In the latest polls, Labour has slumped to 16 points behind the Tories. As The Times notes, this is their lowest since the disastrous year (for Labour at least) of 1983. It appears that nearly 50% of people think that Alistair Darling is a crap Chancellor and Gordon Brown has his lowest rating since becoming PM. Vince Cable has accused Gordon Brown of making a transformation "from Stalin to Mr. Bean" and I'm beginning to wonder whether it's time for the government to go.
Back in June I was quite the support of Gordon Brown - I was somehow under the impression that he'd be a good PM and better than Tony Blair. I think now I'm being proven wrong.
When Blair first became PM in 1997 progress was made quickly. We had the referendums and subsequent devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, along with the London Assembly. There was progress in Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement was reached. We had the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act. The House of Lords reforms began and some control over monetary policy was handed to the Bank of England. On top of this, Tony Blair was (emphasis on was) charismatic and popular.
Contrast this to Gordon Brown and we have the Northern Rock crisis, several episodes of large scale data loss, the row over the new EU treaty and now a disappointing budget. To top it off, we've got some idiotic nationalistic policies suggesting that children should swear allegiance to the Queen and citizenship tests for immigrants that the average Brit would struggle to pass. Gordon Brown was first compared to Stalin but is now seen to be more like Mr. Bean. He's a boring bloke and can't relate or capture the imagination of the public. People look at him and think back to the failures of the past 8 months and the final years of the Blair era.
Many of the recent fuck-ups could be pinned down to the Chancellor, but people aren't stupid enough to see him as the cause of the problem. Gordon wasn't compared to Stalin for no reason. Each and every minister is a puppet of his and he is in control of policy. To sack a minister for a fuck-up would be pointless as people associate the problems with Brown.
I'm not a fan of the Tories at all and I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of David Cameron as Prime Minister but I'm beginning to think that few years of Tory rule wouldn't be a bad thing. If anything it would give Labour the chance to sit back and sort themselves out, regrouping under a new leader (read: David Miliband).
16 March 2008
2 March 2008
Prince Harry in Afghanistan
Over the past few days, the media has been full of the stories about Prince Harry secretly serving with the Army in Afghanistan. His deployment was kept secret and he was pulled out when a US website (the Drudge Report) leaked the information.
Many aren't happy about the decision to send him to war and have been completely against it since he joined the Army. Last year, it was decided that he wouldn't serve in Iraq as it was too risky. There was the fear that he'd become a target and put others in danger. Some thought that he, as a royal, was too important to send to war.
In my opinion, Harry should have been sent to war a long time ago. It's what he joined the Army for and the public speculation simply made it impossible. There's a risk of any soldier getting killed and that should be no different for Harry. You simply don't join the Army if you don't want to risk that.
The other point that irritates me is that some people seemingly believe that he should receive greater protection purely because he is a member of the Royal Family. This should not be the case - the lives of the Royals are just as important as everyone else in the country (and specifically, every soldier in the Army). If the Royal Family is to cling on to whatever shreds of legitimacy it may have left, there needs to be no debate over issues like these - Harry should have been deployed with the rest of his troops. End of.
Unfortunately, if Harry was killed or injured, the political fall out would be huge. The Conservatives, the right-wing press and a vast proportion of the people would blame the government (and more specifically Blair and Brown). Although most have said that he should serve, that statement is probably often made on the condition that he doesn't get killed or harmed.
What does scare me is how long media hysteria and the disgust of the people would continue for if anything had happened to Harry. Princess Diana died over 10 years ago and we still hear about that everyday. Her death is still regularly making the front page of the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the othernationalist fascist newspapers. I don't think I could stand it if we had to go through that all over again.
Many aren't happy about the decision to send him to war and have been completely against it since he joined the Army. Last year, it was decided that he wouldn't serve in Iraq as it was too risky. There was the fear that he'd become a target and put others in danger. Some thought that he, as a royal, was too important to send to war.
In my opinion, Harry should have been sent to war a long time ago. It's what he joined the Army for and the public speculation simply made it impossible. There's a risk of any soldier getting killed and that should be no different for Harry. You simply don't join the Army if you don't want to risk that.
The other point that irritates me is that some people seemingly believe that he should receive greater protection purely because he is a member of the Royal Family. This should not be the case - the lives of the Royals are just as important as everyone else in the country (and specifically, every soldier in the Army). If the Royal Family is to cling on to whatever shreds of legitimacy it may have left, there needs to be no debate over issues like these - Harry should have been deployed with the rest of his troops. End of.
