Yes, but why are all the refugees coming here?

In my last blog I noted how public opinion appeared to be changing around the issue of refugees following the tragic death of Aylan Kurdi.  Even The Sun was willing to suggest that David Cameron should allow Britain to take in larger numbers.

Whilst sympathy towards refugees has grown, there has also been something of a backlash.  The narrative appears to often now be "I understand that there are a lot of people fleeing war, but I don't understand why they're coming here".

The assumption is that large numbers of refugees have travelled right across the continent especially to try and gain access to living in Britain.  The belief being that as there are safe countries in between, if they are coming here it must be for economic reasons.  Or, to be crass, for benefits.

I've noticed this a lot on social media, with friends sharing various images suggesting just this.  I've seen pictures of Grannies asking "why are we not taking care of old people when we are giving asylum seekers £25,000 in benefits each year", and pictures of Europe with an arrow from the middle East to here, passing over a host of countries with the phrase "no war" written over them, and then the UK, Sweden and Germany highlighted with the phrase "benefits" written over them.

As for the first one, that figure of £25k is based on no facts whatsoever.  Seriously, I have tried to see what it could be, and I cannot find anything.  The reality is that asylum seekers get very little in benefits, and can be given as little as £5 a day to survive on.

A number of these images are created by groups such as "Britain First", and shared on Facebook.  Britain First is essentially a Nazi organisation, grown out of membership of the EDL and similar militant racist organisations.  Their aim is simply to whip up race hatred, and they are willing to pull on any strings to get it, whether that be sympathy for our elderly, members of the armed forces, etc.

Putting the propaganda of racist organisations through social media to one side, we still have to deal with the questions it throws up.

"Why are they all coming here?"

This is the idea that a large number of refugees are coming to Britain.  The war in Syria has led to 4 million people fleeing the country.  The vast majority, as is usually the case, are currently in the countries immediately neighbouring Syria, such as Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.

Here, the numbers are so large that it is genuinely a major strain on resources.  The refugee population in Jordan will soon be over 1 million in a country that only has a population of 6 million in the first place.  There are over 1.2 million refugees in Lebanon as well, which has led to a major strain on resources in the camps for basic things such as food and sanitation. (1)

Out of 4 million refugees from Syria only 4000 made it to the UK in the last year.  Of these, only 187 were allowed to settle in the country.

Refugees only come here so they can claim benefits

in 2010, there was research carried out by Swansea University in which they interviewed asylum seekers living in the UK to find out why they came to the country.  What they found was that people who chose to come here did so because they saw the UK as being a fair, democratic country in which you could live free from persecution, and also that it would be a country that would be sympathetic to them.

The vast majority interviewed also showed that they had very little knowledge of the system of welfare in the UK, and came here intending to work.  The main factors in coming to the UK was not the 'pull' factors of benefits, or even jobs and a higher standard of living, but rather 'push' factors - where living became untenable where they were and they had to leave.

Out of those interviewed, 2 thirds paid an agent to get them out of the country they were fleeing, and only knew of the destination once they arrived.(2)

These are the so called people smugglers.  Refugees will be willing to pay these people to help them to escape because it is not something they can do by themselves.  It also shows that they are not necessarily destitute, they can afford to pay.  It is isn't simply poverty that makes them want to leave.

People leave Syria not because they've heard you can get housing benefit in the UK and a free council house, they leave because there are bombs being dropped on their heads, and abuses of their human rights from various forces involved in the war, including the Assad regime and ISIS.

They come here because life is no longer possible in Syria, or even in the neighbouring countries they first arrive in.  They are willing to put their life at risk because that is the desperate choice they have to make.

If we want to stop the people smugglers putting lives at risk, we need to make a route available in which escape is possible.  Not just in the UK, but around Europe and the rest of the world.

There are many pensioners struggling to survive in Britain today, and that is a disgrace.  However, they are not struggling to survive because refugees from Syria are taking all the benefits.  They are struggling to survive because we live under a political system that does not care for them.

It does not care for pensioners in the same way that it does not care for people with disabilities, it does not care about young people, and it does not care about refugees.  We don't have to chose amongst who of the most desperate we help, we simply have to chose whether we care for all them or not.

