Labour leadership contest - why can't we vote for hope?

In a recent article on the Guardian's 'Comment is Free' section, comedian Frankie Boyle suggested that following the decision to abstain in the recent welfare bill vote the Labour party was now so passive it could be "led by an out-of-office email".

It was indeed, a pathetic move by Labour.  Even if you agree with the tactics that Labour should attempt to fight the 'middle ground' with the Tories, this was still spectacularly unnecessary.  That bill will hurt the worst off in society, exactly the kind of people that you expect the Labour Party to want to protect as part of it's DNA.

This is the background to which the Labour Party leadership election is being fought.  And, I get to vote.

I'm not a member of the Labour Party for many reasons - I'm a revolutionary Socialist rather than a reformist.  However my Trade Union, the GMB, is a major backer of the party.  Personally my belief is that the political fund should be democratised, and MPs should be given backing on an individual basis, irrespective of party.

However, that is not an argument that has been won within the union, so whilst it continues to give part of my subs to the Labour party, I believe that I have a right to exercise my democratic rights in voting in this election.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why people do become members of the Labour Party, despite everything that it has done wrong.  People are pragmatic.  They don't expect perfection, but they know they have to fight for what they can.

When I lived in Bolton I knew a group of trade union activists who worked within the council who collectively joined the Labour Party because they were tired of being 100% ignored by the elected councillors.  Now they are only ignored 90%.

Why do people bother with Labour, when it is so 'top down' in it's 'democracy'?

I was talking to two Labour Party members on the TUC anti-austerity demo in October 2012.  Both were ordinary trade unionists who had joined Labour to continue the struggle from beyond their workplaces out in to the wider world.  Both had voted for Ed Milliband because he had been the only mainstream candidate who spoke about the need to correct Labour's mistakes (and he wasn't vague about those mistakes - he attacked the New Labour ethos and said that the invasion of Iraq was clearly wrong), and both now wished they had voted for David Milliband instead.

That wasn't because in hindsight they decided that the political agenda he put forward was now the correct one.  No, it was for one reason - they were frightened that the Tories would get re-elected.

Everything was driven by that fear.  That's why ordinary party members may look towards Yvette Cooper or Andy Burnham (or the sadistic towards Liz Kendall).

But now we have a candidate worth voting for in Jeremy Corbyn.  He is pretty much spotless.  Not only has he always stood up for the right causes throughout his political career, he has also managed to do so without being a crazed ego maniac (oh George Galloway, I remember the hope we had only for you to smash that to smithereens).

The Daily Mirror has reported that Jeremy Corbyn is way ahead in the leadership contest so far with a 42% poll rating (Yvette Cooper currently second with 22.6%).  Hardly surprising, this is what the ordinary activists, both inside and outside of the Labour Party, actually want in a leader.

Who is voting against Corbyn?  Well, some activists who still have that 'pragmatic' fear of losing to the Tories, but also the 'professional' political figures within the party.

MP's make a good living from their position.  As such, it is a position they want to protect.  I'm not saying that none of them care about politics, but it makes a big difference when your income depends on winning elections.  In that position, you are desperate to keep your seat.  This is not a gravy train they wish to disembark from.

It certainly explains the tendency to lean to the right in such arguments.  The same goes for full time, unelected trade union officials.  They don't want to rock the boat with employers any more than they have to, because they have their own income to protect.  Again, it's not to say that none of them care about the workers they represent, it's just that it does explain the tendency to want to avoid fighting for what is right.

All union officials should be workplace based and elected by the members.  That way, if the members do not agree with their actions they can be removed from the post and go back to their job.  If that job is there, and their income doesn't change when elected, they will be a lot less likely to take the side of the bosses.

But still, is there any point in striving to elect a leader like Jeremy Corbyn if no-one will vote for Labour in a general election?  Well, it turns out that the general public actually agree with most of his policies, with a significant majority willing to support moves to renationalise the railways, bring in rent controls, etc.

There have been a number within the Labour Party who have complained about 'Communists' and members of other left wing groups 'infiltrating' the party.  Well, I'm a member of the SWP and I've not joined, nor has there been any call to do so.  Has it occurred to them that Corbyn might simply be attracting activists to join?

And that's the thing that could make a real difference.  When Tony Blair was elected with a massive majority one of the reasons he was able to do so was because he had over 60,000 activists campaigning on the streets.  He offered a vision that was clearly different to what the Tories had to offer.

Yes, he was a fucking abomination, but beyond that, this was why he was able to win so convincingly.  In the years that followed, the more he moved the party to the right, the more it appeared to be similar to the Tories, the more his majority fell.

Jeremy Corbyn stands up for policies that are right, and are what the mass majority of Labour members and supporters actually believe in, but have been too afraid to express in fear of losing the 'middle ground' to the Tories.

He is also someone who can carry forward arguments with the general public in a convincing fashion, and can attract a mass activist base to the Labour Party.  Yes, they are up against the right wing press, and that is the biggest problem by far.  Who gets to control the arguments for our political future, that which becomes seen as 'common sense'?

It will be a huge battle, and one that may well be lost in a coming election, but by God I'd rather it was lead by someone actually trying to fight than a party simply resigning itself to perpetual defeat.

I won't be joining the Labour Party, but I am part of the wider labour movement.  As such, I will be voting for Jeremy Corbyn, I'll be voting for hope.  But I won't be leaving it to him to do, I'll keep working with everyone in the movements from below to try and bring about real change.

Friends on benefits

Fingers crossed I'll snare some people in to reading this blog with its almost sexy sounding title.  It's fair to say though that 'friends on benefits' is a lot different to 'friends with benefits'.  Simply, having a 'friend on benefits' means only one person is getting fucked.

