An open letter I found online...

Dear Private Sector ‘workers’

The reason we are striking is of no importence to you so its a bit pathetic that you feel the need to comment at all. But your short sightedness has infuriated me so much that I felt I needed to say a few things:

Firstly, and I’m sure I speak for everyone in the public sector, my career choice was based on many factors: Firstly, did I want to be a better person and give back to the community, or did I want to chase the dream and get rich? Well, it may surprise you, but UNLIKE PRIVATE SECTOR ‘WORKERS,’ some of us actually feel that their is more to life than money.

Selfishness is a horrible trait.

Secondly, people have been saying that we are wrong for striking without properly understanding exactly what it’s we’re striking for… well here’s some home truths: We work LONGER AND HARDER THEN YOU AND DON’T HAVE TIME TO READ UP ALL ABOUT IT. That is EXACTLY the reason we vote people in too make the decisions for us!! It’s a word called ‘democrasy’… maybe you should learn it? Oh, sorry, you’re to busy spending all day on facebook to actually learn about important stuff? Pathetic.

Thirdly, you say there’s no money to fund our pensions… well what about the money spent on the military? And hospitals. Schools, Bin men, other sevices: these people don’t work for free!! Do you seriously expect us to believe were short for cash? Ask yourself a question, where does all the money come from?

Exactly

Fourthly, we pay taxes just the same as you pay taxes, so we’re actually paying for the policing tomorrow too. They don’t split it between ONLY private secto one day and public sector the other day. (check this first)

Fivthly, I think some of you are just jealous because you want to spend the day getting ahead on your Christmas shopping and going to the pub too. Well GUESS WHAT, were contributing to the PRIVATE SECTOR when we’re spending OUR money. Urrm… doing what is needed and getting us out of the recession that private sector bankers got us into?! Recession: Another word you should learn before you have a go at us for spending money. Btw, WE DON’T NEED TO PICKET BECAUSE EVERYBODY’S STRIKING. It’s. Not. That. Comlicated.

Sincerely

[name withheld]

A LECTURE TO LEFTIES - JUSTIFICATION FOR MY RIGHT WING VIEWS ON THE RIOTS

The only thing to do is to take an immediate ‘right wing’ stance which will act as a deterrent, followed by a long term ‘left wing’ addressing of the issues that are causing the rotting of society.

Of course, there are major issues with society that need to be addressed, but let’s get this straight: the rioting was simply an opportunistic crime spree, organised mainly through social media networks, to take advantage of the overstretched police forces. Looting, vandalism and assaults turned parts of the nation into no go areas where feral youth did as they pleased without consequences. There was no political agenda, no 'voice' trying to be heard. It was not related to public sector job losses or cuts in funding. It was not caused because a man was shot by police, or because David Cameron was on holiday... It was simply because these people are unreasonable, selfish, heartless scum who don’t care about the wellbeing of others. As a realist who deals with members of the general public often behaving at their worst when intoxicated, I don't find it that surprising. I know the general public is popularised by more dangerous and callous individuals than some of you might possibly imagine. The general accepted truth is that a male was stopped and searched at or near a peaceful protest. To prove that the police were in the wrong, nearby people who may or may not have been known to the individual, started rioting. Well… you’ve certainly proved a point there. Well done. Your actions will go a long way to improving police relations in the future… idiots.

The comfortable surroundings some of you live in mean that you can’t fathom that people could behave in such a despicable manner without there being genuine justification… you’re wrong. Some people are animals.

Take that as patronisingly out of touch, take that as deluded, but I’m putting this out there: My profession, background, personality and political curiosity mean that I feel I have the knowledge to talk at an informed level on the subject of social disorder. I genuinely feel I’m more in touch with a broader spectrum of society than most people are. I know, get on with and understand the actions of more people from more walks of life than most people. To put it bluntly, I can be a bit of a ****, and therefore I understand the actions of other ****s.

Anyway, back to the point:

If it ever kicks off like that again, you have to understand that frankly you cannot reason with large groups of bad people in a short space of time unless you have some charismatic leader that everybody looked up to and obeyed... These people are one in a million and we don’t have one at the moment. Yes, eventually, you have to win them over with words and placating actions, gradually getting them to understand and empathise like the rest of us… but that takes time. It’s taken me nearly 3 decades to get to my mindset – I’m not perfect by any means, but most of my actions are justifiable. The idea that a few choice words to the masses could change a situation like this is unrealistic. Short term, rioters have to be taught a lesson the hard way: Hurt them. The fear of physical pain or at least physical discomfort is the main reason order is maintained within large sections of society, and that’s been the case all over the world forever. Pouring reasoning and trying to explain causes for rioting (which has often sounded worryingly like a diluted form of justification from some people) does not help when it’s kicking off… immediate action is required, hence my frustrations vented at ‘lefties’ who just wanted to let the aggression burn in it’s own time. Reasoning only works with reasonable people. These people were not.

