The release of Barack Obama's birth certificate was a canny move, but one which was forced thanks to pressure from Donald Trump. Trump has gained huge exposure by hounding the US President on the issue, appearing on national American TV far more than any other potential Republican challenger over the past month or so.
Subsequently some polls have shown him to be a popular potential Republican Presidential candidate. Of course this has been dismissed by lots of people who argue that Trump isn't credible, doesn't have a wide enough appeal and isn't even planning to stand, insisting that he is simply using the whole Presidential race as an opportunity to promote himself.
I disagree on all three counts. While purist politicos may be able to discount his credibility, they forget (as they often do) that it is ordinary voters and grassroot activists who will decide this election. Just remember Barack Obama's campaign: the promise of the first black President of the USA who would bring "change", a Senator who came from virtually nowhere. Obama stood on an extraordinarily shallow platform that had many of my class mates at University backing him despite having virtually no idea of his legislative background or policy specifics. But his media skills and image promotion was done so well that the specifics didn't matter, to many he was the man to help lead the US.
Donald Trump is in my opinion, every inch the modern day politician and potential US President. He has money to back himself with, and lots of it. He has a big profile outside of politics thanks to the hit TV show The Apprentice that he is the star of. And most importantly, he has economic credibility that comes with his billionaire empire among regular every day Americans.
That is vital as the next election will be fought on the economy. Trump's blend of celebrity and businessman will be an extremely tough foe who matches Republican favourite Mitt Romney in many areas and surpasses him in others, such as having the flamboyance and ability to present himself as an anti-establishment "outsider" to the political scene, something voters tend to warm to. Trump will be able to point to a failed economic track record of the politicians while presenting himself as a self-made man who has what it takes to fix the economy.
So while right now Trump is getting mocked and belittled, mark my words: if Donald Trump runs for President, he could go all the way.
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Saturday, 23 April 2011
Time for an English Parliament.
On this, St George's Day, it seems apt that I finally nail my colours to the mast: I believe in an English Parliament.
I've long been against such devolution. But the simple fact is that the devolved bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not going anywhere. The English have been dishing out the cheques via the obscene Barnett Formula, and been crippled via the West Lothian Question that is profoundly undemocratic.
I've long been against such devolution. But the simple fact is that the devolved bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not going anywhere. The English have been dishing out the cheques via the obscene Barnett Formula, and been crippled via the West Lothian Question that is profoundly undemocratic.
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Yes2AV or Yes2Defeat? The pro-AV camp must harness Nigel Farage.
The gap apparently opening up for the "no" side of the Alternative Vote referendum doesn't surprise me. Yes2AV, who have my support as someone who views AV as a shift towards Proportional Representation, have destroyed their appeal by being short-sighted and ridiculous.
They've had Labour's Ed Miliband and LibDem Vince Cable as faces for Yes2AV. Several celebrities including the EU-supporting, Labour member Eddie Izzard involved. Even Caroline Lucas and the Green Party have had a seat at the top table as a part of the supposedly broad cross-party Yes2AV campaign.
While UKIP have had MEP William Dartmouth taking to the stage to argue the case for the pro-AV camp in local and regional debates, by not allowing UKIP's Leader Nigel Farage to be a major and visible part of the Yes2AV campaign on the national stage, those who want electoral reform have done their and our cause great harm.
I'm told Ed Miliband effectively refused to share a stage with Farage. Tough. This isn't supposed to be a party political campaign and Miliband's reluctance to work with the Greens but not UKIP on this campaign is downright pathetic. A new politics? Same old Labour.
They've had Labour's Ed Miliband and LibDem Vince Cable as faces for Yes2AV. Several celebrities including the EU-supporting, Labour member Eddie Izzard involved. Even Caroline Lucas and the Green Party have had a seat at the top table as a part of the supposedly broad cross-party Yes2AV campaign.
