Let's get the awkward paragraph out of the way first, so we all know where we stand.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God. I'm on board with the idea organised religion is the opiate of the masses. I have inherent disagreements with most of the holy books, regarding their views on violence, women, and homosexuality. People can believe what they want to believe in their own homes. You can wear your crucifixes and it really doesn't bother me. I'm slightly envious of the spiritual comfort you have, if anything, and I know a number of beautiful, accepting, and loving believers of different faiths. I think religion is at it's best when it is loving, accepting, and forgiving, and not about judging people or pressing your beliefs upon them.
But this article (unsurprisingly from the Daily Mail) really gets on my nerves.
Melanie Phillips argues that preaching Christianity should not a crime. And no, it shouldn't. But I'll tell you what is a crime. Hate speech. The 1994 amendment to the Public Order Act 1986 forbids "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress"
And I think standing in the middle of a shopping centre shouting that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination pretty much harasses, alarms and distresses gay people.
What really pisses me off is Phillips' blatant hypocrisy. If an Imam had been standing in the middle of the shopping centre, repeating the same speech, word for word, I doubt she'd have been leaping to their defence, because apparently "Islamic fundamentalism poses a real threat to the human rights of gay people". Well true, it does, as does Christian fundamentalism.
The last time I checked England wasn't a Christian country. The Bible is not "the moral code that underpins our civilisation". Hence the fact we don't have laws dictating you should marry your brother's widow, or that you should beat disrespectful children. We're a multi-faith society, and let's keep it that way.
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Saturday, 8 May 2010
The Tories electoral reform and why it smells dodgy
We all knew it was going to be a hung parliament. And once again, the exit poll got it pretty much bang on, despite initial scepticism because of the Lib Dem losses.
So what happened for Clegg? Did he peak too early? Actually, the answer is pretty simple. While the Lib Dems lost seats, they gained votes.
In the last general election, 2005, the Lib Dems won 5,985,414 votes. This time around, they won 6,827,938 votes. That's about a million more. But sadly, due to our electoral process, they didn't translate into seats. You can see why the Lib Dems are crying for electoral reform, and why they're supported in this by at least 20,000 Britons.
As we all know, David Cameron, having fallen short of an overall majority, has extended a thinly veiled hand of desperation to the Liberal Democrats, who worryingly might accept. Despite Nick Clegg's pre-election pledge to not form a coalition with anyone who opposed electoral reform, he's been busy in meetings all day with his MPs and peers to discuss an alliance.
And the Tories, graciously, have said they will "consider" possible election reforms.
Here's Cameron's idea.
And here's why it's bullshit.
If he manages to sell this to anyone as fair, he deserves a medal. Albeit a 'conniving bastard of the year' medal.
The Big Idea: Every constituency will have the same number of voters in. Therefore, all your votes will count for one (if you live in Hertfordshire, as I do, your votes will count for 0.1 at the moment). Sounds ideal, right? Wrong. Think carefully about what he's proposing.
Think of a constituency, which has for conveniences sake, 300 voters. Now imagine three candidates are standing - Candidates A, B, and C. They all get an exactly equal share, 100 votes each. It's a tie. Now, imagine one prospective Candidate A voter changes his mind, and votes for Candidate B. So our votes read 29, 31, 30. This means that Candidate B wins the seat. Even though effectively two thirds of the constituency has voted against him. He then goes onto the House of Commons.
Sound familiar? That's because this is basically our current voting system.
Cameron is trying to decieve voters in the most underhand, outright, manipulative way, and it disgusts me.
So what happened for Clegg? Did he peak too early? Actually, the answer is pretty simple. While the Lib Dems lost seats, they gained votes.
In the last general election, 2005, the Lib Dems won 5,985,414 votes. This time around, they won 6,827,938 votes. That's about a million more. But sadly, due to our electoral process, they didn't translate into seats. You can see why the Lib Dems are crying for electoral reform, and why they're supported in this by at least 20,000 Britons.
As we all know, David Cameron, having fallen short of an overall majority, has extended a thinly veiled hand of desperation to the Liberal Democrats, who worryingly might accept. Despite Nick Clegg's pre-election pledge to not form a coalition with anyone who opposed electoral reform, he's been busy in meetings all day with his MPs and peers to discuss an alliance.
And the Tories, graciously, have said they will "consider" possible election reforms.
Here's Cameron's idea.
And here's why it's bullshit.
If he manages to sell this to anyone as fair, he deserves a medal. Albeit a 'conniving bastard of the year' medal.
The Big Idea: Every constituency will have the same number of voters in. Therefore, all your votes will count for one (if you live in Hertfordshire, as I do, your votes will count for 0.1 at the moment). Sounds ideal, right? Wrong. Think carefully about what he's proposing.
