A Fee Too Far?

Students protest in London (BBC News)

I feel fortunate that I am not an MP today, and even more fortunate that, way-back-when actually governing seemed like a distant pipe-dream, I didn't sign any sort of pledge to abolish tuition fees. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time but some Liberal Democrats are learning the hard way that photo opportunities (like the tutition fee pledge) sometimes come back to haunt you. Today, our nation's Liberal Democrat parliamentary representatives will face one of the most politically challenging decisions of their careers when they face a vote on proposed changes to higher education funding.

Under the new scheme, the cap on tuition fees would be increased to £9,000 per year (up from around £3,200). This is to offset changes under the deficit reduction plan that will see cuts of at least 40% to university funding. Essentially, the weight of responsibility for university funding will be shifted from the taxpayer to the graduate. While this might seem frightening (particularly when you consider a typical degree will take three years, incurring up to £27,000 of debt for the graduate before they have even taken a job), plans have been put in place to try and alleviate the burden. First and foremost, under the proposed scheme, students will not have to pay anything up front, thereby maintaining the accessibility of university education. Secondly, no graduate will pay a penny until they are earning £21,000 per annum (with this threshold increasing annually according to the rate of inflation). Once graduates do start paying back their fees, they will pay only 9% per month. While this might seem alot, it ensures that higher earners will pay more back, and will pay more quickly than those on lower incomes. Finally, the debt will be written off after 30 years so no-one will be lumbered with the burden indefinitely.

Happily, having never made any election promise pertaining to tutition fees, I feel secure in stating for posterity that I am in favour of the new proposals and that, if I were an MP today, I would vote accordingly. While I baulk at the thought of students accumulating debt to the tune of almost thirty grand, I acknowledge that present circumstances prohibit even the status quo, never mind abolishing fees altogether. Present circumstances include the fact that we are in coalition and must compromise with our Conservative colleagues, allowing them to meet some of their election pledges at the same time as meeting some of our own. We have, and will continue to achieve some of our manifesto policies, but abolishing tuition fees was never going to be possible in a coalition, either with the Conservatives or with Labour. Furthermore, the previous government has left the country with a much greater deficit than even the most pessimistic estimates predicted. As a result, cuts have had to be deeper and more immediate than we believed was the case during the election period. (Welcome to the world of Labour lies.) Either way, the simple truth at the end of the day is that there are more important spending priorities, including health and schools, than ensuring a free university education for anyone that wants it. I would, of course, prefer not to increase tuition fees at all and would love to be in a position to guarantee free higher education to all but, facing budget cuts, universities have to be allowed to charge students higher fees. If they are not allowed to do so, it will not be a reduced uptake for students from poorer backgrounds that we face, or a generation of students in a debt crisis; it will be a generation of students fighting for a greatly reduced number of university places and this benefits no-one.

In addition, there is the greater debate of whether it is right for the taxpayer to fully fund higher education. I have found very few people that believe the taxpayer should shoulder the burden alone, but most of the people I have discussed it with are cautious about increasing fees to the proposed £9k. It seems therefore that the problem is not the fees themselves but the number. £9,000 is still a lot of money to most people, especially multiplied three times. Generally, however, I have found a lot of support for the new proposals, especially when people come to understand that those who earn less will pay less. Most people seem convinced that higher education should not be pervue of the taxpayer.

This debate fundamentally differs in England than in Scotland where there is a cultural tradition of free education. I know my Dad is very much against tuition fees, but I haven't discussed with enough Scots to get a reasonable grasp of public feeling north of the border.

Either way, the choice in government today is simple: increase the cap on tuition fees and ensure funding security for universities, or maintain the status quo on tuition fees and doom thousands of youngsters to a future where there is no university place for them at all. There is no question of whether we should abolish tuition fees or not, because it is not achievable in coalition. Faced with these choices, I believe the proposals are progressive and I therefore support them. I believe that students will be better off in the long-run and that the policy has greatly benefitted from the influence of the Liberal Democrats in government. Without this influence, the cap would probably have been lifted altogether and I doubt that any of the measures to ensure accessibility for students from poorer backgrounds would have been part of the policy.

