They’re Off

On 6th May 2010 we will be asked to elect a new House of Commons consisting of 650 honest and true members, up from the current mainly honest and true 646 members. Of those currently sitting, 144 (22%) will not be seeking re-election, an unusually high number, some through disgrace, some taking the opportunity to secure attractive redundancy payments before a likely reduction, and others who have become completely brassed off with the whole thing.

Much has been made of the ‘expenses in lieu of pay’ problem. An interesting historical perspective on this appeared in the Telegraph in November 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6629911/MPs-expenses-system-created-in-pact-between-Thatchers-ministers-and-Opposition.html

But we the public must take our share of responsibility too. If we were to accept the advice of independent panels set up to consider fair and reasonable remunerations for people in public life instead of giving way to political expediency resulting in changes which, by definition, are less than fair we should avoid many of the troubles we find ourselves in. The ‘What’s in it for me?’ brigade will continue to howl their protests but politics should be about the common good not narrow self interest. A system that is open and fair must benefit us all in the long run avoiding the sort of mess we find ourselves in now.

Read More

What people want to hear

Recently the shadow Home Secretary found himself in hot water for his secretly recorded anti-gay comments which were contrary to party policy. Similarly former notables oversold themselves in a Channel 4 Despatches sting while attempting to earn more than a few extra bucks for themselves. It is a tempting device.

The general election campaign provides a golden opportunity for telling people what they want to hear. But can the parties deliver so much? Giving “All things to all men” is an impossible task but no doubt we will be treated as idiots and expected to believe it to be possible. Much sadder though are those who hear only what they want to hear making a complete nonsense of the whole process.

Postscript: Gay “Marriage” (2)

In previous blogs on this subject I have suggested that describing Civil Partnerships as “marriage” struck the wrong note. Whether or not civil partners are ‘joined together’ is not a matter with which others need concern themselves so should not be implied.

However, it appears that following the shadow Home Secretary’s boo boo, the Tories are so desperate not to lose pink votes that they had a meeting with Pulpit-crasher Tatchell: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gjjrw_a-7904Aq0Cy8jE6I2g0xLQ

As Tatchell said afterwards, "The best he [George Osborne] could do on gay marriage was say he would consider it." Not quite what he wanted to hear and certainly not what I wanted to hear but clearly what Osborne thought they wanted to hear.

Read More

Goodbye to Girlhood

The Scotsman reported that several other stores including Next, Tammy, Tesco and Peacocks were selling similar items and that Primark was also stocking underwear aimed at young girls bearing the jargon "You've scored".

From yesterday?S Guardian, ?Retailers came under increased pressure today to take sexualised clothing for young girls off their shelves, after it emerged that shoes for eight-year-olds with three-inch heels were being sold on the high street. A kuesioner by the Guardian found an array of items available in major chains, from a T-shirt for a three-year-old bearing the slogan "Future WAG" to a top for a toddler with a pink bikini appliqu?D on the front.?

From the Mail OnLine, “Young girls are being targeted with a shocking array of overtly sexual clothing and accessories by High Street stores. Products on offer include a 'first make-up' kit for five year-olds, high heels for three-year-olds, and T-shirts that boast 'future footballer's wife' for a two-year-old.” Even “Marks & Spencer offers a particularly skimpy green wave bikini with a halterneck top, string ties and high leg briefs for girls of six and up. All of these bikinis are very close to the product that Primark has decided to remove from shelves, but for the fact they do not have padding.”

From The Guardian Magazine, “Twenty-five years ago, children wanted to be teachers, bankers, doctors. Now they want to be celebrities.” The tragedy is that many parents are already trapped in the same culture. As a “mum of 2, in a quiet room” commented on the Mail article, “Just because these items are on sale does not mean that anyone who will be 'shocked' or 'horrified' by them has to buy them. I wish that some people would just lighten up a bit.”

Penny Nicholls of the Children’s Society sums up the problem admirably when she said “There is a big distinction between children dressing up for fun and retailers producing items of clothing that target children and encourage premature sexualisation.” But who are worse? The sick retailers who put profit before the wellbeing of children or the people who buy this rubbish in dumbed down Britain?

