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!

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.

Ed Milliband and his "lack of personality" politics

Ed Milliband and Wallace.  A better brother than David, to be fair.

Increasingly, it seems, personality is dominating politics.  Especially the world of mainstream politics.  But then, this shouldn't be surprising.  Deciding on who to vote for in elections should come down to differences in policy, differences in the ideological outlook of the party in question.  But there doesn't seem to be any difference.

Living is tough, and it's felt like this for years now.  There are no leading political figures who are coming up with an alternative. Not even the suggestion of one.  As such, it's hardly surprising that when we decide which political party to vote for that personality is where we start.

In these depressing terms Ed Milliband is currently losing amongst the leaders of the three main parties.  According to official YouGov polls he's even less popular than Nick Clegg.  That's like finding out your girlfriend is dumping you for Julien Blanc!

The Sun, along with the rest of the right wing press, enjoy making as many disparaging comments about Ed Milliband's appearance as they can.  One repeated aspect has been to compare him to Wallace.

In many ways of course this is a weak argument as Wallace appears to be far more human like in his appearance.  Also, Ed Milliband would kill to have even just an inch of Wallace's likeability.

The next obvious thing for columnists and political cartoonists to employ would be to compare anyone close to him as being like Gromit, Wallace's faithful hound.  Except for this comparison to work you would need someone, anyone, to openly ally themselves to Ed Milliband in the first place.

Instead, the bulk of the Labour movement appear to be distancing themselves from him as much as possible.  Almost like being unpopular is a disease you can get from close contact.

There are indeed many who would prefer Ed Balls to replace Ed Milliband as leader.  A bizarre concept if you are just looking at personality as he doesn't exactly exude a winning confidence.  Also, as immature as it is... he's called Balls.  I mean, come on...

Of course personality shouldn't be the issue.  I'm adding to the criticism here as well, I know that.  But the problem is, he doesn't give us anything else to go on.

Compared to all the other leaders, he doesn't say anything different.  Austerity is necessary, immigration is a problem, we all need to tighten our belts.  It's the same script that all the other leaders are reading from.

When you realise that, why not decide on who to vote for according to the colour of their tie or how good they look eating a sandwich?

Ed Millband eating a bacon sandwich.  Erm... that's it.

In fact, at the next election, the ballot paper should have the names of the parties represented removed and simply comprise of pictures of the different nominees eating sandwiches.  Sounds glib, but if it was actually a beauty contest at least Nigel Farage would miss out!

Only 4 years ago, it actually looked different.  In the Labour Party leadership election we had various options.  The favourite choice was David Milliband, who represented a continuation of Blairite politics.  Nice suit, nice smile, business as usual.  Privatisation and genocide, hand in hand, just like his old boss.

On the left was Diane Abbott.  Essentially there for the sake of it, but that being no bad thing.  If she could help drag the argument to the left, all the better.  Any socialist with a vote knew she had no chance, but was glad she was there.

Then came Ed Milliband.  Not a left winger, nor had he really played a prominent role previously.  But he stood out.

At every election when a party suffers a set back prominent members interviewed speak of the need to "listen to the voters, and learn from our mistakes".  The mistakes are never actually openly declared, and as such nothing is learnt and the voters are ignored.

However, during the Labour Party leadership Ed Milliband said that the Labour party had made a number of mistakes, such as the Iraq War.  Wow!

Yes, it's the bleeding obvious, but from a candidate that actually stood a chance of winning, this was amazing.  Faced with the prospect that maybe real change could happen within the Labour Party, it is hardly surprising that ordinary members and Trade Union members (who also had the right to vote in the election if their Union was affiliated to the Labour Party) flocked to him.

Now, 4 years later, it of course turned out to be a lot of smoke.  Now he sticks to the script, and has nothing to say for himself.  Tired, boring and pointless.  His comparison to an animated work of fiction is by far the most interesting aspect of his existence.

We deserve better than this.  At the next election I, along with many others, will vote for Labour.  We always do, and we have to hold our noses as we do it, but we know that even now there is a difference between Labour and the Tories.  Paper thin though it may be.

Working people - the alternative to Dave, Nick and Ed

If there is anything to learn from mainstream politics as it now stands it's that if nothing else, the solution will not come from elections.  The system itself is utterly corrupt, and the parties available only want to slightly tweak it.

It needs changing.  Utterly and fundamentally.  Grass roots campaigning, active Trade Union membership, there are other alternative forms of democracy.  It's not enough just to get angry, but it's a start.  If we accept it the way it is, we leave all the big decisions to whoever has received the most effective media training in how to eat their dinner.

Student life, then and now

This week I had an article published online with Now Then Magazine, an arts, culture and politics magazine in Manchester.  In this article I look at the impact of the student population returning to the city, and reflect on how my experience coming to the city in 2001 would compare to today.  Enjoy!

http://nowthenmagazine.com/manchester/issue-13/student-life/

What exactly is militant Liberalism?