Unfortunately, if Harry was killed or injured, the political fall out would be huge. The Conservatives, the right-wing press and a vast proportion of the people would blame the government (and more specifically Blair and Brown). Although most have said that he should serve, that statement is probably often made on the condition that he doesn't get killed or harmed.
What does scare me is how long media hysteria and the disgust of the people would continue for if anything had happened to Harry. Princess Diana died over 10 years ago and we still hear about that everyday. Her death is still regularly making the front page of the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the other
25 February 2008
Ashes to Ashes
Whilst I was an avid fan of Life on Mars, I'm feeling a bit mixed about the new series, Ashes to Ashes.
Life on Mars was awesome. The show had a new concept and there was an air of mystery. It wasn't until the end of the second series that we found out that the 1970s world was all in Sam's head. He was in a coma in hospital and had imagined it all. In Ashes to Ashes, we know that Alex Drake has been shot and is imagining everything. She knows this and keeps reminding us of her situation (perhaps more than Sam questioned whether his situation was real or if he was imagining it). You can't empathise with the character because you know that it's all in her head and that at some point she will either wake up or die.
On the other hand, Philip Glennister is just as good as Gene Hunt as he was in Life on Mars. As arguably the most popular character of Life on Mars, Ashes gives him an even bigger spotlight. Sam Tyler's problem was adapting to the 1970s (of which Gene Hunt was merely a part) - in Ashes, Drake's trouble is working with Hunt - not the 80s. In Ashes, Gene Hunt is perhaps more arrogant and just as politically incorrect as he was in Life on Mars.
The show also tries far too hard to make portray the 80s. In Life on Mars, 70s music was only played occasionally and often to enhance the scene - in Ashes, 80s music is played often and usually without much reason. It tries too hard and looses the subtly of Life on Mars. Having said that, the show is still good. It hasn't met it's potential but I have enjoyed it so far and I will continue to watch it, just not as avidly as its predecessor.
Life on Mars was awesome. The show had a new concept and there was an air of mystery. It wasn't until the end of the second series that we found out that the 1970s world was all in Sam's head. He was in a coma in hospital and had imagined it all. In Ashes to Ashes, we know that Alex Drake has been shot and is imagining everything. She knows this and keeps reminding us of her situation (perhaps more than Sam questioned whether his situation was real or if he was imagining it). You can't empathise with the character because you know that it's all in her head and that at some point she will either wake up or die.
On the other hand, Philip Glennister is just as good as Gene Hunt as he was in Life on Mars. As arguably the most popular character of Life on Mars, Ashes gives him an even bigger spotlight. Sam Tyler's problem was adapting to the 1970s (of which Gene Hunt was merely a part) - in Ashes, Drake's trouble is working with Hunt - not the 80s. In Ashes, Gene Hunt is perhaps more arrogant and just as politically incorrect as he was in Life on Mars.
The show also tries far too hard to make portray the 80s. In Life on Mars, 70s music was only played occasionally and often to enhance the scene - in Ashes, 80s music is played often and usually without much reason. It tries too hard and looses the subtly of Life on Mars. Having said that, the show is still good. It hasn't met it's potential but I have enjoyed it so far and I will continue to watch it, just not as avidly as its predecessor.
20 February 2008
National Rock
As most people (at least those in touch with current affairs) will know by now, the stricken bank Northern Rock is in the process of being nationalised by the government.
Many have been critical of the nationalisation and the billions of pounds of public money lent to the Rock to stop it from failing. Northern Rock was a private institution operating within the "free" (but how free is it if the government is prepared to intervene like this?) market. If the market were allowed to take its natural course, the Rock would have gone bust. Shareholders would have completely lost out and many would have lost their savings (although the government now protects these). By pumping so many billions in to the Rock, the government had hoped that it could stop it from falling. It couldn't and to cut a long story short, the bank has had to be nationalised.
The government has dithered for months to try and avoid nationalising the bank. Nationalisation is a last resort. The word itself is 'dirty', tainted by the free market Thatcherite policies that began in the 1980s. For many it has throw-backs to the 1970s and the days of Labour nationalising the big industries. This isn't the case.
If Gordon Brown had wanted to nationalise the bank he would have done it back in September, instead of dragging this saga on and on. Nationalisation of banks could be seen as a socialist policy, but when implemented as a last resort, this is clearly the wrong view to have.
Even in America, leader of the free world and free market capitalism, banks have come close to nationalisation when the fail. In the 1980s, under the neo-liberal presidency of Ronald Reagan, the Federal Reserve bailed out the Continental Illinois National Bank. Letting the bank fall would have had a hugely negative knock-on effect on the economy and this was to be avoided at all costs. The situation is the same with Northern Rock.
