It seems that I can't go five minutes anymore without someone asking me about whats going on in the political world. A lot of the time, it relates to them seeing an advert from one or other of the parties being posted on face book and wondering what it means 'in the grand scheme of things'. My answer is usually the same four words. It. Is. A. Game.
This particular post is going to help clear a few things up about how politics works and what each party is currently trying to do in order to ensure it gets good poll numbers.
First you need to understand the system. People in the UK do not vote for who they want running their country. They vote for their representative in Parliament. Once in Parliament the number of seats given to each party determines who will form the government. If no party has the required number of seats to form a majority government then one of two things will happen.
A) The largest party will form a minority government, in the UK this happens very rarely with the last true minority government being formed in 1974.
OR
B) Two or more parties will enter into a power sharing agreement and form a coalition government. Coalitions are known to be fairly common in other nations but until the 2010 election a coalition had not existed in the UK since war time England in the 1940's.
Once in Parliament the 'losing' party of the elections (that which did not achieve the majority or enter into a coalition) forms the official opposition. Normally in our system of government the opposition serves very little purpose, as a strong government majority means they are effectively impotent however in the current Parliament the opposition (now the Labour party) has a very active role as they have the opportunity to destabilize the coalition and bring down a government.
Strictly speaking the opposition has an uphill battle ahead of them. The government is united under a strong leader and the opposition is still blamed for many of the failures from their 13 years of governance. To that end they begin what I call the cycle of spin.
They take a simple story and respond to it, then make sure that everyone can see their response. They try to make people believe they are the one's best suited to deal with issues and question the credibility of the governments actions.
Currently the opposition is not very good at this. Whoever is running their campaign is clearly stuck in the 19th century because despite the use of social networking sites, the Internet and television for these purposes they don't seem to have any real aim other then "lets slag off the government" and to be honest with you that doesn't fly to well with people - they start to think about that old saying. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and realise that the opposition had 13 years to do better and didn't.
Personally I would like to see local MPs going around their constituency and talking to people, hosting dinners and speaking at church meetings. I would want them to already have candidates lined up for the next election and be pushing them around their target constituencies giving speeches about how in 4 or 5 years time they want to take the seat and put fairness back into politics.
As much as it pains me to say it, our politicians have no flair.
In America Barack Obama was going on talk shows for a full year during the Presidential campaign. Every minute of his life was managed and logged so that the Democrats came off looking like the better party.
I'm not saying I could have done a better job of running the campaign for Labour to be re-elected back in May, I know I could. I'm saying that if they want any hope of winning come the next general election they need to start now, hitting hard and hitting fast.
But that does lead me onto quite an interesting note: If anyone form the Labour party is reading this (which I highly doubt) e-mail me and we'll talk business until then Peace Out folks and remember: politics is all a game that no one is very good at anymore.
Thursday, 18 November 2010
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
54
In the four or five days since I put up my first post on this blog, thinking no one would care enough to read what some Law Student in the UK thought about the state of affairs I have discovered that I was quite wrong.
41 people form the United Kingdom, 7 from the United States and 5 from Signapore.
A total of 54 people have read, or atleast looked at, this blog.
If only I could get 54 people to care about tuition fees.
Here in Sunderland it seems that the political problems afflicting our country don't matter to the general public. Sure they talk a big game but none of them get up and do anything about it.
Even the students don't seem to care that the Government, to put it as a friend once told me, is raping them - since it fucks them everyday without their consent.
I find it quite disheartening that I can get 54 people to read my blog but not to come along and demonstrate their support to a good cause.
Peace out people. I would write more but I think my point is clear. Get up and get active.
41 people form the United Kingdom, 7 from the United States and 5 from Signapore.
A total of 54 people have read, or atleast looked at, this blog.
If only I could get 54 people to care about tuition fees.
Here in Sunderland it seems that the political problems afflicting our country don't matter to the general public. Sure they talk a big game but none of them get up and do anything about it.
Even the students don't seem to care that the Government, to put it as a friend once told me, is raping them - since it fucks them everyday without their consent.
I find it quite disheartening that I can get 54 people to read my blog but not to come along and demonstrate their support to a good cause.
Peace out people. I would write more but I think my point is clear. Get up and get active.
Monday, 15 November 2010
To be or not to be.
I am not an ecomentalist. Yes i believe in global warming but I don't believe Humanity caused global warming. I take the view that if there was an ice age there has to be a corresponding period of warming, which we are now entering. So when people ask me about whether I recycle I ask why it matters and when people ask me if I would drive around in one of those hideous electric hybrid cars I say hell no.