The militants lair

Comedian Andrew Lawrence caused something of a minor shit-storm in comedy circles last week by posting on Facebook criticism of comedians appearing on BBC programs such as Mock the Week.  The general gist was that there are a lot of comedians making cheap jokes about UKIP, and he blames a liberal elite within the corporation, and the laziness of comics.

What could have been a contribution to a debate, however incorrect, was somewhat mired with statements bemoaning

"...moronic, liberal back-slapping on panel shows like Mock The Week where aging, balding, fat men, ethnic comedians and women-posing-as-comedians, sit congratulating themselves on how enlightened they are about the fact that UKIP are ridiculous and pathetic."

I think the part that particularly annoyed many was the concept of "women-posing-as-comedians."  It feels almost like he is imagining a producer with a need to fill quotas desperately searching for any woman he can find.  Eventually the char lady has powder applied and, bewildered and blinking under the studio lights, is sat next to Hugh Dennis and told not to break anything.

Contained within the entire statement are a number of breath-taking examples of foetid nonsense.  However, I don't intend on writing specifically in response to Andrew Lawrence, as plenty have already taken up that challenge.

What I will do though is pick up on one particular gem from it all.  He accuses the BBC of "deeply ingrained militant Liberal politics."

What exactly are militant Liberal politics?

The campaign against library closures steps up a notch

For a start I can't imagine an armed struggle being waged by a political faction in the name of liberalism.

A sniper assassinating government advisers on drug policies in a bid to further the aim of de-criminalising marajuana; "Outrage" kidnapping The Queen and forcing her to marry a Lesbian; a "No to page 3" activist pretending to go in for a topless photo shoot only to reveal under her blouse a bomb vest, taking out half of Fleet St.

Doesn't seem too likely does it?

Complaints about the BBC being too Liberal are not uncommon.  We hear it all the time from the likes of the Sun and other right-wing newspapers.  But then, complaining about bias of the corporation against a political position is not just the reserve of the right.

At the height of the anti-war movement against the invasion of Iraq we were always amazed at how you could get so little coverage of demonstrations, despite 10,000's people taking to the streets.  Thousands marching on any subject should surely be newsworthy?

When Israel stepped up it's murderous campaign against Palestinians, activists were again complaining about a pro-Israel bias.  But at the same time Zionists and other supporters of Israel were complaining that it instead had a pro-Palestinian bias!

What that suggests is that while it may not be perfect, and will always make mistakes, maybe the BBC is pretty unbiased after all.

Anyway, the suggestion that UKIP could complain about bias against them from the BBC is ridiculous.  Can anyone remember an episode of Question Time that didn't feature one of their members on the panel?  Whenever immigration is mentioned in any capacity in the news, there always appears to be a UKIP spokesperson on hand.

There is every possibility you may be reading that last bit of criticism of UKIP thinking "but you would say that, you're a Liberal"  To which I would say "get stuffed, I'm not a Liberal!  I'm a Socialist!!"

You can't argue with facts

A liberal wants to gently tweak the already existing Status Quo, where-as I want to change the entire system because it's the system that's at fault.  Agree with me or not but you would have to admit, that's militant!

A few comedians on Mock the Week suggesting Nigel Farage looks like a muppet?  No, that's not militant.  I understand in that context why supporters of right wing parties might complain about their treatment.

I mean, thank God no-one ever mentions Ed Miliband's appearance... oh, wait...

My, my, isn't everything sh*t?

Ever wondered what a shaved Muppet would look like?

Isn't life just grand at the moment?

The Scottish population voted no in the referendum, Ebola has taken countless lives, IS have chopped off a charity workers head and UKIP have their first MP.  Oh, and to top it all off I've had a cold.  Who doesn't love the feeling of waking each morning like a fairy has sand-papered the back of your throat and stuffed your sinuses with wax?

Oh no, wait... that feeling is horrible!  This fever must be going to my head.

International news and politics can seem troublesome at the best of times but gosh, doesn't it all just feel particularly crappy right now?  I had very much nailed my colours to the mast in favour of a Yes vote in the Scottish referendum for a start (as detailed in this POST).

Unfortunately, I had also predicted that the No campaign would win.  Why?  Because despite the campaign being utterly negative, it was the easier thing to do.  The mass of people are not arseholes on purpose, they just go for what they see as the most balanced option.

People want to be balanced.  They want to be fair.  They want to exist in the middle ground, and hate anything they consider to be "extremism".  Unfortunately the centre ground is not a nice place, and the agenda set is not of our making as much as we think it is.

The morning after the referendum result I put on breakfast television to see Nigel Farage.  That's enough to ruin anyone's Corn Flakes.  He was saying, and has been joined by quite a chorus of right wingers since, that now we had the debate around Scottish independence, it was now time for the debate around English independence.

