Euro elections.

You'll notice the lack of a witty title. I'm too depressed to come up with one.

I try to present myself here as a political neutral. However with regards to the far right parties I do take a stance. And it is in firm opposition.

I live in the Yorkshire and Humber region at present. I am appalled by the election of a BNP MEP.

Whats worse is that I am appalled by the number of people voting for them. Some may be protest votes, others maybe only voting on one issue and ignoring all the others, but there have still got to be a large number of people who have chosen BNP in the full knowledge and understanding of what they represent and have chosen irregardless!

I did vote. (I shan't say who for but it was not the BNP) and I encouraged everyone I could to vote. Why? Because a proportional representation system will always favour parties that appeal to extremists since these people will go out and vote while those in the middle ground often don't. This point is clearly shown by Nick Griffin in the North West who got in despite getting fewer votes than last time! How can this system be reasonable? And people want it the General election? Lets just think about that and realise that doing so will give the BNP and other extremist parties and real chance of getting large numbers of people into Parliament. Which would be an outright disaster.

But who is the blame. Well in Hull it's simple. The other parties. No campaigners have called at my house. I have received only a handful of election flyers. Labour said if the Tories get in to Westminster, Westminster mark you, not Brussels which is what we were voting on, it would be a disaster. Lib Dems simply put out their usual flyer of "only the Lib Dems can beat Labour in Hull", completely irrelevant in a region wide election. The Tories were a little better, actually commenting on issues and stating policies that were appropriate to the European Parliament, but since I never even knew we had Tory MEPs in this area their stating what they've done now was perhaps a little late. And the BNP flyer. This was only talking about policy. Now most of it will be unachievable in the European Parliament but the fact was they presented clear policy up front whereas every other party you had to wade through a mass of material to find policies if they were even there! There was little opposition bashing which took up most of the other campaign leaflets and is probably the biggest turn off to politics in the known world.

In our democratic system we do have to say that the BNP were elected freely and fairly and we must respect the will of people in this. But I do not like it and I condemn the other parties for their weak, ineffectual and lazy campaigning which allowed this to happen. Most people given a choice between a person who presents themselves as straight forward and someone who waffles on and says nothing will choose the former even if they know he is holding something back. Shame on you the main stream parties. It is you that allowed this to happen and no amount of blaming the system, blaming protest votes, blaming ineffectual leaders or public influence can excuse you. I can only hope that in the next few months you will find the moral conviction to realise that it your parties that can prevent this getting worse come the general election. And you had better do something about it.

5/6/2009 D-Day for Labour

The 65th anniversary of the normandy landing isn't till tomorrow. But right now I'd imagine that Brown and the Labour party feel a bit like the soldiers on the eve of the battle. The German ones.

Last night the polls closed at 10pm. At 10:01 James Purnell, the minister for work and pensions resigned. His resignation letter was a statement of no confidence in Gordon Brown.

This morning Brown is declaring his reshuffle. Early. And thus far without the major head rolling that was expected. A sign of weakness? The rest of the day will tell.

Also the local elections are not looking good. Labour has lost Bristol and the tories and Lib Dems have both made gains.

More as the day goes on.

PMQs-3/6/2009 The house still on holiday

Not a lot happened to day so don't expect a long update.

After 4 of Cameron's questions Brown had won. After all 6 it was a no score draw. Cameron was toothless in attack throughout. Brown stayed calm and gave measured, if uninformative responses. However on question 5 and 6 he got carried away and launch into his loud angry rhetoric which once again showed that he has no grasp of what the general public wants to hear.

Clegg's questions were not worth the breath he expelled asking them.

Away from that it was a standard question time.

Oh how I wish the speaker had carried out his threat to suspend the house. That would have been much more fun.

Exciting Times ahead

This week will be rather interesting. We have local elections (labour expected to get a kicking), European elections (potentially all the main parties to get a kicking) and a confirmed reshuffle which will see a new home secretary (as Jacqui Smith is stepping down), probably a new communities secretary, possibly a new chancellor and maybe other changes as well.

The possibility of a new chancellor is the most interesting. Since Brown still gives the strong impression of wanting to run the economy from number 10 any replacement would have to be a loyal Brownite and the Tories would immediately construe it as an admission that this chancellor wasn't up to the job.

We'll just have to see.

Politics update

Parliament is in recess this week so no PMQs update. However it is a good time, now the dust is settling a bit, to take stock of the fallout of the last few weeks.