While UKIP have had MEP William Dartmouth taking to the stage to argue the case for the pro-AV camp in local and regional debates, by not allowing UKIP's Leader Nigel Farage to be a major and visible part of the Yes2AV campaign on the national stage, those who want electoral reform have done their and our cause great harm.
I'm told Ed Miliband effectively refused to share a stage with Farage. Tough. This isn't supposed to be a party political campaign and Miliband's reluctance to work with the Greens but not UKIP on this campaign is downright pathetic. A new politics? Same old Labour.
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
Even the academics don't "get" UKIP.
The work of Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin on UKIP has been a right dog's dinner. In an article reproduced for the The Guardian, they describe UKIP in terms of domestic elections as "the BNP minus the racism".
That statement alone demonstrates the absurd nature of Goodwin and Ford's findings. The BNP without racism? That'd be nationalisation, protectionism and high taxes then. Except UKIP stands for precisely zero of these things.
A bit of background: Goodwin and Ford both specialise in "far-right" politics, and Goodwin even has a book coming out soon equating the BNP's rise to a new fascist threat. I think their new-found interest in UKIP may have something to do with the fact that the BNP have stalled and are falling apart at the seams. Indeed, all of those hysterical anti-democratic protesters who howled with despair when Nick Griffin went on Question Time now look incredibly ridiculous. The Party has hardly gone from strength to strength since. It is therefore likely that the BNP's impending demise will leave a gap in work for Goodwin and Ford.
So they have attempted - badly - to throw the far-right label onto UKIP. They're settled on it. They accuse UKIP of attacking immigrants and Muslims - something that will come a shock to those Muslim and immigrant UKIP members and candidates who I'm sure will have about as much of a clue as to what this pair are on about as I have.
That statement alone demonstrates the absurd nature of Goodwin and Ford's findings. The BNP without racism? That'd be nationalisation, protectionism and high taxes then. Except UKIP stands for precisely zero of these things.
A bit of background: Goodwin and Ford both specialise in "far-right" politics, and Goodwin even has a book coming out soon equating the BNP's rise to a new fascist threat. I think their new-found interest in UKIP may have something to do with the fact that the BNP have stalled and are falling apart at the seams. Indeed, all of those hysterical anti-democratic protesters who howled with despair when Nick Griffin went on Question Time now look incredibly ridiculous. The Party has hardly gone from strength to strength since. It is therefore likely that the BNP's impending demise will leave a gap in work for Goodwin and Ford.
So they have attempted - badly - to throw the far-right label onto UKIP. They're settled on it. They accuse UKIP of attacking immigrants and Muslims - something that will come a shock to those Muslim and immigrant UKIP members and candidates who I'm sure will have about as much of a clue as to what this pair are on about as I have.
Monday, 18 April 2011
The public are capable of turning against their political class reassuringly quickly.
What an absolutely unbelievable result for Timo Soini's True Finns political party in Finland. His Party has gone from having 6 seats in Finland's Parliament to 39 overnight. Having met Timo, I am extremely pleased for him. He is an extremely switched on and down-to-Earth politician who proudly displays his love for Millwall Football Club and is in every sense the political class' worst nightmare.
The True Finns and UKIP have both at some time demonstrated that the underdog can shock and maim if it has sharp enough teeth, as was demonstrated in the UK when UKIP went from having 3 to 12 seats in the European Parliament in 2004 and when the written-off Party beat Labour in the European Elections in '09. These were all examples of how we should never lose faith: the public will eventually get sick and tired and back a different horse. It can happen very quickly indeed as the True Finns have sensationally demonstrated, like a runaway train that the politicians cannot reign back and control once on its way, smashing the government consensus into pieces.
But this doesn't just happen by luck. The alternative has to be able to do more than criticise - it needs a credible face and figure head, it needs money to campaign effectively and it needs to make its arguments in a serious manner that gives the impression of a Party worthy of taking and using power productively, rather than one which seeks to spend a lifetime in glorious opposition.