Truthfully though I do care about recycling and I do care about our planet. I say these things to wind up the morons who go on and on about how we can all save the planet if we just put down our plastic bags and all pick up these wonderful 'bag-4-life' things.
I also think that it very very sad that in this country especially people need to be reminded day in and day out about recycling. Maybe it's because our children grow up with idiotic shows like the teletubies or in the night garden... don't misunderstand I like these shows, I watched them with my nephew when he was interested in them, I just don't think they teach our children much about social responsibilities.
What happened to the Wombles? back when they were on the television children saw positive educational role models who went around picking up rubbish and making it into useful things, additionally it taught them about social responsibility because the Wombles all worked together as a team and helped one another without any of the capitalist crap that we too often see in our TV shows these days. Seriously If it was on TV today I think it would help a lot of young children learn what it means to be a socially conscious person.
Right now that rant is out of the way I'm going to talk a little bit about the cut backs in Legal aid announced by Ken Clark today in the commons. It is being heralded as 'long overdue' and 'a real cost cutting measure' but I want to dissect the true meaning of those terms.
'Long overdue' is Conservative party code for 'we wanted to cut it ever since Labour introduced it' and 'a real cost cutting measure' means 'it lets us buy another bottle of wine for the cabinet's Christmas party'.
The truth is that by cutting legal aid all the government is doing is making ordinary everyday people unable to pursue a claim while clearing up courts for the richer people who can afford to pay through the nose for legal representation. Its elitism pure and simple. Yet more proof that the 'New Conservatives' are nothing more then the old Tory's with a new logo.
Peace out people and keep on wombling!
Truthfully though I do care about recycling and I do care about our planet. I say these things to wind up the morons who go on and on about how we can all save the planet if we just put down our plastic bags and all pick up these wonderful 'bag-4-life' things.
I also think that it very very sad that in this country especially people need to be reminded day in and day out about recycling. Maybe it's because our children grow up with idiotic shows like the teletubies or in the night garden... don't misunderstand I like these shows, I watched them with my nephew when he was interested in them, I just don't think they teach our children much about social responsibilities.
What happened to the Wombles? back when they were on the television children saw positive educational role models who went around picking up rubbish and making it into useful things, additionally it taught them about social responsibility because the Wombles all worked together as a team and helped one another without any of the capitalist crap that we too often see in our TV shows these days. Seriously If it was on TV today I think it would help a lot of young children learn what it means to be a socially conscious person.
 | |
| The cast of the Wombles should make a return to our TV |
'Long overdue' is Conservative party code for 'we wanted to cut it ever since Labour introduced it' and 'a real cost cutting measure' means 'it lets us buy another bottle of wine for the cabinet's Christmas party'.
The truth is that by cutting legal aid all the government is doing is making ordinary everyday people unable to pursue a claim while clearing up courts for the richer people who can afford to pay through the nose for legal representation. Its elitism pure and simple. Yet more proof that the 'New Conservatives' are nothing more then the old Tory's with a new logo.
 |
| What the Conservative party should have said during the election |
Peace out people and keep on wombling!
Saturday, 13 November 2010
Normal transmission begins as of....well now
Ok so I kind of lied during the inaugural post of this blog. I said it would be twice weekly. But, and I'm so sorry about this, It will probably get updated more then that (I apologise for that). The reason for this is that when i get mad or angry I'm gonna pop onto here and I'm going to go nuts with a tirade of abuse against whatever has annoyed me.
Now this isn't to say it won't be an educated argument or that it won't amuse any of my readers (all 23 of you - which includes people in Singapore from what the stats tell me) but if at times you think "he's gone on about this before!" I apologise, chances are i have but given the frequency that certain topics come up around me I'm bound to repeat myself a few times.
NOW I have a few things to discuss today:
First I would like to congratulate Tim Farron on being elected to the role of Lib-Dem President. I wish him all the best and sincerely hope that he manages to convince the Lib Dem party that the coalition they entered into with the Conservative Party was a bad idea. From his record, which I'll admit i haven't scrutinized properly, he seems to be a decent sort and If anyone is up to the job I would say its him. Again all the best Mr Farron.
Second. I have a few things to say about Anarchism.
Anarchism is a political theory which can trace its roots back to Taoist philosophers but the modern theory comes from the work of a man named William Godwin. Godwin is said to have been the first person to truly set out what it means to be an Anarchist.
