Tagged with Politics

I’m fed up of the voting system referendum

Referendum

There is a referendum coming in a couple of weeks or so that will probably make the latest round of small-scale elections a bit more exciting than usual. The public is being asked a simple question: do you want to stick with the first-past-the-post system or do you want to switch to a run-off system dubbed alternative vote?

There’s something about this, as the campaigning goes up a gear, that is really ticking me off. It’s not necessarily the viewpoints of the pros/cons arguments that are being discussed by sensible people. Whatever my view, I will appreciate an opposing view if it’s expressed coherently and in a way that makes sense. Unfortunately, this is politics. Sensible discussion is, and will be for the foreseeable future, absent. Instead, both campaigns are trying to smear one another with information that is either a blatant lie or a desperate attempt to sink the enemy’s ship.

In particular, the No to AV campaign has been nothing short of admirable in its belligerent and loud-mouth approach. In their TV advert, they likened voting to a horse race and one of their ‘actors’ likened it to gambling. This is because as we all know, voting is like playing Texas Hold’Em. Though to be fair that is rather accurate; at the start you and your competitors are determined but not nasty but as the game reaches its brutal climax everyone is holding vendettas against each other and punches are being thrown because you have the once ace that someone else badly needed to stay in the game.

But enough about my poker tales.

One of their main arguments has been the ‘if you allow alternative voting you will let more extremists from the BNP into politics argument’. This has caused me the most bother. Surely if you wanted to stop candidates from the BNP or UKIP winning then you’d…I don’t know, campaign against them and try to convince your public to not vote for them and vote for you instead. That would seem a perfectly more logical way of going about it then blaming the system. It’s like when you lose a boss fight in a computer game for the 100th time and you resort to crying out “THE COMPUTER IS CHEATING! THIS ISN’T FAIR!” when actually it’s your inadequacy that is causing you to lose repeatedly.

Yet, because of their Fox News-style approach to campaigning (i.e. shout loud crazy things whilst ignoring facts), it might just win them the referendum. I don’t mind if my vote isn’t enough to secure a change in the voting system – it’s a democracy after all and if more people want to keep to what we’ve got then who am I too argue – but when the winning campaign is built on a steaming pile of propaganda that makes little sense I do feel a bit bitter.

Tagged , , , ,

Big problems with Big Society

Big Society

In July last year, David Cameron announced that Liverpool would be one of the ‘case study’ cities that would showcase the good work of the Big Society scheme, which means a ‘community with oomph’ (sounds like something John Torode from Masterchef would say to be honest; though Mastermayor would make a great TV series) in his words.

Seriously though, ‘community with oomph’. Even as a political soundbite it sounds about as plausible as a stereotypical Glenn Beck theory. What does that even mean?

Anyway, as it transpires, Liverpool council leader Joe Anderson doesn’t want ‘oomph’ on Merseyside and has written to the PM requesting withdrawal from the pilot. He’s said that Liverpool has “been doing the ‘big society’ for many years”. In other words, Liverpool has been providing itself with plenty of ‘oomph’ for a while. I imagine many other cities and towns have also provided their communities with ‘oomph’. I’m sure the ‘oomph-factor’ (another TV show waiting to happen) is high in places like Guildford and Woking. There’s ‘oomph’ everywhere. You can’t escape the irrisistable power of ‘oomph’.

Anderson also argued that government cuts are already threatening to damage the voluntary organisations that Big Society is supposed to promote. In other words, the government is curtailing their own idea by giving places like Liverpool as little to work with as possible. By the time it gets going properly, Liverpool would probably be told: “Ok guys, you have to make a Big Society out of a sole bag of bricks, a lawnmower and an old Converse. Chop chop!” At this point the person in a white coat would flee in a darkened limo and be whisked away to Westminster, never to return since they’re too busy dealing with far more important things.

If Big Society was re-named “The Scheme Where You All Help Out In Your Community Because We Can’t Be Bothered” people would finally get it. It’s essentially nothing more than the government just giving up. They are out of ideas so they want the people themselves to run their own neighbourhoods. This is, and it goes without saying, very dangerous. The general public are morons most of the time and, give them a town or a city to run, they’d probably cock it up at the first attempt. It would, however, make a great Channel 4 documentary.