The bankers put is in this desperate situation, and they've got off scot free, living off their riches which was stolen from us all in the first place.  Blame the bankers, tax the rich, and make sure that everyone, including our most vulnerable in society, are taken care of.

References

(1) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11845205/Why-do-refugees-and-migrants-come-to-Europe-and-what-must-be-done-to-ease-the-crisis.html

(2) - http://www.swansea.ac.uk/international/global-research/whyasylumseekerscometotheuk/

Aylun Kurdi - Maybe we can be allowed to care for everyone now

Aylan Kurdi

There are times when you see a noticeable shift in public opinion, and sometimes a simple image can be all that is needed to trigger it.  When you see the picture of the corpse of 3 year old toddler, Aylan Kurdi, washed up on the beach of Akyarlar in Turkey, your heart breaks.

When watching the news it is easy to let events wash over you.  Even on good days, it is such a torrent of horror that you daren't allow yourself to truly take in what is happening.  When you are told of thousands being killed in a war zone, you note it as any other statistic - without emotion, merely a fact.

But there is something different within you when a young child is killed.  Adults make choices, make decisions, have personal responsibility.  A child does not.  Can not.  The sad news cannot be framed with questions about it's legitimacy, the emotional punch is immediate and without doubt.

Of course it doesn't take much for your brain to kick in and realise that if you feel that sad about a child dying, what about all the other people fleeing war zones?  Suddenly those empty statistics mean something.

There can be no doubt that public opinion has shifted significantly on the issue of this refugee crisis.  I know from experience that immigration can be a major concern for the public.  When campaigning on issues such as the Bedroom Tax I could be in Bolton town centre, for instance, doing a petition.

Getting support for petitions like that was not hard.  People knew the Bedroom Tax was bad news. If it wasn't affecting them personally, they knew someone who it was.  They would talk about the nasty Tory government, and agree with you about why they shouldn't be cutting funding for vital services.  At which point they would usually chime in with why immigration was also a major part of the problem.

At this point you would politely disagree and make an argument why immigration was not the problem.  Most of the time they would agree that you had a point,  but you knew they were not convinced.  After all, when all the newspapers and all of their friends thought differently, why were they going to listen to you?

But what has been really noticeable is the shift for those even on the right wing of politics.  From those quarters that are always vehementally anti-immigration, in any form.  Even they are shifting in their position.

I was reading The Sun (as always, I feel I have to stress it was someone elses copy, I didn't buy it myself!) yesterday.  They called on David Cameron to respond to this crisis and actually help the refugees.

Quite a change of position, and a welcome one.  The piece did, however, go on to explain that a major way he should help the refugees was by taking money from foreign aid budgets and spending it more on bombing ISIS positions in Syria.  Yes, that's right, they think the best thing we can do to help refugees is to bomb their country more!

It's... novel, I'll give them that.  In fairness, The Sun isn't used to trying to care for people, so maybe we should just give them a pat on the back for giving it a go.  Bless.

One of the homeless camps in Manchester

In Manchester at the moment there are currently two homeless camps.  They were both set up by homeless people who have nowhere to go and have protested to the council that all they want is somewhere to live.  Amongst them will be people suffering from mental illness as well as drug and alcohol dependency.  In short, these are people most in need of help.

But there is nowhere for them. The councils approach is to try to evict them from the areas they have set up their camps.  Again, a novel approach - evicting homeless people from sleeping on the street.  Have they been getting tips from The Sun?

But when you see this it does raise the question - If we don't have the resources to help people already living here, can we really provide help for large numbers of people coming here from abroad?

Sadly, the answer is probably not.

But I would suggest that the problem here is the question.  If you ask "do we have the resources that if we did things differently, we could actually help homeless people?"  The answer is yes.  If the answer to that question is yes, then you can also help refugees.

We don't have enough housing full stop, but we really don't have enough council housing.  This has been because of deliberate policies by previous Labour and Tory administrations.  This is why we need to get Jeremy Corbyn elected as leader of the Labour Party, to provide real opposition to the murderous doctrine of 'austerity'.  Then we can smash the Tory government.

Not that you rely on the Labour Party for that, but Corbyn's election will be inspiring for 1000s of activists around the country that need to organise the fight back, inside and outside of the Labour Party.

Refugees are welcome here, the Tories and 'austerity' are not!

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...