That simple, not to mention crude, joke could still be taken more than one way.  Which in itself is another double entendre.  Ding.

My suggestion is that if you're on benefits you are going to be having a hard time, thus the use of the term saying that they're getting 'fucked'.  But, whilst to me that would be bleeding obvious, I cannot assume that is how everyone would understand it.

Many, it appears, would assume that by being the one not on benefits that you're the one getting 'fucked'.  That you are a 'striver' as politicians like to say.  You are working hard, and paying taxes, and it's actually the nasty, horrible 'spongers' on benefits who are living the life of riley.

This is the argument perpetuated by the Tories and their allies in the right wing press.  We are being told that people on benefits are a drain on the national resources, meaning less for everyone else.  Furthermore, there are many people who do not need to be on benefits.  What absolute bastards!

In fact the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) calculate that benefit fraud amounts to around £1.2 billion, or 0.7% of the total costs of benefits (which include pensions) each year.  Sounds like a lot, but by comparison HMRC (Revenue and Customs) themselves say that tax evasion means we lose out on around £4.1 billion pounds each year!  Well over three times more.  Even then, there are others who suggest the tax gap is in fact £120 billion!

It seems so strange to obsess over people on benefits when there are incredibly rich people not paying the tax they owe, and the money they owe is many times more.  In the world of stand up there are a lot of professional comedians who are owed tens of thousands of pounds from big clubs that are not paying their debts to them.  It would be like a comic spending all their energy getting annoyed at a friend asking to borrow £5 rather than the clubs who haven't paid their invoice from 6 months ago.

Spongers

Why then are we so obsessed with benefit fraud?  I think the truth lies in a couple of factors.  One, it's much easier to relate to the concept of individuals 'sponging' benefits, because they will be people who live lives like ourselves - on similar incomes, in similar homes.

The second factor is that the right wing press is ramming it down our throats.  When you hear something like benefits being referred to as such a problem so much, you believe it.  It becomes 'common sense', like believing that immigration is a massive problem when clear evidence suggests that it is not.

Working people are not idiots, but they are people who work hard and have clear limits placed on their time.  Every person cannot spend hours reading up on statistics to inform their opinion - that's why tabloid papers are so popular.  For a small payment each day they let you know what's going on in the world, and also take time to entertain you on your break times as well.

I go on about the evils of the 'right wing press' like it's a conspiracy.  Is it?  Well, yes and no.

The Sun will mirror the opinions to a degree of it's ownership, which is ultimately Rupert Murdoch.  Whilst generally an unpleasant guy (to say the least), I don't actually believe he sits down and purposefully engineers propaganda to keep the masses down.

As one of the richest people in the world, as a capitalist it is in his interests to believe that the problems in society are not connected to rich people like himself, but rather people at the bottom end.  People on benefits, trade unionists fighting for better working rights, etc.  I think he genuinely believes that.

The most horrifying thing is that it's in his interests to believe that people on benefits are a problem but it is absolutely not in the interests of working class people, who are by far the majority of the population.

But again, we take it as common sense because it's the super rich like Rupert Murdoch who control the media and get their point of view accross that way.  It's not a conspiracy, but it is the system.  Therefore, the system itself is corrupt.

I had a friend on Facebook post a status saying that a guy she works with told her that his sister doesn't work, has 5 kids, and is on £28k a year.  Her partner also doesn't work.  Needless to say, apart from a few exceptions, most comments following that were ones of disgust and horror.  They agreed she was getting too much.

Now, from that information, do we actually know much about her circumstances?  Do we know if she is registered disabled and receiving benefits for that?  That aside, lets look at £28k as an income.

Me and my partner probably earn a similar amount per year between us.  With that we live a comfortable, but by no means extravagant, lifestyle.  However, that 'comfort' means living in one room together in a shared house with four other people.  Some would allow that to fuel their anger that someone else could earn the same by not working, but instead I can use that to put in to context how much £28k actually is.

We live ok, but I cannot even begin to imagine how on earth I would be able to clothe and feed five children.  Aside from the rights or wrong of having that many children, you cannot get away from the simple fact that bringing up children, even badly, costs a lot of money.

And time.  Making dinner and packed lunches for five kids.  Doing the school run back and forth each day for five kids.  Sounds exhausting.

Also, don't forget, children grow up and become adults.  You know, adults - people that work and pay taxes.  No doubt cynics would expect that they would continue a cycle of never working, but we don't know that.  Is it really likely that all the children from that relationship would never work?

Needless to say, I don't think people on benefits are the problem.  Whatever this woman who is getting £28k from benefits is like, I simply do not care.  Lets get angry about how many big companies and super rich individuals get to avoid paying tax.

People on benefits are not the enemy.

Women make watching England in a World Cup actually worth while!!

England women's football team celebrate

I can't say I've had a particularly productive day today, I slept in until past 11am this morning.  But I do have my reasons for needing sleep as I'm still recovering after watching the England Women's World Cup match against Japan on Wendesday night.

Well, I say Wednesday night.  As it started at midnight it was actually Thursday morning.  And I had to be up early for work in an office the next day, so I was exhausted.  Was it worth it?

Well, they did lose.  Even so, I'm happy to have stayed up and watched them, and indeed have enjoyed watching the whole women's World Cup.  England have not been the best technically, but they have fought and pushed themselves to their limits, and that effort took them all the way to the semi finals, the first time they have reached that stage.

Before this World Cup my attitude towards womens football is that I felt like it was something I should support, but actually doing so was a different matter.  Like many who are not convinced by the game, whenever I did watch it, it just seemed so off the pace compared to the mens game - why watch a sport if it's just plainly worse than what else is on offer?