It’s also a really dumb name. It doesn’t mean a damn thing. Besides, if we’re in an era of cuts spending (which will, apparently, lead us into another recession) then it stops making sense as society just isn’t big enough any more. Surely a more fitting name is ‘The Big Society That Used To Be A Bit Bigger But Now Isn’t'? Can anyone explain what it means?

Lord Wei, advisor to the Conservatives and member of the House of Lords, says of Big Society:

“In reality, it is more about having the tools, information and opportunities in place (partly as a result of government and other reforms) to play your part, with however much or little time you have – but where collectively these actions by citizens add up to represent something ‘big’.”

Tell that to Conservative MP Francis Maude, who has struggled a bit to sell the idea. He described it at a Conservative party conference fringe event as something that would be “chaotic and disorderly”. Also, try and make sense of this quote he made at the same event:

“We won’t just do nothing if 100 flowers don’t bloom in 100 places. The 100 flowers will bloom, but we’ll have to do some gardening and sow some seeds. It won’t be universal.”

U-turns never look good on coalitions but if Cameron was to drop Big Society today it would save him even more trouble in the long run. It has no signs of any potential success and if Liverpool aren’t willing to give it a go then you do wonder who would.

The consequences if he doesn’t drop it could end up damaging his government. If he drags it out then it’ll just make people more and more angry and, come the next election, it’ll haunt him when it comes to electioneering. If he can’t win over the public on something as fundamentally important as local communities then he will face an uphill struggle to gain votes from those who doubt him.

Tagged , , ,

Everyone, including you, is to blame for the student protests

Westminster

Having had a bit of time to reflect on the student protests, and the vote on higher education that led to these protests, there is only one possible conclusion to draw from this. Everyone is in the wrong and we’re all going to hell in a handbasket. Let’s analyse the main group of players in a reasonable chronological order.

Politicians:

They have a lot to answer for. It was obvious that the coalition government would make some pretty savage cuts across the board and the radical proposals to higher education funding has so far been the most controversial; whether it’s as controversial as the poll tax remains to be seen but for the time being it’s the biggest test this government has faced thus far. Personally, I think that it’s a piece of legislation that promises to make the system far more complicated and harder to understand, which, alongside the increase in costs, will put off people applying to university. There are two other key points though that makes it difficult to find sympathy within the politicians making the decision to put this through.

Several key Tory MPs and several key Liberal Democrat MPs such as Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, David Willetts and the Prime Minister have all had a chance to explain to people why this piece of legislation would be good for us as a country and to defend themselves with an argument based on some degree of sanity. This hasn’t happened – the three key phrases have been, roughly: ‘this is the best thing for the country at this present time,’ ‘this will leave students better off,’ and ‘this is a compromise we have to accept’ as well as constantly laying into the previous government for their introduction of tuition fees (which would be a fair political comment if it was made at the time of that vote – it’s over, get over it). The members of the public who are against this bill have been waiting for a proper explanation but they’ve been rebuked with a smug ‘deal with it’ attitude from those in charge.

Perhaps what is even more damning is the realisation that, despite a lot of support against this legislation, no one in the House of Commons seems to care. Let’s face it, the majority of them are only in there with the aim of planning the next move in their political career ladders and all the policies they make are with the intentions of legacy rather than serving their public. I guess you could argue this was fully confirmed in 2003 when a million people protesting against the Iraq War were ignored and you could wonder why I’m surprised they don’t listen regardless. My response is simple: they are not doing their job.

Protesters:

Despite the reported rufflings in the first student protest on the 10th November, it was a largely successful event because it proved that people were in uproar and it proved that points could be made in a mostly peaceful way. In the protests that have followed, it has become more of an opportunity for vandals with no care about the subject matter to join in ‘for a laugh’ and vandalise certain London landmarks. This kind of behaviour is utterly reprehensible to me.