The speaker has forced from office by weight of opinion in the commons (although frankly this was just a scapegoat attempt by MPs). The precedent here, breaking the last 300 years of tradition, is potentially alarming for the power of parliament but of limited significance to the wider public who are largely unaffected by the speakers authority.

The re-selection of MPs as candidates for the next election is looking more unlikely in many constituencies. Some of the back benchers taking the worst heat from the Telegraph have already declared they will not be standing. This morning a Tory mp on radio 5 attempted a bleeding heart defence of her claims saying that she was only trying to balance her parliamentary duties with caring for her son. This argument produced a sum total of no sympathy among listeners responding in the phone in programme (there are millions of working mothers who don't get state help, why should she? being the usual response) and by lunchtime the announcement of her readiness to step down was made. No front bencher from either side has yet made a similar announcement but on the whole the spot light has generally turned away from them.

David Cameron has been busy. In an interview on Sunday he said he was opening the conservative candidate list to anyone, whether previous party member or not. This is an idea I feel positively about and also is not a "say anything do nothing" announcement which I am pleased about. On Tuesday he announced his clean up politics strategy. And it is interesting. In a nut shell he plans to

1. "seriously consider" the possibility of fixed term parliaments.
2. enlarge constituencies to make a smaller house of commons
3. publish expense details of high paid officials and expensive projects online
4. allow free votes to MPs on all bills at committee stage
5. limit the use of royal prerogative
6. give backbenchers power over timetabling of bills and electing members and chairmen of select committees

This all sounds good but I have a few reservations. Fixed term parliaments are only good if there is a way to dissolve hung parliaments that are achieving nothing. (This was the problem the US had in the last term where the house and senate were democrat and the president republican). Enlarging constituencies would limit the contact MPs would have with constituents. Otherwise these proposals are good if he sticks to them. The free vote idea has the problem that he would have to enforce it on all parties to make it work. I'm not sure he could achieve that.

PMQs 20/5/2009 - You arrogant %&*@>

I really do try to be fair in my posts here. So i will start with the good bit about PMQs. I actually missed the first half live and had to rewatch it. And in the second half there were good questions which were actually getting proper answers. I was startled but pleased. It seemed that the attempt to improve politics involved using PMQs for what it should be for.

Then I saw the first half and found out why Brown was being so open. Because he had managed to drop a vast nuclear bomb on his head.

The arrogance of the man is beyond believe. Cameron admitedly was playing a bit of sound bite politics, since I'm not certain he'd really want an election now. It would just be too uncertain with the possibility of a ragbag of smaller parties piling into the gulf left by the expenses scandal. (parlimentary scaremongers keep raising the issue of votes for the BNP). But for Brown to stand up and say that he will not allow the British people their voice simply because he might not like what they say is the most undemocratic and downright ridiculous thing he has ever said. And thats up against some stiff competion (saving the world etc).

But this wasn't a slip of the tongue. This was terrifying candidness. Brown has admitted to the house and the country that he is too scared to fight an election. Which translates as he's too determined to hang on to power to realise that he does not have the support of the public. Were this a monarchy and Brown the king and revolution would be imminent with a statement like that!

He could have got out of it. He really could. There are valid reasons not to hold an election. Firstly there's the question of precedent. If a decision by a future government is unpopular, if a few mps get involved in scandels does that trigger an election? This arguement does have something of the "What next?" label about it and it wouldn't have sounded great, but it beats the answer he did give. The problem is, he has basically said he doesn't have faith in the system the elected him to the commons (if not as PM: he still has never had to win a vote on that!) and this represents a basic lack of faith in Britain. Brown is looking less and less likely to have any chance in an election when one happens.

Cameron's tactical manouvre of leaving a question unasked was quite astute. Brown was probably hoping for one last big hit but Cameron stopped him. Well done.

Nick Clegg did well again. He has risen well in the past few weeks to the point that Labour MPs were trying to drown him out, something they almost never do. The banter between him and the speaker was fun, and the dignified recovery from not being initally given his second question showed him in a good light. Brown tried to get in on the act but failed. And then said that reforming the british democracy was vital

You have to wonder how many people he's got trying to find a way to change it so the least popular man wins

Brown comes good

There is a title I didn't expect to write.

Brown made an apology for the whole of parliment in a speech to a nursing union conference today. Watching the speech (which you the reader can here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8043499.stm) I have to say I'm impressed.

