of what they don't like - well I don't like Antiques Roadshow, so get it off

Lazy, greedy, hypocrites who think anything they don't like shouldn't be paid for by them

Also, while we're on the Mail's hate campaign - regarding this 'cult of youth' thing - just how many 'young' people dominate the airwaves? I love how this 'row' is about a show hosted by an 81 year old with a bunch of judges all above 40 (two in their 60s) - I want to see how bad this problem exactly is - show me the hordes of young people replacing people like Wogan and Humphrys

I can think of Jake from Newsround, who annoys me no end, popping up everywhere, but who else - the only ever name I hear is Alesha Dixon - one sole case on a show dominated by the old

So let's have a look - let's see what's on the BBC (we'll stick to terrestrial TV for ease) today

BBC1: 6am - Breakfast: Bill Turnbull (53), Kate Silverton (39), Chris Hollins (38) (they're today's main hosts, I'm not delving into a 3 hour show)
9.15am - Heir Hunters: Lisa Faulkner (36)
10am - Escape to the Country: Alastair Appleton (39), Denise Nurse (early 30s), Jules Hudson (late 30s - 40?)
11am - Homes Under the Hammer: Lucy Alexander (39), Martin Roberts (40s)
11.30am - Trash to Cash (seriously what is the daytime obsession with wealth?): Lorne Spicer (43)
12.15pm - Cash in the Attic: umm..Lorne Spicer (43) again
1pm - The news! Louise Minchin (40s)
1.45pm - Doctors: ah crap a soap - plenty of all types, three main characters in their 50s, no doubt many little old lady extras
2.15 - Murder, she wrote: hmmm - an average age for this 84 year old, Angela Lansbury (65)
3pm - news
3.05pm - Mister Maker (we are now in kids TV).............
4.35pm - Animals at Work: John Barrowman (42)
5pm - Newsround: Sonali Shah (25), Ore Oduba (20s?) (why is it with kids TV we suddenly see our first people who aren't white? Is it a demographic thing? Is it deliberately aimed at the young, or is it they aren't aimed are aimed at the old?)
5.15pm - The Weakest Link: Anne Robinson of course (64)
6pm - News: George Alagiah (53)
7pm - The One show: Chiles (42) Christine Bleakley (hottie - 28)
7.30pm - Bang goes the Theory...hmm should I count this?: Liz Bonnin (32), Dallas Campbell (38)
8pm - Eastenders: No way, but June Brown is still there at 72
8.30pm - Panaorama: Jeremy Vine (44)
9pm - The Street - tonight is Joseph Mawle (34), but has featured Hoskins (66), Broadbent (60), Johnston (65), and Spall (52) - all big names
10pm - News: Huw! (47)

That'll do for now, the next show is about kids in Asia, couldn't find a presenter

BBC2:
6am - Kids TV, must be summer...
1pm - Open Gardens: Joe Swift (44)
1.30 - Animal Park: Ben Fogle (noooo!!) (35), Kate Humble (40)
2.15 - Some drivel: Angela Rippon (64)
3pm - Monk: Tony Shalhoub (55)
3.45 - Flog it: Paul Martin (50)
4.30 - More drivel, unknown hosy
5.15 - More Cash in the Attic! (Celebrity version...) Jennie Bond (58) - oh Jennie, why?
6pm - Eggheads: Dermot (51)
6.30 - Knowitalls: Gyles Brandreth (61)
7pm - Top Gear: Clarkson (49) , Hamster (39), May (46)
8pm - University Challenge: Paxman (59)
8.30 - What to Eat Now: Valentine Warner (37)
9pm - Docu on criminal girls, I guess they're young...
10pm - BBC3 sitcom (20s)
10.30 - Newsnight: Wark (54)

So what does that tell us? Well bugger all really, it was hardly comprehensive - but do you see any particular invasion of youth? Unless you count late 30s as 'youth', most presenters are between there and the mid-50s - you can also see a progression, the presenters in their 30s are mostly stuck in dreary daytime TV, the older ones have climbed up to the bigger and better shows - nothing wrong with career progression, but in terms of weight the old definitely get the better shows

Granted we don't see many over 65s presenting, but as they aren't even working population, should we? Two of the biggest names spring to mind - Wogan is 71, Forsyth is 81

Other big names at the BBC are Wossy (48), Norton (46), Humphrys (65), Dimbleby (64), Neil (60), Marr (49), Fry (51), Lineker (48), Hansen (54), Shearer (38), Lawro (52), Robinson (45), Peston (49), Barker (53)

Or how about some comedy names - Hislop (49), Merton (52), O'Briain (37), Hugh Dennis (47), Frankie (36), Andy Parsons (32), Russell (29) - even the Top Gear team average mid-40s

Radio: Moyles (35), and Wogan obviously

I was pulling at straws to even find the under-30 Russell Howard, he's hardly a big player, but he's on a big show - otherwise the 'youngsters' are made up by Alan Shearer and the rest of the Mock the Week team, who don't exactly run the corporation and Chris Moyles, probably the only major player in his thirties - so there you go, dominated by 40-60 year olds, with a fair sprinkling of the over-60s

What I will say is there's a pretty obvious lack of women in the big names - and most of the women seem to be the younger side of middle-age, the only real exception is Sue Barker - the rest seem to be pretty faces to go alongside their older male hosts (think Tess Daly, Christine Bleakley, that bird off the Daily Politics)

I don't think there's any ageism with regards to have a 'cult of youth', if anything the major channels are dominated by the older generations, but when it comes to the women they do seem to have a shelf-life that the men don't, that is pretty bad in my opinion - whether or not this relates to Arlene Philips I can't say, and to crudely say this is about the young is bordering on crazy - it's sexism if anything (or perhaps pretty-ism), not ageism

The BBC should be addressing why there are so few women in major roles over the age of 50 - but there is certainly plenty of older (male) presenters for the growing older generations, who we apparently should be catering to, to relate to (re: Ben Bradshaw) - not like it's about appealing to the old for their powerful votes or anything though...

Quick...look busy

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

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

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

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

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

Depressing times...as always