The World has Changed
In a democracy, if you don't like the result of democratic process, that's tough. You certainly shouldn't be calling foul and demanding a re-run. You might think of other things you could do.
In a democracy, if you win a narrow victory don't crow about it and do not, ever, attempt to stifle political debate (and freedom of speech) by telling people to shut up and live with the result.
Similarly, if you are in a demographic sector that generally voted and lost, don't whine about how it isn't fair that other groups didn't take account of your needs and now you have to live with the decision. I am seeing posts on social media that claim young people have somehow been handed a bad deal by older people. No. Older people have children and grandchildren and probably considered their needs as well as their own. That's what parents and gradparents do. Don't claim that older people don't care about younger ones. If you want young people's voice to be considered get them registered and get them to vote.
There's also been a question about whether we should be allowing 16 year olds to vote and shouldn't we have done that because in Scotland look what happened - they were "responsible" voters. A "responsible" voter in those terms is one who votes the way the Government (who had to frame the legislation to allow it) expects them to vote. That is all.
The real issues with this Referendum and the reaction to the result lie elsewhere. In no particular order...
- Education - or the lack of a proper education system - more about thatlater
- Me first politics - more about that later too
- The quality of political debate (or lack of it)
- The quality of our elected representatives
- Local Councils using anti-terrorism laws to spy on people's rubbish. I'm also complaining about the people who get accused of littering (even though they didn't do it) who don't put up a fight but just pay the fine. How dare they?! If they didn't leave their rubbish where the council says then they have no business paying the fine. Have they lost their senses? Have they no guts? Unless the council can prove that they left their rubbish in the wrong place at the wrong time then the council can take their fine and their spying, sneaking activities and shove them somewhere it hurts. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If enough people stood up to the council and said "I didn't do it, if you want money sue me" the councils would soon stop being so stupid, because they can't afford to take lots of people to court. I pay the council's wages so I want to know how come they can waste so much time on hounding people over rubbish when there are pavements that need mending, all the public toilets are closed, and people who need a home help but can't get one. In the meantime, lets amend the legislation to stop the councils snooping.
- People who want me to change my religion to theirs. Any people who want to change my religion to theirs, regardless of what their religion is. If their religion faith was so fantastic, so right, then everybody would follow it anyway. Except of course that's not going to happen. We have to remember that most religions are interpreted and defined by men. Holy books aren't the "Word of God" but some man's interpretation or translation of what he thinks the "Word of God" ought to be. When I say "man" that's what I mean, men. This is one situation when men means men and not humankind. I don't care what methods the would-be converters use, whether dropping leaflets through my letter box or trying to blow me up, I'm not converting. In any case, a "religion" which seeks to convert people, or promote its message by using violence isn't a religion but a gang and I want no part of it.
- People who keep mucking about with my language and telling me I what words I can and can't say and when I can and (especially) can't say them. Blow that for a game of soldiers. I realise that some words in some context might be offensive to some people. That's OK you don't say them because it's rude, like wishing Jewish people a "Happy Easter". Unless of course you really want to upset somebody. But the latest thing is that we aren't allowed to use certain Latin abbreviations and phrases because they are "elitist" and people don't understand them. Now that's what I call patronising offensive rubbish. I work part of the week with kids aged between 14 and 16 who are classed as "low achievers". They are not academically the brightest buttons in the box though they are lovely people. Those kids use Latin abbreviations and phrases all the time! How is me telling them they are too stupid to use them going to help their self esteem? Help them develop their language skills? Help them get to grips with their culture? I would never dream of saying to anybody that they shouldn't participate fully in the linguistic culture that makes up one of the richest languages on the planet. My students understand what e.g. means, they know the difference between that and i.e. they use etc. on a regular basis. They know what NB means. They possibly don't know they are using Latin, but if they understand and use it then so can anybody. Some of the students have English as a second language - maybe I should only simplify my use of language for them. But surely that's racist? In the meantime the dumbing down brigade are getting it all their own way.
- People who think that elites and elitism are "wrong". If elites are wrong we don't need BBC Sports Personality of the Year to celebrate the achievement of the sporting elite of this country. After all, any idiot can drive Lewis Hamilton's car, maybe instead of Paula Radcliffe in the 2012 Olympics I'll have a go. How about that for an idea? We can recruit the England Soccer team from the local park a couple of days before the next World Cup qualifying match and everything will be fine because quite clearly everybody has to be treated as if they were equal. Listen, listen very, very, carefully, everybody is not equal and they aren't supposed to be. I thought we were supposed to encourage and promote diversity, clearly not in this case. By lowering our expectations and standards we aren't making more people feel included, we are making the average level of attainment lower; the midpoint is going down, not up. People have nothing to aspire to apart from getting as much money as possible for the least possible effort. Forget training for a job and working hard to achieve something that you can be proud of, just go on some reality TV show and get lots of money for being a talentless layabout.
