Brave new worlds

This morning, in the queue to vote, I got caught up in some electoral confusion as the ballot officials managed to get their numbers confused (how do those people get those jobs? any security / criminal checks? Who's in charge of dispensing the boxes? I digress...). As I stood there, watching the three of them recite a list of arbitrary numbers to one another, I said to the chap behind me, "We need that electoral reform, eh?", he nodded, said,"Yeah..." and that was that.

Elections are funny things. This was my second, but the first of much significance. I remember my Dad refusing to tell me who he voted for in the 1997 Labour landslide and I invested a lot of meaning in this, this sacred act of voting meant that even my own Dad wouldn't, or as I viewed it, couldn't, tell me who he had voted for.

Now, everyone bangs on endlessly about why you must vote Labour or Lib Dems, but just not Tories, for all kinds of reasons, in openly public arenas such as Twitter and Facebook. Yet, place people in a box, with a piece of paper and a pen(cil), and all the online posturing goes out the window. I imagine a lot of people may vote very differently from how they act/talk in public, where they are acting in an effort to keep up of appearances with, or an unwillingness to disagree with, the views and ideals their chosen social networks / friendship groups talk about and promote.

The Americans must find out one month sprint election process very odd, when set against their eight month effort which begins with primaries in various states for leadership choices within their own parities, before moving on to the epic cross country traversing they must endure between NY and San Fran.

Imagine, DC (Cameron, not Washington), might have to travel, at most, between say, Plymouth and Newcastle. Barely a stone's throw in the US. Such a small country.

Whatever happens tonight and into tomorrow, there was a definite sense today that, even if only seen through the highly distorted leftist view of Twitter, people realised today was a day that could shape all our lives for the next four or five years time. Especially for those, like me, who will be going through some (potentially) highly transformative years in our lives, as we move out of post student years, and on towards our 30s, and the ideas of mortgages, housing, children, schools, education (x3) and all the other trappings of the endless momentum of time.

The revolution will not be televised

But it will be live blogged by various media outlets and, actually, is almost certainly running on numerous 24 hour TV news channels too.

---

Which given the day it's turned into was definitely the right thing to do.

The greatest reality show in the world

The prize - nothing less than the chance to run the country! Okay, so these aren't the general elections and so on, but it is a chance to vote and take part in the great experiment of democracy.

Have you noticed how open people are at talking about who they're going to vote for, or have voted for? I remember my parents talking about such things, when I was pre-voting age, in hushed conspiratorial tones, and my Dad eventually relenting at some point in the future and, quietly, furtively, telling me who he had voted for in the great Labour victory of 1997 - "things...can only get better...can only get better..." - and I felt as if I was being let in on something really rather secretive.

Interestingly, today is also the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, something that's led to the banning of many websites by Chinese authorities and is a powerful remindar of why voting and our freedom to write, debate and ridicule the government of the day is something to cherish. Something about that image of a lone protestor against a column of tanks never fails to strike a nerve.

Clowns

Blooming 'elf and safety. Huh, wass the world comin' to eh? Can't even let some f-ing clowns blow their friggen trumpets. It's political correctness gone mad. New Labour? These circus clowns will never outdo their counterparts in Whitehall. They're the real clowns!

Oh sorry don't know what came over me. Although it is a bit of a rum do when clowns can't blow some trumpets because it's classed a live musical performance and therefore requires a different licence.

Where to start?

The BBC News, alongside many other media outlets, has reported that Policy Exchange's latest report 'Cities Unlimited' argues:

"Cities in northern England such as Liverpool, Sunderland and Bradford are "beyond revival" and residents should move south, a think tank has argued. Policy Exchange said current regeneration policies were "failing" the people they were supposed to help. A mass migration to London, Cambridge and Oxford would stop them becoming "trapped" in poorer areas, it said."

It's an incredible claim to make. Author Tim Leunig, a lecturer in economic history at the London School of Economics (proof indeed that at the end of the day intelligence is an unquantifiable trait), said: 'No doubt some will claim that these proposals are unworkable, unreasonable and perhaps plain barmy.' Plain barmy? That's putting it mildly.

It's all quite mind-boggling. If the north is 'beyond revival' as this think tank, that advises the Tories on key issues, suggests, then we should just give up on it and tell everyone to move south? Is that actually what they’re suggesting? The report is (now) online, you can download it here. Their site is is a load of rubbish though; the search function doesn’t work and the layout is garish.

Surely a mass migration to other cities will just ruin those cities? Does this ‘think’ tank really believe this is the best course of action? It almost seems like practical joke and if it was April 1st it would make more sense. How on earth have we evolved to a system of government and 'thinking' where a major think tank can suggest such outlandish, spurious, almost comical claims?