Yes Scotland, you had forgotten about UKIP hadn't you?  They hadn't been mentioned for a few weeks in the hope it would slip your memory that THIS is what being in the Union entails, but tough, they do exist!

Urgh...

What's worse, with the help of the media bosses, they are dragging the centre ground in their direction.  Immigration really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things for the financial fortunes of this country and it's population, but people think it does, and that's enough.

The Labour party should of course be arguing against UKIP's lies, but the truth is that it's the minority who think they sit in the centre that decide elections.  It's not the richest voters or the poorest voters that ultimately effect elections (although the richest always come out on top in this system anyway).  It's the swing voters.  In America it was Ohio, in Britain Tony Blair dubbed this voter "Lexus Man".

Unfortunately, Lexus Man is a dick.

Sure, he's had to tighten his belt as economic pressures have taken hold.  But where-as the poorest are having their benefits cut, being robbed through the bedroom tax, and having to rely on food banks, Lexus man is having to reconsider his holiday plans this year.

The poorest know the Tories are bastards, but Lexus Man swallows everything he reads in the paper and thinks immigrants are to blame.  Added to that he is genuinely scared about Islamic "extremism", so this only furthers his distrust of "others".

Unfortunately, in the current system, Labour know they have to rely on his vote.  That's why they talk tough on immigration.

UKIP will take Labour votes, but no-where near as many as people think.  In the Middleton and Heywood by-election the UKIP vote increased by 36%, placing them second and within just 600+ votes of Labour, who won.  However, the Labour vote actually went up by 1%.

The Tories votes went down by 15%, and the Lib Dems 18%.  This is where the UKIP vote came from.  However, Labour are hoping to win over Lib Dem voters in the next general election.  If a large portion of that vote goes to UKIP, they might well struggle.

But, and this is very important, whenever the main political parties try to "out-UKIP" UKIP, it back-fires.  You cannot simply steal their clothing.  By arguing their agenda, you push their agenda, and it is only UKIP who ultimately win.

Not a real worker, or British - an Irish actor.  Oops.

Of course there will be working class voters who will vote UKIP.  But the most significant part of the traditional Labour vote is being torn apart by the Tories austerity measures.  Don't forget, UKIP are basically the party that look at the Tories and think that they are "too soft"!  Just five minutes reading up on their plans for the NHS is enough to give even the most hardy horror movie fan the shivers.

If Labour want to succeed perhaps they could try displaying principles.  The kind of principles that I know the mass bulk of their membership have.  Perhaps if they argue against the bigoted nonsense of UKIP they can drag the agenda back leftwards, towards the centre again.  Perhaps then Lexus Man might realise that UKIP are just a bunch of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists".

After all, Lexus Man hates extremism, doesn't he?

Scotland - show us how it's done!

A Nation decides

If there's one thing I like to be, it's unique.  Yes - cutting edge. niche.  Yep, that's me.  So here's a blog on the Scottish referendum...

Ok, ok, so this is going to be just one more chirrup emitting from a spring meadow full of rutting Crickets.  I realise that.  However, this is also a subject I feel passionately about.  I may be English born and bred, but I very strongly believe that Scotland should vote for independence.

Am I alone in taking this position?  Hardly.  But there do seem to be a lot of English people I know (can't move for 'em!) that seem to be taking the existence of the referendum as a personal slur.  In a "how dare they not want to be British like me.  What's wrong with me?"

First of all, have you seen our government?  The fear we seem to have about our identity that makes us paranoid that the Scottish don't want to be our friends any more is displayed in our voting.  It's led by fear all the way.

We voted the Tories in to power, despite them only representing the "1%".  Very much the nasty party they are slashing benefits and privatising off our public services.  In opposition is Labour, a party created by the workers, who only continue to vote for them because the alternative is the Tories.  And the party of opposition?  UKIP.  The definitive party of fear itself.

Fear has also griped the referendum in Scotland, perpetuated by the NO campaign.  Their arguments for Scotland to remain in the union is mostly centred around what currency could be used, which at it's root is essentially going "do you want the Euro??"

Talk of how much money Scotland gets in subsidies is also an issue.  It's true that the Barnett Formula (look it up if you want your head scrambled) is unfairly in Scotland's favour over other countries in the UK.  However, the simple fact is that at current rates, oil and gas revenues which would be in Scotland's hands mean that they would be better off financially per head of population compared to staying as part of the UK.

This is, genuinely, the best people they've got.

Not all arguments for the NO campaign are as base as this.  I heard a Scottish University Professor on Radio 4 this afternoon explaining that he would be voting to stay as part of the Union because he felt he had as much in common with people in England and Wales as he did with people in Scotland.