Of course, if I were an MP today, I may well have got there by signing a pledge or campaigning on the principle of abolishing tuition fees, in which case my views are quite different. For those who have made promises, particularly by signing pledges, the situation is very much more complex. It is clear that some MPs will feel bound to vote against the proposals, regardless of any merits. I personally feel that an MP's duty is first, to their constituents and second to the government as a whole. MP's are there to represent the people that elected them so if a candidate stated that they would oppose any increase in tuition fees, in simple terms, they risk betraying their electorate if they vote in favour of the proposals. There is a question about whether this individual policy was crucial in each individual campaign and how many constituents realistically support the abolition of tuition fees, as politics is anything but simple, so it will therefore be a matter of conscience for some Liberal Democrat MPs and I leave it to them to determine how best to represent their constituency. However, I would personally discourage abstention as 'the cowards way out'.

My final concern is how the Liberal Democrat party will be perceived after this crucial vote. In coalition with the Conservatives, I always feared that we would come off worse. It is harder for our credibility to survive compromise with the defense "it would've been worse without us" than it is for the Conservatives, who will convince right wing supporters that their more moderate policies are all our doing. I would like to think that four years down the line people will be better off and recognise our influence in bringing that prosperity. It is particularly difficult to think positively in a firestorm of negative media coverage and also difficult to think positively when the future of the nation is hurling missiles and injuring police in violent protests. How representative of voter feeling these protests are remains to be seen. After all, Labour promised not to introduce tuition fees and did, and pledged not to increase them and did, and they survived in government for over a decade. I think as long as we can maintain our identity as Liberal Democrats and ride out media interest without being seen to be weak, we will get-by.

Rural Unemployment

I worked from home today so I had the pleasure of the BBC News channel this morning while I was logging on. There were several interesting reports - student fees and benefits were the hot news of the morning - but the one that really caught my attention was a report that said unemployment in rural areas was lower by percentage than in urban areas. The BBC went on to report about two young people from rural communities, one apprenticing as a butcher and a young woman learning a trade as a stone mason. It was a very interesting report but sadly, very poorly reported and sorely under-researched.

I spent my adolescence in a rural Scottish community so I know too well the choices and issues that people living in rural communities face. I therefore wasn't surprised by the statistic and can immediately think of some reasons for it that the BBC didn't even mention.

Firstly, populations in rural communities tend to be quite static, occasionally increasing or declining, but not usually by too much. Planning constraints and green belt often limit the number of homes that can be built which limits the potential for growth. This in turn has the additional effect of inflating house prices as demand (by wealthy investors looking for holiday homes or second homes) outstrips supply.

Employment and education also tend to control the population. Back when I was approaching the end of my school days, if you were good at exams, you were encouraged to go to university (if you weren't the careers advisors made other suggestions, including the armed forces, college in Inverness 40 miles away, apprenticeships or work.) and going to university meant moving out and moving away. Dundee is the nearest city to Strathspey, where I grew up, and is around 90 miles distant; Aberdeen and Edinburgh are just over 100 miles away and Glasgow is about 125 miles away. As a school leaver in the Highlands with decent exam results, moving away was a virtual certainty. However, because of the type of employment available in the area, staying away was an almost equal certainty.

While there are plenty of employment opportunities in rural communities, they can also be quite limited and often unstable and this keeps young people away. In Strathspey, many of the employment opportunities are based on the tourist industry, which is highly seasonal and horribly unstable. There are plenty of positions in hotels and bars, in retail and in sports and leisure but this type of work is notorious for being there one minute and gone the next. Tourism is dependent upon so many factors: Lots of cheap overseas deals is death to the British tourism industry; something like a Foot and Mouth outbreak keeps visitors away in their droves; even the wrong sort of weather (a warm winter or a wet summer) might result in a massive drop in visitor numbers and global terrorism keeps foreign visitors away too. It's also ironic that the recession is doing wonders for our tourist industry: When the nation is prosperous, British tourism suffers as people are able to spend more money on overseas holidays to exotic destinations. Rural communities do present other opportunities; in farming, land management, environment, education, social care and local government, but such positions are far less abundant