But, I have changed my mind.  The starting point for enjoying women's football is, simply, to accept that it is a game in its own right and that it is not necesarily better or worse than the mens game, it is simply different.

The physical differences between men and women mean that it is not played with the same pace, but once you accept this you can learn to enjoy the game in its own right.  There is more close control on show in the womens game, and in many ways more battles of sheer strength as well.

A good comparison for me is like trying to compare the mens game of today compared to what it was like 60 years ago.  Englands greatest triumph in the game was winning the 1966 World Cup (not that we like mention it much... ahem).  But for anyone too young to have watched it first time around if you watch the footage of the matches they seem... bizarre.

So much less pace.  Compared to today it is played at a pace where people seem to be barely jogging.  The reasons were that the kits and the balls were different, both much heavier, and the pitches were chewed up like Worthy Farm the Tuesday after Glastonbury.

But we are told that the likes of Charlton, Moore, et al, were 'greats' of the game.  Well, they are, but the game was very different back then, and so it is hard to compare.  And I'm not trying to say the womens game is backward.  Again, it wasn't better or worse, it was just different.

It also seems like such a weird thing to feel the need to compare anyway, because we don't do that with sports where the womens equivelant is already well established.  Nobody ever said "sure, Paula Radcliffe is good, but how would she do racing against Mo Farah?"

In fact, you could argue that some of the differences are not just ok, but are in fact a very good thing.  For a start, we have the media coined term WAGs, meaning 'Wives and Girlfriends'.  Top football stars are in such demand that the media want to know everything about them, including saucy pics of their partners at movie premiers and on the beach.

Ask yourself - do you know the name of any of the England women's partners?  I know I don't, and I think that is a God send!  If only I didn't know who Victoria Beckham was, wouldn't that be amazing?

WAGS - maybe now we have a new kind of role model for young women

Also, these are young sportswomen.  I'm sure, like the guys, they like to go out and party.  Have a fair few drinks, let their hair down and bond.  However, when the men do it they ellicit headlines such as "Premier League stars' racist orgy shame caught on camera".

I mean, seriously, that is some headline.  Throw in the term 'hippy crack' and we get a full house on 'arsehole footballer bingo'.

So I'm not going to pretend that the women are not fully capable of getting wasted and acting stupid on a night out.  What I am saying is that I doubt they would manage to be so utterly, soul destroyingly awful.  Racism, sexism and rape - male footballers can just take your breath away sometimes.

The fact that the womens game has less attention actually makes it significantly more pallitable, because of all the other things that come with that level of 'fame'.

However, I'm not going to pretend that the women's game is perfect.  Indeed, there are some areas where you could make comparisons to the mens game where it isn't just different - there is still work to be done.

England showed a lot of fight and determination, as I've already said, throughout the whole tournment.  However, they fought so much because they had to, because they kept giving the ball away so easily.

The passing side of the game, in England at least, clearly needs attention.  Against Canada the commentators were full of praise for Jodie Taylor, the sole striker.  She ran after everything and made half chances where non should have been available.  But that's because half the time the ball was just being pumped blindly upfield in the hope she could scrap something out of it.

Passing from defence through midfield was practically non existent at times.  Yes, they were the home side, but there was little reason why we had to be so route one.  It was like watching the Wimbledon side of the 1990s - getting a crick in your neck from looking up so often.

That said though, here is something to think about - We only had a professional league set up in England in 2011.  Yes, there had already been a women's league structure in place before that, but this was the first attempt to make it professional.  In this league, the WSL (Women's Super League), the top 4 stars at each club are paid between £20-30,000 a year.  Top stars in the mens game make several times that in a week.

We are only in the last few years getting in to a position where women can play football as a full time profession, meaning they can now train every day as well.  How can they be expected to perform to the same level of men without this backing?

The FA are part funding the wages in the WSL as the clubs themselves simply do not get the revenue from gate receipts and TV rights that would make it financial viable in its own right.  At this point of course, it is a matter of chicken and egg - what comes first, the standard of players that makes people want to pay to watch them, or a financial system in place to develop the players in the first place.

In that sense, funding from the FA and elsewhere makes sense - they need that foot up.

The World Cup will have switched many on to watching women's football - myself included.  There is plenty of skill and technique on show from these women, and where the game might still be lacking compared to the mens game, that will come with greater levels of training and coaching.

What you can guarantee is the game is played honestly, and with passion.  Seeing how the England women played makes you feel proud.  I know it's just a completely different game, but I wonder if they could perhaps give that a go in the mens game as well?

The Labour leadership election - and I get to vote!

Hell yeah!

To be honest, I'm not really in the mood for an election right now, in the same way that when I last contracted the noro virus I didn't fancy visiting a carvery.  I feel uncomfortable, know there is nothing I can do about it and it means I will have to face a lot of shit.

Comparing the Tories to diarrhea?  Always a good start to a blog.

But now I have the opportunity to vote for the future leader of the Labour party.  Didn't see that one coming.  Mainly because I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Labour party.

As well as sounding like a statement from McCarthy era America, it also doesn't make much sense.  How can I vote for the Labour party leader if I'm not a member of the Labour party?  Well, that's because I'm a member of a Trade Union that is affiliated to the Labour party, and as such have the option to vote.

As a Socialist to the left of Labour, I argue that Unions should not be affiliated to the Labour party.  Instead, they should democratise their political funds, and then back indivdual MPs who back the work the Union do.  Most will be from the Labour party, but not all.