Brown looks vary awkward, he kept walking around and not really keeping eye contact. Strangly I found this more reassuring. Afterall the expenses row is not something they can be proud of and if he'd given a polished confident speech I'd have not been convinced by him at all. As it was he seemed genuinly shamed and awkward which was quite appropriate.

He also did better than Cameron. Cameron wanted MPs to apologise for the system. Brown apologised for the loss of trust and the fact that MPs had upset the public. This is the attitude that politicians should be taking. Well done Gordon

MPs expenses - a hoot and a half

The leaked documents published this morning in the telegraph (and since reprinted in every news outlet) are, frankly hilarious. However the Evening Standard's coverage has had me in stiches as this included responses from all the government ministers. I counted. Expressions to the effect of "entirely within the rules" appeared in 9 ministers statements out of 12. And in not a single case was it a convincing justification.

I do feel a bit sorry for Douglas Alexander, the international development secretary. He claimed for the costing of kitting out a new home while his own house was being repaired from a devasting fire. His statement talks of consulting the authorities at the commons (who come out this really badly) about what would be appropriate to claim in the circumstances. I don't see this as particulaly irresponsible or scandalous.

Some of the other claims begger belief though. I particulaly like the MALE tory mp (no longer in the house) who claimed for two packs of tampax. I would really like to hear him justify why he needed them to carry out his parlimentary duties!

The thing is, none of the mps quoted today (I've no doubt the weekend will bring a fresh load of fun since the editor of the telegraph said on radio 5 last night that he had more to come over the next few days. The Tory front bench next maybe? That should make for good reading!), seem able to see that their being "within the rules" does not make it alright. One of the big things to come out of the G20 was the aim to shut down offshore tax havens. People evading taxes in this way were acting "within the rules" but have been vilified by the government. Frankly I see absolutly no difference between legal tax evasion techniques and these expense claims. Both are robbing the tax payers of large sums of money by legal means. Its that simple.

Particulaly hilarious though was Andy Burnham. The culture secretary is reported to have resubmitted the same bill for renovations three times. The first two times he was turned away but the third time he got the money. Nothing is noted as having changed (though it is not explicitly stated that nothing did) before the successful resubmission. He also said in one submission that his wife might divorce him if the commons didn't pay up. His defense? He didn't have one. He simply tried to bluster his way through it all by saying that he underclaimed by £40,000 over the last five years. Though it is unclear whether he meant by this that he claimed £40k less than the maximum he otherwise could have or whether he'd not claimed for £40,000 of personal expenses that were covered by "the rules". Either way it's not a defence for taking money for something the house of commons fees office twice said was inappropriate.

By the way just a couple of these rules for you to mull over. "MPs must ensure claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial gain to themselves or or anyone else" and "MPs should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagent or luxurious". And the guidance at the end where the rules acknowledge that there will be "areas of uncertainty" it says "MPs might consider how comfortable they would feel with [the expense] being made public under Freedom of Information". Or even through a leak.

I'll bet a lot of MPs are rethinking how comfortable they really are about their claims now.

And the best quote of the whole lot? Education secretary Ed balls. Quote: People don't want to hear politicians saying "it's within the rules" unquote.

PMQs-6/5/2009 Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear...

Looking back at this PMQs Brown will feel he did well. At first glance (and without reading between the lines, something that we, the public, don't do afterall) he landed a series of beat downs on Cameron and finished the exchange with a neat decapitation of the tory party. I'm sure he feels good about it.

Except thats not what happened. What happened was that Cameron handed over his sword weakly to watch with glee as Brown stabbed himself with it!

Cameron did waste his questions. Unfortunatly Brown also wasted his answers.

He pointed out that noone agrees with tory policy, conveniently forgetting people answering the opinion polls. If the french, germans etc could keep Brown in office he'd be laughing. Oh dear. They can't.

He accused Cameron of reducing everything to personality (which Cameron was) but then said that Cameron was "out of his depth", that Cameron is "simply not up to the task". So thats looking at the big picture is it Gordon?

This post is being rather one sided thus far so let me restate that frankly Cameron and almost the entire conservative party were apalling in the way they wasted all the questions they asked, coming across as overconfident and arrogant, not something I want from any politician right now. The sad fact is though that they showed how right they are about Brown due to party pleasing but kamikase responses.