- People who are so terrified of discriminating against some imagined minority that they discriminate against everybody else. Somebody suggested to me that lining children up in a classroom alternating boys and girls somehow infringes their "human rights". Their what? I can't even begin to imagine what that's all about. Lining kids up, in any order, is certainly a matter of human rights; the teacher's human right to be allowed to do their job, control their class and impose some order and discipline so that all the pupils can learn and develop and grow to their full potential. It affects the human rights of every pupil in the class, who must be allowed to grow and develop and learn without the threat of disruption. Under some circumstances it may be necessary to line kids up in a certain order, under all circumstances it is necessary for a teacher to have control of the class. I suppose what they ought to do is just say "off you go" and let the kids sort themselves out. Oh but of course that would infringe the human rights of the little kid who gets trampled in the rush to the door, or the slower kid who is still putting their things away when everybody else has gone, or the biggest kid who is always out or the room first because they won't have the opportunity to experience what it's like to be last.
It is true that you get the quality of politician you deserve. As an electorate we stink! I will put my hand up and admit that I am very cynical when it comes to politicians. Don't trust many of them. We got the untrustworthy politicians when we all started saying that politicians were corrupt and none of them could be trusted. Self-fulfilling prophesy. Turning our back on them and not engaging with the political process, not challenging and not making the buggers earn their keep and justify themselves and not checking what they are saying got us into this mess. We got rubbish politicians because we are a rubbish electorate.
What we need is for many, many more people to be engaged in political debate. They don't have to belong to any political party, but they do have to be aware and active and interested and prepared to stand up and say "You are not good enough. You do not deserve my vote. You are lying. You are distorting the facts." That would take effort though and we are collectively too lazy to do that. We got exactly what we deserved. Serve us right.
Date posted: 26 Jun 2016
Is it that time already?
Suddenly it's April. I have no idea where the first 3 months of the year went, but they went! Actually I do know. We had an Ofsted inspection in January so we spent a lot of time preparing for it, and then some more time recovering from it. Then there was the usual dashing about like mad things trying to keep on top of the work, and I had an interview for what is essentially the same job I am doing now. The significant difference is that I have gone from a fixed term contract to a "permanent" one. Same contract and pay. Same government trying to make me pay more for less. Same 0.5 percent pay rise.
There was some bozo trainee reporter writing in the paper the other day saying that teachers have a dead cushy life and shouldn't complain about their pensions because it's better than most people get. So what? That pension is part of my contract of employment. She bleated on about the long holidays teacher get (see my previous post about teacher arithmetic) I don't know how she thinks that will help pay the mortgage since I am contractually obliged not to take additional work outside teaching, even in the holidays. I bet she'd be moaning fast enough if all teachers decided, without consultation or negotiation to reduce their class contact hours by 3%. Sauce for the goose?
Date posted: 17 Apr 2012
Teachers Arithmetic
You know it's getting towards the summer when people start whingeing about the long holidays teachers get. As people start coming back from their cheap off-peak, out of season holidays they took their kids on because they, after all, have a "right" to take their kids away on holiday, even if it is disruptive. Why complain now? Because this is the time of year when some people realise that the free baby sitting service called school isn't available in the summer.
Let's look at a little teaching arithemetic shall we? Teachers are required to teach a certain number of hours in a year. In my case that's 865. Spread out over an academic year of 36 weeks that works out at just on 24 hours per week. That means actual teaching time, when I am in a classroom with other people's children. Generally speaking, every hour taught generates an hour of preparation, and another hour of marking. So every teaching hour gets multiplied by 3. That gives 2595 hours a year teaching and related duties. Now, add to that staff meetings; if it's only an hour per week then that's an extra 36 hours (I doubt it is as little as an hour per week but it'll do as a ball park figure). That gives 2631 hours. Now add on communication with parents, carers, social workers. On a day to day basis that's probably another hour a week - on a quiet week. So another 36 hours gives 2664 hours. Now add formal parents evenings, say 3 per term and 3 hours each (usually 6pm to 9pm but not always) that's another 27 hours, giving 2694. Add to that report writing; a class of 20 kids (and it's usually 30 or more), done properly, can take 2 hours. An average teacher might have to do that for 10 classes over the course of the year. That's another 20 hours, making 2,714. I'm not adding in things like school concerts, trips, sports days, and all the other things teachers do for the "love" of it. Assume then a 40 hour week. To work that number of hours the average teacher would have to work for 67.75 weeks per year. It isn't until a teacher works 60 hour weeks that the number of working weeks drops to just over 45, which gives 7 weeks holiday.