On the 'thisislondon' website they've included a great image comparision piece in their article to show the differences between Oxford and Liverpool - pictured. It's utter rubbish. You could find two shots of any two cities and make one look nice and the other like a dump.

Perhaps they're right. Perhaps everyone oop' north should just give up, come down here, (we've got loads of room!) and find jobs here, (can't give 'em away!) and let's allow the northern cities to turn into wild, ghost towns, that we can use for movie shoots in post-apocalyptic films.

I like Sport, but...

Sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe has told the BBC "it is vital" that Team GB reaches the target of 41 medals from the Beijing Olympics.

Is it though? Is it really? Of course we want to do well and if we were to finish fourth it would be great for the country and the continued progress we are making in these areas. But it’s not ‘vital’ that we reach our target. It’s vital we curb knife crime, it’s vital we try and ensure a proper, rounded education for all, it’s vital we address the roots of international terrorism. But it's not vital we make sure we win a gold for sailing a boat around a pre-determined course of markers faster than someone else. Or that we jump further than someone else into a sandpit.

Isn’t this taking a large proportion of what makes sport the enigma it is away? The best thing about sport is its unpredictability. The greatest matches are so because you’re never sure of the outcome, or an under-dog comes from nowhere and produces a performance that defies expectation. You don’t want to just be crossing off medals as and when you’ve predicated them to come in.

And based on Lucca Barra’s (who forecasts the Olympic medal table using the results of recent world championships in each sport) Athens performance chart (in which he got 2 / 10) it’s clearly not the most exact science, despite him saying we will surpass our target.

This isn't drug-based homicides in Harlem, it's raised bin lids in Whitehaven

The problem with laws is that as human beings we seem to find it hard to move beyond a black / white divide as how to implement them. There seems to be no way to go beyond this into a reasonable assessment of a situation. So the story that a man has been fined £110 for ‘overfilling’ his bin doesn't really seem fair but because the lid ‘was raised’ the council in question has said ‘Copeland Borough Council will continue to crack down on the problem of overflowing bins, which cause problems for local residents and in the battle to reduce waste.’

This is all ridiculous and the council is massively overstating its role to make them sound like noble crusaders campaigning for the last vestige of human decency. The man's bin lid ‘was raised’ it was not ‘overflowing’. You are not involved in a ‘battle to reduce waste’ and you are not ‘cracking down’ on overflowing bins – this isn't drug-based homicides in Harlem, it's 'raised bin lids’ in Whitehaven Cumbria. If there was rubbish piled high around the bin, that was attracting wildlife, even causing a health hazard, then the council might have a case. But the man's bin lid 'was raised.’ You know, like when you just squeeze in that last plastic bottle to clear the bin for the week's collection.

The issue here (aside from how sad I am about getting worked up about such closed-minded, blinkered actions regarding bins) is that we are creating a system where we never let people make a mistake, explain a mistake, or even, that we just accept it's actually not that big a deal. Because while the law may state people who do this are doing something ‘illegal’ in reality they aren't and certainly not in my eyes or many others.

It's things like this that turn me away from ‘politics’ in any serious manner as regardless of who I vote for, campaign for, believe in, argue for or against, I could never hope to stop such petty, moronic, childish and cold actions like those in this story.

Some Advice

Apparently if you phone the Citizens Advice Bureau line for advice on debt issues they inform you that your call will cost more than for other CAB enquiries. Isn’t that just typical?

Anything to Declare?

The furore over MPs expenses and the incredible fact they don’t have to produce receipts for any claims under £250 and can claim £400 a month against ‘food’ expenditure (more than the highest state pension over a month) really underlines some of the archaic practices operating within our government. The argument they don’t want people to have a “peephole” into their lives, (the word(s) of Resources Boss Andrew Walker), doesn’t hold weight as what can they be doing as MPs working on ‘our’ behalf that couldn’t be made public?

No business in Britain would run a system where employees could claim expenses of up to £250 without any form of receipt, but for MPs to be able to do so, and get back, effectively, ‘our’ money is so outdated and open to corruption it defies belief.

The Scottish Government now has an online section where you can search for any expenditure in any available category claimed by minsters. If SMPs are doing their jobs and claiming legitimate expenses they incur, then what is the problem? If the Westminster MPs are so ‘honourable’ what have they got to fear?

Hidden Histories

On ITV last night, at 11pm, was a program entitled: "The War on Democracy"by John Pilger. It was one of the best pieces of television I have seen in a long time.

It dealt with the various regimes the USA has helped install in South America since 1945 and how, by and large, these were undemocratic regimes, which installed puppet dictators, such as General Pinochet, in power at the expense of leaders who had originally been democratically elected - Salvador Allende - by the peoples of the country.

