Farewell to 2009

I’ve blogged rather a lot today. This time of year especially at the end of the decade is always one for self indulgance and self reference. Of the many photos I’ve taken this year, this one perhaps is one of the more beautiful yet simple. It shows the sun rising off the East coast of New Zealand, not far from East Cape (the most easterly point) and 6.23am on the 3rd September 2009. Being so close to the International Dateline, New Zealand is a full 13 hours ahead of the UK (under current daylight savings) and one of the first places on Earth to see the new day.

Technically, 2009 will be (unless in exceptional circumstances) the 3rd shortest year of my life and I shall be welcoming in the new decade several hours ahead of my comrades back home. I chose the above photo for more than just its astronomical significance – It was taken on a 2-week tour of the North Island, the “Teutonic Tour” of myself, Herr Ecke of Thuringia, Herr Scheider of Mainz and Mr. Tang of Chengdu, Sichuan province. Those two weeks were without doubt some of the best of 2009 and of the decade. The germans have since departed NZ, but they were bloody good mates and I’ll count myself very lucky to meet their kind again next semester. There have been some fantastic personal highs for me in 2009, as well as a few crushing lows. I won’t bore anyone with details here, but its been a hell of a ride.

In less than two hours or so there’ll be a fireworks display of sorts over the Auckland CBD. I’ll scurry along and grab some shots no doubt. Actually, I couldn’t decide earlier between pics, so here’s another gorgeous shot, taken ~1 minute before the one above.

Guest post: DemocracyFAIL

There follows a Guest post courtesy of Jed Bormann, Anti-Nasty things and Pro-Kitten Officer at the University of Fibchester Student Union. I apologise in advance for some of the more colourful language employed by Mr. Bormann.

********************************************************************************************************

 
Democracy? I mean, what the Fuck? The representatives on our student Union are a total herd of cuntweasels! Why? I’ll tell you why, the bastards had the nerve to disagree with me.

I was elected by at least 27 people, not all of whom were my chums, to promote nice things like kittens, and to fight against all the nasty things in the world; like oil, capitalism, and the orange ones in Quality Street. I spent at least 3 hours of my time in a committee with all my fellows from the Nice Things Society and the Watermelon Greens Society (plus some Liberal Democrats – reactionary right-wing fascists of course, but they’re mostly harmless), and together, in a non-hierarchical grassroots form we cobbled together a draft for a Very Pleasant Investment Policy for Fibchester Student Union.

After the three gruelling hours sat in a circle, we sang a protest song and all patted ourselves heartily on the back; before heading back to Daddies place in the country for the weekend. As Mumsy read to me from the Guardian, and Daddy from the Morning Star, I was certain we’d done our bit to save the world. I turned to Mumsy and said – “I bet that nasty Mr. Mugabe will think twice when he sees this!” Daddy hastily corrected me – of course Mr. Mugabe is leading the anti-imperialist fight against the evil Neo-colonialists Brown and Obama. How could I have been so daft. “Well, it’ll teach Shell a thing or two won’t it Daddy?”. “Yes son”. Daddy munched on asparagus whilst Mumsy topped up her glass of Pinot – fair trade, naturally. I dream that one day the gentle peoples of Saudi Arabia and Nigeria will be free from the tyrannical rule of Big Oil… free to join our peace-loving world revolution.

Figure 1) "Nasty"

Anyhow, I came back to Fibchester to be told that my perfectly crafted policy had to voted on. I complained to the Vice President and shouted and got really rather cross. Why should it? I wrote it! We wrote it, in our self-appointed committee! But he was unrelenting. It seems that in our patriarchical, reactionary and bureaucratic student union, the supposedly elected Union councillors have to vote on policy for it to be passed. Well I wasn’t going to turn up to the meeting – if the policy had my name on the, then those uppity councillors should bally well pass it. But I relented and went along anyway – sometimes they have free biscuits.

But would you believe it – some of those.. those.. tossers… stood against me. I told them I was right, I told them so many times. But they kept on countering my facts with their blasted opinions. This is what disgusted me most – they openly disagreed with me – suggesting that our Union should be more concerned with the students of Fibchester than with fluffy bunnies in Bolivia. I didn’t listen to their argument because I knew it was wrong, but I imagine it ran along the lines of “We shouldn’t give a shit” – I mean how dare they decide what is and isn’t important to them?