Put it another way, if a teacher is at the top of the pay scale they will be paid 31,552 GBP per year. That is working outside London and not getting extra allowances for additional duties. This gives an hourly pay rate of less than 12 GBP. For somebody who has trained for a minimum of 4 years (degree and teaching qualification), who frequently has a higher degree and who does a lot of professional updating in the course of their work.
Teachers are judged every time they step into a classroom, by 30 very observant pairs of eyes. Those eyes often belong to children of parents who don't value education, who say frequently, and loudly, that teachers have an easy life and are over paid. Those children often seem to think that they have the right to disrupt a class and fail to do their work. There is no hiding place. Teachers can't have "off" days when they aren't quite on top form, because somebody's child will be looking to take advantage of the slightest apparent weakness.
If you are a parent of a child, of any age, ask yourself this; can you make your child do something they don't really want to do (like sit still, read something, write something, leave the mobile alone, don't surf the Internet, don't talk) for an hour? For 6 hours? While your child is in the same room with 30 of his or her friends, who also don't really want to do it?
Still think teachers have an easy life?
Date posted: 16 May 2011
A second election thought
What would Martin Luther King make of Barack Obama's success? Would he feel he was judged on the colour of his skin, or on the content of his character?
Date posted: 05 Nov 2008
Welcome the new President?
Oh dear. Congratulations to Senator Obama, or maybe I should say Senator Obama's original backers (whoever they might be - nobody seems to know who they are). Everyody's talking about change and things changing in America. How would that be? They elected Obama not despite his colour but because of it, which I suppose is something (I understand that Obama polled something like 90% of the black vote and a lot of those were first time voters so they registered just so they could vote for Obama) but the majority of Americans (the female 50%+) are still unrepresented in the White House. Somebody on the TV this morning was saying that it's a clear signal to young people that they too can grow up to be President. Not if they are female they can't.
A lot of my American friends are celebrating this result. I don't think they have anything to celebrate. I don't think any of us have anything to celebrate. Except the Wall Street types who seem to think that Obama will be a push-over and they can get back to their sneaky racketeering ways - hence the rise in the FTSE, Dow Jones etc. Except maybe the Russians, who have got an inexperienced adversary in the White House, instead of somebody who probably has at least half a clue what he's up against. Except Al Qaeda who will be getting away with goodness knows what because Obama's committed to re-defining what "job done" in Iraq means.
Senator McCain apologised for losing the election and said it was his fault. It wasn't his fault. It's the current incumbent of the White House's fault the election went to the Democrats. It probably would have done anyway just because of Bush rather than for any merit the candidates may or may not have had. People are likening the election win to the Kennedy years. I think they are deluding themselves. Kennedy might have been good but he wasn't that good, what he had was potential. What Obama has is potential. Let's hope his Presidency doesn't end the same way as Kennedy's.
Date posted: 05 Nov 2008
The politics of envy
There's a debate on about whether people who have diseases for which the NHS can't/won't fund drugs that might cure them or at least prolong their life should be allowed to pay for medications not available on the NHS and continue to get NHS treatment for their illness.
The government has, until recently, decided that they shouldn't and that if you pay for medication not provided on the NHS then you should have to pay for all of your treatment from then on. Now they have announced a review and plans to allow people to pay for the medication - if they pay for the costs associated with any extra facilities that then need to be made available (scans and such like).
This morning on the news they had a woman from the Unison trade union saying that top-ups shouldn't be allowed because it disadvantaged "poorer people" Who cares? I don't. I think I count as "poorer people" in this situation. When some drugs can cost as much as £3,000 per treatment I won't be paying for them (though of course I hope never to be in a situation where this might be necessary). That doesn't mean that I don't want other people to have them. If they can afford to do that and it's going to help them, then good luck to them, I don't have a problem with that. Clearly some people do. It's envy.