The ultimate irony was his response to the last of Cameron's questions. He responded that the tory leader had not asked about any serious issue. My response, echoed by conservative peer Lord Strathclyde was that Brown never answers these questions when asked so what was the point? My opinion was partially confirmed when Iain Duncan-Smith asked about the Gurkhas and had to wait till the last sentence of a long "this is what we did before which them overthere wouldn't/didn't do" speech to get his answer. Point proven.

Gordon Brown may have killed himself in parliment. But parliment as a whole has killed itself before the general public.

oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

PMQs-29/4/2009 Gurkhas can be lethal

I don't think I have ever seen Gordon Brown look both so competant and so ineffectual in one hlaf hour session. On Flu he was authoritive and measured. Then the questioning turned to Gurkhas and he fell apart.

The fact that he inferred that the justice for gurkhas campaign were lying about the figures was a bad start (though neither Clegg or Cameroon could point this out due to the rules of the house). His answers were quickly shown by Nick Clegg to be vague and unhelpful. Even back bench questions seemed to shake him.

The problem is that he has already had to U-turn this week over the flat rate daily allowance and he can't do so again. The problem is that the u-turn he made solved nothing and prevented him from making a u-turn that would have helped his image.

On the subject of images MPs in general have not helped themselves. I counted 3 wasted questions in that half hour and on the last one conservative mps loudly made the point. Rather hypocritical since the two previous wasters had come from their side! Also, the only time the speaker had to intervene was when the question of expsenses was brought up and the questioner was loudly shouted down. Not a good image, though it did let Brown try and reclaim come of the moral high ground of the session.

There followed a comedy moment when Brown forgot he was giving a statement and had half left the chamber when the speaker's announcement pulled him up short, much to the joy of the opposition benches.

However the single most significant moment of the day was the government defeat over gurkhas. This is the first major loss for Gordon Brown's premiership. With a vote on mp's expenses tomorrow this is looking like a very very bad week the pm. Maybe he could arrange to come down with a bout of flu and avoid the whole mess!

Swine flu and the unneccessary panic.

I think that people need to get a reality check about the possible pandemic of H1N1 influenza commonly called swine flu. You see, like most of these things it is really not that scary.

The problem is that most people don't know the difference between the common cold and flu. A bad cold can lay you up quite badly. But flu will lay you up badly. And thats any type of flu not just one of the celebrity mutant strains that grab the headlines.

It was summed up nicely by a doctor on radio 2 this morning. He said that when patients walk into his office and say they have flu he tells them that if they had then they wouldn't have been able to climb out of bed.

This lack of understanding means that a headline saying that such and such a flu has killed 20 people somewhere causes panic. Afterall flu doesn't usually kill does it?

Well actually yes it does. Regular seasonal flu kills around 500,000 people a year in a good year. So on the face of it only 20 odd confirmed deaths is just nothing. The issue here is the ease of transmission. And even that doesn't seem to be too bad. In the UK there are now 5 confirmed (but all mild) cases and every single one of them has been to mexico recently. As no cases have been confirmed where the virus has been transfered in the UK. Precautionary treatment of people who might have been exposed is underway to minimise the chances of a spread.

H1N1 is one of the strains the which many people have a natural immunity. It is also easily treatable with the antiviral drugs being stockpiled by governments. This makes it vary different to H5N1 bird flu which would not have been so easy to treat. But public concern about the latter has enabled goverenments to establish robust plans which are now swinging into action.

Note here that I'm not acusing the government of panicing. Indeed I think that the state responses have been very well executed thus far. Ministers are saying that britain is the best prepared state in the world to deal with a major outbreak. And, unlike the similar claims made about the economy, the figures seem to square with this. So well done Alan Johnson and department, thus far you seem to be on top of this one.

PMQs + Budget 22/4/09 - What have the romans ever done for us?

There were times, Listening to David Cameron's response to the budget when it felt like the famous scene in Monty python's life of brian. Although perhaps I should have subtitled this post "what have Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and this Labour government ever done for us?"

If you take only Cameron's view then the answer is nothing positive. This is I think a rather large overstatment. What was in the budget is in several cases good. The guarenteed job offer for long term unemployed under 25s is a policy I personally feel is good, although I note no mention was made of what this job would entail.

However, writing this after a day to reflect on it frankly this budget in real terms is part hopeless optimisim and part rearguard action. Once you consider the numbers the tax increase for people earning 150K+ will acheive nothing. In his blog on the bbc Nick Robinson had pointed out to him that some bits of small print in the red book do show that the tax raise will eventually raise money. In about 4 years. The only reason to bring this proposal in now is to act as an anti-conservative minefield before next years election. Not really the sort of action you want when the country is tottering in the direction of bankruptcy.