Think of a constituency, which has for conveniences sake, 300 voters. Now imagine three candidates are standing - Candidates A, B, and C. They all get an exactly equal share, 100 votes each. It's a tie. Now, imagine one prospective Candidate A voter changes his mind, and votes for Candidate B. So our votes read 29, 31, 30. This means that Candidate B wins the seat. Even though effectively two thirds of the constituency has voted against him. He then goes onto the House of Commons.
Sound familiar? That's because this is basically our current voting system.
Cameron is trying to decieve voters in the most underhand, outright, manipulative way, and it disgusts me.
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Four Days To Go
I'm so excited. I really want to see what this hung parliament's going to turn out - a LibLab pact? I'd like to think the Liberal Democrats wouldn't form a coalition with the Tories. I think that's what Cameron would like, just so it can go ahead for sixth months, blame the Liberals for all shortcomings and say they're blocking him, cripple their party and then call another general election, having ensured they'll lose.
We wait in hope.
We wait in hope.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Dear Daily Mail #1
Dear Daily Mail, and The Telegraph,
Last time I checked, Sarah Brown, Samantha Cameron, and Miriam Gonzalez Durantez were not paid members of state.
I don't care if they're married to someone running for Prime Minister. I don't see how that is at all relevant to an election campaign.
They don't make policies, or give financial advice. I'm pretty sure all these women have lives, and careers, and interests of their own, stretching far beyond their spouse's job.
I'm not deciding who to vote for based on what their partners' toes look like.
If you're quite done with trivialising and objectifying these women, please shut up. Oh, and if you're not done, shut up anyway.
Sincerely,
Me.
Last time I checked, Sarah Brown, Samantha Cameron, and Miriam Gonzalez Durantez were not paid members of state.
I don't care if they're married to someone running for Prime Minister. I don't see how that is at all relevant to an election campaign.
They don't make policies, or give financial advice. I'm pretty sure all these women have lives, and careers, and interests of their own, stretching far beyond their spouse's job.
I'm not deciding who to vote for based on what their partners' toes look like.
If you're quite done with trivialising and objectifying these women, please shut up. Oh, and if you're not done, shut up anyway.
Sincerely,
Me.
Monday, 19 April 2010
The Lib-Dem Lashback
After a well choreographed performance on the first debate, the Liberal Democrats have surged ahead in the opinion polls. They are now roughly even with Labour and only four points behind the Conservatives.
For the first time, the two big hitters are looking worried about the Lib Dems. In the Chancellor's debates, all the venom and spite was spat between Darling and Osbourne - poor Cable wasn't deemed important enough to attack. This was true of the first debate, minus a paltry blow or two from Cameron.
And then, suddenly, on the 17th, two days after the debate, we see these results: Conservatives: 31
Labour: 28
Lib Dem: 32
For a party who has, on average, been trailing by around 20 points, this is a huge moment for them. The election result is now no longer clear cut. The Conservatives have the most to fear; in a hung parliament, the Liberal Democrats are unlikely to side with them.
So desperately, spitefully, and clearly with a growing sense of panic, Labour and the Conservatives have begun to hit out at the Liberal Democrats.
We've all heard by now Brown patronisingly calling the Lib Dem's economic policies "mistaken". Yes, Gordon, because after the economic crash and the recession, most people do listen to you on matters of economy.
Cameron's been coming out with a few gems; "I think what it shows is that our politics has hit such a low, that people are so desperate for something to change, that they are running towards anything that's different." Clearly desperation is pushing the Lib Dems ahead, not genuine support for their policies.
It's plain to see that the Liberal Democrats, that tiny third party, who nobody has ever taken seriously before, have got the alpha males running scared.
But after his rapid growth in the polls, Cameron and Brown are going to be looking to attack Clegg in the next debate. It's not going to be pretty.
For the first time, the two big hitters are looking worried about the Lib Dems. In the Chancellor's debates, all the venom and spite was spat between Darling and Osbourne - poor Cable wasn't deemed important enough to attack. This was true of the first debate, minus a paltry blow or two from Cameron.
And then, suddenly, on the 17th, two days after the debate, we see these results: Conservatives: 31
Labour: 28
Lib Dem: 32
For a party who has, on average, been trailing by around 20 points, this is a huge moment for them. The election result is now no longer clear cut. The Conservatives have the most to fear; in a hung parliament, the Liberal Democrats are unlikely to side with them.
So desperately, spitefully, and clearly with a growing sense of panic, Labour and the Conservatives have begun to hit out at the Liberal Democrats.
We've all heard by now Brown patronisingly calling the Lib Dem's economic policies "mistaken". Yes, Gordon, because after the economic crash and the recession, most people do listen to you on matters of economy.
Cameron's been coming out with a few gems; "I think what it shows is that our politics has hit such a low, that people are so desperate for something to change, that they are running towards anything that's different." Clearly desperation is pushing the Lib Dems ahead, not genuine support for their policies.
It's plain to see that the Liberal Democrats, that tiny third party, who nobody has ever taken seriously before, have got the alpha males running scared.