Yesterday on my way to work I followed along behind an Aston Martin DB9 with personal plates. Nice car. I wouldn't mind one of those (though I doubt they are very practical for going to the supermarket for the weekly shop). I can't afford one. I drive a Ford. It's fine, does what I want it to do, gets me from A to B reliably. I don't want to stop other people owning fancy cars, but that's essentially what the anti- self payment people are saying. "I can't afford it, so you shouldn't be allowed to have it either".
Date posted: 04 Nov 2008
A Nation of Cowards
Well, that's what it seems we have turned into in the UK. We just let governments and "authorities" walk all over us and do nothing and say nothing. There's a point where being patient and tolerant turns into being trampled all over by anybody who wants to because we are too gutless to stick our necks out stand up and shout "This is WRONG! STOP IT NOW!".
Well, I've just about had enough of all sorts of things so I'm starting a campaign. I'm saying "Enough is Enough" because too many people in too many places are buggering about with my country, with my language, with my culture. I've had enough. I may be a lone voice crying in the wilderness but I'm going to start shouting anyway.
As a start I am complaining about:
In a minute I have to go and do something housetrained and domestic that doesn't infringe anybody else's human rights and isn't elitist (unless owning plates is somehow elitist) but the washing up must be done. I haven't finished ranting as yet. There's lots more, but in fact, what really, really gets me mad isn't the nutcases who come up with these stupid ideas, it's all the people who are too scared (or too lazy) to stand up and say "enough is enough". It's time somebody started fighting back. I'm fighting back. Watch this space.
Date posted: 03 Nov 2008
And finally....
I finally managed to vote for somebody who got elected (see previous post). I checked the results of the election and there it was, the person I voted for actually won. That's good. Different too!
Date posted: 17 Oct 2008
A Time to vote and a time not to vote
We have a local by-election going on tonight to elect a representative on the County Council. I voted. I always vote. Trouble is I didn't know who to vote for. Only two election campaign leaflets have dropped through our door this time round. One was the Conservatives and one was the BNP. No way on this planet I am going to vote for the BNP, not in this life nor any other. That left me with a choice of one. Actually the choice was, to vote or not to vote? I almost didn't.
It wasn't until I saw my polling card yesterday that I even remembered that there was an election today there's been so little fuss about it anywhere. I haven't seen a single poster, placard, or rosette and nobody has thought my vote was important enough to bother canvassing for it. Like Mum always used to say "if you don't ask you don't get" nobody asked so nobody got (almost).
In the end I did go and vote, I voted for a Conservative for the first time in rather more years than I want to think about. The last time I voted Conservative was in 1979. It was also the only time I voted in an election and my candidate actually won. At the back of my mind though, as well as the issue of people asking for my vote was the thought that whoever won would probably have to resign their seat on the local city council due to conflict of interest, so we might actually get a better one. So the candidate I voted for was the one I most wanted to get rid of.
Date posted: 09 Oct 2008
I wonder
If it had been "Southern Rock" and the "Brighton and Bournemouth Building Society" in financial hot water, would the Government have been quite so quick to step in and nationalise? I also wonder how many shares The Bradford and Bingley Board of Directors held when it went under and when/if they unloaded them.
Date posted: 28 Sep 2008
You couldn't make this one up
Actually, you probably could. According to our government the future of our power supplies is nuclear. OK. I would tend to agree with them, it's cheap, it's clean for the people living nearby it doesn't generate lots of pollution, greenhouse gas or other nasties. There are no lorries or ships arriving throughout the day and night with supplies to keep it going. The people who live near Sizewell B apparently are quite content for another reactor to be built to replace it. OK getting rid of the waste products is an issue but given a few years somebody's bound to come up with something - especially if there's public and private funding going on.
So, what have they done? Sold our nuclear power industry to the French. While they may generate 75% of their own electricity by nuclear and have some expertise, the fact remains that they are French. Two points to consider, first hundreds of years of animosity. You can't change history. Second, what government hands over control of national assets to somebody over whom they have absolutely no control? If push comes to shove then EDF will sell the power to whomever they please, for the highest price they can get. If that isn't us then where are we going to get our power? Oil? Coal? Burning forests?
I don't generally hold with nationalised industry, the people running it tend to get sloppy and inefficient, but power production isn't your average industry, just like the water supply isn't. If they don't work properly we are, to put it bluntly, stuffed. To be even more blunt we die.
The water industries are still, more or less, under some control from the government, our power is now being controlled by the political and commercial whim of somebody who isn't answerable to us at all. If EDF decide not to build more power stations here or if their government decided to throw its weight around there isn't a darn thing anybody here can do apart from complain.