So-called fringe parties may be a joke to some in the establishment, but I'm sure the True Finns are no laughing matter to those in Finland tonight. Sadly, while Timo Soini could now well become a big international player, Nigel Farage somehow still leads a Party without a single MP despite winning nearly a million votes last year. While the electorate's reluctance to switch from voting for tried and tested establishment parties can be infuriating to those of us who want something different from what those in Westminster offer, we should all be reassured that hard work can pay off, that change can come and that the onus is on the new alternative to show itself credible without giving up or doubting itself.
One final note: though the headlines will be about Timo Soini's views on the EU's bailout of Portugal and the True Finns' stance on immigration, it is very important to note a fact that the BBC has reported on. The True Finns have not achieved a surge of popularity purely by talking about asylum seekers or immigration, but have massively expanded their appeal by addressing concerns and offering solutions to bread and butter problems people face in their everyday lives like pensions and work. In other words, for parties like UKIP to breakthrough - it's the economy, stupid.
The True Finns and UKIP have both at some time demonstrated that the underdog can shock and maim if it has sharp enough teeth, as was demonstrated in the UK when UKIP went from having 3 to 12 seats in the European Parliament in 2004 and when the written-off Party beat Labour in the European Elections in '09. These were all examples of how we should never lose faith: the public will eventually get sick and tired and back a different horse. It can happen very quickly indeed as the True Finns have sensationally demonstrated, like a runaway train that the politicians cannot reign back and control once on its way, smashing the government consensus into pieces.
But this doesn't just happen by luck. The alternative has to be able to do more than criticise - it needs a credible face and figure head, it needs money to campaign effectively and it needs to make its arguments in a serious manner that gives the impression of a Party worthy of taking and using power productively, rather than one which seeks to spend a lifetime in glorious opposition.
So-called fringe parties may be a joke to some in the establishment, but I'm sure the True Finns are no laughing matter to those in Finland tonight. Sadly, while Timo Soini could now well become a big international player, Nigel Farage somehow still leads a Party without a single MP despite winning nearly a million votes last year. While the electorate's reluctance to switch from voting for tried and tested establishment parties can be infuriating to those of us who want something different from what those in Westminster offer, we should all be reassured that hard work can pay off, that change can come and that the onus is on the new alternative to show itself credible without giving up or doubting itself.
One final note: though the headlines will be about Timo Soini's views on the EU's bailout of Portugal and the True Finns' stance on immigration, it is very important to note a fact that the BBC has reported on. The True Finns have not achieved a surge of popularity purely by talking about asylum seekers or immigration, but have massively expanded their appeal by addressing concerns and offering solutions to bread and butter problems people face in their everyday lives like pensions and work. In other words, for parties like UKIP to breakthrough - it's the economy, stupid.
Friday, 15 April 2011
Protecting civilians in Libya? Do me a favour!
So it looks like our true motivation for being in Libya has been exposed: to get rid of Colonel Gaddafi.
As I argued when we first went in regime change was clearly Cameron and Sarkozy's motivation. They said it was about protecting civilians, justifying another Middle East intervention of bombing a country to get what we want. So now what? What if air strikes don't oust him? Do we deploy ground troops? Commit greater resources? Remain in Libya for as long as it takes and get pulled into another Afghanistan, where our troops risk their lives rebuilding a nation that we have helped destroy?
Look, I'm far from fond of Gaddafi. But Britain's already stretched Armed Forces shouldn't be used by Prime Minister's so readily to promote themselves as leading international figures. What is going on in Libya is a civil war, yet we mindlessly decide to go in and take sides. There is now talk of us arming the rebel fighters. But I ask again, who are these rebels? Evidence shows they are deeply divided and tribal themselves. Once the common enemy of Gaddafi has gone, will they really remain united? Unlikely. And of course, this change in stated aim has had no approval from the House of Commons. Our Parliament once again appears sadly impotent on such important matters.
