Playing the Long Game

“The first job of a political party is to get into power.” I was told that during one of my first A-Level politics lessons. It comes as a surprise therefore that the Republican Party seems to be doing everything in its power to make sure it doesn’t take the White House next autumn. Aside from Romney the other candidates are all pretty much unelectable and even Romney isn’t a particularly strong contender.

When faced with these two disparate points I’m forced to wonder, why it is that the Republican National Committee hasn’t chased after a more moderate candidate and asked them to run for the nomination. Could it be that the GOP doesn’t, in fact, want to win in 2012?

When you think about it this isn’t such a daft idea. Obviously the GOP can’t not put forward a candidate, but it’s also obvious that 2012 is not their year for at least two very good reasons, and possible more.

For starters it’s clear that there are problems within the GOP. The rise of the Tea Party has led to an increase in the number of – well I believe the polite term is crazies – and a move away from the moderate centre and towards the extreme right wing.  Now, while people may agree with people like Rick Perry’s stance on things such as abortion, I have yet to come across anyone who thinks that Perry or Bachmann’s desire to turn the US into a conservative theocracy is in any way a good idea. It is possible that by fielding the most impossible candidates the RNC is hoping that a loss either in the primaries or in the main election will force the crazies out of party and allow a shift back towards the moderate centre.

 The other problem is that the US (along with the rest of the world) is still knee deep in the worst recession this side of the Great Depression. Considering that the Republicans have a reputation as the party that is funded and supported by, and therefore looks out for, Big Business and given that in recent weeks they have shown again and again their dislike for the squeezed middle – to borrow a phrase from Ed Milliband – the RNC may believe that their chances of getting elected at this time are slim at best, so they aren’t really trying.

There is of course the chance that the GOP has just lost the plot but I think that is unlikely and maybe I’m just looking at this all the wrong way. Maybe the RNC does think it has a chance of getting elected with one of its current crop of clowns. But if I’m not wrong, then it is in fact playing a very long and very clever game. As mentioned above the Republicans can’t just sit this race out. But they may be willing to take a hit this time around, so that come 2016, by which time hopefully the Tea Party will have faded into memory and the economy will have righted itself, they can field a moderate candidate such as Chris Christie who will take the White House.

Time will tell.

Bit excessive don't you think?

It was recently reported in the press (yesterday or the day before I think) that the government is considering allowing police to subdue rioters with live ammunition. Not plastic bullets you understand. Proper bullets.

Ho hum. Not sure how I feel about this.

Not granted the government has made it clear that this will only be allowed in situations where the rioters are about to say burn down somebodys house or buisness - under which circumstances I can hardly see the owners objecting - and I know there is a great deal of difference between a protest and a riot though one can quickly become the other. But am I the only one who thinks this not only smacks of overly excessive realiation but also of slight hypocricy?

It's the social networking scenario all over again. Prior to the riots, we merrily decried every dicatatorial government we could find for wanting to limit its people access to social networking sites, claming its breaching their freedom of expression. Then post riots we find Cameron in discussion with web providers about how we could do the same thing. Now we have this. Prior to the riots  and for some time afterwords, we've been sending angry memos to Bashar al-Assad the President of Syria, ranging in content from

"Dear Mr Assad

Please stop shooting your citizens.

Thanks

Mr Cameron"

to

"Dear Mr Assad

If you don't stop shooting your citizens we will INVADE YOU.

Yours

Mr Cameron."

Now however Cameron is considering shooting British citizens, all be it in a non-lethal manner. Am I the only one who smells the hypocracy here?

Now I'm not suggesting for a moment we simply allow rioters to do as they please, of course I'm not. But surely considering we have access to water cannon, plastic bullets and bean bag rounds - though those of course have there own problems - they should surely be our first recourse in any situation.

To my mind the only time it would be acceptable to take pot shots at British citizens is

A: They start storming up Whitehall preparing to remove the Queen

B: They storm up Whitehall preparing to remove the Queen and replace her with Cameron/Cheryl Cole/Simon Cowell.

Under those circumstances, I'll be quite happy to pick them off. Just hand me a gun. But under any other circumstances.

No.  Just no.

Why the Grand Old Party needs to get it's act together.

US Presidential Elections are a slightly bigger deal than UK General Elections  They're slightly different as well, as they are only electing a leader, not a legislature (that's for the midterms) but that's beside the point. Where as in the UK the parties have about two months to campaign for votes, in the US the Presidential candidates have a year to nine months to prepare for the election.

Pity the Republican Party aren't going to be ready in time.

On January third next year, the Iowa Caucus will be held. This is an electoral event that helps decide who will be the Republican and Democrat nominees for the Presidency. As the first such caucus it gives an early indication of who migh end up being the nominee. Once the Caucus' are over and the nominee's are chosen the race can begin.

Now the chances of Obama (that is the sitting Democrat President in case anyone has forgotten) not reciving the Democratic nomination are slim. Chances are in fact that nobody will actually run against him. This means that he can focus all of his efforts from January to November on getting re-elected.

The Republicans meanwhile are going to go into the Cacus with six potential nominees. A Woman, two Texans, a former Senator, a former Govenor and a former Speaker of the House. Most of whom have policies that would make the most Conservative politican of the 1930's proud (and yes I'm looking at you Bachman and Perry).

The problem with that is that it's going to make choosing a candidate harder. With six candidates you're going to end up with a plurality of votes with no one candidate getting any one majority. The GOP will want to get through the Cacuses as quickly as possible in effort to get onto to the campagin trail. With six candidates that is going to take a while. At this stage they want to be down to two candidates. Three maximum and even that would create problems.

Having this number of candidates at this time, essentially means the GOP are going to be squabbling over candidates and nominees to Febuary/March time. Maybe even April. By then Obama will have a three/four month headstart in terms of campaigning. Which is something the GOP can't really afford.