So my perfectly crafted Very Pleasant Investment Policy was rejected. It’s insulting that our Union council should be filled with people who can disagree with myself and my ethically superior chums – what right do they have to stop me doing what I want? The Watermelon Greens were furious too. I rang Mummy in tears: “Who’s going to stop nasty British Airways now?”. I hadn’t been so upset since the time we ran out of organic Palestinian orange juice and Daddy refused to buy more - I mean, its only £19.99 a litre, I nearly called him a Zionist! How can this be democracy? If this were properly democratic there would have been no opposition to me or my policy? Democracy has clearly failed when people who disagree with me can be elected to Union council!

I say that in future, these sort of people should not get elected. Ideally they should not even be allowed to stand for election. These so-called “centrists” and “democrats” must be a minority view compared to the members of the Nice Things Society. They certainly shouldn’t be able to become Union Officers or stand in the way of the Ethical movement. They are all repulsive sycophants who should be removed from their positions and replaced with people more sympathetic to myself and my agenda.

Tossers.

********************************************************************************************************

Mr. Bormann promptly threw his toys from his pram and stormed off to his room, slamming the door loudly. I thank him for his contribution and wouldn’t be surprised to hear from him again before long.

U.N.fit for purpose

The UN’s permanent investigator of alleged Israeli human rights violations, Richard Falk, has called for an economic blockade on the state of Israel. The proposed boycott would be justified as a response to the blockade imposed by Israel on materials entering Gaza. Mr Falk made a thinly veiled comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany, describing the plight of Gazan citizens as “something that no people since the end of World War II have experienced in such a severe and continuing form”.

Interestingly Mr. Falk does not call for similar sanctions on Egypt, which also blockades Gaza out of similar concerns for its internal security. The moderates in Cairo have almost as much to fear from the Islamofacists of Hamas, especially if they were to link up with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. Of course, no UN members have yet called for Egypt to be wiped off the map, which may explain some of the discrepancy in their permenant investigator’s policies. It is also worth noting that the UN has not recommended the proposed sanctions for any other members- not Zimbabwe, nor Iran, nor even North Korea.

The blockade is unfortunate, but many features of the real world are. No doubt if it was not required, it would cease to exist. Hamas only started the rocket attacks which we saw this time last year when their suicide bombers – funded by Iran don’t forget – could no longer get into Israel proper. I’m certain there is nothing Israel would like more than to have no further business in Gaza – if only their security would allow for it. While there remain Islamisofascist nutjobs running the show in Gaza, with their paymasters safely esconsed in Tehren, they will maintain their war on Israel.

Criticise the blockade all you like Mr Falk, call it a “genocide” if you are a man free from principle, but tell me this; when has there ever been a case of one nation suppying materials to its enemy during wartime? When Hamas drops its stated objective to annihilate the state of Israel – a declaration of war if ever there was one - then there may be peace. Every concession Israel has granted thus far had led to a demand for more. The only concession which would fully appease Israel’s enemies would be its complete dissolution as a nation. If the blockade is to end, and if Israel is to grant a Marshall plan to its self-proclaimed enemies (“In view of the eroded productive base, poverty is likely to widen and deepen unless reconstruction begins in earnest and without further delay”- Mr. Falk), perhaps the enemy should surrender first?

It woud be easy to proclaim Mr Falk an “anti-semite” for the disparite standards he appears to hold Israel to. That would be too easy, and indeed a cheapening of the term. It is maybe a little concerning that the man is a professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University – though what little I know of law thus far already suggests a divergence between “law” and “common sense”. Curiously his UN position is unpaid, though if what we see here is anything to go by, he does a good job at talking the party line.  I would also be concerned if I were one of his students, for Mr Falk is a prominant proponent of the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job.

Also that the moon landings were faked, that Hilter is alive and well and living in Argentina, that the Soviets killed JFK and that the oil companies bought and destroyed all the patents for electric cars. Actually, I made these ones up, but it would explain a lot, wouldn’t it? Not only is the UN run by tinpot dictators and loonies – it appears to be recruiting them too. No wonder it no longer has any credibility in the civilised world.

10 for 2010

Well, Iain Dale did one, so have other Tory bloggers. The Guardian had some of its columnists do a nice video on the topic. I thought I’d follow suit and other some speculative and pointless predictions for the year ahead in the political world:

1) The 2010 UK general election will be held in May to coincide with local elections, rather than earlier as speculated.