Read More

Leaders Debate, Round 2

This time I watched the debate on the TV ? Until my wife found me dozing and transferred me to the computer. I don?T think I missed much so I was surprised at the result of the first poll for the Sun showing that Cameron was the clear winner with 36% of the votes, a result not sustained in other polls I should add. This time I thought the combatants more evenly matched indicating that there had been much hard work in the background since last week.

Again I thought the debate illuminating, not for what was said, but watching the facial expressions and body language when the leaders were not speaking. I thought Cameron looked the least confident, though much better than last week, while Clegg looked the most assured and Brown rather awkward. Most of the audience looked bored stiff with one member desperately trying to conceal a huge yawn.

The ?Get Clegg? Campaign fell badly after the Telegraph?S shameful attempted smear with ?Twitters? Picking up the thread and blaming Clegg for everything from the death of Kennedy to responsibility for Samantha?S pregnancy. The desperation of the press may be explained by David Yelland, a former editor of the Sun, who explained that previously the Liberal Democrats were deliberately ignored by the press.

Yelland said, ?Make no mistake, if the Liberal Democrats actually won the election ? Or held the balance of power ? It would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics. In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media elite.? Hmmm!

Postscript

More than 100 viewers have complained to the broadcasting regulator (Ofcom) accusing the debate Moderator (Sky News political editor Adam Boulton) of breaking strict impartiality rules by raising newspaper reports about political donations paid directly into the Liberal Democrat leader's bank account. There is no suggestion Clegg broke any rules and bank statements were produced to prove it.

Boulton -> Sky -> Murdoch - Hmmm again!

There's another interesting take on the broadcast in this Blog: http://www.Craigmurray.Org.Uk/archives/2010/04/sky_leaders_deb.Html

PPS

http://www.Bbc.Co.Uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/04/polling.Html

- Hmmm yet again.

Read More

Sex offender wins appeal against deportation on human rights grounds

But the bloke is inhuman!

Zulfar Hussain, 48, was due to be sent back to Pakistan on his release from prison where he is serving a jail term for giving vulnerable girls drugs and alcohol before having sex with them." - The Times On Line

"A Pakistani man who abducted and had sex with underage girls is to be allowed to stay in the UK because deporting him would breach his human rights.

Read More

Voting Dilemma

I thought David Cameron?S claim to power amusing. He has constantly preached change with little attention to detail. His message was the same after the results were published suggesting that the Labour Government had no mandate to govern. An interesting observation looking at the votes in percentage terms with almost two thirds of the votes cast against the Conservatives.

His party has the greatest number of seats but calculated simply on the basis of share of the vote, the number of seats would be 234 rather than 306 while the Lib Dems shoot up from 57 to 149.

Gordon Brown was quick to offer Nick Clegg a referendum on electoral reform which must be tempting for the Lib Dems, far more so than the suggestion of yet another committee of MPs offered by David Cameron.

Back in March The Constitution Society published an article on the Tory proposals for electoral reform. It makes interesting reading:

http://www.Re-constitution.Org.Uk/news/articles/16/ .

Postscript

Far more graphic view on the share of the vote:

http://www.Newstatesman.Com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/05/electoral-reform-stay-table#reader-comments

Have a look at the John Cleese video for a good titter.

Read More

A sense of proportion

Righteous indignation has greeted the Foreign Office memo which suggested some outrageous activities for the Pope during his forthcoming visit to Great Britain in September but from the coverage by the BBC one would have thought it were Government policy rather than the silly ideas of a junior official produced in a brainstorming session.

The ideas were not very bright especially coming from an Oxford graduate but neither was the idea of circulating the memo which appeared to give it greater credence nor the decision by The Sunday Telegraph to publish it. However, brainstorming sessions force sometimes apparently ridiculous ideas into the open for consideration although on this occasion it should have been obvious that some of them would be considered gratuitously offensive. But to talk of the Pope cancelling his visit over the issue as suggested in the press goes too far. As the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Pope will be well aware of the wounds people suffer for their faith.

Read More