If Romney or Gingrich (or even Perry or Paul) really want the White House, they need to get serious, quickly. And the GOP needs to start getting it's house in order.

An Open Letter to the Home Secretary

A letter I wrote to the Home Secretary upon reading about plans by the Home Office to curtail protests in London duirng the Olympics next year

Dear Ms May

I saw in the paper today that the Home Office is drawing up plans designed to deter long term protests during the London Olympics next summer.

Why does this Government - working through your Office - seem increasingly determined to limit the rights of the British Population to exercise their democratic right to protest? Several (in fact a large majority) of the countries attending the Olympics have also been experienced demonstrations and protests in this last year, some of which have been quelled in quite a violent manner. Surely the United Kingdom should be taking the Olympics as an opportunity to showcase not only our sporting prowess but also are belief in a person's right to speak their mind and voice their opinion. We should not sweep it under the rug.

As someone who voted for your party at the last election, I am growing increasingly concerned about how this new suggestion coupled with comments you made in a recent edition of Question Time about how your department was looking into ways to "deal with" protesters suggests a draconian and Stalinesque attitude towards people's freedoms at the Home Office under your supervision. Surely the Government is here to protect our freedoms, not curtail them?

Please respond promptly and put my fears to rest.

Yours

William Davie

Pizza as a What?

There comes a time I believe when humans can no longer be shocked by world events. We can predict the outcome of most events based on an almost identical event that has gone before. The US wants to make Rick Perry President? Fine. They elected George Bush (twice). We know how this is going to end.

We become the equivilent of those Accident and Emergency Doctors who have seen every example of human stupidity you care to imgine (and some you wouldn't) and thus are no longer phased if a man walks in with a pool cue stuffed up his left nostril, "That looks painful Mr Jones. Now just wait here while I get the jig saw and the pliars."

But inevitably, just after you reach this "Plateu of Disbelief" something will crop up, an idea so monumentally insane that you have to re-draw the boundries of stupidity.

Something like the US Congress classing Pizza as a vegetable.

Now I've checked. The Congress is not run by nine year old children, no do we exisit within the brain of one - the only two situatiosn where that idea makes even the tinest bit of sense - so either Congress have gone crazy, are in hop to the Lobbiests or both.

I suspect both.

Now according to my sources this may be an attempt by Congress to combat what some consider the Obama Administations rather draconian healthy eating laws - though any group without monetary interest who doesn't think healthy eating is a good thing need their heads checking - essentially allowing Children to eat childhood foods. That's something I could probably support.

But there's a limit to the sensible. There's wanting kids to have pizza, then there's classifying the thing as a vegetable. They just tap dances all over the line. Can you imagine the dinner table conversations?

"Did you have your five-a-day Timmy?"

"Yes."

"What did you have?"

"Umm..Peas, carrots, brocoli, sprouts. And a meat feast."

I tell you. This way madness lies.

Remember, Remember.....

Remember Remember, the Fifth of November
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I see no reason, why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

A little ditty, burned into the brain of every child in England. But what are we remembering?

It is now 406 years since Guy Fawkes - possible the only man to ever enter Parliament with honest intentions - failed in his attempts to blow up Parliament. He was a man determined to bring about Political change. He was also a terrorist, a fact I have never disputed. He believed that the only way to achieve change was through violent action.

But if this year has taught us anything its that violence isn't neccerssarily the answer. We have seen that change can be achieved through peaceful means. We just have to look at Egypt where the only violence was that inflicted upon the protestors. Yes some of the Occupy protests have ended in violence. But this is as usual caused by those that came out determined to cause trouble and is also by and large a result of the supposedly "democratic" governments attempting to remove people exercising their rights to protest by force. Governments essentially silencing protestors.  On Thursday the Home Secretary Theresa May said the Government was looking into ways to "deal with" the protestors both outside St Pauls and in Parliament Square. A phrase that automatically brings to mind black bags and gulags.

The world is changing. People are starting to realise that if their governments are going to be truely democratic, truely representative  they have to answer to all the people, not to a small minority of them. Change is coming. I can feel it in the air. I just don't know what things will be like when we reach the other side.

But maybe, just maybe in 2417 - 406 years from now - people will look back and remember the fifth of November, not for gunpowder, treason and plot. But as the day the world began to change for the better.

A Cry for Democracy

Elsewhere in this blog (well slightly further down) I've covered what was my opinion of the Occupy protests, through my open letter to Occupy Wall Street. I was of the opinion that while a good idea, what they needed to be really effective was a manifesto. A set of desires that could be used as a stepping stone to an actual debate and actual change.

I've changed my mind. Read the last paragraph here and you'll understand why.

There comes a time in every country, every nation, every society's history where certain people - people fed up with a oppressive government, a corrupt system - stand up and say No. Where people realise that the time has come to draw the line and say No More.

We see it in British mythology with Robin Hood. We've seen it spreading across the Middle East like wildfire. Thousands upon thousands of people throwing off the yoke of opporessive governments. Now it's reached the West. Maybe we're not being oppressed by our governments like in Egypt and Tunsia. We still have basic rights like the right to vote democratically. But we've had enough of the 1% controlling all the money, all the buisness. Had enough of the Government being run by Eton and Oxford educated suits who have no interest in actually representing the people who elected them. Who have no idea what it's llike to have to surivive on hand outs and benefits.

But are we already too late to change things?

There's a statement from the Second World War called "First They Came" that goes like this

"First they came for the Communists. And I didn't speak out because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Trade Unionists. And I didn't speak out because I was not a Trade Unionsist

Then they came for the Jews. And I didn't speak out because I was not a Jew

Then they came for Me. And there was no one left to speak out for Me."

I fear that we are bludering towards that sort of situation once again. I think that statement can be perfectly adapted for now. Let's give it a try.

First they came for the Trade Unionists.