2) The economy will begin to recover as the Chancellor predicted, though actual growth will be less than Darling’s projection. Unemployment will not hit the 3 million mark.

3) The 2010 general election will result in a hung parliament, with the Tories as the largest party – short of a majority by 30 seats. The Lib Dems will hold the balance of power and refuse to prop up the Labour Government. Coalition negotiations will fail due to differences on electoral reform and the allocation of cabinet positions. David Cameron will emerge leading a minority government.

4) Green Party leader Dr. Caroline Lucas will win the parties first seat in Brighton. Ukip and the BNP will fail to win any Westminster seats, but will draw votes away from the Conservatives and Labour respectively.

5) Cameron’s control of his party will be very weak when in government, with newly elected backbenchers being significantly to the right of him. Either the minority government will fall before the end of 2010, with another election to be held; or there will be a leadership challenge.

6) At some point in 2010, Palestine will step up its attacks on Israel. When Israel defends itself we shall see the usual rabble-protests in the UK. The FarLeft-Islamist alliance will become more vocal and agitative as the year goes on.

7) A Far Left or Islamist candidate will win a sabbatical position in the University of Birmingham Guild of Students elections. The EEO position will again fall to the radical rather than the moderate candidate. One of the present sabbs will seek reelection and win.

Brown will not resign immediately in opposition but continue until the party conference season before being forced out. Jack Straw will be elected leader (“safe pair of hands”/”caretaker”) will Alan Johnson as deputy. Ed Balls to become shadow chancellor.

9) Universities will negotiate a rise in tuition fees to £5,000 p.a. Applications for university places will fall to a 5-year low, with youth unemployment rising again before the end of the year.

10) Obama’s healthcare reforms will be passed in a greatly compromised form. In the midterm elections the Democrats will lose control of at least one of the Houses of Congress to the Republicans.

********************************************************************************************************

I’ve just read through them a second time and realised they aren’t very cheerful… hopefully I’ll be proven wrong on at least some of them. I’ve also realised that I’ve cheated and written far more than the initially promised 10 – seems I wanted to flesh out the Future History. I haven’t checked Political Betting for odds on any of these, so I’ve no idea how plausible some of them are  – If anyone does fancy a little wager, get in touch

Oh yeah, and happy new year.

Where were they then?

Michael White of the Guardian has recently been writing a very enjoyable mini-series on his “politicians of the decade”. Today especially I have to admire his Tory-troll baiting style in choosing Harriet Harman. Other candidates have included Tony Blair and Alex Samond. We have Mr. Dave Cameron to look forward to tomorrow.

What I like about this series is the little “At the start of the decade/At the end of the decade” subtitles that preface each installment. Often it very simply makes a point as to how rapid the rise of a political career can be, or indeed how swiftly a giant can be toppled. This time of year often sees many facile predictions for the year ahead, but given the fast paced nature of the political world, can we have a hope in hell of predicting the key players a decade hence? Consider that Tony Blair never held any government office other than that of Prime Minister, and that was for almost half his time as an MP. Blair was as unheard of in 1987 as John Major was in 1980 . Both were backbenchers, effectively invisible to the national media. In the past high office has often been the end result of a decades long career, including cabinet positions in past governments. If the predominant media obsession with youthful telegenic politicians continues, along with the bashing of those who have - for the sake of argument – less than perfect eyesight; the trend for rapid rises and overpromotion may well continue.

As a chance to demonstate just how pointless long term projection and speculation may be, I’ve compiled (thrown together) a list of 6 politicians. They are not necessarily giants, but I would wager that all of them were unheard of by 99% of people, even within their own country, a mere decade ago. Certainly I’d not heard of any of them in 2000 (granted I’d not even heard of one of them until this year, but he’s a kiwi so that’s understandable). So where, were we to go back in time to December 31st 1999, would we find the following headline makers of the present day?

********************************************************************************************************

Rt. Hon David Milliband MP - (44) Current UK Foreign Secretary since 2007. Seen as a potential future leader of the Labour Party, but also as a lightweight. Often conflated in leadership speculation as a challenger to Gordon Prime Minister Brown. Future career prospects tied to those of the Labour Party, but likely to be a key player in opposition.

Mr. David Milliband – (34) After Labour’s election victory in 1997, Blair had made Milliband the de facto Head of the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit. In 2000 he was still in this position and yet to be elected to Westminster. Milliband was to be elected to the Labour safe seat of South Sheilds in the 2001 general election.