Nationalisation is the best solution for most parties. Taxpayers gain as the bank will stay in public ownership until it can be given back to the market (when conditions improve), savers will gain as they don't lose their money. It is the shareholders who will lose out. The government will pay compensation but only a minimal amount, resulting in some shareholders plans to sue the government.
However, these shareholders are, in my opinion, missing the point and getting caught up in their own greed. Shareholders are capitalists. They invest money with the aim of making a profit but know the there is a risk of losing that money. Profit is not guaranteed. This is how capitalism works, and in this case, the shareholders lost. This is the price of investing in such a risky business.
The government will however be the ultimate loser. The dithering and constant indecision has caused many to lose faith in Gordon Brown's government. The Lib Dems have been calling for nationalisation for a long time, but with the opposition to nationalisation now, even though there isn't much choice, it's likely that the government would not have been able to win in either situation.
Many have been critical of the nationalisation and the billions of pounds of public money lent to the Rock to stop it from failing. Northern Rock was a private institution operating within the "free" (but how free is it if the government is prepared to intervene like this?) market. If the market were allowed to take its natural course, the Rock would have gone bust. Shareholders would have completely lost out and many would have lost their savings (although the government now protects these). By pumping so many billions in to the Rock, the government had hoped that it could stop it from falling. It couldn't and to cut a long story short, the bank has had to be nationalised.
The government has dithered for months to try and avoid nationalising the bank. Nationalisation is a last resort. The word itself is 'dirty', tainted by the free market Thatcherite policies that began in the 1980s. For many it has throw-backs to the 1970s and the days of Labour nationalising the big industries. This isn't the case.
If Gordon Brown had wanted to nationalise the bank he would have done it back in September, instead of dragging this saga on and on. Nationalisation of banks could be seen as a socialist policy, but when implemented as a last resort, this is clearly the wrong view to have.
Even in America, leader of the free world and free market capitalism, banks have come close to nationalisation when the fail. In the 1980s, under the neo-liberal presidency of Ronald Reagan, the Federal Reserve bailed out the Continental Illinois National Bank. Letting the bank fall would have had a hugely negative knock-on effect on the economy and this was to be avoided at all costs. The situation is the same with Northern Rock.
Nationalisation is the best solution for most parties. Taxpayers gain as the bank will stay in public ownership until it can be given back to the market (when conditions improve), savers will gain as they don't lose their money. It is the shareholders who will lose out. The government will pay compensation but only a minimal amount, resulting in some shareholders plans to sue the government.
However, these shareholders are, in my opinion, missing the point and getting caught up in their own greed. Shareholders are capitalists. They invest money with the aim of making a profit but know the there is a risk of losing that money. Profit is not guaranteed. This is how capitalism works, and in this case, the shareholders lost. This is the price of investing in such a risky business.
The government will however be the ultimate loser. The dithering and constant indecision has caused many to lose faith in Gordon Brown's government. The Lib Dems have been calling for nationalisation for a long time, but with the opposition to nationalisation now, even though there isn't much choice, it's likely that the government would not have been able to win in either situation.
Comment is free
After being bugged and told that I should, I'm going to make another attempt at blogging. I've lost count of the number of times that I've tried to do this now and I'm making no promises on the success of this attempt.
The reasons for another attempt:
For the most part I'm going to try and attempt to blog about current affairs issues. I don't want to bring any personal stuff in to this - I'll keep that to Facebook - and I want to try and give people something remotely interesting to read. If no one does read this, then so be it - hopefully I'll get something out of my writing.
Having learnt from past experience, I'm not going to set myself any wild targets like "one post per day". That very quickly became a chore when there was nothing I particularly wanted to comment on and I will get lazy. Because of this, I'm going to aim for a minimum of one post per week, or a post on anything major in the headlines that grabs my eye.
I'll keep this one short. Keep checking back, or subscribe to the feed, and hopefully I'll deliver some content.
The reasons for another attempt:
- People actually read the last blog (apparently)
- It will help improve my writing skills
- It will force me to keep up to date with current affairs
- It will help me develop my own opinion on issues and further educate myself
For the most part I'm going to try and attempt to blog about current affairs issues. I don't want to bring any personal stuff in to this - I'll keep that to Facebook - and I want to try and give people something remotely interesting to read. If no one does read this, then so be it - hopefully I'll get something out of my writing.
Having learnt from past experience, I'm not going to set myself any wild targets like "one post per day". That very quickly became a chore when there was nothing I particularly wanted to comment on and I will get lazy. Because of this, I'm going to aim for a minimum of one post per week, or a post on anything major in the headlines that grabs my eye.
I'll keep this one short. Keep checking back, or subscribe to the feed, and hopefully I'll deliver some content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)