The Trade Unions, the united voice of the working man who you never see or do not consider  - the Printer, the Train Driver, The Coal Miner and the Teacher - have had their powers gradually eroded over the last twenty years or so. Margaret Thatcher broker their power, Tony Blair pushed them out of the Labour Party - the party less you forget that was founded by and for the Unions. The ability to strike is more and more difficult to achieve and every time they speak out they are villified by the Press.

And it's not just happening here. It's happening in America where Unions in Wisconsin lost the power to bargin over pensions earlier this year.

If this carries on and more and more people ignore the importance of the Unions, who will be left to  look after the man you never see?

And I didn't speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Students

It's true that the Student Protests late last year did not achieve what they set out to achieve. Those morons vandalising Millbank Tower overshadowed the genuine message of the protests. But that doesn't mean that what they had to say wasn't important.

Wit the Tuition Fees going up to £9000 next year Higher Education is quickly becoming the preserve not of the intelligent and those with the desire to learn but of those with the fattest cheque book and bank balance. And with the cuts Further Education Colleges and Appreticeships more and more young people will find themselves with no choice but to go on the dole.

=In America Higher Education is already inching closer to being the preserve of the well off. But the Government doesn't seem to be doing anything either.

The Government is cutting off the chance for the best and the brightest of the next generation to obtain a good education and make a difference. What will happen to our country then?

And I didn't speak out because I was not a Student.

Then they came for the Journalists

Yes the phone hacking scandal was a terrible terrible thing that should never have happened. Yes it is a reason to look at the concept of Media Plurality and why we let one man have so much control over what we read and think. But the Government have taken this as opportunity to take a look at the issue of Press Regulation.

While some like Heather Brooks and Joanna Cash are for leaving the Press to regulate themselves and the Prime Minister and most figures in the industry are fine with the Press Complaints Commission handling regulation, some such as MP George Eustice are for tighter regulations, essentially smothering the press' ability to chase after stories that might be considered "in the public interest."

Our Press may not be perfect, but it does a lot of good. If it was curtailed as harshly as some would like and desire it to be imagine what people would be able to get away with.

And I didn't speak out because I was not a Journalist.

Then they came for the Protestors

We saw this with the Student Protests late last year. Even with all the chaos going on around Milibank Tower who in the name of sanity KETTLES sixteen and seventeen year olds. It's not like the majority were gun toating Anarchists. They were people with a legitmate grievence expressing their democratic right to protest.

In the US those in authority have been trying to dispurse the Occupy protests by any means they can think up, mostly revolving health and sanitation. The Corporation of London which controls the Square Mile is now trying something simliar, attempting to remove the St Paul's protests via traffic regulations on the grounds that they "obstructing a public highway." Of course the protestors are happy to come back once they have taken down the camp. They just can't bring their tents back. Something I have heard said by both New York Mayor Michael Bloomburg and the Coroporation of London. Meanwhile in Oakland California, Iraq veteren Scott Olsen lies in hospital with a fractured skull. A fracture caused by police firing a tear gas canister right at his head as they attempted to remove the Occupy Oakland protestors.

David Cameron has said that he doesn't understand why people having the right to protest means they have the right to put up tents all over London. I would say to the Prime Minister that it's because they don't believe that a one day protest is enough. A one day march through London may get them a few column inches in the nationals but once that day is over the issue they were trying to highlight will be forgotten.

But a permant protest? A protest that people have to walk past every day? That gets noticed. People start to ask questions. That's how change happens. When people ask questions.

Why are the Governments so afraid of people protesting? Are they afraid of what might happen if the people's voices become too loud to drown out?

And I didn't speak out because I was not a Protestor.

So what you going to do? Are you just going to sit at home, flap your newspaper and complain about the rise in fuel prices before you go to pick up David and Daisy from school? Or are you actually going to go out there and show the FTSE execs, the Wall Street CEO's, the Governments that you aren't going to stand idly by any more.

Because you know what happens next.

Then they came for Me.

How long till we wake up and realise that the Banks, the Business, the Governments are all controlled by a tiny miniority looking out for themselves, yet we can no longer do anything because all our means of protests, all those democratic rights we held so dear are useless. They haven't been removed oh no. Instead they've been netured right under our noses and are as pointlesss as if they had been abolished.

Then what are you going to do?

And There Was No One Left To Speak Out For Me

Royal Succesion Changes

In case you haven't been reading the news recently you should take a look at this: Succession Rules to Change

In short the Commenwealth Nations have got together and decided that the Laws of Succesion governing the British Monarchy should change. Specifically they've scrapped the bit about not marrying Roman Catholics and made it so that the first born child of the reigning King or Queen is the heir apparent regardless of whether they're a boy or a girl instead of giving preference to first born sons.

Now I'm a Monarchist. I love the Monarchy so this story is of interest to me. But I have to say I'm not to fond of the changes. Not the "You can now marry Catholics" bit, I'm fine with that. But the shift away from Male orientated primogenitor. Mostly because I don't see why it's actually neccerssary.

Now before you start screaming sexist and throwing things at me, hear me out. The UK (in one way or another, I'm thinking specifically England) has had a Monarch since approximatly 871AD, (there were others before then of course, but that was when one person started to rule the whole country) an unbroken line strenching from then till now - apart of course from that messy period just after the Civil War but we'll skate over that. That's over 1140 years. Now granted most of those Monarchs have been male but that's just how it worked back then. However since Mary I came to the throne in 1553, we've has six Queens (Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II). That's six Queens in 458 years for those of you keeping notes, one of whom was our longest reigning Monarch ever. 

We've also in that period had one female Prime Minister who was the longest running Prime Minister ever. America on the other hand - one of the countries most excited over this whole thing - has been around for 234 years or there and there abouts and has yet to even have a female Presidential candidate, let alone a female President. So we can't exactly be accused of gender bias.