Mrs. Sarah Palin – (45) Former Governer of Alaska and Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2008, Sarah Palin is currently engaged in the promotion of her book Going Rogue, and arguably of herself. Loved by social conservatives in small town America and loathed by liberals pretty much everywhere. Pro-life and anti-AGW. Suggested as a potential Republican candidate in the 2012 Presidential election. For many it would be hard to find a more terrifying prospect outside the realm of fiction.

Mayor Palin of Wasilla, 1996

Mayor Sarah Palin – (35) In 1999 Sarah Palin had won reelection to her second 3-year term as mayor of the Alaskan city of Wasilla (2000 pop. 5,469). She had previously served on the city’s council from 1992-1996. She would serve out her second term until 2002 when term limits prevented her from restanding. Her record as mayor has attracted controversy for the alledged censorship of books, including those displaying LGBT themes, from the Wasilla city library.

Rt. Hon David Cameron MP - (43) Leader of the UK Conservative and Unionist Party and Leader of the Opposition since December 2005. Most likely next Prime Minister following the 2010 general election.

Cameron as Special Advisor to Chancellor Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday, 1992.

Mr David Cameron - (33) Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlon Communications since 1994. Previously a member of the Conservative Research Department and a Special Advisor to Norman Lamont and Michael Howard in John Major’s government. Lost to Labour in Stafford in 1997, went on to be selected for Witney and win the seat in 2001.

Hon John Key MP- (48) Leader of the National Party since … Prime Minister of New Zealand since defeating Labour in the November 2008 general election. Now just over one year into his first 3-year term and still showing a significant poll-lead over the Labour oppositon.

Mr John Key – (38) In 2000, John Key had been working for Merril Lynch as global head of foreign exchange, based in London. He had been with the firm since 1995, reputed to earn up to NZ$5 million per year. Key was also a member of the New York Federal Reserve Bank Foreign Exchange Committee since 1999. Only in the following decade was Key to pursue a political career, being selected for and winning the Helensville electorate in 2002. 

President Barack Obama – (48) 44th President of the United States. 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. Eligable for reelection in 2012.

Obama (March 2000)

State Senator Barack Obama - (38) State Senator for Illinois, 13th district, since 1996. Senior Lecturer on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Also served on several Chicago Board of Directors’. Went on to lose a bid for the US House of Representatives in 2000, before winning election as US Senator for Illinois in 2004

Mayor Boris Johnson – (45) Conservative Mayor of London since defeating Labour incumbant Ken Livingstone in the 2008 mayoral elections. Arguably the current most powerful elected Tory in the UK and eligable for reelection in 2012. Subject to speculation concerning future Tory leadership and Westminster ambitions.

Mr. Boris Johnson  – (35) Editor of the Spectator since 1999, having been associated with them since 1994. Previous career in journalism with the Times and Telegraph. Failed to be elected Conservative MP for Clwyd South in 1997. Went on to be elected MP for Henley in 2001, a seat he would retain until after winning the London mayoralty. A short and controversy-prone Opposition front bench career was to take place in the interim. Johnson appeared twice on Have I Got News For You as a panelist before being elected an MP - the show arguably deserves some credit/blame for his later political successes.

********************************************************************************************************

How many of the above would have been expected to rise to where they did a mere decade ago? Where should we be looking for the leaders of 2019? Without realising it, the 6 prominant politicians I picked apparently at random are within 5 years of age of each other – the last decade seems to mark the progression from backbench to frontbench for many political types of their generation. Some of their rises have been more meteoric than others, and some of their carreers had appeared to have halted much sooner than has become the case.

Tomorrow I shall cast wildly bizzare and self-indulgantly speculative predictions on where these 6 may be in 10 years time. Except for John Key, because I really haven’t followed Kiwi politics close enough this year.

Happy Solstice!

I’m no Pagan, Wiccan or whatever; but if there’s one thing folk in my Wessex homeland like doing it’s getting pissed on cider and sacrificing virgins by standing stones. Granted the hippies and New Age types may have stolen some of our policies over the last 50 years or so but such is life.

Anyhow, I’m down here at 35 degrees south latitude, where the solstices are pretty naff it would seem. It’s half nine at night and its been dark a good hour already. Rubbish for summer. Also Auckland city council refused my planning application for a big stone circle in the Domain. Intolerant bastards – who do they think they are, Swiss?