Now I live with an Anarchist, which is probably why I have some interest in the theory, and from what i can tell he spends a lot of his time trying to explain to people what it actually means. The way he explained it to me was that an Anarchist believes that people are divine and truly altruistic, that we don't need a government to tell us how to behave.
I have argued with him for countless hours about anarchy and how it would work. Generally speaking I take the view that it won't, but not because of the idiotic reasons that a lot of people would use such as "people would go around murdering each other in the street and rapists would be everywhere!". Those arguments hold about as much water as a paper boat because if a murderer was going to kill people randomly in the street they would do it whether the government tells them to or not, same with a rapist.
No my reason is simply that I am a pessimist. I don't believe people are truly altruistic. I instead believe in the power of the law as truly altruistic and the reason for this is that the law is not a person. It can be mistaken (because it's written by people) but it can never be malicious and it can never be angry. The law simply is.
But the point of this, is that I want people to understand that anarchy is not a bad thing. It is in fact a very good thing. I just don't think it would work - I do hope however that I get proved wrong eventually.
Peace out people and remember: Anarchists are our friends. Anarchists see the best in you and Anrchists are some of the best people I've ever met. Don't judge them just because they don't think we need a government.
Now this isn't to say it won't be an educated argument or that it won't amuse any of my readers (all 23 of you - which includes people in Singapore from what the stats tell me) but if at times you think "he's gone on about this before!" I apologise, chances are i have but given the frequency that certain topics come up around me I'm bound to repeat myself a few times.
NOW I have a few things to discuss today:
First I would like to congratulate Tim Farron on being elected to the role of Lib-Dem President. I wish him all the best and sincerely hope that he manages to convince the Lib Dem party that the coalition they entered into with the Conservative Party was a bad idea. From his record, which I'll admit i haven't scrutinized properly, he seems to be a decent sort and If anyone is up to the job I would say its him. Again all the best Mr Farron.
Second. I have a few things to say about Anarchism.
Anarchism is a political theory which can trace its roots back to Taoist philosophers but the modern theory comes from the work of a man named William Godwin. Godwin is said to have been the first person to truly set out what it means to be an Anarchist.
Now I live with an Anarchist, which is probably why I have some interest in the theory, and from what i can tell he spends a lot of his time trying to explain to people what it actually means. The way he explained it to me was that an Anarchist believes that people are divine and truly altruistic, that we don't need a government to tell us how to behave.
I have argued with him for countless hours about anarchy and how it would work. Generally speaking I take the view that it won't, but not because of the idiotic reasons that a lot of people would use such as "people would go around murdering each other in the street and rapists would be everywhere!". Those arguments hold about as much water as a paper boat because if a murderer was going to kill people randomly in the street they would do it whether the government tells them to or not, same with a rapist.
No my reason is simply that I am a pessimist. I don't believe people are truly altruistic. I instead believe in the power of the law as truly altruistic and the reason for this is that the law is not a person. It can be mistaken (because it's written by people) but it can never be malicious and it can never be angry. The law simply is.
But the point of this, is that I want people to understand that anarchy is not a bad thing. It is in fact a very good thing. I just don't think it would work - I do hope however that I get proved wrong eventually.
Peace out people and remember: Anarchists are our friends. Anarchists see the best in you and Anrchists are some of the best people I've ever met. Don't judge them just because they don't think we need a government.
 |
| The symbol of the Anarchist Movement |
Friday, 12 November 2010
Where I stand
Right as this is the first entry on what i hope will be a twice weekly blog, I wanted to set a few things out properly.
First a little bit about me. My Name is Harry Joseph Todd, I am 19 and I am in the second year of a law degree at the University of Sunderland. I have been a member of the Labour party since i was 16 and would describe myself as a social communist. This does not however make me a leftist nutter. I hope that as i write more into this blog you will begin to see that while I have a personal opinion on most things I won't always agree with things just because I feel that they represent my 'side' of the argument.
The best example I can think to give for this is the frankly appalling display given by my peers during the march in London in protest of the tuition fee rise. Yes I disagree with the rise but no i don't believe that warrants violence or even violent behaviour because taking violent actions in a protest has a long history of simply losing the protesters any public support they may have had. I would like to stress though that i am not condemning the students and protesters who took violent action. I believe that they did what they thought was best in the circumstances, regardless of the fact that I personally disagree with it.