It is instructive to look at the reactions of participants when they sit down after speaking. Both Brown after PMQs and Darling after his budget sat down with a grin that said "thats over, I survived, now I can get on with things knowing that I've got plenty of people I can blame if it all goes wrong." By contrast, Cameron's expression was one of "oh help this country's totally in the effluent now" or possibly "oh help the mess I'm going to inherit next year is worse than I thought".

Darling is now off the hook until the pre-budget report in november. But if his recovery forecast is not showing up by then I feel that he may not keep his job.

Then again, that would represent a politician admiting culpability.

Wondering why I feel so good about things

Looking back over today there isn't a great deal to be positive about. I looked back at my project plan and found that I was expecting to have all my results by today. Due to a continuous series of techincal problems I haven't got any. I discovered this morning that I have another assignment to do which I had forgotten about. I got a large bill for repairs to my car and fencing wasn't a runaway success this evening.

Yet despite all the above I have felt good all day.

and honestly I can't work out why. It may that I was out of the house in uni getting on with things. Maybe the weather which was extrodinarily nice had something to do with it. I don't know. But in spite of everything, today I feel really good.

Next post will probably be on wednesday. Its budget day and PMQs. Comedy theatre at its finest. Such it pity the performers are running the country.

I love the east coast main line

National express are possibly the best thing ever to happen to rail travel. If only because they provide free Wifi throughout their trains. Meaning that I can write this from seat L39 in the 1st class carriage of the 7:00 AM train from Hull to London, currently arriving in Peterborough.

I like rail travel. There is the pleasent smoothness of it, the lack of extreme tiredness the I get from long drives and the simplicity. Yes air travel is faster but what with having to be there early etc it actually probably works out quicker (certainly cheaper!) to do the whole thing by train.

When I was viewing different univeristies before applying for my degree I spent a long time travelling by train. However for the most part since getting my driving licence I have driven most long journeys. The exceptions here are London and Manchester airport when I plan to fly. (the fact that manchester has a train station is one of the reasons I tend to fly from there.)

I miss my regular long journeys. So even though I could get the information I am going to london to find through the interlibrary loan system I would rather go to the RAS library and find it myself.

As an aside Peterborough cathedral looks like it's had all it's towers amputated.

The best thing about trains though is the freedom to see the english countryside. I am an unashamed old fashioned patriot. This does not mean that I watch england matches draped in crosses of St George necking lager. I simply love England and east coast mainland goes through some of the bast of it. Admitedly I am currently moving through one of the flatland areas which I like a bit less but when you travel through some of the low hills and valleys you see some of england's everyday best. Not the dinner jacket or tux for special occaisions, those would be the mountains, in particular the lake district, but your everyday nice tailored suit. And I love those areas of england. And since we are moving into one I will conclude this little rhapsody and enjoy the view.

What a degree teaches

One thing I have found as I come to the end of my degree is that I know more than I think I do.

I'm sure every student (certainly those of my friends who I asked) feels the same. I went into my degree with an expectation to come out able to do anything in physics instantly as a matter of course. Nearing the end of my masters degree I find that this is far from the case. In fact if pushed I would have trouble giving in depth information about any part of the subject off the top of my head.

However when asked what I do know I realise that the answer is rather a lot.

I've just finished an essay on white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes. And right now if asked I could probably give a good lecture on the subject. However by tomorrow, when I'll be doing a short bit on chaos theory I won't.

But here's the key. Within a day of reading over something I wrote I can fully recount it again. And this I think is the key to a successful university degree. The ability, not to recall full details of a subject instantly, but to quickly grasp the details from a brief summary. And this I can do.

Why...

Why on this quite dreary bank holiday monday afternoon am I sat in bed starting this blog?

Firstly because I'm having great difficulty finding the enthusiasm to get up to go to B&Q to buy lightbulbs.

Mainly though I realised through reading other people's blogs that all the clutter that appears frequently in my brain would probably be better elsewhere. So this is where it will arrive.

Put you off already? thought so.

Things that will probably make there way here will be rants about politics from a neutral point of view, moans about people's ignorance of physics, updates about sport (fencing and badminton plus helping officiate a local running league), cats (quantity two), and occaisional other stuff.

It's good to get these things out of your brain.