So here’s a picture of Stonehenge covered in snow. I refuse to use WordPress’ crap “snowflakes” app, not in this hemisphere. The only snow we see in Auckland in December is in the form of transfers on the windows of all the Starbucks branches.

Merry Christmas from a Ciderite and Labour blogger in exile xx

#Mandy4Mayor

I’m by now means the first blogger to comment on this story. ToryBear among others certainly got there first, but as far as speculative Xmas presents go, this is quite a treat.

Peter Mandelson considering a mayoral race against Boris in 2012. That some of the rumours come direct from the Livingstone camp is enough to give them at least the slightest plausibility – they were a friendly tip-off as Red Ken put it. This could line up to be a very exciting contest if all falls into place and all rumours are true. First we see a Labour contest for the candidacy between Red Ken Livingstone and New Labour Blairite (or Brownite) Mandelson – the mother of all ideological divisions within the party. Given that Mandelson even running is dependent on an admittedly likely General Election defeat in 2010, these ideological divisions are likely to be both more prominant and more evenly matched in opposition. Which way the candidacy goes may very well be indicative of which way the party itself will go in opposition – will we retain our New Labour heritage, or will we cast it off and lurch wildly to the left?

Needless to say, I’m firmly within the Mandelson camp, and I believe that the party as a whole would be – at present. Ken really should know when to throw in the towel – this will be his 4th London mayoral contest in a row, not to mention his previous career in the Greater London Assembly of the 1980s. Londoners who rejected him in 2008 are not going to welcome him back with open arms in 2012, even 2016 would be a push. If it comes down to a choice between them, I see the party favouring Mandy as by far the more electable of the two. That said – could either of them beat Boris?

Boris may not be popular in Labour circles – for partisan and non-partisan reasons. I’ve certainly stuck my neck out previously in supporting him. He’s currently less than half-way through his first term, certainly within the honeymoon period. While a broadly unpopular Labour government remains in office, Londoners will find it far more natural to direct their anger towards No 10 than they will towards City Hall. If Labour wins a 4th term, Boris will be impossible to topple – firstly Mandy will still be First Secretary of State, leaving Ken as the most prominant challenger – to go from unlikely or phyric victory in 2010 to a capturing the London Mayoralty from the Tories is almost beyond implausible.  Boris is currently the most powerful elected Tory in the country – perhaps he secretly hopes that this scenario continues.

And if the Tories win in 2010, or there is a hung parliament, Mandy may indeed be free to run. But again, many of the same factors will still be in play. Boris would have to do something significantly unpopular to lose his current support levels. Similarly, only if the Tories cuts were to disproportionately hit Londoners would they turn on Boris. What’s likely is that those voters most hit by a public finances squeeze were not those to vote Tory in the first place. Both Mandelson and Ken are more tainted by association from their previous careers than Boris -a relative newcomer to high office. Voters are not going to throw out a New Labour government only to return one of its most prominant and recognisable standard bearers to office. Career-wise, Mandy should at least wait until 2016, by which time the Tory cuts could really be starting to hurt and the mistakes of office be building up, before running.

Add to this the likelyhood that if Boris is to step down it will be in 2016 rather than 2012. His alledged Prime Ministerial ambitions would be better served by such a delay. Plus leaving London so soon would hint of a Palin-eques lack of commitment to elected office – potentially damaging to a westminster bid. While he the only Labour politician I can think of that I would support over Boris, Mandy should wait until the blonde bombshell is safely out of the way to be in with a chance of victory.

Let Ken have his shot in 2012. A second, inevitable defeat will hopefully finally end his career. Unless Cameron can finally persuade Sir John Major (or someone of equal profile) to take the Tory candidacy in 2016, Labour and Mandy will then have the upper hand. If Mandelson can make a comeback after 4 years in Europe, he can certainly return from Oppositon and the ashes of New Labour to take London.

Mandy for Mayor, just wait a while first.

The Year of Stupid.

Fear not comrades – my grammatical standards have not yet degenerated to HYS standards. Indeed, I would have entitled this post “The Year of Stupidity“, but I wanted to make it a direct nod to that film what came out some time back. You know the one.