But after his rapid growth in the polls, Cameron and Brown are going to be looking to attack Clegg in the next debate. It's not going to be pretty.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
10 Reasons NOT To Vote Conservative
1). David Cameron wants to reduce the abortion limit. We spent long enough fighting for the right to have them, I'm highly suspicious of anyone who wants to reduce the time limits when there's no medical evidence for it. Parliament voted on this issue two years ago, and rejected reducing the limit. Only 1% of abortions occur after twenty weeks anyway.
2). Their manifesto states "remember that we are all in this together". No, we really aren't. Sorry Cameron, I don't think you really felt the recession the way many people did.
3). The Conservatives have formed an alliance with right-wing group the Polish Law and Justice party. This is despite warnings from inside their own party that members of PiS are homophobic and antisemetic. Oh well, never mind about all the Jews and poofs, right Dave?
4). Lord Ashcroft. The now infamous non-dom has donated millions to the Tory party over the years, and was even taken on foreign business meetings with William Hague. Clearly the Tories aren't for sale, not at all.
5). George Osbourne is an economic fantasist. "We can save you all £12bn a year in efficiency savings! Look, we're definitely not making stuff up, you can read all about it in this 4 page press release."
6). It'll cost you your job. They'll save £2bn by cutting the public sector payroll! Even though that could result in between 20,000 and 40,000 job losses.
7). They'll ruin economic recovery. 58 economic experts have signed a letter stating Cameron's plans to cut £6bn of public spending will cost thousands of jobs, severely damage the economy, and potentially tip us back into recession.
8). David Cameron airbrushed his campaign poster. Aside from the fact he didn't have the sense to get it done well, what does it say when our leaders are encouraging airbrushing? Didn't we all agree that lead to unhealthy perceptions about our own image? You're a politican, Cameron. I don't decide whether to vote for you or not based on how open your pores are.
9). Boris Johnson. However endearing he is, the man failed to declare donations worth a quarter of a million pounds. Hurray for transparent, corruption free politics.
10). The Expenses Scandal Now, no political party has a clean record here. Far from it. But claims for helipad maintenance, a full-time housekeeper, moat cleaning, £14,000-a-year-in-expenses-whilst-owning-three-properties-without-mortgages...woops, they were all Tory ministers!
2). Their manifesto states "remember that we are all in this together". No, we really aren't. Sorry Cameron, I don't think you really felt the recession the way many people did.
3). The Conservatives have formed an alliance with right-wing group the Polish Law and Justice party. This is despite warnings from inside their own party that members of PiS are homophobic and antisemetic. Oh well, never mind about all the Jews and poofs, right Dave?
4). Lord Ashcroft. The now infamous non-dom has donated millions to the Tory party over the years, and was even taken on foreign business meetings with William Hague. Clearly the Tories aren't for sale, not at all.
5). George Osbourne is an economic fantasist. "We can save you all £12bn a year in efficiency savings! Look, we're definitely not making stuff up, you can read all about it in this 4 page press release."
6). It'll cost you your job. They'll save £2bn by cutting the public sector payroll! Even though that could result in between 20,000 and 40,000 job losses.
7). They'll ruin economic recovery. 58 economic experts have signed a letter stating Cameron's plans to cut £6bn of public spending will cost thousands of jobs, severely damage the economy, and potentially tip us back into recession.
8). David Cameron airbrushed his campaign poster. Aside from the fact he didn't have the sense to get it done well, what does it say when our leaders are encouraging airbrushing? Didn't we all agree that lead to unhealthy perceptions about our own image? You're a politican, Cameron. I don't decide whether to vote for you or not based on how open your pores are.
9). Boris Johnson. However endearing he is, the man failed to declare donations worth a quarter of a million pounds. Hurray for transparent, corruption free politics.
10). The Expenses Scandal Now, no political party has a clean record here. Far from it. But claims for helipad maintenance, a full-time housekeeper, moat cleaning, £14,000-a-year-in-expenses-whilst-owning-three-properties-without-mortgages...woops, they were all Tory ministers!
Profile: Vince Cable
Name: John Vincent Cable
Date of Birth: 9th May 1943
Political Party: Liberal Democrats
Position: Deputy Leader
Constituency: Twickenham
Nickname: The Cable Car
Qualifications: Studied Natural Sciences & Economics at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge
PhD in Economics from the University of Glasgow
Previous Jobs: Lectured at the University of Glasgow
Lectured at the London School Of Economics
Treasury Finance Officer to the Kenyan Government
Chief Economist for Shell
Coolest moment: Owning George Osbourne live on the chancellor's debate
Rating: Five Stars
Power Move: Strikes fear into opposition's hearts, casting freeze and immobilising them for two rounds.
God, Nick Clegg is lucky to have this man. He's the Lib Dem's main selling point and he's got a good shot at Chancellor in a coalition government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