I tend to live my life by two mottos. Such is Life, and If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This pandering to the Political Correctness Brigade seems to me like fixing something that isn't broken. Our current succesion laws don't forbid a girl from becoming the Monarch. If William and Kate were to have a girl and then no other children, or a girl and then another girl the eldest would become Queen and that's fine. But the system of letting boys  have first bite at the crown so to speak has worked - as shown above  - for over a thousand years and I don't see any reason to change it now. It's traditional and surely the Monarchy is all about tradition. It also seems like we're switching from one form of discrimination to another. Previously it was a case of "Bad luck, you weren't born male." Now it will be a case of "Bad luck, you weren't born earlier." Discriminating in favour of age seems only slightly less bad to me than discirminating in favour of gender.

Now I know this is all a case of locking up the stable, after I've already seen Black Beauty heading towards Hastings. The Commenwealth has made a decision and there is nothing that I or anyone reading this blog can do. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. However if we are going to mess around with the rules regarding the Monarchy, could we insert a line into the Consitution similiar to one the Spanish have, making the reigning Monarch the living embodiment and personfication of the United Kingdom.

I'd like that very much.

Save Doctor Who Confidential

Doctor Who fans, like the Doctor himself are notoriously hard to anger. By and large they will accept a change of Doctor, Companion or Show Runner with only a miniscule bit of grumbling. Some find it hard to accept of course, but the majority will accept change as and when it happens. But when roused they can be as terrifying as the Doctor himself.  At the moment they are roused.

The cause of this display of uncharacteristic dissatisfaction is in fact not target towards Doctor Who, but rather towards the BBC. Specifically BBC3 and it's decision to cancel the long running behind the scenes documentry Doctor Who Confidential. A victim of the BBC budget cuts, Confidential has apparently been axed in order to make room for - in the words of every missive sent by the BBC concering this matter - "Original British commisions unique to the channel." What this means no one is exactly sure - the BBC refuse to specify despite numerous letters  - though it apparently means airing Top Gear USA which is hardly original or unique.

The reason for this upsurge of anger is two fold. On the one hand the removal of Confidential will mean that Doctor Who now has no spin off shows, where once it had three. With the Sarah Jane Adventures bought to an end by the unfortunate death of Elisabeth Sladen, and the furture of Torchwood hanging in the balance, Confidential was the last bastion of Doctor Who spin offs. Without it, there will be nothing left.

The other reason is the central one however. To the fandom, Confidential is more than just a spin off it was an interesting and engaging show in it's own right. There is no other show on the BBC that presents such a candid and in depth view of what life behind the cameras of a major tv show is actually like. To those interested in how television is made and what is involved then Confidential was a gift from the heavens. As Alice Evans says "I enjoy Confidential immensely,  I like seeing what goes on behind the scenes, what goes into the creation of a script or a scene or a costume or a character.  This appears to be the reaction of most fans. The chance to see what is going on behind the scenes is something all fans - espeically families with small children - relish.

The fandoms response to the cancellation has been rapid, with a facebook page, a twitter feed and at least two petitions all popping up in the time since the annoucement was made. While some believe that having multiple petitions will undermine the campagins efforts and make co-ordination difficult, with 42, 110 signitures currently adoring the petition and fans from around the world joining the campagin it certainly seems to be making a mark.

Some believe that the show can not be saved. Others believe that if it is it will have to be cut down from it's current length of fourty five minutes to somewhere around the twenty/twenty five mark. But one thing is clear. With nine out of ten fans of the opinion that the decision was the wrong one, the BBC certainly have a fight on their hands.

An Open Letter

Dear Occupy Wall Street

I thought it was time I sent you a letter with some suggestions as to how you can improve your campaign and actually achieve something.

Firstly though I must congratulate you. For a long time those of us who believe in fair play, economic and social equality and good old fashioned common sense have been rather annoyed to see that despite the massive world wide recession - which among other things is sending the Eurozone into a tailspin. Watch it go - those in power and those responsible have done very little.

Here in the UK alone we've seen the Bankers partially responsible for the recession skip merrily away with six figure bonuses and the Banks quash any attempt at serious reform on the grounds that it would interfear with - you've guessed it - their ability to make yet more money. As far as I'm aware you're even worse off in the US. The Banks are repossesing houses and you're watching your ecomony float merrily down the toilet.

On top of that those who you have elected to represent you at this time of crisis are by and large stinking rich and unaffected by the cuts they are forcing on the rest of you. Same here in the UK. Funny they say we're all in this together just before they swan off to Corsica.

So kudos on actually taking a stand. It's time that somebody did. But allow me to make a suggestion that might allow things to run a little smoother.

As far as I'm aware you have issued twenty two seperate declarations refering to the "occupation of New York" explaning your motives for doing what you are doing and you have yet to issue a list of possible solutions to the problems you are protesting against.

So let me suggest that you do two things. One: Assemble one declaration listing your grivences and aims. This will be easier for those in authority to digest and will open up channels for discussion. Two: When you have opened up these channels present those you are talking to with a list of solutions to the problems outlined in your manifesto.

This way you seem like serious protestors rather than a load of hippy cranks.

Once again, I have the greatest of respect for what you are doing. I just believe this way you will be able to achieve much more.

Yours

William Davie

Let's Do the Shuffle

So Ed Milliband has reshuffled his Shadow Cabinet for the first time. It used to be that according to Labours rules the Shadow Cabinet was elected every two years. However Miliband scrapped that rule at the recent conference and instead gained the right to choose his own Cabinet. So let's see who's in, who's out and who's been moved about.

In

Coming up from either the back benchs or relatively minor positions to the top table we have.

Rachel Reeves



A relative new MP who only came in at the last election, her new position as Shadow Chief Secreatary to the Tresury is a big step up.

Liz Kendall



Another newbie who's only been around a year Liz Kendall's appointment as Shadow Secretary for Care and Old People is her first Cabinet position.