In short, if you understand that an action somebody is committing is wrong, make them stop it by using reasonable force. In some cases, words are enough, but in this case, reasonable force was rubber bullets and batons. Case closed.

So what now?

Immediately, it is important that the individuals charged with offences are made examples of. An e-petition is calling for the ceasing of benefits to anyone charged with an offence, and apparently Salford council are threatening to evict anybody from their council houses who was participating in rioting. Personally, I think that is the most beautiful, fair, justice I’ve heard of in a long time. Eviction will not drive these people to a definite life of crime like some people are commenting. You can get a job without a fixed address and the people they are forced to lean on will hopefully give them tough love and direct motivation to sort their heads/lives out.

And then we can start to care about the deeper issues that are affecting society. A good start would be to address 2 key factors:

1) Distancing between the people and the politicians.

2) Growing lack of respect in society.

...but I'll leave that to the professionals...

Letter to a "Rising Tory Star"

Have a read of this article. [edit - article removed, but for the general outline: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/03/philippa-stroud-twitter]

The following is the email I just sent to Philippa Stroud: philippa@philippastroud.com. Enjoy!

"Hi Philippa,

I'm just writing to say thank you so much for your efforts leading up to the election. I read about your Christian groups and was so happy to learn that you are so commited to improving the state of the nation. I also learnt that you aren't being paid by the Conservatives, which makes it even more impressive.

As a potential Conservative voter I was looking for a party that represented my opinions and you have certainly made my decision easier. Your dillusional thought process has made it so much easier for me to make my mind up, and trust me, David Cameron will have been cringing at the revelations in the press concerning your prayer sessions to 'cure' gay people. You will certainly be having an impact on the outcome of this election, which as I mentioned before, is made even more impressive due to the fact you're not even being paid for it!

Your narrow mindedness and complete lack of awareness about what is/what is not acceptable astounds me. According to your website, what brought you into politics "was seeing the damage being done to people by a government that didn't understand what British people wanted or needed." I feel that your homophobic views have no place in British politics, and we would live in a very dangerous country if your opinions gained support. Step down Philippa, you're out of touch.

I have recently become interested in think tanks and learned that you are Director for the Centre for Social Justice. I will take every effort to campaign against you personally, and hope that my actions go someway towards your removal from British politics completely. I understand that you genuinely feel that your actions have the nation's best interests at heart, but you will undoubdetly be doing more harm than good. You are fundamentally wrong and have disgraced your party, please leave.


I feel genuinely sorry for your teenage children, but I hope they have the strength of character to not simply take everything you say to be fact. Imagine if one of them grew up to be a 'demonic' homosexual?! I hope your "thanks, but no thanks" phone call from Cameron's secretary goes well.


Good luck with your limited political future. Perhaps the BNP would welcome your opinions?


Regards,


Ben S"

Foreign Policy

Apart from the war, people in the UK seem to be demanding a focus on internal policies. I’ve been picking up for a while now that we need to concentrate on sorting out this country first, moreso than ever, but obviously we still have international obligations. Good foreign policy benefits us immensely. The Lib Dems in particular have come under criticism for a weak foreign policy, so I thought I’d give it some attention. Firstly, something that seems to have gone widely unmentioned by the media recently is David Cameron’s alliance with the Ulster Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. This will undoubtedly unsettle the peace process and is a very bad move, condemned as ‘reckless’ by Secretary of state, Shaun Woodward. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/02/david-cameron-criticised-northern-ireland

But anyway…


When it comes to standing up for England and arguing the point against the Obamas/Merkels/Sarkozys of the world, the individual personalities of the 3 leaders really comes into play. Agendas on meetings with foreign leaders are set out well in advance and Think Tanks are brought in by the political parties to discuss exactly what strategy we should adopt as a nation. Now, to be sitting on a think tank, you really have to know your stuff. Regardless of whoever’s in power, great thinkers will be putting forward well thought through ideas that will then be carefully considered and finalised by the ruling party.

So what I’m saying is, no matter which party wins, they’ll be incredibly well prepared before dealing with any situation beforehand. The thing to consider, in my opinion, is how each leader will perform off the record. There will be a certain amount of socialising going on, and as far as I’m concerned this is the real opportunity to win people over, and indeed around to our way of thinking. If two nations are at loggerheads on certain issues, there is every opportunity that deadlock could be the outcome. This will delay progress on that issue and could potentially have far more dangerous consequences. Agreed? Right.

Sometimes, the only way to solve a situation is for both leaders to give a little bit of ground, to go out of their way to smooth the situation over, even if it’s not exactly what they want. Informal talks get things moving. Situations are avoided by late-night international phonecalls… I wouldn’t even be surprised if the wives get involved. It all comes down to human politics from time to time - the way individuals react with one another. So with that in mind, how do we think the Party leaders would do?