However, whilst I argue this is the right position it is not one that has been won within my Union at this time.  As such, if money is going from the Union to the Labour party, I am happy to exercise my right to have a say in this election.  After all, in a tiny way, I'm helping to pay for it!

The leadership debate, coming as it does immediately after the crushing general election defeat of Labour, is centred around the question "what went wrong?"  Unsurprisingly the core of leadership candidates all seem to think that Labour did not appear right wing enough to connect with a core of the electorate who can decide an election.

Needless to say, I don't agree.  The main problem they had is that what they presented just was not inspiring - they didn't seem to offer an alternative at all.  Really, they campaigned to say they would do the same as the Tories, just slightly nicer and slightly better.

Austerity lite, it has been referred to.

But that's just not good enough.  As is often the case, they lost right wing votes to Tories and UKIP, and left wing votes to Greens, SNP and the other big party in this election - Non of the above!

In some areas, such as the North East, I think there are still working class ties to the Labour Party.  Young people voting for the first time still have an understanding from their families as to why you vote against the Tories.  But elsewhere, it is evaporating.

The right wing in the Labour Party are worried by the emergence of the UK Independence Party (UKIP).  Ostensibly a party that campaigns for Britain to withdraw it's membership of the European Union, it is broadly speaking a nasty, populist, hard right, racist organisation.

They have taken votes away from the Tories, that's for certain, but it appears they have also taken votes from Labour.  Most concerning about this is that they appear to have taken young peoples votes from Labour.

Is this because they are racist?  I don't think so, although a majority of the population are taken in by the mainstream lie that immigration is a major problem.  What you can say though, is that this is a section who will consider voting away from the big two mainstream parties.

UKIP may seem unpleasant, and they are, but they at least represented an alternative.  It was the youth vote that meant the Lib Dems won two previous terms in an area of Manchester with a large student population.  Needless to say, as happened nationally, that vote evaporated.

What also happened though, is that it became clear that left wing, anti-austerity politics did have an audience.  In Scotland the Scottish National Party (SNP) wiped the floor with their opponents winning 56 from a possible 59 seats.

If anything, you have to feel sorry for the 3 SNP candidates who didn't win.  I mean, seriously, they must have been rubbish!

The SNP stood on a clear platform against austerity, and they clearly found their audience.  Mind you, there is more to this than meets the eye.

I would love to say this means that if a party stood with the same message across the UK they would also win a landslide, but that's not the case.  In England the biggest player in disseminating political ideas is the media.  The bulk of the media barons who own the newspapers support the Tories.  They control the editorial line of their newspapers, so the only stories that are printed are those that harmonise with that individuals viewpoint.

Of course, that is true throughout the UK, and indeed the world.  However, in Scotland, they recently had a process which meant that anti-austerity politics had a very real platform to break beyond that stranggle hold - The Independance referendum.

It was such a massively significant question being asked of the Scottish people that the vast majority had no choice but to engage.  The 'Yes' campaign lost in the end, only gaining 45%.  However, translate that percentage into mostly just one party standing in a 'first past the post' system election, and you get a landslide.

Great if you're Scottish, although it means that now you are still ruled by Tories from England.  Also, the SNP is not really that radical a party, with no traditional roots in the organised labour movement, so ultimately are unlikely to deliver real change.  But still, way to get your voices heard!

As part of the election campaign I saw a lot of videos online from celebrities such as Steve Coogan and Martin Freeman discussing why they were going to vote Labour.  They went to great pains to show they were being genuine, even in the filming of the ads themselves (showing make up being applied, etc, so you didn't get the idea that you were being fooled by a flashy campaign.  "Of course this is being filmed by a professional crew, and we know you know that").

One thing they, and many others said, was "I trust Labour with the NHS".  All politicians know that the NHS is sacrosanct to the British public, and is a very real concern to them that it is protected.

Many don't necesarily know recent immigrants to this country, so they can more readily believe lies about them.  However, everyone gets sick, so the NHS is not something you play with quite as easily.

One of the leasdership candidates, Andy Burnham, spent the last government as shadow health Secretary.  He has spoken very well on the issue, including against aspects of privitisation brought through by the Tories.  However, when Labour were in power he was involved in the awarding of the very first PFI contract.  He was there when Labour started the rot.

So do I trust Labour with the NHS?  No.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly trust them a hell of a lot more than the Tories.  But then that's a bit like needing a child minder last minute and having to chose between a drunk you found in the gutter outside LIDL, or Freddy Kreuger.

And that also highlights another problem - if I do vote in the leadership contest, who would I vote for?

All the candidates seem so similar, determind to drag Labour further to the right.  That is, until Jeremy Corbyn announced his intention to stand.

Jeremy Corbyn

There are a number of good MPs in the Labour party, but it's fair to say that no one is better than Jeremy Corbyn.  He's been an MP since 1983 and has consistently been right on everything.

No, really.  He was campaigning against Saddam Hussein before anyone in the West cared about him, but then was a passionate advocate against the invasion of Iraq in 2003.  He knew that Saddam was bad, and that the UK should not back him, but he wasn't suckered in to thinking that the invasion would bring anything than what it has - death, turmoil and terror.

So I'm not intending on joining the Labour party anytime soon, but as a member of a Trade Union that does give funding to the Labour I know who I will be voting for!

FIFA - death, corruption and football

"For the good of the game" - really??

Regular readers will know that I love football.  Passionately.  My small, local club from where I grew up was on the edge of being relelgated out of the professional English football league altogether 6 years ago, but this year has won promotion to the Premier League.  Next year Bournemouth will be playing against the likes of Manchester United, City and Chelsea.