The program also highlighted the USA's support of the failed coup d'etat which took place in Venezuela in 2002, during which Hugo Chavez (interviewed in the documentary) was over-thrown, but then re-instated when the population of Caracas marched on the presidential building and demanded his return. Chavez is a man who, despite unrelenting media criticism (likening him to Hitler on many occasions), has overseen the setting up of a constitution for the first time ever in the country - something which those ordinary civilians interviewed by Pilger made clear was something they held to be highly important for them, and their children, if the future of Venezuela was to be secure.

The coup sought to remove this security and the US government went on record - a clip was shown from the press conference - claiming to be in support of this new government. Presumably because the new government was full of business tycoons who would ensure good business for the USA.

The most shocking part of the entire program was when a former CIA chief Duane Clarridge not only ignored Pilger's hard evidence, that thousands of people had been tortured and executed in Chile after the coup, by many men trained in the USA, but when he then claimed Chile was better off for this in the long run (i.e. Life's Cheap for Oriental / Latin American): Pilger then interviewed a woman who had been kidnapped and tortured, and known pregnant friends to be murdered, a man who was 18 at the time and had been beaten, alongside hundreds of other prisoners of politics at Chile's national stadium, and then a couple living in poverty on the outskirts of Santiago who saw little benefit from the regime of Pinochet.

The whole point of this program was to show that America is no "Champion of Democracy" at all. It is infact a champion of it's own interests. Democracy / Dictatorship - which ever suits the US government best is what will be looked for. So if Cuba turns Communist they launch the Bay of Pigs invasion. If Chile elects a man who doesn't conform to their ideals - who sets about introducing land reforms that could damage US imports, then they remove him, through a puppet, and then either ignore the problem or deny it ever happened - or even worse, claim it was for the best anyway.

I suppose the length of this post underlines how frustrated I felt that this type of history goes so unreported and unknown in the western world. I also felt the documentary should have been shown a lot earlier, with far more advertising, and with the premise of the show stated clearly. If they repeat this show, or release it on DVD, I urge you to see it. If Michael Moore can make documentaries that people rent out, then this is also worth your time.

New Technologies Opening Avenues

This idea of having videos submitted to ask questions to candidates in elections is a fascinating idea into the new ways the web can and is affecting the political arena. It's very easy to mock or ignore Dave Cameron's web cast, or even Ann Widdicombe's, but at least they are acknowledging that these forms of communication are out there and are what millions of average people are using - for many reasons - day in, day out.

And surely in the future when my generation, or the generation just above ours, have become the leaders of this country we will want them to be technological savvy? To demonstrate they are intelligent, capable people who grew up understanding and participating in the technological advancements of the 2000s? I know I would much rather a prime minister who knew how to access his email or work a mobile phone in 20 years time than one who didn't.

And does this mean in 20 years time the prime minister will have an ancient Facebook account full of (potential embarrassing) photos and videos? Or will his spin doctor have ensured it was deleted a long time ago? I'd like to think the former...

Contradictions

The recent furore surrounding Salman Rushdie's knighthood has thrown up some bizarre contradictions that those "outraged" don't seem to realise. The First Deputy Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar in Iraq was quoted as saying, "The British monarch lives under this illusion that Britain is still a 19th Century superpower and that bestowing titles is something still deemed important." - So if it isn't important any more why are they all getting so annoyed?

And then the Pakistani religious affairs minister said, "If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, his act is justified." - So which is more evil and more worthy of condemnation? Writing numerous books which bring pleasure to millions or condoning suicide bombers purely on the basis someone disagrees with your 'belief'?

But since when do people like this ever stop and think for themselves before they open their mouths to spout violent rhetoric against things they don't really understand?

6.07am

Today was the second lecture from Richard Tait. And very insightful it was too...

He went into great depth about the Andrew Gilligan, BBC, Lord Hutton, Dr David Kelly, 45 Minute "sexed-up" claim and the rather shocking failings that led to the BBC being dragged across the coals in the Hutton inquiry.

It was fascinating hearing how a short "two-way" between Gilligan and John Humphreys at 06.07am on Radio 4 led to one of the most dramatic examples of shoddy journalism being uncovered and held to account in recent years. Despite the report essentially saying the Government lied about the 45 minute claim, at no point did anyone actually ask Gilligan if his "source" (which we now know was David Kelly) had explicitly said "45 minutes".

As it turned out of course, it was an inference, not a quote. And from this, as Richard Tait said, a potentially award-winning piece of journalism which uncovered serious misgivings from several senior intelligence sources about the Iraq dossier, was instead responsible for Hutton inquiry and all the upheavals the BBC suffered as a result. All because Gilligan went too far with his story.

He, ironies of ironies, sexed-up his own piece of journalism, and in a profession in which "words are precision tools" and there is "no tolerance for error" he paid a heavy price.

A sobering reminder of one of the first, and most basic, rules of good journalism: Check your facts...