Let’s consider an informal after dinner drinks setting that would be commonplace in the world of international politics:

Gordon Brown seems incredibly uncomfortable in front of people. The awkwardness he displays, plus and apparent lack of social awareness suggest to me that he’d always be the outsider. Dishing out inappropriately manic grins (did you see the end of the debates after his final speech?!) when he thinks things are going well and repeating the same throwaway questions over and over and over (like he did on a recent Sky News coverage of a meet and greet in Tescos) Gordon Brown wants to be Prime Minister obviously, but he’d prefer it if he could run the country from behind closed doors and didn’t have to socialise. First to leave the party with a lame excuse and poor at building any relationships that could help the UK.

I imagine Cameron to be the much better than Brown in this scenario. He has a certain amount of swagger about him and he’s probably very confident in such situations. Everything he does though, seems too staged. I wouldn’t be surprised if he brought along a group of frends (advisors) who he strategically placed in the middle of the room... He'd keep nipping back to them for input on how well he’s doing and strategy on how to get ‘in’ with his next target. I imagine he’d be one of those people who can’t help but show on their face that they're judging you. He’d let certain issues that he fundamentally disagrees with pass without argument, throwing a false smile that can, and will be picked up by the other guests. His ultimate strategy would be to get whoever he ultimately wanted to talk to into a car, whisking them away to a much quieter place so they could have a one to one. When he’d have them where he wants them, he’d probably dismiss personal space boundaries and try to put pressure on them that simply wouldn’t wash with some of the big players.

I think Nick Clegg would be visibly happy to be there, or at least he’d convince everyone that he’s happy to be there. Unlike the other 2, he’d actually listen to the other guests, rather than simply waiting for his turn to talk. He’d be true to his word, candid, but fair in his reply, and would throw out the odd joke every now and again. (He’d probably even have a shot if he was offered one!) I’d put money on Clegg staying until the end of the night, staying focussed, but letting his hair down, playing the long game and winning the trust of the other guests. He’d be charming, confident and would end up being invited to an informal breakfast meeting to iron out some issues before the following day’s formal meeting.

So, when it comes to winning the game ON the pitch, we’re in a great position. Three strong leaders who argue well and have what they believe are the nation’s best interests at heart. But, if like me you’re keen to have somebody representing our nation who can build strong international relations with the other leaders of the world which in turn would benefit the UK, Clegg seems the obvious choice.

My Take On: The Election Debates

Something that never ceases to amaze me is that when it comes to politics, 2 people can watch exactly the same speech, but hear completely contradictory things. Anyway…

These debates have been what Britain has needed to inspire the masses into political debate. Thoroughly entertaining stuff, although Sky managed to take some of the magic away. Speaking for myself, I was thinking it was ‘time for a change,’ not because I feel that New Labour have let the country down, but simply because change is a healthy way of eliminating the stagnation that will always be created if one party rules for 13 years.

There was a bit of hype about Clegg and the Lib Dems leading up to the first debate. I’ve always thought of the Lib Dems as comparable to my local low league football team: I always keep an eye out for them, but realistically they’re not going to get anywhere any time soon. “A Lib Dem vote is a wasted vote.”

Every politician performed well and I was reminded of how lucky we are to live in a society that maintains such open and fair politics. People moan about the state of UK politics (see my earlier post: ‘The Trouble With Politics’) but look at the rest of the world. We’re lucky to be born here, if you can’t realise that then fuck off to the Congo and have a rethink.

Gordon Brown had the toughest job: New Labour have recognised that the nation is demanding change and he had to persuade us that the existing party are the ones to do the job. He put forward strong arguments, but focussed on knocking Tory policies too much. He was also the only person who interrupted a bit too much, but managed to stay within the realms of appropriate conduct. Just before the final debate, he was heard (by a microphone he’d forgotten about) calling a woman “bigoted.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14f3aOC929w – don’t know about you, but his embarrassed reaction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKZU7rzwagk&feature=related actually warmed me to him.

David Cameron has received criticism for being too polished and focussing on PR… but that’s what politics is all about. It’s also not his fault that he’s from such a privileged background. You could argue that he’s ‘out of touch’ if that’s what you believe, but to dislike him because he’s rich is pathetic. He spent too much emphasis rubbishing Labour, and this continual arguing seemed to be a strange tactic for the 2 main parties to adopt. Rather than acting as point scoring, it had the opposite effect. To think of it as a point system, Brown simply took points away from the Conservatives, Cameron took points away from Labour. In turn Clegg was neatly set up to be political adjudicator, highlighting “old school politics” and why such arguing needed to stop in order to benefit the country as a whole. I didn’t like the way Cameron avoided questions from time to time.

