Friends on benefits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spongers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People on benefits are not the enemy.

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!

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...

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!!!