As the lessons from the past clearly have not been learnt, do not be surprised if our intervention destabilises Libya in the long term, and leaves the country's new head figure far better armed and more of a danger to our nation than Gaddafi ever was.
As I argued when we first went in regime change was clearly Cameron and Sarkozy's motivation. They said it was about protecting civilians, justifying another Middle East intervention of bombing a country to get what we want. So now what? What if air strikes don't oust him? Do we deploy ground troops? Commit greater resources? Remain in Libya for as long as it takes and get pulled into another Afghanistan, where our troops risk their lives rebuilding a nation that we have helped destroy?
Look, I'm far from fond of Gaddafi. But Britain's already stretched Armed Forces shouldn't be used by Prime Minister's so readily to promote themselves as leading international figures. What is going on in Libya is a civil war, yet we mindlessly decide to go in and take sides. There is now talk of us arming the rebel fighters. But I ask again, who are these rebels? Evidence shows they are deeply divided and tribal themselves. Once the common enemy of Gaddafi has gone, will they really remain united? Unlikely. And of course, this change in stated aim has had no approval from the House of Commons. Our Parliament once again appears sadly impotent on such important matters.
As the lessons from the past clearly have not been learnt, do not be surprised if our intervention destabilises Libya in the long term, and leaves the country's new head figure far better armed and more of a danger to our nation than Gaddafi ever was.
Thursday, 14 April 2011
The British define Britishness: the burka clearly has no place.
I'm sick of the argument that it would be "un-British" to ban the burka. Who defines Britishness? A stereotype? Those who lived in this country fifty, a hundred, two hundred years ago when the world and our country were very different places?
I think it's very simple: the British people today define what Britishness is and isn't. And this YouGov poll shows that 2 out of every 3 Brits want the burka banned.
What's more, this really is an issue that cuts across political ideology and shows how us British are not happy to have women wearing the burka in Britain. 77% of Tory voters, 60% of Labour supporters and 51% of LibDem voters all back banning the burka. I suspect all of these people have different ideas on the economy, immigration, religion and everything else. But what they rightly unite on is that the burka is incompatible with our modern day Britain that is tolerant, but that has its own culture that must be adhered to as well.
As this Newsnight report has shown, the burka is helping spread religious extremism that demands and bullies moderate Muslim women into adhering not to British values but more strict Islamic ones. While Cameron, Clegg and Miliband will of course back the wearing of the burka, it is left to UKIP alone to once again give an alternative view point that represents an otherwise unrepresented mainstream majority.
I think it's very simple: the British people today define what Britishness is and isn't. And this YouGov poll shows that 2 out of every 3 Brits want the burka banned.
What's more, this really is an issue that cuts across political ideology and shows how us British are not happy to have women wearing the burka in Britain. 77% of Tory voters, 60% of Labour supporters and 51% of LibDem voters all back banning the burka. I suspect all of these people have different ideas on the economy, immigration, religion and everything else. But what they rightly unite on is that the burka is incompatible with our modern day Britain that is tolerant, but that has its own culture that must be adhered to as well.
As this Newsnight report has shown, the burka is helping spread religious extremism that demands and bullies moderate Muslim women into adhering not to British values but more strict Islamic ones. While Cameron, Clegg and Miliband will of course back the wearing of the burka, it is left to UKIP alone to once again give an alternative view point that represents an otherwise unrepresented mainstream majority.
Monday, 11 April 2011
The burka: a line in the sand for a religion that needs to modernise and a country that needs to stand up for its values.
Islam is being scrutinised like never before, and with good reason. Recent terrorist atrocities have been linked to the extremist elements of the religion, and those who had never heard of Islam or the word "Muslim" before 9/11 are wanting to know what this religion is all about and why it has such extremists claiming to act on behalf of its religion.