I feel sorry for those who went to the protests hoping for a peaceful demonstration only to be caught up in the mayhem that has unfolded. They weren’t helped by other factors – which I’ll get onto in a minute – but we’re now at a point where the best thing anyone could do is to just stop protesting and marching in London and instead find alternative protest methods that are more damaging (the occupation protests, for example, have been largely peaceful and respectful) to the government’s cause without actually hurting anyone. It’s a hippy-ish thing to say but it’s coming to a point now where no one is being taken seriously and, as mentioned earlier, almost no one in the House of Commons is listening.

Police:

The police, admittedly, had a difficult job to try and handle the chaos of last night. However, there were several fundamental flaws that call into question their usefulness in dealing with situations like this.

Whilst it is important to take their word for it that dangerous things were being thrown at them by those carried away with rage – they are police officers after all, so their seniority is far greater than the average protester – some of their actions did nothing more than to provoke the crowd into being more anarchistic and more rebellious. They did this either by kettling, which from all the descriptions I’ve heard from eyewitnesses sounds horrifying, beating innocent people as young as eleven or twelve years old caught in the melee and generally being merciless in their actions. It is this kind of behaviour that sickens me and why this hasn’t been reported as much in the media – which I’ll come to in a bit – is completely mind-boggling. Their strategy to keep things in order needs to change or else things will worsen deeply.

If this was to be summed up by one incident, it’s the attack on the car of Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. It strikes me as truly bizarre that the police didn’t advise the pair of them to change their route to avoid the protesters, especially when the technology is there to help them (incidentally, Google Maps was used constantly by protesters to find alternative marching routes to avoid the police, for example). As such, the price has been paid and, as such, Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has no other option but to think long and hard about how to handle things better. If he can’t think of a way, maybe he should let someone else figure out a plan.

Media:

Once again the media, although there are some exceptions, has focused on nothing but the protesters’ more violent actions and branded them all as thugs. If you needed any more proof of a shocking lack of perspective of the real story from this event, look no further than the BBC 6 O’ Clock News earlier on this evening when the decision to put the attack on Charles and Camilla’s car as the main story with the reports of young, harmless teenagers being beaten up demoted to five stories further down the pecking order. The lack of ability to put those kind of stories in the frontline of their bulletins is sickening and shows them up in terms of their ideologies. People shouldn’t be allowed to fall for some of the more extremely biased media’s propaganda.

Yet we do. And this, ladies and gentleman, is why everyone is to blame for this sorry mess of affairs that looks set to rumble on well into the new year. Politicians make a bad call without justification, students protest in the wrong manner, police use violence in a way that is disgusting and the media is trying to skew the story for their own political gains…maybe the “we’re all in this together” slogan does have some truth in it after all.

Tagged , , , ,

A blog post on blogging, inspired by Anton Vowl

When I first set out to blog (which I could argue was nearly three years ago) I did wonder about whether to post under an alias but thought not to because, at the end of the day, if I wanted to break into journalism or the media industry it wouldn’t help if I was nothing but a false identity. I knew I’d be far more proud of seeing my real name in a print publication as opposed to some half-baked character name. I also don’t think my parents would appreciate me writing under something like “Raymondo The Unfunny Clown” or something like that.

This comes with its own pitfalls; whilst I could moan and whine about things such as the coalition government, Sky News, George Osbourne and so on…any temptation to moan and whine about anything more personal is dampened by the realisation that people would know who I am and, quite frankly, I’m not sure how comfortable I would feel about it knowing it could come back to haunt me. There are other problems, obviously. If you make a mistake in one of your posts people know it’s you who did it (though I do admit I am wrong if I am indeed wrong rather than just merely sneak in an edit and pretend it never happened) and there’s always the possibility that an artist won’t like an unkind review that you wrote and therefore hates you for life (this happened in my early days of voluntary writing but the EP I reviewed was genuinely terrible, in my defence).