Nick Clegg had the easiest job for the first debate being the underdog. He’d obviously considered his approach very well, and it worked. In the first debate Clegg stood casually with his hands in his pockets as the other two argued amongst each other. He repeated the names of the question askers, and made personable gestures throughout. Notably, in the final debate, he really pushed the fact that he’s ‘just like you and me.’ For example with regards to the economy, he said “I didn’t create this, YOU didn’t create it, THEY created it” He was the only politician who got nods of agreement from the people who asked the questions, and he was a bit cheeky when he forgot the rules and said “just nod if I’m right” knowing, according to the rules, that he couldn’t ask a question.

It was clear during the first debate that Clegg was winning over the audience and was backing up his charisma with fair policies - even suggesting putting political allegiances aside and getting together to sort out issues such as the pensions situation. For some reason Cameron and Brown never really had a go at pulling apart Lib Dem policies and in Brown’s closing statement he even said “Nick’s policies on the economy are too much of a risk, as are David’s” which in a subconscious manner gave credibility to Lib Dem economic policy by suggesting it was similar to that of the Conservatives.

Turns out this is the first election in a long time that a Lib Dem isn’t a wasted vote. Polls suggest that Clegg outperformed Brown and Cameron, and Lib Dem policies seemed refreshingly fair. The important factor, in my opinion, is that Clegg came across as an honest man who would stick to his word. He did not claim to have all the answers, instead he made it clear that he was open to cross party conferral on key issues and made it clear that on major issues he would call a referendum.

My only reservation is the Lib Dem’s nuclear policy. I don’t get it – I can’t see how such an ideological view that “Britain will lead the way to a nuclear weapon-free world” can be put forward as a policy in serious politics. It can’t happen. It should never happen. We need a deterrent. It’s not about getting revenge if we come under attack, it’s about stopping rogue states such as North Korea from thinking they can take over the world.


--- "For a prince should have two fears: one, internal concerning his subjects; the other, external, concerning foreign powers. From the latter he can always defend himself by his good troops and friends; and he will always have good friends if he has good troops." Niccolo Machiavelli ---

So, personally, I’d like to see the Lib Dems in power. My passion for politics has been reignited and I trust Nick Clegg to do what he believes is the right thing. I don’t think he’ll let ego get in the way of things, and feel his decisions will be well thought through and just. He won’t see calling multiple referendums as a sign of a weak parliament, and neither will we.

Oh yeh, and 90 minutes is too long without a break. It’s not too bad if you’ve got Sky+ because you can pause it to discuss issues raised etc, but if not – you’re screwed. Next year, lets have 4 x 60 minute debates. And don’t let Sky get involved. Give the opportunity to Channel 4 instead. Thanks.

The Trouble With Politics

I don’t know if you’ve really noticed this before, but there are an incredibly large amount of thick people in Britain. How many times have you asked, “Did you see the debates?” only to be met with a dismissive look and “I’m not really interested in politics, they’re all the same aren’t they?” Well, no dickhead, they’re not.

And is it just me or have you found yourself biting your tongue when friends of friends have commented on facebook statuses? This is my favourite so far: “Have not got a clue who to vote for - want labour out – dont[sic] want conservatives in....mmmm rock and hard place” Last time I checked there were many more than 2 parties in UK politics?! On reading this I got that overwhelming numb feeling I can only describe as literal flabbergastation.

And on the subject of mass non-compliance, another moron commented “Are you sure they would notice, us all not voting, I'm sure most of the time the results are fixed anyway.” Ex-fucking-cuse me?! Turns out they were genuinely suggesting that democracy in England has ceased to exist, but without any evidence or anything of real substance to add to the debate after that statement.I got a bit personal, had to be done.

So, a lot of people think that all politicians are lying, cheating scum bags who are completely out of touch with the people they are voted to represent, and that all the main political parties are the same. Assuming that the latter example isn’t isolated, a large amount of people in the UK also believe that corruption is rife. If this is the case then why the fuck aren’t they doing anything about it? Where’s the revolution?

The fact is we have the luxury of living in a country where, in comparisson to the majority of the world, there’s not really anything wrong. Politics is boring. No flashing lights, no glamour, no reality TV ‘celebrities’ and until there are some major issues that affect the day to day lives of the proletariat, many feel that there’s no point in paying attention. It’s this lack of knowledge, combined with the natural urge for a sense of belonging (religion/football/gang culture) that political movements such as the BNP can really capitalise on. Not good.

Thankfully, politicians seem to be wising up to the way that 'bitesize' politics, the debates for example, attract a broader audience into the direct political arena. I'm absolutely loving these debates, and really hope that apathy gets progressively more and more frowned upon... as seems to be the current trend. Informed political debate inspires. Fact.