The fact is that the burka is a visually shocking throwback that reaffirms suspicions that Islam as an extreme religion and one that is ill-suited to the western world. It dehumanises, shocks and possess genuine security problems. Moreover, it allows a special treatment to those who wear it. I've long given up counting the number of times I've been told to take my hood down in city centres when out with friends. That's fair enough: the face must be seen for security and social reasons. We live in a liberal nation where human interaction relies on the face not being covered.
Banning the burka from public places is common sense. What's more, I am encouraged to hear so many British Muslims, some my friends, some in politics and the media, arguing the case for the burka to be consigned to the dustbin of history, at least for Muslims living in Britain. It is time for Muslim women, who already enjoy rights in this country that they would never possess in the Middle East, to be liberated. Argue all you want, but a Muslim woman in a burka will never be able to progress as an independent person in the UK, with a career and income of her own. Who wants a teacher or nurse they can't see? It is alien to our culture. It is also far from a natural part of the Islamic religion, and is certainly not a requirement that is necessary for a Muslim to practise their faith properly
The truth is that for Britain to be united, the burka must be outlawed in public places. This is an issue about equality, modernisation and reaffirming Britain as a tolerant nation, but a nation that has its own values that must be respected as well.
The fact is that the burka is a visually shocking throwback that reaffirms suspicions that Islam as an extreme religion and one that is ill-suited to the western world. It dehumanises, shocks and possess genuine security problems. Moreover, it allows a special treatment to those who wear it. I've long given up counting the number of times I've been told to take my hood down in city centres when out with friends. That's fair enough: the face must be seen for security and social reasons. We live in a liberal nation where human interaction relies on the face not being covered.
Banning the burka from public places is common sense. What's more, I am encouraged to hear so many British Muslims, some my friends, some in politics and the media, arguing the case for the burka to be consigned to the dustbin of history, at least for Muslims living in Britain. It is time for Muslim women, who already enjoy rights in this country that they would never possess in the Middle East, to be liberated. Argue all you want, but a Muslim woman in a burka will never be able to progress as an independent person in the UK, with a career and income of her own. Who wants a teacher or nurse they can't see? It is alien to our culture. It is also far from a natural part of the Islamic religion, and is certainly not a requirement that is necessary for a Muslim to practise their faith properly
The truth is that for Britain to be united, the burka must be outlawed in public places. This is an issue about equality, modernisation and reaffirming Britain as a tolerant nation, but a nation that has its own values that must be respected as well.
Friday, 8 April 2011
Poll shows under AV that UKIP has wide appeal.
A YouGov poll doing a dummy vote under the Alternative Vote system has thrown up some very interesting results for UKIP. Most importantly, it illustrates how the Party has wide appeal under the system.
UKIP attracts the second most amount of second preference votes after the Liberal Democrats who receive 22% of second prefs. UKIP gets a whooping 20% of second preferences, ahead of the Green Party who have been hyped up as having the most to gain under AV.
Where do UKIP's second preferences come from? Well yes, some come from the Tories, with 27% of Tories giving UKIP their second preference. Now that is a lot. But nearly 1 in 5 Labour voters (18%) and 13% of LibDems giving UKIP their second preference is none to shabby either and nor is 10% of Green voters.
UKIP for disaffected Tories only? I think not.
UKIP attracts the second most amount of second preference votes after the Liberal Democrats who receive 22% of second prefs. UKIP gets a whooping 20% of second preferences, ahead of the Green Party who have been hyped up as having the most to gain under AV.
Where do UKIP's second preferences come from? Well yes, some come from the Tories, with 27% of Tories giving UKIP their second preference. Now that is a lot. But nearly 1 in 5 Labour voters (18%) and 13% of LibDems giving UKIP their second preference is none to shabby either and nor is 10% of Green voters.
UKIP for disaffected Tories only? I think not.
Thursday, 7 April 2011
British taxpayers money is being dished out - for everyone except the British.
We're broke. Brassic. Bankrupt. There's no money and so we must cut Policing, defence and local Council budgets.