There are issues that I have – albeit, at this current stage of my life they are just mere hurdles in an athletics race as opposed to a concrete wall – that I could detail with a lot more honesty and clarity without fear of people knowing who the ‘real me’ is if I gave myself a different ‘pen name’. It would probably lead to a more honest and emotionally charged blog with no regards to the conventions of writing…but if that’s something that represented what I was like on a certain day at a certain time then I wouldn’t argue its authenticity and . Besides, I’m not using a real name. It’s not like anyone can report me to the Grammar Police without a name.

However, given the fact that I feel that blogging/tweeting as myself on the web is already an exaggerated version of myself – you’d be shocked to know I don’t talk about The Apprentice in real life as much as I do online – I’m not sure how creating a separate personality would make things any different. A part of me also feels like I’d get bored a few months in and would change direction – perhaps a blog that was more uptight and guarded but knowing that I really am posting as myself. In the end it comes down to two options that really aren’t perfect options when it comes to writing on the web…but I can understand entirely why people do either/or (or maybe even both).

As this point you’re probably wondering ‘Who the devil’s pumpkin is Anton Vowl and what has he got to do with it?’ He is actually a guy called Steven Baxter who has been writing a blog called Enemies of Reason and penning his thoughts on the media (mainly its painful flaws and faults) using Anton Vowl as an alias. He also used this alias to detail his own battle against depression in a separate blog called Farewell Prozac. A couple of days ago, he officially ‘came out’ and outed himself with a wonderful piece on The Guardian’s website on blogger anonymity.

I couldn’t recommend Enemies of Reason enough as a blog, purely because I think no one else can rip apart the inconsistencies and lies of the media industry than Steven. It frequently disappoints me that the UK doesn’t really have anything like the Daily Show or the Colbert Report and I think that this is the closest thing we have to it. That might be overly gushing but what are you going to do about it? Report me? You don’t even know who I a-…oh, right.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Thoughts on Andrew Marr’s interview with Tony Blair

Tony Blair

You might be wondering I’m only commenting on this now. Well, my original plan was to watch this last Wednesday night but after all the political fallout of Tony Blair’s memoirs that day I was already just a bit sick of the hype and buzz around it. Instead, I watched it a couple of days ago (which is wise considering there wasn’t anything to do at all) when everything had died down.

The first thing to say is to note how different he looks. In terms of appearance the Blair of 2007 that stood down as PM amidst a sea of metaphorical ticker tape hasn’t changed much three years on but when he’s been away from the public eye for so long, save a couple of TV appearances, it really does look like a ghost has returned from the past. I was about nine years old when he was sworn into office and by the time he had left I was a young adult, so it felt like seeing a famous figure from my own childhood and adolescent phase, as weird as it sounds.

The interview was dominated by questioning of the Iraq War, rather predictably, and he still vigorously defended the decision to go to war with Iraq but, whilst his defence was actually reasonably solid, I still find it hard to have sympathy for him. As time goes on he seems far more anguished and regretful about the implications of his actions and to think that he still feels like it was a good idea does seem quite suspect to me. It’s still fresh in the memory so history cannot yet whether Blair and George W. Bush were right in their actions but one cannot help but feel that it might end up being quite damning.

The rest of the hour was spent talking about everything else, for the most part. If anything, it reminded me how captivating Blair is, regardless of whether you think he was a saint or a villain in British politics. He revealed the full extent of his fallout with Gordon Brown and was quite candid about his relationship with him. Infact, he was pretty candid about most things. He admitted that the fox hunting ban was a bloody political minefield that needn’t to have been gone down, for example. A lot of people are saying that his book is motivated by money but as he said in the interview, all royalties and payments to him go straight to charity, and I can’t think of any other reason for him to be this revealing apart from wanting to set the record straight and possibly with an eye or two on future history books that have yet to be written.

Andrew Marr was, for the most part, a good interviewer and managed to cover a wide range of topics over the duration of the interview. Maybe at times he was too pressing and asked the odd question or two that were never going to reveal anything (Blair declined to voice his opinion of the current coalition government) but fine otherwise. It was quite a watchable hour of television that, if not spectacular, was pretty insightful.

Tagged , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.