Chuka Umunna



Another of Ed's up and comers Chuka campaigned for Ed Milliband during the leadership campaign and has been awarded with the post of Shadow Secretary of State for Buisness, Innovation and Skills

Tom Watson



The attack dog of the Labour backbenches Tom Watson has never been an MP to shy away from a fight being one of the principle movers and shakers in the phone hacking scandal. Now the Deputy Chair of the Labour Party and Campaign Co-Ordinator.

Margret Curran



A former memebr of the Scottish Parliament Mrs Curran come down to Westminster last year. In the shuffle she now holds the position of Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland.

Out

Those who were in Government but now will be able to have a nice long rest in the Backbenches

John Denham



Was Shadow Secretary of State for Buisness, Innovation and Skills

John Healey



Former Shadow Secretary of State for Health

Shawn Woodward



Now no longer the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Shaken All About

The Cabinet Members who have retained their seat at the table but have in fact moved chairs.

Harriet Harman



Moved from International Development to Culture, Media and Sport. And still Deputy Leader.

Andy Burnham



Replacing John Healey, Andy will go from facing down Michael Gove to facing down Andrew Lansley as he moves from Education to Health.

Ivan Lewis



Playing swapsies with Harriet Harman, Lewis goes from Culture Media and Sport to International Development.

Hilary Benn



Moving from an important but not very well known position as Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, Hilary will now get to argue bins and biscuits with Eric Pickles at Communties and Local Development.

Vernon Coaker.



Moving up from the minor position of Shadow Secretary for Policing, Coaker will now take over Shawn Woodwards old brief at the Northern Ireland Office.

Angela Eagle



One of the first openly gay MP's, Eagle is being moved from her position as Ed Ball's right hand woman to Hilary Benn's old chair as Shadow Leader of the House of Commons.

Stephen Twigg



Another one crawling up the ranks, Twigg goes from being a Shadow Foreign Office Minister to Michael Gove's opposite number at Education.

Caroline Flint



Ms Flint takes what could be considered by some to be a step back. From facing down Eric Pickels she now takes over the role of Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the brief once held by Ed Miliband himself.

Apart from that the Status remains Quo. The Big Three of Miliband, Balls and Cooper remain where they are, as do Douglas Alexander at the Shadow Foreign Office and Jim Murphy gets to keep his seat at Defence. Rumors about the removal of Sadiq Kahn proved groundless as did suggestions we might see a return of Alan Johnson or David Miliband to the Front Benchs.

Now let's see what this new team can do.

A Grand Institution

I love the BBC. Let's make that clear right from the off. I have the greatest respect for their efforts to consistantly air quality programing.  We've had a good relationship.

But we're about to have a falling out.

On Thursday it was announced that this season of Doctor Who Confidential would be the last. For those of you who don't know, Doctor Who Confidential is the Behind the Scenes show that airs after every epsiode of the new series of Doctor Who. It provides interviews with the cast and the directors and takes a look at how an average episode is created, everything from CGI to location sourcing. I know at least one person who is interested in a career in film who loves it because of all the background and techincal knowledge. And now it has been cancelled.

According to the official press release it has been cancelled so that BBC3 (under Controller Zai Bennet who has already cancelled popular shows such as "Coming of Age" and "Two Pints of Larger and a Packet of Crisps) "can build on original British commisions unique to the channel." I'd tell you what that means. Except the BBC won't tell me.

You see as soon as I heard the news I swung into action and filed a complaint with the BBC. I pointed out the educational aspects of Confidential along with the shows popularity and also pointed out that as far as "original British commissions unique to the channel" go you can'tget more original or unique than Confidential, based as it is on a original British show and it never having been show on any channel other than BBC3.

They replied fairly promptly. Feeding me the exact same line from the press release.

So I complained again, asking for an actual explanation rather than a simple sound bite. I politly outlined my points again and asked them to provide me with examples of the type of shows they consider "original and unique". They didn't get back to me, so I filed a third complaint again outlining my points and asking both for examples and a response.

They have yet to get back to me. I'm torn between filing a fourth complain or heading straight for Points of View.

As I said above I have the greatest respect for the BBC. But I expect better from them. And as a long time viewer I expect a response to my questions.

Guess I'll just have to keep poking them.

Oh Russia

Taking a look at international events again today, specifically something that came out of the Motherland yesterday. So what exactly has Russia been up to?

Well the United Russia Party (the country's ruling - we swear we're not Communist we promise - party) held it's annual conference this week (it seems to be conference season) and yesterday there were a pair of twin annoucements that will I'm pretty sure have most of you going WHAT!!

To start with incumbant President Dimitri "I'm Not a Puppet or Anything" Medvedev gave his backing for the current Prime Minister Vladamir "Cult of Personality" Putin to run for the Presidency in the elections next year.

Shortly afterwards Mr Putin urged the Party to put Mr Medvedev at the top of the Electoral List for the Parlimentary elections in December. When United Russia win those elections (and it is When not If) that would make Mr Medvedev Prime Minister.

I'll let you figure out what that means for a moment. While you do, have a pictue of the pair.


Guess which one's in charge


Figured out what it means yet?

That's right. Putin and Medvedev are essentially SWAPPING roles.

Now I know what you are thinking. Hasn't Putin been President before? And you would be right in thinking that.   Putin was President for two terms between 2000 and 2008 following the resignation of Boris Yeltsin. The Russian Constituion barred him from holding a third term. However unlike the American Constitution (which holds to the Two Terms and your out rule no matter how you split it) the Russian Constitution seems not to prevent him from taking  the job again after a break. A break in which he oddly become Prime Minister.

His rapid rise to the Prime Ministers office and the fact that Putin has been quoted as saying that he and Mr Medvedev came to an agreement about what to do in the future "several years ago" seems to suggest both that Mr Medvedevs time as President was simply a stop gap until Putin could stand again and that for the last few years it has been Putin who has really wielded the power in Russia.