Date posted: 24 Sep 2008
Don't these people have something more productive to do with their time?
The Fabian Society, that bastion of middle class left wing sensibilities, alleges that we shouldn't call people "chavs" any more as it's a derogatory term. Is it any more derogatory than "Patronising, arrogant, nitwit with no social life and not a clue about the real world"? I notice that both the people they interviewed were twenty-somethings (maybe thirtysomething) with southern, middle class, educated accents. I certainly don't need the likes of them telling me that certain words are derogatory. I can work that out for myself. I had to grin though when the local news went to Chatham, allegedly the source of chavvyness and intervewed people there, because they didn't care and they didn't see it as derogatory and were proud of being chavs. The Thought Police are alive and well and living in PC laa-laa land.
Isn't the idea that somebody can tell you what to think and what to say actually the antithesis of PC-ness? It doesn't show much respect for diversity does it?
Date posted: 16 Jul 2008
Change and decay - part 1
Well, so much going on and not a clue what to talk about first. I forsee lots of posts this weekend. Lots of news and not much of it good. I have a kind of mental list of people without whom the planet would be much better off. Top of the list at the moment is Mr Robert Mugabe. Today there should have been an election in Zimbabwe. A run-off for President between Mr Mugabe and Mr Tsvangirai. It never was going to be "free and fair", let's face it, but if the opposition can win a majority of seats in the Parliament despite the election rigging, threats, violence and general mayhem then clearly they would win in the run-off. And they have, many of them have won. Not the election but their life. Put baldly, many people in Zimbabwe are alive today because, and only because, Morgan Tsvangirai pulled out of the Presidential election. He pulled out because Mr Mugabe's thugs were going round assaulting people who were seen to be Tsvangirai supporters. I think the Queen should give Morgan Tsvangirai a knighthood now she's taken Mr Mugabe's one away.
Now of course various "World Leaders" are wringing their hands and saying what a shame and how naughty Mr Mugabe is. Too little and much, much, too late.
Date posted: 27 Jun 2008
Well, well, what a surprise
Clearly the good citizens of Henley have a certain amount of common sense as the result of the by-election shows. A bit depressing that the BNP got so many votes, but Labour losing their deposit certainly cheered me up. Surely the time has come to get rid of this Prime Minister and the whole cabinet and start again. Let's see a vote of no confidence in Gordon Brown and a real challenge for the Labour leadership before the whole party derails itself. They talk about cycles in Politics.
100 years ago the main parties were the Liberals and the Conservatives, Labour had barely got itself off the ground as a political entity. Maybe it has done what it was set up to achieve and should quietly dissolve itself. 100 years ago the Liberal Government under Lloyd George introduced the Old Age Pension for anybody who survived to the age of 70, and it was the Liberals who represented working people. The Labour Party, as such, didn't even exist then. Maybe it shouldn't any more, well not with the current so-called leadership.
Date posted: 27 Jun 2008
How stupid do you have to get?
I swear this govenment (the UK one that is, though there are lots of others probably just as daft) needs to have whatever it is using for brains re-examined - if they can find it. Clearly another case of somebody coming up with a "clever" idea wehen in fact what they are doing is talking out of the wrong orifice.
If I had the energy I would be leaping up and down screaming, but it's so much a waste of energy. Just another indication that MPs really should have a proper job before they try to get themselves elected because for sure they don't have much grip on reality. Harriet Harman is a case in point. This is from the BBC Website. I quote "Equality minister Harriet Harman has set out plans to allow firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minority job candidates. She said firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they wanted to - or vice versa." I dunno what planet she lives on but that whole thing is a complete waste of time. What does it mean? Firms are already able to chose a woman over a man of equal ability if they want to. But they don't want to. That's the problem. People on interview panels have a whole range of criteria upon which they base their judgement of candidates. There are never, ever, going to be two equal candidates. You are never going to get two people with exactly the same qualifications, exactly the same experience so the whole "equal ability" is a nonsense. If a company wants to appoint a white man, then they will fix the criteria so that they can. The easiest way to do that is to simply say that candidate A performed better at interview than candidate B. There's no way that can be proved or disproved, you don't have more than one candidate in an interview at any time. Though they may carry out part of the selection process in groups, when you get right down to it it's the interview that matters. The question then is not whether you are highly qualified or experienced, but whether your face fits. Quite frankly, if my face doesn't fit and I don't get on well with the people who are doing the interview and with whom I will be working then the chances are I wouldn't be happy there anyway.