This concept is as ridiculous as it is amazing.  Or just, amazingly ridiculous.  Through my parents my boyhood team was Manchester United.  AFC Bournemouth were a team I started to watch when I was an older teen because they were local and I had started working so could afford to go.

Following the two clubs was fine, as the idea they would be playing in the same league would be as much a possibility as if I had chosen my second team from Portugal - it was never going to happen.  And yet, here we are.

But then attaching the tag "amazingly ridiculous" is quite fitting with football.  After all, just look at the international governing body for the sport - FIFA.

Football is a passion with many contradictions.  Over the years, aside from the action that has taken place on the pitch, there have been issues regarding racism, homophobia and violence, from both players and fans of the game.

Growing up in the 80s all these things were the norm in football, although thankfully a lot has changed.  The issues are still there, but at least when you hear that a footballer or group of fans have been racist, such as John Terry or Chelsea fans, you are shocked.  In the 80s it was so prevelant it made you sad, but not shocked.

However, there is nothing in the game more appalling than the governing body.  FIFA takes that yard stick and it runs away with it!

At the time of writing the FIFA congress is taking place, and we are in the middle of the voting process to decide the next president of FIFA.  The election is between the current president, Sepp Blatter, and his challenger Prince Ali bin-Hussein of Jordan.

The congress is mired in controversey, although that's nothing new.  FIFA being mired in controversey is like a jam sandwich at a picnic being mired in bees.  You might not like it, but what did you expect?

The big controversey at this time is that shortly before the congress took place a number of FIFA officials have been arrested in Switzerland on behalf of the US Department of Justice looking into accusations of bribery where officials were being paid kick backs by TV executives in order to secure rights to show World Cup matches.

The investigation has apparently been going on for a while, with former FIFA exec member Chuck Blazer, who had quietly pleaded guilty already, wearing a wire to meetings with FIFA officials to help the Dept. of Justice gather evidence.  He'd better stay out of jail for his efforts, because on the inside no one likes a grass!

At the same time the Swiss office of the Attorney General has started an investigation looking in to corruption around the voting process which decided the hosts for the 2018 and 2022 World cups, which were Russia and Qatar respectively.

The fact that Russia and Qatar that were selected should be enough to inspire doubt.  First of all Russia - they love annexing parts of other countries but hate the gays.  Not really an inspiring choce to say the least.

But trumping them by some way is Qatar as a choice.  Seriously - Qatar!

In answer to everyone's first question "where???", Qatar is a small oil rich country in the middle east with a population of just over 2 million people.  It is also a country where in the summer temperatures can get as high as 50°c (122° fahrenheit).  A strange, if not insane choice for a host of a football tournament.

But worse than the conditions for playing football itself, are the conditions for workers.  Perhaps you have seen this graphic already being shared on social media:

Needless to say, the statistics are shocking.  According to a report by the Guardian newspaper Immigrant Nepalese workers in Qatar are dying at a rate of 1 person every two days.  They calculate the death toll of Nepalese, Indian and Bangladeshi workers to be 964 in 2012-13.

That should be shocking enough to make FIFA reconsider it's decision to award the tournament to Qatar, but then the death toll of labourers in Qatar will not come as surprise to them, as there would be deaths of workers even without a World Cup.

The International Trade union Confederation estimate there have been over 1200 deaths so far, with another 4000 expected to die by 2022.  Corruption and kick backs are bad enough, but now FIFA have blood on their hands.

Scourge of the poor and oxygen thief Prime Minister David Cameron describes FIFA corruption as the "ugly side of the beautiful game".  And he supports Aston Villa/West Ham/insert football team name here so he knows what he's talking about.

But FIFA appears to beyond reform.  Sepp Blatter is still expected to win the election comfortably.  He has support from the bulk of Asian and African confederation countries after delivering both World Cups in their continents, as well as money for the development of the game.

Some would say that all that money provides much needed investment in the grass roots game in developing countries, others would call it further corruption to enhance Sepp Blatter's power base.  To be honest, both sides of that argument might have a point.

But hey, the fact that 7 officials have been arrested and the election hasn't been postponed at all tells you that this is an organisation without a sense of shame.  I mean, if there is any chance of a shake up it will come because sponsors such as McDonalds have threatened to withdraw their support unless reforms are made.

You know your organisation is evil when you can let McDonalds be the one to take the moral high ground.

Also, Blatter's opponenant is a Jordanian Prince!  FIFA is so backward that it takes a figure from a Feudal system of governance to be seen as a great reformer.

At the end of the day, FIFA may be the governing body, but ordinary football fans do not recognise them as part of their game.  Next year I wll be trying to see as many Bournemouth games, home and away, as I can, and experiencing the wonders that the game can provide.

If the 2022 World Cup does go ahead in Qatar, then I won't be watching it that year.  I love football, but I won't have blood on my hands.

"We are Premier League!!"

5 more years of the nasty party - why, and what do we do now?

At 10pm last night the polls closed and the BBC provided us with exit polls that predicted that the Tories would be the largest party, but would come short of a majority.  Also the SNP would dominate in Scotland and the Lib Dems would be decimated.

The clear indication of a Tory victory sent me in to a depression.  The question is, would the Lib Dems have enough MPs to be the junior partner in a coalition or not, or rather would the Tories turn towards the DUP (Democratic Unionists - the dominant Loyalist party in Northern Ireland) to make up the numbers.

At 6am I was woken by the cat.  I checked my phone to see the prediction had now shifted to suggesting that the Tories would come to within 1 seat of an overall majority.  After seeing that, try as I might, I couldn't get back to sleep.