But. But. We must continue to give the EU £48 million per day. Lets give India a cheeky £1 billion (presumably to help them with their space program). And of course, if Portugal want £4.4 billion then that's cool. We'll continue to help prop-up the Euro, nevermind how much of a doomed, failed project the single currency has been, mugged by economic reality.
Those last three things are what the government is actually going to dish out British taxpayer's money for, the first three are what are going to be cut. Common sense has gone out of the window for an indulgent Tory government which is head-bangingly pro-EU, doing whatever Cameron's buds in the EU ask of him.
Bailouts are becoming a more and more current occurence in politics nowadays it would seem. It's just a shame that it's never ordinary working people who get bailed out with proper policing, efficient local services or proper kit for those serving in the Armed Forces, despite they being the one's who contribute to the money pot that david Cameron now wastes on international grandstanding.
Out of the elected politicians, it falls to Nigel Farage to once again speak some sense:
"Mr Farage said: ''The full tragic reality of the euro is now being seen. Bailing out Portugal is utterly pointless, it only traps them into a system into which they are totally unsuited. Britain should not contribute a single penny to their bail-out.''
But we will.
Those last three things are what the government is actually going to dish out British taxpayer's money for, the first three are what are going to be cut. Common sense has gone out of the window for an indulgent Tory government which is head-bangingly pro-EU, doing whatever Cameron's buds in the EU ask of him.
Bailouts are becoming a more and more current occurence in politics nowadays it would seem. It's just a shame that it's never ordinary working people who get bailed out with proper policing, efficient local services or proper kit for those serving in the Armed Forces, despite they being the one's who contribute to the money pot that david Cameron now wastes on international grandstanding.
Out of the elected politicians, it falls to Nigel Farage to once again speak some sense:
"Mr Farage said: ''The full tragic reality of the euro is now being seen. Bailing out Portugal is utterly pointless, it only traps them into a system into which they are totally unsuited. Britain should not contribute a single penny to their bail-out.''
But we will.
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Welcome to the post-democratic era.
Peter Mandelson's post-democratic era driven by the European Union really is here. A recent meeting between Irish MEPs and the EU's Economic Commissioner Olli Rehn to talk about the economic situation in Ireland had to be held in secret, with the contents of what Rehn said having to be confidential. In other words MEPs were barred from telling their constituents of the EU's plans and approach to their financial crisis. Irish MEP Paul Murphy was kicked out of the meeting after refusing to keep the contents of the meeting a secret. Shame on those MEPs who went along with this charade, cosying up to the EU's elite rather than doing their job and representing the people of their country.
Either I'm going barmy, or this is the type of politics has never been done before in such a blatantly anti-democratic manner.
Either I'm going barmy, or this is the type of politics has never been done before in such a blatantly anti-democratic manner.
Britain "addicted to immigration" but Tories will keep Britain hooked.
It's pretty simple: while the UK remains inside of the European Union, it cannot control immigration incoming from 26 other EU member states.
So Damian Green can talk caps and about curing Britain's addiction to immigration all he wants, but his words actually mean very little. If you ask the average Brit who has been affected by wages being driven down thanks to an uncontrolled influx in the unskilled labour market, they'll probably cite Eastern European immigration as the real problem. It is these people who can come and go as they please whether we live under a Labour, Tory or LibDem government or Prime Minister. It is economic and social madness. Once more our government and our Parliament are impotent until those within it stand up to Brussels and extract the UK from the tentacles of the unelected elite in Brussels.
As it happens, I have worked with Eastern Europeans and they are bloody hard workers and generally nice people. But Labour's quick fix of encouraging the working class to gorge on welfare while they imported millions of workers who were willing to work for very little money is irresponsible, unsustainable and morally wrong. Yet it seems it is a policy the Tories are happy to continue - whatever they try and say.