I suppose the next thing will be to have "advisors" to sit on interview panels to make sure people stick by the rules. It's only one step from there to positive discrimination and that way madness lies. I want to be appointed to a job on the basis of my ability. I don't want that to be devalued by even the chance that people think I got there on the back of some political or social engineering. I worked hard to get the professional and academic qualifications I have and the thought that they might get devalued by that kind of "bright idea" makes my blood boil.
Perhaps it would boil less if the Governmenthemselves hadn't already come up with some spectacularly stupid bits of legislation that just makes it more likely that job criteria will be written to make it easier to select male candidates. If I were a small business owner who knew that employing a woman meant that I would incur huge costs if I employed somebody who became pregnant and went on statutory maternity leave, I'd make certain that I employed a man. At the worst you only have to cope with 2 weeks paternity leave (which I believe is unpaid), not a whole year of having to pay somebody who isn't at work. If it's important for women to have the right to have time off when they have a baby (and I certainly believe that's true) then the Government should fund all of it - including the costs to their employers. That'll help. But of course they'd actually have to spend money then so this is another initiative that somebody else pays for.
Date posted: 27 Jun 2008
A Good Thing and a Bad Thing
I knew this was going to be difficult. I mean our stupid government wanting to lock people up for 42 days, without being charged and without, necessarily, having enough evidence to charge them with a terrorist offence.
When I say stupid that's what I mean. At some point in the debate some givernment minister said words to the effect of, "No the police have never actually needed 42 days before, but they might" Well now, why not wait until they actually need it before just chucking 800 years of civil liberties out of the window? Because some politician thinks it'll look good come re-election time. I doubt Gordon Brown is electable now. I hope he isn't, he's proving to be just as much of an idiot as the last incumbent of his office. Actually, maybe they should be called encumbrances rather than incumbents. Whatever. Quite apart from the legal/moral/social issues and the civil liberties thing, the only way the government managed to get the deal done and the vote passed was by bribing Ulster Unionists. That made me laugh, Ulster Unionists voting with a Labour Government on allegedly anti-terrorist legislation. Correct me if I am wrong, but 20 or so years ago weren't the Ulster Unionists the terrorists (well one set of them anyway)? I am so glad I don't live in Northern Ireland. I know some politicians are a bit corrupt, but to have such a clear demonstration that their votes can be bought, that their principles have a price, wouldn't make me very happy if they were supposed to be representing me. I mean, either the 42 day limit is wrong or it isn't. If it's wrong then you vote against it. If you don't think it's wrong then you vote for it. If you don't have a particular view either way then you have no business voting at all. MPs shouldn't ever alter a sincerely held view just because somebody promises money to their region.
On the other hand we have the example of David Davis, who quite clearly does believe that 42 days is too long. Not only did he vote against the 42 days but now he's resigned his seat in Parliament to force a by-election at which he will stand on the basis that our civil liberties are being eroded and that isn't acceptable. Apparently he's been getting support from all round the country. Me too. I'm right there with him on that one. We've seen enough about what these new laws can be perverted to include. Next thing it'll be 42 days without charge or trial for breathing too loud or expressing the opinion that Gordon Brown is a nit and should resign now. People died to get me and to keep for me the rights I now have. I'm not about to tamely surrender something other people have made such a huge sacrifice to get. So three cheers for David Davis for having the guts to put his money where his mouth is (or in this case, his Seat where his mouth is) and also for Nick Clegg leader of the Liberal Democrats for saying that they (who also voted against the 42 day limit) won't be putting a candidate up at that by-election. It remains to be seen what the Labour Party does. If they don't put a candidate up then they will be called chicken, if they do and then don't win (which isn't likely) then it will be seen that people agree with David Davis. I bet he knew that as well.
Date posted: 12 Jun 2008
Isn't it about time he went?
The news from Zimbabwe continues to be depressing and distressing. From where I sit the regime their looks more and more like some kind of Stalinist state. Food and power for the people who go along with it and starvation and violence for anybody who supports any kind of change.
Apparently this is all "our" fault, the west this is. Specifically the situation in Zimbabwe is caused by the UK and the US interfering and stopping Mugabe running the country the way he wants. Do you want to run that past me again? Mugabe isn't running the country as he wants? As far as I can tell he's been running the country (if running you can call it - robbing would be my view) for years.