Then in the morning when I'm driving my girlfriend to work I hear on the news that the Tories will definitely get a majority after all.  Only my love for her stopped me turning the car over in to the River Irwell.  Who would have thought that those exit polls were a best case scenario?!?

Ok, so nailing my colours to the mast, I'm a big old leftie.  Actually, I'm proud to call myself a Socialist - the term still exists, I've just checked a dictionary.

As such, general elections to me are only one part of politics.  When most people think about politics, they think it is something you elect someone else to do every five years, and hope they don't all bollocks it up too much.

The elections are still important of course, because these are the people who decide on our laws.  I was going to write that they run the country, but that's far too simple a concept, and we all know how much money and power outside of official 'politics' plays it's role.

What we have had under Tory rule (propped up by the Lib Dems), is an austerity drive as a method of bringing down the national debt.  In the last 5 years we have started to see growth, and employment increase.

It was always going to be hard to shift a party that's in power when growth begins, however, we would have had growth whether the Tories or Labour had been in power.  It's the global market recovering.  We were not as hard hit as many countries in Europe for a variety of reasons, and growth was always going to happen.

The worst aspect to the government position was just how much the very worst off in our society have been affected.  Look at the degrading assesments around disability benefits.  ATOS, a  private company, being given the job of trying to find any reason to force people off benefits.  A big number of those who complained won their appeals.  Think of how many didn't appeal because they didn't have the knowledge, energy or ability to do so.

Labour offered us essentially a nicer version of what the Tories were doing.  Still austerity, but stretched over a longer period, and with promises to look after the NHS, introduce a Mansion Tax and other reforms to make the rich pay at least some share of the costs.

If you look at what Ed Milliband was promising over the last few weeks it sounds pretty good.  The poorest and most vulnerable in society would be protected in some way.

But it was still austerity, and that isn't the kind of politics that can energise activists.  The SNP in Scotland however, who are not a radical party, could win activists.  Getting rid of Trident (our nuclear deterrant), ending austerity, these were the kind of policies that got people excited.

The SNP might have lost the referendum on Independence, but politically they won massively from it's aftermath.  Many working class voters, traditionally Labour, voted for independence, and switched to the SNP as the only major political force in Scottish politics that backed it.

The Yes vote might only have got around 45% of the vote in the referendum, but if you have even close to that many people deciding to support one party in 'first past the post' politics they will win every time.

The referendum was a massive democratic debate the like of which I have never seen in my lifetime.  Apathy was pretty much impossible in Scotland around this time.  This platform was enough to turn the SNP into the biggest force by far in Scottish politics.

Whilst the SNP were the biggest winners despite losing, the biggest losers despite winning were the Labour Party.  The three big parties of the time were all strongly in favour of the Union, but it was Labour that delivered the campaign and the vote.  When the right wing aftermath from the Tories and UKIP in England showed how actually disregarded the Scottish are south of the border, it was the Labour Party they turned on.

It made no difference to the Tories, so really, they were the ones who really won.

Aside from Scotland though, the Labour party also lost the argument throughout England and Wales as well.  There are a few reasons as far as I can see.

The effect of the Scottish referendum also had a big negative impact on the Labour party in England I feel.  As I said, it was the biggest democratic debate that I can remember in my lifetime, but if you lived in England you heard nothing on the news except about the referendum and yet had no say it whatsoever.

I'm not saying that English voters necesarily wanted a vote, but I do think it helped further enforce a feeling of disenfranchisment.  In terms of English nationalism, many felt bitter towards the Scottish, and as soon as the election was confirmed the likes of the Tories and UKIP were on the news again banging on about 'English votes for English laws'.

The fear of an SNP/Labour coalition drove English centre-right and right wing voters away from Labour.  This idea was pushed massively by the Tories and the right-wing press, and wasn't helped at all by Nicola Sturgeon constantly saying that they 'would work with Labour'.

Saying that was intended to appeal to Scottish voters, but also scared some English voters at the same time.  Those on the left loved the idea of such a coalition (rather the SNP than the Lib Dems anyway), but Labour knew all too well that it would cost them votes from the centre ground in England.

Talking of the agenda of the right wing press, Ed Milliband in his interview with Russell Brand said he didn't think Rupert Murdoch had as much influence on this election as he has had in the past.  Of course he does!!

Just because he personally hasn't said much means nothing, his media empire pushes his agenda for him.  The Sun campaigned viciously against Ed Milliband, even republishing pictures of him looking slightly odd eating a bacon sandwich on the front page.  Anything to frighten people in to voting Tory - fear Ed Milliband, fear Nicola Sturgeon, vote Conservative was the message.

The Sun is by far the widest read newspaper.  Any office I work in usually has at least one copy floating around, and there's only so much people can see a person or group of people demonised before it is internalised as fact.

At the end of the day Labour were not able to convine the centre ground that they were a better alternative than the Tories.  Why would they, Labour didn't appear to really be that different.

From working class or left wing roots folk also had little reason to back Labour.  In the same way that many were convinced to vote Tory out of fear, all Labour really had was a fear about what the Tories could do to make you vote for them.  Don't get me wrong, we do have every reason to be afraid.

Could Labour get themselves in a position to attract large numbers of new members to their party to reinvigorate and reinforce their activist base - have people to door knock, canvass and leaflet in future elections?

The SNP did that around the referendum, but there will not be anything like that for Labour.  They are the party in opposition, but any opposition is in words only, never in deeds.  They would have scrapped the Bedroom Tax, but will they genuinely stand in opposition to it?

No, they won't.  Councils which are Labour controlled could refuse to enforce the Bedroom Tax, but they won't.  They will do as they are told and will only complain through letters and council motions, which mean nothing in concrete terms.