Well anyway, I realise I’ve not posted much at all about the Copenhagen summit. The main reason for this is that I don’t really care all that much. I’ve never been a big fan of summits, or any fancy ceremony filled things. Give me a smoke-filled* room any day – at least things get done in them. I wasn’t overly suprised that the end result was disappointing to pretty much everyone. Partly because I’m a bitter, twisted cynical old bastard; partly because you bring 193 nations which wildly disparate priorities and dozens of conflicting internal issues together – getting them to agree on which combo deal to go for in the takeout would be a challenge requiring significant mediation.

Gordon played the international scene well, mingling with pioneer of the depressing-guilt-trip film genre Al Gore. Supposedly our Dear Leader recieved an endorsement of sorts – I won’t comment on the value or otherwise of this. The younger of the Millipede pair was also there – the one I don’t mind so much. Worth noting for my UK comrades that NZ PM John Key popped along after previously saying he wouldn’t be. New Zealand’s climate change ambassador has termed the agreement “appalling” [pro-National NZ Herald]. India’s environment minister was also there – with his long green scarf and wild hair, somewhat resembling an Asian version of Tom Baker’s Doctor. I hate to think how much the whole thing cost, but I guess that’s not the point.

"Would you care for a Jelly Baby?"

One thing I did pick up on, throughout the rather tiresome news coverage, was the frequent mentions of protests and general naughtyness going on in Copenhagen’s town centre. First we had some rather interesting previews of all the cell’s and cages the Danish police were preparing. If that doesn’t fill a political activist hack with anticipation I don’t know what will. Then of course there were the protests – pretty much standard fare when you have your gatherings of lefties, far-lefties, anarchists, greens, eco-warriors, swampies, communists and general rent-a-protest trouble makers in town. Apparently there was the odd scuffle as is to be expected, followed by the predictable accusations of police being ‘heavy handed’ when they’re just trying to do their job. A number of the unwashed types doubtless ended up in the cells – free to pontificate on their own self suffering.

I’ve been to and observed protests in the past. Civilised ones, ones which don’t get out of hand, don’t cause trouble, respect the law, and manage to make their point in a dignified but meaningful manner. Taking examples from the University of Birmingham alone, there were the halls and tuition fees protests – organised by our Union and a testament to the correct form of direct action. Earlier this year also saw the brave pro-peace protest – a counter to some especially nasty tendancies on campus. Nobody ended up injured or charged, police presence was not required, and no laws were broken.

Contrast that with reports from Copenhagen. One of the marches broken up by police had been disapproved previously by the relevent authorities. The march organisers, in their pig-headed arrogance, appear to have gone ahead with it anyway – resulting in clashes, injuries, and probably a cost to the Danish taxpayer. We hear complaints often enough about the loutish behaviour of the underclass contingent of British football fans in Europe – nice to know our greens and lefties are capable of much the same thing (abeit fueled by self-righteousness rather than one/ten too many pints of Stella and a Daily Express inspired view of foriegners). And no, the ends do not justify the means.

But what is most confusing… what are they protesting? Here we have a near-unprecedented gathering of global statesmen attempting to address the global warming issue you lot keep rattling on about. The sense of optimism post-Bush is greater than ever before. The realists among us hope and believe something productive will come from it all. Perhaps it isn’t quite enough for the more fundamentalist greens, but aren’t there more productive ways for them to get their agenda across? Lobbying, speechs, writing to delegates, blogs, dare I say… voting? How many leaders have ever looked upon a hostile agressive protest, seemingly against them, and thought “You know what? The angry mob may have a point”. Those statesmen in the ivory towers that are trying to find a balanced solution have enough enemies as is – they don’t need extremists attacking from the other side.

It probably speaks for my background as a scientist when I say I’m sick of the politcising of science. I loathe the self-imposed ignorance of the deniers camp – akin to those who once denied the link between smoking and lung cancer. But protesters have politicised it. There exists now a “Watermelon” tendancy – that of “Green on the outside, Red inside”. Environmentalism is the mother of all bandwagons, both pro- and anti-. Everybody on the political fringe, from failed communists to failed vice-presidential candidates is climbing aboard, hopeful of finding an outlet where they can make a lot of noise and get some more attention. I despair of this fusion of ideology with fact. Do environmentalists not realise that if people can liken them to authoritarian socialists then they will. You’d think, with our collective interests at stake, we could build some kind of consensus. Instead, all we see is two camps abstracting the issue for their own ends, both antithetical to compromise and unwilling to put the issue ahead of the politics. Seriously guys; seperate environmental issues from Green politics and from the militant and anarchist factions and it might get somewhere. Maintain the unholy alliance and you may just need to learn some Danish prison slang.