Of course change under Mugabe was inevitable. The white rulers couldn't carry on as they had been, but I wouldn't say that anybody with any sense would have gone about things the way Mugabe has done. He threw the experienced farmers off their land, often violently, and replaced them either with party officials or with black farmers but without providing them with the resources or training they need to keep the farms running efficiently. One thing the white Zimbabwean farmers had to offer was experience and skills, but Mugabe trashed all that, just threw it away. Now the county is starving, and being starved, into submission.
Almost every day there are reports of people being beaten up or killed because they dared to voice opposition. People are fleeing the country, leaving everything they have behind, because there's no work and no food and if they complain they could end up dead very quickly. The refugees are beginning to cause problems for neighbouring states. Not only is there the issue of feeding these people, but if you have been going along for years saying that there's nothing really wrong with Zimbabwe it gets a bit harder to maintain that position with hundreds or even thousands of refugees arriving across your border every day.
It seems to me that corruption has been part of Mugabe's rule ever since he took (and I mean took, not won) office. Personal corruption, party corruption, political, economic you name it. Now it looks as if Mugabe's body is failing him.
What worries me now is not whether he will win the election - clearly he is taking steps to make sure that he does - but what will happen when he goes, as he surely must whether by natural causes or not. Who, or what, comes next? And will the new government they have the organisation and the will to make things better for ordinary Zimbabweans or will they even care about anything other than their own gratification?
Date posted: 09 Jun 2008
Democrat Primaries
I swear this is my last rant about it - until the next time of course.
Just one question really. A recent opinion poll showed that at the end of the campaign on Thursday last, Obama and McCain were equal in popularity. Now, given that there has been a lot more focus on Obama than McCain recently, if he was going to defeat McCain at the polls in November, shouldn't Obama be far, far out in front at this stage? He's been in the public eye almost continuously for weeks whereas McCain has been relatively quiet. Given that people still tend to vote for the person they have heard most about recently, if I was a Democrat I'd be very worried. Please don't leave me here saying "Told you so" come the Presidential elections.
Date posted: 09 Jun 2008
Rely on the Popular vote? You have to be joking!
Here, at two extremes, we have the example of what happens if you leave things to "popular" opinion. In the UK you get the final vote on "I'd Do Anything" going to a talentless nobody who can't sing and who is apparently unable to string a coherent sentence together, and in the USA you get Barack Obama.
"I'd Do Anything" is allegedly a talent competition. If that's the best we can do well there's not much hope for the West End and musical theatre, but it's not really important in the scale of things.
Barack Obama and the Democratic primaries are a whole other thing. Yes, he's popular but he's popular because he's bland, makes no commitments, and mentions no specifics so everybody thinks they will be better off with him, any changes he makes won't affect them.
This whole Primary thing is exercising me more than a bit. I mean, why does it take so long? We are living in the 21st Century, not the 19th. How is it impossible to have everybody voting on the same day? Well, I suppose you have to be able to trust the voting system and after last time there might be a doubt or two there, but logistically, it has to be possible to arrange things so that every state votes on the same day.
One of the things that occurred to me in the last few days is that Americans, more even than other nations I suspect, just hate to lose. I wonder how many people voted for the candidate who looked to be winning, just so they wouldn't have to think of themselves as having been on the "losing" side? I wonder how much of a bandwagon effect there is in voting for the person who seems to be in front.
Don't even get me started on the "you voted too early fiasco". I mean, they call themselves Democrats and then take away the democratic right of their supporters to vote for the candidate they want to represent them. Some votes clearly are more important than other votes. If I was one of the people affected by that decision I would be hopping mad and taking the Party to court.
Nobody seems to think that Hillary Clinton can win the nomination. I seriously hope they are wrong. The world doesn't need a weak leader of the USA and the world doesn't need another Republican president.
They say it's not over until the fat lady sings. Well, she's not fat and she's not singing. I am fat and I'm not singing either.
Date posted: 03 Jun 2008
Eurovision - predictable or what?
We have been watching (as in the TV was on and we were in the same room)the Eurovision Song Contest. That's a stupid name now isn't it? I mean, I get the Eurovision bit, EBU membership and all that (though I'd be interested to know how Israel got in) but "Song Contest" who are they kidding? There was nothing in the voting even vaguely relating to the musical quality of the song. In fact there was nothing in many of the presentations even vaguely related to music.
Terry Wogan is absolutely right. My husband didn't watch any of the competition, but did watch the voting. He averaged more than 80% accuracy in predicting the top three votes based purely on geography and politics.
I have no idea why the Russian "singer" was getting so excited about winning. The first place didn't belong to the song or the singer but to Vladimir Putin. He should have been there to collect the prize, he's earned it.