Now onto today's issues. Top of the list is Waterboarding. A friend (and i use the term loosely) of mine recently posted on his face book status that he agreed with George Bush that Water boarding was and is necessary. Now putting aside my own feelings on the issue, that waterboarding is a blatant human rights abuse and should never happen under any circumstances, I feel it is important to discuss the issue properly.
WARNING THERE ARE IMAGES OF A VERY GRAPHIC AND VIOLENT NATURE FOLLOWING THIS MESSAGE! IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE TO READ.
First, with regards the necessity of waterboarding as an intelligence gathering tool, I would like to point out that we in Great Britain have a very long history of refusing to hear evidence obtained gathered under torture in our courts. It was first condemned as cruel by the Lateran Council of 1215. From the fifteenth century onwards it was then disallowed in UK courts (except under special warrant) before finally being phased out completely by the Long Parliament in 1640 when it disbanded the court able to issue torture warrants.
The reasons for this are, when put bluntly, that torture is unreliable. Put yourself in that situations, being beaten every day and being water boarded until you broke. At that point you would probably admit to just about anything to make the torture stop. So how can it be a useful tool of intelligence gathering? to put it simply I don't think it can be.
Right now onto it being neccesary to torture people. On this matter i tend to be a little bias, because i think anyone who makes this arguement is worse then a racist. We will have all heard it said before 'to hell with Human Rights, terrorists aren't human'.
Well I have news for you. They are. And by saying that for us to win the war on terror we need to torture someone because they might be a terrorist well guess what? we just lost your god damn war on terror. Because this war, if it can be called that, is about idealogy. And the fact is that every time we given in and sign away another persons freedom we become the monsters that the other side in this war has been painting us as all along.
Peace out everyone and remember. Torture and waterboarding are not neccesary or right or legal. There just some dickheads way of making himself seem like the big man in the war on terror.
Yours truely.
Harry.
First a little bit about me. My Name is Harry Joseph Todd, I am 19 and I am in the second year of a law degree at the University of Sunderland. I have been a member of the Labour party since i was 16 and would describe myself as a social communist. This does not however make me a leftist nutter. I hope that as i write more into this blog you will begin to see that while I have a personal opinion on most things I won't always agree with things just because I feel that they represent my 'side' of the argument.
The best example I can think to give for this is the frankly appalling display given by my peers during the march in London in protest of the tuition fee rise. Yes I disagree with the rise but no i don't believe that warrants violence or even violent behaviour because taking violent actions in a protest has a long history of simply losing the protesters any public support they may have had. I would like to stress though that i am not condemning the students and protesters who took violent action. I believe that they did what they thought was best in the circumstances, regardless of the fact that I personally disagree with it.
Now onto today's issues. Top of the list is Waterboarding. A friend (and i use the term loosely) of mine recently posted on his face book status that he agreed with George Bush that Water boarding was and is necessary. Now putting aside my own feelings on the issue, that waterboarding is a blatant human rights abuse and should never happen under any circumstances, I feel it is important to discuss the issue properly.
WARNING THERE ARE IMAGES OF A VERY GRAPHIC AND VIOLENT NATURE FOLLOWING THIS MESSAGE! IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE TO READ.
First, with regards the necessity of waterboarding as an intelligence gathering tool, I would like to point out that we in Great Britain have a very long history of refusing to hear evidence obtained gathered under torture in our courts. It was first condemned as cruel by the Lateran Council of 1215. From the fifteenth century onwards it was then disallowed in UK courts (except under special warrant) before finally being phased out completely by the Long Parliament in 1640 when it disbanded the court able to issue torture warrants.
The reasons for this are, when put bluntly, that torture is unreliable. Put yourself in that situations, being beaten every day and being water boarded until you broke. At that point you would probably admit to just about anything to make the torture stop. So how can it be a useful tool of intelligence gathering? to put it simply I don't think it can be.
 | ||
| A prisoner being waterboarded |
Right now onto it being neccesary to torture people. On this matter i tend to be a little bias, because i think anyone who makes this arguement is worse then a racist. We will have all heard it said before 'to hell with Human Rights, terrorists aren't human'.
Well I have news for you. They are. And by saying that for us to win the war on terror we need to torture someone because they might be a terrorist well guess what? we just lost your god damn war on terror. Because this war, if it can be called that, is about idealogy. And the fact is that every time we given in and sign away another persons freedom we become the monsters that the other side in this war has been painting us as all along.
Peace out everyone and remember. Torture and waterboarding are not neccesary or right or legal. There just some dickheads way of making himself seem like the big man in the war on terror.
Yours truely.
Harry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)