The argument from Labour is always "when we get in to power, we can change things, but until then... "  In other words, voting for them is the only thing you can do, and without that you are impotent.

The Bedroom Tax is an interesting area for me.  For those that don't know, this is the name given to the 'Under Occupancy Penalty'.  For people who live in social housing (such as council housing), if you are deemed to have more bedrooms than you need you have money deducted from your Housing Benefit.

That benefit is designed to give you enough money to survive if you are unemployed.  So for a starter, they are taking money away from the minimum that you need to live on, when in reality even that is not enough.

On paper it might not sound too bad.  We have a housing shortage and it's not fair that people get to live in houses with a number of bedrooms if they don't need them.  Other families need them so it's only fair that they move in to a smaller home so larger families can have them.

The problem is that the smaller homes do not exist.  The waiting list for people who have declared that they are willing to downsize is huge because the smaller houses are just not there.  What would happen in reality is that you would be forced to move in to the private sector and pay rent to a private landlord.

That's one thing when you're unemployed and in receipt of housing benefits, because the rent is covered.  But when you get back in to work you pay your rent of course, but now you are paying a lot more because rents are much higher in the private sector.  Don't worry though, Labour are going to bring in rent controls when they get... oh...

But there is one other thing, one other problem with forcing people to downsize - It's that the house they live in is their home.  You know, because we are human beings, and that's what we do.  We make homes, where we live and raise families.

Tories you see don't have homes - they have properties.  Portfolios of them.  Houses to them are commodities to be bought and sold.

When I lived in Bolton I helped form the anti Bedroom Tax group there, and it was a wonderful experience.  I was the joint chair of the group alongside a woman called Linda, who was a tenant facing eviction.  In the garden of her home she had buried the ashes of her late Mother and Brother.  As you can imagine, she wasn't for moving.

But don't worry, she had no intention of moving.  Nor, of paying the Bedroom Tax.  Could she afford it?  Not really, but that wasn't the point.  She wasn't paying the Bedroom Tax because she was taking a stand.

We set up groups throughout the area, and attracted many people to public meetings.  People who felt like they were alone and vulnerable found other people in the same situation.  After that, they were not alone.

People were worried that if they didn't pay they would be evicted, physically thrown out of their homes.  At these meetings pacts were made that if anyone ever faced eviction as many people as possible would be outside the front of their house to block access to any baliffs.  We had a saying - "I'll stand by you if you stand by me."

But why was I so heavily involved?  Was I facing the Bedroom Tax?  No, I was working and lodging with friends.  I got involved because it was an injustice and something needed to be done.

I met Linda and others through being involved in the Socialist Workers Party in Bolton and being active in my Trade Union.  We met at the Trades Council in Bolton where they had come because they were given the number for the chair of the council as being someone who could help them to organise.

From that day I was joint chair representing the Trade Unions, and Linda was chair with me representing tenants affected directly by the Bedroom Tax.  The campaign involved tenants, trade Unionists, and people from various political parties and non.

We were critical of Labour councillors at times but always invited them to our meetings - invitations that were often accepted.  Labour Party members in various Unions became heavily involved in the campaign, alongside Green party members, SWP members, and many who were not a member of any political organisation.

Why am I telling you all this?

Well, after such a depressing election you ask yourself, what can we do about it?

My answer is that voting in elections is only one very small part of democracy, and that democracy is too important to just be left with MPs.  There are alternative forms of democracy that you can be a part of.

If you work, join a Trade Union.  They are not perfect organisations, but they are very important.  If you are in a Trade Union become a workplace rep - just ring the number you have been given as a member for more information, they will be happy to tell you what is required.  The politics in Unions can be limited times, but fight to make it more than just a helpline for colleagues to ring if they're in trouble, more than just discounts on credit cards or insurance.

Organise in your workplace, and not just on work issues.  We have a whole tide of bullshit coming our way that we have to fight back against - the Bedroom Tax, Fracking, attacks on the NHS, closure of local services, etc.  Organise and unite with people in your workplace, other workplaces, in your communities, nationally and internationally.

Doing this won't take away the feelings of anger or frustration at the Tories (or any of the major partes at times).  But, what else can you do?

The Tories are in power.  It's time to unite and fight.

Who needs 'Roy of the Rovers' when you've got 'Eddie of the Cherries'

Club captain Tommy Elphick celebrating with the fans

It's been referred to as a 'Roy of the Rovers' moment, after the British staple football comic book hero, because it feels like a work of fiction.  But no, it's real life - AFC Bournemouth have won promotion to the Premier League.

When the news is dominated by the election and the earthquake in Nepal (and it's hard to decide which is the most depressing) this is a rare good news story.  And not just for fans of the football club - it seems nearly everyone with an interest in the sport has been cheered by this news.

In 2009 the club was almost snuffed out of existence.  Bournemouth had spent years in financial dire straights.

I was born in Poole, next to Bournemouth, in Dorset, on the south coast of England.  My parents were both Northern - My Dad a coach driver from Manchester and my Mum a nurse from Accrington in Lancashire.  When they married they moved down south because it meant my Dad would spend less time away from home due to the tours he could do.

Our neighbours thought they were grockels - a local slang term meaning tourist.  My Mum's accent is still strongly Lancashire even after well over 30 years on the south coast, so many still think that.

Through them both, but mostly my Mum, I developed a passion for Manchester United.  There is an absolutely valid argument that says that you should support your local club.  However, I never remember there being any pull to do so when I was young.

If you live in a big city like Manchester, Liverpool or London I suppose this makes sense.  For somewhere like Poole the nearest City (and it's still an hour away) is Southampton.