Oddly the Russian people seem to have no problem with this state of affairs. The Russian Orthadox Church has also endorsed Putin's return to the Presidency and Putin himself is quite popular within Russia. Over the last few years he has built up a Stalinist style "Cult of Personality" (only without the purges). Just Google, "Putin with Motorbikes" or "Putin and Horses" and you'll see what I mean.

And we won't even get into that whole "Let's do Judo with Putin" video that apparently exists.

If anyone has any clue how Russia has succeded in becoming such a powerful nation considering the amount of corruption that seems to pervade it's politics, please put your answers on a postcard. Cause I don't have a cluie.

I suspect it's something to do with Putin's time in the KGB though.

Liberal Democrat Conference

Yes it's that time of year again. Party Conference Season. And first up is the Liberal Democract conference in Birmingham.

It's been quite a year for the Lib Dems. They've gone from being the third (and smallest) of the major parties in the HoC to a partner in the Coalition Government. The LibCon Government if you will. This is their chance. Their chance to influence government and put some of their policies into action. A chance to make a real change.

Except it hasn't worked out like that has it? As the junior partner in the Coalition the Lib Dems don't have that much influence. There are in fact only three senior Lib Dems in the Cabinet (Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and Danny Alexander if you're interested) and nearly every time the Lib Dems have tried to force something they have either backed off or been defeated. Nick Clegg even regenged on his promise to vote against a rise in tution fees, though whether that was at the urging of the Tories we will never know.

Of course there are those who say that the Lib Dems actually hold quite a lot of power. If they were to pull out of the Coalition then the government would collapse. But I doubt that will ever happen. For one thing I suspect that the Conservatives would limp along with a minority for a while before scoring big at the next election. I also believe that the Lib Dems will never pull out of the Coalition because this is there one shot at power. I strongly suspect that they know that if they don't buck their ideas up then come the next election they will be hammered by the electorate. We don't like Yes Men. And we expect better from the Lib Dems.

But over the last few days both the leader Nick Clegg and Party President Tim Farron have attempted to change this view. They have argued that while they were "respectful in the beginning" they were now beginning to articulate their differences from the Conservatives and will now aim to "punch above their weight." They also argued that the Lib Dems have "nerves of steel" and will survive.

Whether this is the truth or simple Conference rhetoric I don't know.  But it will be fascinating to see what happens in the next few months.

Summer Summary

So as the Summer fades away to Autumn I thought I would look back over the high profile stories that have occured over what is usually a  very quiet season newswise. A pity that so little of it was good.

Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start.

Libyan Civil War



This has already been covered in this page, but as it was at the forefront of people's minds at the beginning of the summer, I'll go over it again.

Following the successful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and the ousting of Presidents Ben-Ali and Mubarak, the people of Libya rose up in an effort to topple Colonel Gaddafi, leader of Libya for over forty years. Starting in the eastern city of Bengahzi, this gradually spread west ward, before stalling halfway towards Tripoli. However the intervention of the UN, helped the rebels get moving again and as of last week they are now in control of the capital.

Unfortunatly Gaddafi is still at large, possible holed up in his home town of Sirte. I don't know how this will end, with conflicting reports emerging stating that Gaddafi is either willing to talk about a hand over of power, willing to watch Libya collapse to the twin forces of fire and ice before the Western infidels can get their hands on it's oil, or possible both. At the same time.

What ever happens, it marks the beginning of change for Libya.

This was then replaced with the

Phone Hacking Scandal



This one had been brewing for a couple of months, running conncurently with News International's attempts to purchase of BSkyB and thus control the second biggest TV provider in the UK (after the BBC) and had already cost Andy "I swear I knew nothing" Coulson (above) his job as the PM's press officer. Just as we thought we weren't going to learn anything new, the news broke that the News of the World had not only hacked into the phones of celebrities but the phone of murdered school girl Milly Dowler and possible the families of 7/7 victims.

This as you may understand made people very unhappy.  Very Very unhappy.

In fairly short order, News International shut down the News of the World hoping that this would save their attempts to buy BSkyB - and incidently making several hard working journalists who's only crime was to work for News International redudant in the process.  It didn't. In a rare show of solidarity across the Commons benchs all MP's from every party came together to make it clear that Rupert "It's only 1% of the Company" Murdoch should drop the bid. Which he did some half an hour before the Commons debate began.

With investigations into Murdoch's activities going on both in his native Australia and in the US,  former NOTW editor Rebeka Brooks as well James and Rupert Murdoch were called before a Commons Subcommittee to answer questions about their company's behaviour. Apart from a brief fraca involing a shaving foam pie and Murdoch's head things went reasonably smoothly and to the great satisfaction of all those who dislike Murdoch and his strangle hold on the media it was proved almost beyond a shadow of a doubt that frankly he is both

A: Incompetant

and

B: Passed it with absolutly no clue what is going on within his own company.

 I thought this was going to be the end of big stories. At least until the unfortunate and catostrophic events in

Norway



On the 22nd of July Norway, one of the most peaceful countries on the planet, came under attack by one of it's own citizens. Anders Behring Breivik a right-wing extreamist committed two horrifc acts of terroism in the name of "protecting" his country and Europe.

After setting a car bomb outside the Prime Minister's office which killed eight and injured eleven, Breivik travelled to the island of Utoya the location of the ruling Labour Party's annual Youth camp and proceded to open fire on the assembled teenages resulting in a death toll of around eighty people. Eighty people who's only crime was to have an active interest in their countries politics.

As mentioned above Breivik did this in an attempt to "protect" his country from he thought were the twin evils of Islam and Marxism. He wished to create a strong, White, Christian Europe free from outside influence and was willing to commit violence to do this. He is currently in isolation.

I would go on, but this story upsets me so much that I can't.  I would point you towards this though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9547000/9547476.stm

Things quietened down a bit for a few weeks, and then we got this.

English Riots



This too has been covered in this blog, so I shan't go into any details and rather give a brief summary.

Following the shooting of a man named Mark Duggan in Tottenham by the police, peaceful protests over his death, spiralled into half a week of riots and looting across the capital and the country with hotspots including several London boroughers, Birmingham and Manchester.