Being antagonistic and causing trouble to promote your cause is just stupid.

*or not, I’m not a fan of smoke. Fag smoke anyway. Maybe CO2** from theatrical use for dramatic effect.

** Unintentional reference there.. oops.

Polls, Money, & Bitches

The latest Ipsos MORI poll shows a drastic reverse in the narrowing of the Tories poll lead. In short:

Con 43 (+6) Lab 26 (-5) LD 20 (+2) Other 11 (-3)

There can be no hiding the strong probability that this reflects a general public disapproval of the Pre-Budget Report. My first thoughts on reading these figures were in the form of a single word. I won’t repeat it here. As the Tories prepare for a New Year policy blitz, and our recent renewed optimism sags a little bit; it is best to remember that a poll is just a poll. As the earlier optimism could be seen as immature, so would be getting worried this (thus-far) one-off result. “Keep Calm and Carry On” is a bloody good mantra.

There remain up to 5 1/2 months until the general election. For now, it would appear best to wait and see what happens. If anything, I can only hope this puts a damper on those premature fellows who were lobbying for March. The Tory propaganda on the March election that will never be may start to hurt them. Dave can kick off the policy blitz in Janunary if he really wants to, but I imagine that the policy hamper will start to run empty before too long. Chances are its a very light hamper. By winter’s end the blitzkrieg will turn to a war of attrition, and my money’s on Gordon.

Should Tweeters be executed?

If it ever turns out that there genuinely is a secret global elite controlling society, then at present my money is on it being the Twitterati. Looks at the facts people! Already we’ve silenced the Daily Mail, and more importantly a fellow who dared criticise Stephen Fry; now we’ve forced the BBC to back down! All hail the power of the Twits!

The latest hoo-haa is over this Have Your Say topic on the BBC’s website – it covers (or, rather covered) the subject of Uganda’s homophobic policies which could lead to the execution of LGBT individuals in that country. Somebody at the BBC has clearly slipped up and allowed a rather provocative debate question to be allowed through – “Should homosexuals face execution?” Bit of an ‘oops’ moment at broadcasting house… Yes the question is leading. Yes it allows the bigots in our midst to save themselves time by simply responding “yes”; but does it encourage or legitimise homophobic behaviour? I’d say no.

I used to be a frequent visitor and lurker to the HYS forums. It was always good fun to chuckle self-righteously at the misconceptions of Little-Englanders and people on day release from Daily-Mail-land who had accidently been allowed near a keyboard. (Then I found this site which allows me to do all that much more efficiently). So I’m slightly familiar with HYS, to the extent that I’m aware that leading questions are the norm on such forums. It is always their intention for the question to be controversial, provocative, and to encourage debate. Provided that the forum is also well-moderated (as the BBC’s is) it shouldn’t matter. Debating societies do much the same thing – Auckland recently had “This House believes in unlimited immigration”, whereas Birmingham had the stimulating “This House believes Africa should be recolonised”. I’ve deliberately chosen these two, not just because they are the only two I can remember verbatim off the top of my head; but because I would wager that both questions are equally provocative and “offensive” to different sections of society, whilst being “bloody good ideas” to others.

Asking “Should homosexuals be executed?” is not wrong; to answer “yes” is. Unlike some on the left, I have always strongly believed in personal responsibility. The BBC is not to blame for the bigots who troll it. Arguably they should have used a neutral non-leading question from the start (as is now the case on the closed post-backtrack thread) – but we know that this is the exeption rather than the rule in debating circles. No doubt the thread would, in any case, have attracted the same homophobic chumps it normally does. Maybe if I was in charge of HYS, I’d have elected to put the question “Are the people of Uganda backward, ignorant and uncivilised?” – chances are that would have brought complaints in equal number from different quarters. I’d have been accused of being a ‘cultural imperialist’, a ‘racist’ (?), ‘Eurocentric’, and probably of being a ‘militant homosexual’ to boot. Well, such is life.

Please Twitterati – let’s not throw our toys out of the pram here. We have bigger and more important enemies than the BBC surely? Don’t add fuel to the bigot’s claims that they only wish to defend “freedom of speech”. Can we not make Uganda rethink? Wouldn’t that be a more worthwhile use of our time and 140 characters?