Date posted: 25 May 2008
US Democratic Party Nominations
I have been watching the race for nominations for the democratic party with some interest, and not a little dismay. from where I sit the whole party has gone insane, well some of it anyway. How can anybody with any tactical sense vote for Barack Obama?
Who is Obama? What does he believe? I haven't a clue what he believes, I only know what he says he believes and he's a politician so who knows? With Clinton on the other hand, I have seen what she believes over decades. I know of the programmes she promoted when she was First Lady, I am aware of her opinions and her beliefs, I know where she's coming from. She's been there through thick and thin. She's stuck by her man, even when her man was doing some pretty disgusting stuff, she believes in her marriage and her family. She believes in social justice for everybody, we know that from her record.
In the southern states, where the voters seem to be more traditional, it's Clinton's personal values that may just tip the balance. They probably won't vote for a black man, but they might just vote for a married white woman that they have known for years and who has demonstrated some of the values in her personal life that they value in theirs.
Look at where the election was won last time (no, not Florida). The election was largely won in the southern states. Now I may be wrong but those states don't have the most fantastic record on race relations. They certainly don't, historically, tend to vote for black candidates. Obama may prove to be a step to far for them.
I think the fact that Obama, despite his huge financial resources, despite the enormous amount of media coverage, despite all his celebrity endorsers isn't miles in front of Clinton says something about Democrats. It should also be sending a message to those who have still got to vote and to the Super delegates. If Clinton can peg him back, hang on to him, hang in there and still not be quite out for the count at this stage, despite the enormous difference in their campaign funds she must have something going for her. If Clinton is prepared to invest so much of her own money then she must have a heck of a lot of commitment and belief. I have no idea how much (if any) of his own funds Obama has invested in his campaign, it doesn't seem to have been reported.
I don't have a vote in this election, more's the pity. I would vote for Clinton (you guessed, right?). Partly because she's a woman. If black Americans are underrepresented in US politics then how much more are women underrepresented? Women make up the majority of the population in the USA yet less that 20% of members of Congress. How does that work? The US is lagging far behind other countries in terms of electing women to high office. I mean, Bangladesh has had a woman leader twice, as has Argentina, Canada has done it, the UK has done it, Pakistan has done it, the world's largest democracy (India) has done it twice, Ireland has done it twice as well, and Israel once. Isn't it about time the USA managed it?
Even if Clinton was male I would still vote Clinton. To me Obama lacks credibility. I suspect he lacks credibility to a lot of people, including leaders in other states. If I was voting I would be asking which politicians in other countries are supporting Obama, and why. You can bet for sure that Putin is rubbing his hands in glee at the thought of an Obama victory. The phrase to "run rings round" has some significance here I think.
Time magazine did an analysis of the positions of Clinton, Obama and McCain on several significant issues. Obama's stances had too much "wait and see". I think that either he actually doesn't know (in which case he shouldn't be standing for election - it's his job to know before he's elected) or he is waiting for his "advisors" to tell him what to think. If you don't have a position then you don't have belief, and if you don't have belief then you aren't the sort of person who should be elected to high office.
I detested Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister, but she believed what she believed, she made it quite clear what that was, and she earned a lot of respect for it. McCain has belief, Clinton has belief, Obama doesn't seem to believe anything. I'd say that pretty much makes him a dead duck even if he manages to get selected as the Democratic candidate. If he does that, then my guess is that McCain will be the next President and I tell you something, the rest of the world deserves better than another 5 years of Republican America.
Date posted: 21 May 2008
War on Terror?
It's been a busy day today, blog-wise. Lots of instances of politicians being even more ridiculous than they usually are. Can you tell I don't much like politicians?
The latest thing on the "war against" terror is that the UK government is apparently going to be requiring ISPs and telecomms companies to keep a record of all phone calls and e-mails. They are thinking about adding this into the Communications Data Bill. So we can be safer from terrorism and organised crime. Maybe they want other people to store the data because they have a tendency to lose stuff they are supposed to keep safe - like child benefit details.
This is going to be such a good idea isn't it. Nobody will ever be able to get an e-mail address using fake details, use it to communicate with somebody else also using fake details and then just get rid of it or stop using it. No of course not. Do these people have even half a clue?
Watch this space, this rant will run and run.
Date posted: 20 May 2008
Previous Posts by Subject
Previous Posts by Date
Links to other Sites
Last updated: 7/ S 2020