While things have settled down since the courts still seem to be in overdrive as they sentence those involved in the looting sprees and the government are now having to think seriously about

A: What they can do to stop something like this from happening again

B: As mentioned in my previous blog post whether the activities of polticians may have helped spark this.

We will recover. We always do. And we did not suffer nearly as badly as Norway.

So that's the Summer's news. For a season where the main news is "Mrs Prentiss Budgie learns to Snowboard" it's been quite eventful.

Of course this would happen just as I go off to study Journalism wouldn't it?

Politicians Mistrusted? Never

According to a report due to go before the government that examines the underlying social problems that led to this months riots in London and other major cities, has cited a mistrust of politicans as a "major factor"

The report There will be Burning and A-Looting Tonight put together by researchers at Essex Univeristy and Royal Holloway University says that, though poverty and lax moral standards were also a factor in people's decision to riot, a dislike and mistrust of the Government and Polticians in general seems to have been the biggest reason.

It states that politicians are seen as a "class apart" who abide "by their own rules" and also warns that mesures used to punish rioters such as stripping them of their benefits will only backfire and lead to a further alienation of certain sections of society.

But then this really isn't suprising is it? It was the Banks that caused the recession, but the working classes who had to pay the price and accept the cuts to their salaries and benefits while those responsible (such as Fred Goodwin) escape with six figure pay outs and pensions (in Goodwins case amounting to an intial £700,000 per year).

The Banking Crisis and the subsequent Expenses Scandal have from an outside perspective seem to have shown that politicans and others at the top of society are (to use their own favourite phrase) ring fenced from the rest of society and allowed to do what they want and to take what they want without adequate punishment when they are caught. And if that is the case, say those further down the society ladder, than why shouldn't we be able to do the same.

I'm not saying this is the right attidue and I'm certainly not condoing it - rioting and looting are of course never the right course of action and arson is beyond the pale - but I can certainly see why people may think this way. And as each election only seems to bring in a government that is as bad as the last I can understand why they didn't feel like waiting for polling day to make their feelings known.

When news of this report reached Whitehall it - as you would probably expect - showed the major differences between the three major parties. Mr Milliband and Mr Clegg representing Labour and the Lib Dems respectivly were more open minded about whether alienation played a role in the riots with Mr Clegg saying that " the perception that politicans, bankers and others at the top were "getting away with it" may have been a factor in the rioters ignoring the "rules of the game" as well." Downing Street on the other hand played down the idea with a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister saying "One can speculate but we are not necessarily going to know exactly what the causes were."

Now while I'm happy to see the Lib Dems speaking their mind for a change, in this instance I would be happier if their opinion was also the opinion of the Coalition. They are after all the ones who need to make sure, that something like the Riots don't happen again.

Libya - What Next

So. Libya's Rebel Movement has finally captured the capital of Tripoli. The National Transitional Council is moving in and Gaddafi is on the run. I think the first thing we need to do is look at how what many people are calling Libya's Civil War came about.

The first thing that must be understood is that while the events in Libya were born out of the same types of protests that toppled Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt, things in Libya turned out differently due to the character of Colonel Mummar Gaddafi. For starters Gaddafi held power for over forty years, longer than either Ben-Ali or Mubarak. Thus he had longer to cement his position and more to lose if he was toppled by protesters.

Thus when the protests began - peacefully as all the others were - Gaddafi had no trouble sending in the Military, who of course support him. As in Zimbabwe us Mugabi the Military in Libya has a very comfortable existence under Gaddafi and do not wish to see him gone. These intial protests took place in the eastern city of Bengazi, located on the other side of the country from Triopli and far removed from Gaddafi's stranglehold.  When protests turned violent the citizens of Bengazi quickly overwhelmed the authorites and declared their oppistion to the Gaddafi regime.  Other towns followed and soon what had been minor protests blossomed into a full blown revolution.

At first it was a distnticly amature rebellion, made up of civilians and occasional army defectors armed with weapons pillaged from military bases. Though they were able to capture several towns, they were no real threat. Hence the decision of the UN to insitiute a No Fly Zone around Libya to reduce Gaddafi's ability to bomb either the rebels or civilians who he had already targeted. A new government formed, the National Transitional Council which claimed to represent the views of the Rebellion.

So now after a long and arduous six months, the Rebels have control of Tripoli and have even over run Gaddafi's bunker. While there are still some pockets of fighting and they have to take control of all of Tripoli, the message is clear. The Gaddafi regime has fallen.

But now as the people of Libya look to the future two important questions spring to the fore.

1: How do you solve a problem like Colonel Gaddafi?

Gaddafi it appears got out of Tripoli when the rebels arrived. I'm not suprised frankly. If you've been a brutal dictator for forty years, the first thing you do is plan an escape route when the inevitable revolution comes. Most people believe he is now holed up in his home town of Sirte, surrounded by those still loyal to him. Today it has emerged that he has offered to engage in talks about an orderly transtion of power. Though some how I can't imagine that Gaddafi will just hand over power without a fight, so he must be searching for an angle.

The general expectation was that he would fight to the death - he said as much on the radio - but now a possiblity of surrender seems likely. In which case what happens once he is caught. The International Criminal Court would like to try him I suspect for various types of War Crimes, but I suspect what will actually happen is that he will be tried and either imprisoned or executed in Libya. It would act as closure for the Libyan people.

2: What Happens Next.

So far the National Transtional Council has not had to think about how to run the country. It has mostly been preocupied with running the civil war and the towns that is has taken over have had infrastructures already in place. But now that they have Tripoli, they have to restore water and power and create jobs and an infrastructure from the ground up. It has asked the UN to release millions of dollars worth of Gaddafi regime money that was frozen when fighting began but even that will take time to filter through.

What ever happens one thing is clear. Things in Libya are going to change. But whether for the worse or the better we will only know in time.