So Damian Green can talk caps and about curing Britain's addiction to immigration all he wants, but his words actually mean very little. If you ask the average Brit who has been affected by wages being driven down thanks to an uncontrolled influx in the unskilled labour market, they'll probably cite Eastern European immigration as the real problem. It is these people who can come and go as they please whether we live under a Labour, Tory or LibDem government or Prime Minister. It is economic and social madness. Once more our government and our Parliament are impotent until those within it stand up to Brussels and extract the UK from the tentacles of the unelected elite in Brussels.
As it happens, I have worked with Eastern Europeans and they are bloody hard workers and generally nice people. But Labour's quick fix of encouraging the working class to gorge on welfare while they imported millions of workers who were willing to work for very little money is irresponsible, unsustainable and morally wrong. Yet it seems it is a policy the Tories are happy to continue - whatever they try and say.
Internships? Irrelevant to me, guv.
I have never understood internships. My Uni is offering them on behalf of private companies now for graduates. Quite simply, how the hell could I afford to do them? A job working for free? Okay, expenses if you're lucky, but no wage?
Alright, so Clegg wants people to pay minimum wage if they employ interns. But they won't need to because there will still be people who are lucky enough to have the backing of wealthyish parents to allow them to have no income for a while.
Fact is the majority of kids going for jobs at banks, political organisations and other such institutions are like to be overwhelmingly middle class until we deal with the state of education and bring back grammar schools. As the product of a shocking state school and an amazing sixth form, that is my educated view. I have seen both sides of state education and how it is class dominated. There is simply no other way to level the playing field aside from academic selection.
So Clegg, son of a wealty banker and David Cameron, the man who had a contact from Buckingham Palace ring to help him secure a job as a Tory researcher, can say whatever they like. Until the system is changed more fundamentally, internships will go on being what they are for who they are for. And good luck to those who can take advantage of such opportunities, I don't begrudge them. But it'll take more than melly-mouthed words from do-gooder, privately educated politicians to change the life opportunities of our young people.
Alright, so Clegg wants people to pay minimum wage if they employ interns. But they won't need to because there will still be people who are lucky enough to have the backing of wealthyish parents to allow them to have no income for a while.
Fact is the majority of kids going for jobs at banks, political organisations and other such institutions are like to be overwhelmingly middle class until we deal with the state of education and bring back grammar schools. As the product of a shocking state school and an amazing sixth form, that is my educated view. I have seen both sides of state education and how it is class dominated. There is simply no other way to level the playing field aside from academic selection.
So Clegg, son of a wealty banker and David Cameron, the man who had a contact from Buckingham Palace ring to help him secure a job as a Tory researcher, can say whatever they like. Until the system is changed more fundamentally, internships will go on being what they are for who they are for. And good luck to those who can take advantage of such opportunities, I don't begrudge them. But it'll take more than melly-mouthed words from do-gooder, privately educated politicians to change the life opportunities of our young people.
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
The AV referendum seems to be descending into farce.
Is it just me or has the whole AV debate gone a bit bananas? Over the past few weeks we've had the Yes Campaign go way over the top in exploiting Nick Griffin's support for a No vote, and the No Campaign accuse the Yesers of being racist for changing one of their supporters on a leaflet.
None of this really has any interest to me, nor will it I believe to the public. I still do not believe that there has been a sufficient enough debate on what a switch to AV would mean, what the implications of a No vote would be, or a sufficient emphasis on how close this referendum, and dare I say it, exciting, it could be. Both campaign teams seem to be working hard and to have quite a slick little operation going on and I think the result is still up for grabs.
I make no bones about it. I've considered my position and support a Yes vote as a stepping stone towards PR, believing that a No would be used as a mandate for retaining FPTP for at least another generation. But the public deserve a proper debate, not a tit-for-tat smear campaign.
I make no bones about it. I've considered my position and support a Yes vote as a stepping stone towards PR, believing that a No would be used as a mandate for retaining FPTP for at least another generation. But the public deserve a proper debate, not a tit-for-tat smear campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)