This is fair enough.  An intelligent person explaining simply that he doesn't believe in Nationalism.  I feel exactly the same, but then I also feel the same connection with working people in France, America, India... basically the world over.

The truth is, whilst it may be the motivation for some, this vote is too important to just be about national identity or receiving a slight increase in public spending.

The reason the Scottish should vote for independence is that the system they would have would be so much better.  The system of Proportional Representation is more democratic for a start.  But better than that, the Tories are only the third party, it is dominated by the SNP (who are a social democratic party) and Scottish Labour.

Since devolution, the Labour party in Scotland have been much more left wing than in the rest of Britain precisely because their opposition has been the SNP rather than the Tories.  What powers they have had has been put to much better use than what the parties in the rest of the UK have managed to do.

The world we live in means this couldn't be a perfect system, but it could be so much better.  An alternative to the slash and burn austerity that the Tories favour so much.  It's not without merit that Alex Salmond suggests that the NHS would be safer in an independent Scotland than left to the UK government.

I fear that the NO campaign will win because undecided voters when faced with a choice will go with what seems like the safer, more conservative option.  But my God I hope they make the strong choice.

Vote for independence and show us in the rest of the UK what can be done in a world where the Tories are barely relevant.  This will only happen if they choose to reject the politics of fear.  Hopefully, we might be able to follow their example and do the same.

YES!!!

Rotherham, and why we shouldn't listen to the racists.

So what next for this stand-up comedians lighted hearted blog posts?  A post about the Rotherham recent child abuse scandal?  Well, that is bound to be a wheeze.  Ho, ho, ho, strap in comedy lovers...

Well, maybe not.  Yes, I am covering that subject, but I must admit that a report uncovering the sexual exploitation and abuse of over 1400 children in Rotheram isn't exactly a giggle fest.  Still, as with any major news story, there are plenty of contradictions at play.

First was watching the BBC news two mornings ago which included an interview with the group "Parents Against Child Sexual Exploitation".  It twisted my mind as to why such a group existed.  After all, who would be against that group?

The other issue is the groups name.  Why "parents" against child sexual exploitation and not just "people"?  I don't have children myself, but does that mean they think I would be in some way neutral on the issue?  Would I be expected to complain to the BBC, demanding to know why they hadn't invited on a pro-paedophile spokesperson to provide balance?  No, I will be happily maintaining my license fee payments for the foreseeable future.

Of course a big issue with this case is the impact of race and racism, as the perpetrators here were mostly men from a Pakistani background.  With the ongoing rumblings of Investigation Yewtree turning up historical abuse cases involving mostly white male celebrities, you might be fooled in to thinking that overall race isn't really a factor.  But that's not going to hold the right wing press back.

Reading The Sun on Thursday, unsurprisingly, warmed my urine to a rolling boil.  A particular highlight being columnist Trevor Kavanagh's take on the issue, where he blames:

'mostly white, mostly Labour politicians and police... (who) represent a political class, backed by the BBC, who waved in millions of migrants during 13 years of Labour government under the discredited flag of multiculturalism.  Their avowed objective was to change the face of Britain which they deemed to be "too white"'

Of course!!  How stupid of me not to realise that the problem all along was caused by Labour, the BBC and multiculturalism!  Case solved, thanks Trev.

Aside from rantings by columnists such as Kavangh, the general argument is that the police in Rotherham, backed by Labour, didn't investigate the claims out of a fear of being seen as racist.  It would be easy to write off this argument as barking mad, because it is.  For a start, the police not wanting to be racist???  My, my, how times change.

Scarily though, you cannot just ignore this argument, because it is one that is seated well and truly in the mainstream.  The Sun are not alone in turning this horrific story about child abuse in to one for their own agenda attacking Labour and multiculturalism.

In reality, the real problem in this case is precisely the same problem as there was in the case against Jimmy Saville.  Victims and their families were blamed for the abuse, and ignored.

£60k salary v. honour.  Salary wins!

Police in Rotherham ignored the complaints because they saw the girls as complicit in their own abuse.  "If you hang around with that kind of crowd, what do you expect to happen", was their position.  In reality, where girls in any way "chose" to spend time with their abusers, that was as a result of grooming.  That's how it works, and that is why there is an age of consent.  They are children, not consenting adults, and they need protecting.

Perhaps there is some cultural aspect as to why a minority of Pakistani men thought it was acceptable to abuse young girls (and not exclusively white girls either, like the media often suggests).  But then, there is a cultural explanation as to why older white celebrities thought it was ok to do exactly the same.

As much as I mocked the name of "Parents Against Child Sexual Exploitation" before, one thing you can say is that they don't make any issue of race.  They, and anyone who is genuinely concerned with helping put a stop to child abuse in this way, say that the real issue is to put a stop to victim blaming, and for the police to take complaints seriously.