Strong in the Face of Adversity

It's been a hard few days for the people of London and the people of the UK. With less than a year to go until the 2012 Olympics, and with representatives from countries across the world here for Olympic heats, the nation that has been put on display is not a friendly, open and tolerant nation, but one supposedly filled with mindless, opportunistic thugs.

I don't think any person who has see the news or read the newspapers in the last few days is  ever going to forget this image. I know I won't



Reeves Furniture Store, a shop that has been in buisness for over a hundred and fifty years being burned to the ground, live on the nightly news. And now of course the violence has spread out of the capital to this countries other major cities. Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool all experiencing acts of copy cat violence.

But that's not what I want to talk about today. What I want to talk about is the good that has come out of this.

Call it The Big Society, call it Community Spirit, call it The British Spirit, but the British have never been a people to lie dowin the face of adversity. When faced with trouble, we simply roll up our sleeves and keep going, pulling together and helping one other.

It's been that way since long before I was born, the Blitz spirit being a prime example from the Second World War. We are a country for whom the phrase "When the going gets tough, the tough get going" could have been invented. And the UK Riots haven't changed that.

The media has often pointed out over the last three days how it is modern social networking site such as Twitter and Facebook that have allowed the rioters and looters to organize themselves. But yesterday morning as the country reeled in the wake of a third night of violence I awoke to discover that a group of people had decided the time had come to both do something about the rioting and to take back our social networks. I awoke to the glorious hash tag #riotcleanup.

Across London and across the country people were fighting the rioters. Not with sticks or stones or violence, but with brooms, cups of tea and peace. People were donning the rubber gloves and going out to clean up their communities. Going out to show the rioters that no matter what they did, they couldn't frighten people away. They couldn't dampen the British Spirit.

The Riot Clean Up website says that "This is not about the riots. This is about the clean up - Londoners who care, coming together to engender a sense of community,"  and BBC Journalist Michael Hirst said that at Clapham Junction station there was "Sunshine, high spirits, lots of joking and a community vibe,"  as three hundred to four hundred volunteers took part in the clean up operation.

This is the London, this is the United Kingdom that I wish the global community could see. Not the riots and the arson and the violence. But the Community Spirit that such action prompts in people.


The Riot Wombles of Central London. This is what being British means.

I have read quotes by people over the last few days saying that the violence and rioting has made them ashamed to be British. And it is shameful. But after seeing images like the one above, after seeing the Police being cheered by onlookers in Clapham Junction, I'm not ashamed.

In fact, I've never been more proud to be British.

London Riots

I posted this to LJ last night but I think it should go here as well.

Mob mentality makes people do stupid things. When we get down to brass tacks that is why this is happening.

 Let's break this down.

1: Last Thursday a Tottenham local Mark Duggan was killed during a Police operation. There is a chance he may have been shot by police. The Internal Police Complaints Commision are now investingating what happened.

2: On Saturday night a group of people marched to Tottenham Police Staion in order to protest over the shooting of Mark Duggan. This was a peacefull protest.

3: All hell broke loose.

Somehow the peaceful protest turned into a riot. No one knows how and no one knows why but it did. Shops were set alight and looting occured. Turning on the news on Sunday morning I was shocked and appalled. There didn't seem to be any point to it. What good does trashing your neighbourhood do?

And now. Now we're into the third night of rioting which has spread across a large section of London. There are now riots and spots of violence in Croydon, Lewisham, Peckham, Tottenham, Haringey, Islington, Oxford Circus, Hackeny, Southwark, Clapham, East Ham and Ealing. Buildings are alight and the Looters are out and about once again.  


It seems as if the politicians have finally got their act together with the the Home Secretary back in the country and the Mayor of London and the Prime Minister returning from their holidays. In fact since I wrote this last night, Cameron has returned to London and chaired a meeting of COBRA.

But the question is. What is the point of all this?

As usually this is being blamed on disenfranchiesd youth (the Daily Mail will have a field day) and quite frankly I would like to grab the ring leaders by the neck, shake them very hard and ask them what they think they are doing.

My friend sea_thoughts has this to say, "Lack of housing + lack of jobs = lack of mobility = tinder waiting for a spark" which I suppose makes sense in a way. Times have been very hard in the last few months with unemployment on the rise and the goverment cuts hitting people hard. But how exactly does going out and trashing your local Curries while setting fire to buses get you a job. How does it improve the global finacial situation? How does it create jobs? The answer is it doesn't.

To quote the MP Diana Abbot, "These people are trashing their own community. Who would invest here, who would create jobs?"  The answer is of course no one. No company in their right mind is going to come and set up in shop in an area where this type of thing can happen. They will go far far away quite possible to other countries.

If people really want to create jobs then they need to work together to show that their communities are friendly welcoming places which any buisness would be happy to start up and create a branch. They need to show that they are proud of their community.

Somepeople will compare this to the Student Protests and the riots that followed them that occured earlier in the year. But to quote phantomreviewer, ""this is nothing like the Student Protests, this is pure and unjustifiable anarchy" The Student Protests had an aim. They wanted to convince the goverment not to raise university fees. Then they got hijacked by morons. The protests on Saturday in Tottenham had a point. Then they got hijacked by morons.

This. This has no point. This is just anarchy .

To quote Mike Fisher, the head of Croyden Council "This is just mindless thugs who probably have never even heard of Mark Duggan." To quote phantomreviewer again "This is absurd."

Acting like this isn't doing anybody good. All it is doing is harming people.

It's harming London.

Hey All

So on the advice of a friend, coupled with the fact that I'm hopefully starting a journalism degree in September I've decided to set up  a blog for all my political/journalistic musings. (That and if LJ keeps crashing I'd like a backup).

I'm keeping my LJ of course. But it will now be for personal things, reviews and any pieces of writing I care to share. All political ramblings will be here.

So I guess I'll see you around.

Will.