Kids at school supported a variety of teams, the most popular in the 80s being Liverpool, closely followed by Manchester United and I suppose Southampton with a bit of Arsenal and Spurs thrown in.

My family roots were not from the town, so it makes sense the route I took in following my Mum's team.  In the early 90s when I started to get into football United changed from being a team with history, to being a team that started to make it's own history again.

I do not remember there being any pull to watch Bournemouth when I was growing up, I don't even remember kids at school supporting them at all.  Watching the local news I picked up that they were a small club that were permanently in financial risk.

The first time I went was in 1999 to watch them play in a pre-season friendly against Southampton, and the only reason I went was because former United front man Mark Hughes had just signed for Southampton.

Whilst the match was not particular memorable, I enjoyed the atmosphere.  I had been to Old Trafford a few times, which is a hell of a stadium of course, but the rawness of a rickety stadium like Dean Court (as it was then) stood in the terraces - the experience struck something with me.

I was 17 and in a summer job in a factory, so had a bit of money and freedom to spend it for the first time.  Doing a morning shift on the first Saturday of the season me and a lad got chatting and decided to go.  I found out which was the football bus using the google of the time - i.e. by asking my Dad.  Then off we went.

The first game was against newly promoted Lincoln City, and we won comfortably 2-0.  I remember seeing Mark Stein playing up front for us.  A very handy striker who, with age, was starting to come down a bit in his career (he had played for Chelsea before us).  He also looked like a small boy with some kind of weird ageing disorder.  A top player though.

This experience was enough.  Being a bit shy I only went because there was someone else who wanted to go too (even the friendly against Southampton was with my Dad).  But after that I was happy to go by myself, and went to nearly every home game that season.  It was a big turnaround compared to previous years and they only just missed out on the play-offs.

There were some great players then.  Richard Hughes who went on to play in the Premiership with Portsmouth.  A great defence as well with full back Neil Young and Jamie Vincent who would overlap in attack (a style of play still adopted to this day) and the centre backs in Ian Cox and a promising young lad called Eddie Howe (I wonder what happened to him?).

Alongside him was Mr Bournemouth himself - Steve Fletcher.  I must admit, I wasn't smitten at first.  A big target man of a centre forward, his job was to dominate in the air, hold up the ball and win flick ons for team mates.

To me he was big, awkward and slow, and not much of a goal scorer.  Others who were Bournemouth hardcore fans explained to me that despite what my eyes had been telling me, he was in fact a legend.  Over time, I got it.

Eddie Howe and Steve Fletcher in their younger day, doing their bit

When in 2009 he scored the only goal in the last game of the season to save Bournemouth from relegation, I got it.  On that day if we had lost we would have been relegated out of the football league altogether, and would soon have gone out of business completely.

Our leading appearance maker covering 20 seasons might not have been Messi, but he gave every bit of himself on the pitch, and we loved him for it.  He now has one of the stands at Dean Court named after him.

Next year is going to be strange for me.  As I said before, I was brought up supporting Manchester United - this is ingrained.

Supporting Bournemouth as well reminds me of what Irish friends have said about supporting football.  In Ireland many support an English team and a Scottish team, knowing that it made no difference because they would never meet.

In the years I have been going to watch Bournemouth I know that a lot of the supporters have other teams they follow as well.  However, there is of course the core of fans who are pure Bournemouth.

For them there was never a choice.  Generations of their family supporting the one club, no matter what division, no matter how little money they had.  These are the fans who put the hands in their own pockets to help save the club time and again from complete destruction.

All of that was just to have a club to watch and support FULL STOP.  However, enter Max Denim, a run of the mill Russian billionaire who lives in Sandbanks.  Many have heard of this tiny area of land on the coast in Poole because it has the highest concentration of millionaires anywhere in Britain.

To many when I say I'm from Poole this is all they know, not realising the Poole is an average working class town, albeit with a big slant towards tourism and a few rich folk with yachts.  Well, one of them provided AFC Bournemouth with a personal loan of £10 million.  This was to stop the club going bankrupt, but now look at us.

There has certainly been money spent on this current squad, but not a ridiculous amount, and certainly very wisely invested.  A few years ago you start to see midfielders and defenders that cost 100-200k here and there.  Not huge sums compared to the big players in the game, but for us more than we had ever been able to spend before.

Throw in to the mix a young genius of a manager in Eddie Howe, and we are now set to join the elite in the Premier league.  He's seen us through from survival in 2009 to being promoted three times in 6 years.  He recently won the football league manager of the decade, quite an accolade to say he hasn't even been in management for the full decade.  But still, an award richly deserved.

I have lived in Manchester for over 10 years, so most of the matches I have seen them in have been away matches around the region.  I have loved every minute.  You get the hardcore support, lots of singing and passion, just what football should be about.

Hoping these Blackpool fans don't kick off.  We had just beaten them 6-1!

Although I'm delighted to see the club in the Premier league next year, there will be changes.  I'm used to turning up to grounds like Bury and Doncaster - big open stadiums in which you pay to enter a certain stand then can sit where you like.  Not that I ever sit of course, I'm stood through out singing my heart out.

Not in the Premier league though, shit hot stewards and cameras, tight controls to make you sit down and shut up.  I think it's fair to say though that after all these years of hard work and pain, the Bournemouth fans will be ready to cheer no matter what conditions they are put in.

I hope to be there singing alongside them too.  That's if they don't mind a weird northern sounding grokel being there, that is.




Bringing me down to earth, I expect my next blog will be about how awful the outcome is from after the election.  I'm not predicting who will win, just that whatever happens, it will be awful...