In addition, when you live in the middle of nowhere, the cost of living is also higher. In a city, if you can't get work, you get rid of your car and you shop in Aldi instead of Sainsbury's. When you live in a rural community, you need a car because there is limited or no bus service. (Where I lived, the Doctor was in the next town, 3 miles away, as was my school and the chemist.) In a rural community it also costs more to run your car. In a city you have a choice of any number of petrol stations to fuel up (I have 6 choices within a 5 minute drive of my house or place of work) but in a rural community, there might only be one within a 30 minutes drive. A captive audience means a higher price. And forget going to Aldi for your shopping; if you're lucky you might have a supermarket in your town, but you might equally be reliant on a supermarket quite some distance away, or on smaller shops with higher prices.

Don't get me wrong, rural life is wonderful. Living in a rural community is an enriching experience and if I felt it was a viable option, I would have moved back years ago. The air is cleaner, locally produced food is better, the pace of life is more relaxed and the view is magnificent, but make no mistake, rural life is also bloody hard. For more than a decade I watched my parents working hard to make their business - a gift shop and cafe - work through years of tough conditions. It was graft. Every single day. And decisions had to be made with the business and their survival in mind. (I got married in September because that was the best month dictated by the requirements of the business.) It doesn't surprise me that unemployment is higher in the urban areas than in rural communities because, in a rural community, if you lose your job or it disappears because of a bad season, the choice is to get something else, quickly, or leave for a place with more opportunities. When you also consider that young people, who tend to move away from rural communities to take up study after school, are the worst affected by unemployment, and the statistics mentioned by the BBC begin to make more and more sense.

What Else Are They Hiding?

Back in 2007 it became all too apparent that for years, banks around the globe had been trading irresponsibly. In the space of a year, something in the region of thirty global banking organisations went from operating normally to teetering on the brink of oblivion. The consequences of this fall from grace are well documented and continue to be felt by ordinary people all around the world as unemployment, higher taxation and low interest rates begin to erode the money in our pockets.

The warning signs of the crisis were there to be seen, if you chose to look hard enough, but you didn't have to be Vince Cable to see them. There were plenty of symptoms of the ongoing corruption that anyone could spot.

As early as 2006, thousands of people were successfully reclaiming bank charges by arguing that they were unlawful penalties. These were the charges levied by banks for each bounced direct debit, bounced cheque or for each transaction that exceeded an overdraft limit. Charges were, at that time, typically around £30 or £35 each, and it was not unusual for a bank to make multiple charges for a single infringement, for a bank to charge against transactions that they were able to block, or to refuse a transaction for less than £30 only to then levy a charge of £35. They were sneaky and underhanded practices that punished those most in need of help, like people on low incomes and individuals suffering temporary financial problems beyond their control. Banks justified their practices using a number of excuses, and defended them in court by claiming that the charges recovered additional administration costs. At one stage extra admin costs for these functions were estimated to be somewhere between zero and £6 per transaction. Most banks continue to charge over £10 per fee, and many continue to charge almost double that.

In addition, there are thousands of PPI (Payment Protection Insurance) policies may have been mis-sold. Payment Protection Insurance covers the policy holder in the event of redundancy or illness. However, many of the policies have been taken out without the borrower's knowledge or consent, have been sold when not needed, or been sold where the policy didn't apply so that the borrower could not actually make a claim.

There have also been multiple complaints about other products being 'sold' without the borrower or account holder's knowledge. Most banks now have privilege accounts that include extras, such as holiday insurance, mobile phone insurance, breakdown cover and more. For these so-called services, the banks charge anywhere from £10 to £20 per month, adding up to somewhere between £120 and £240 per year. If you don't take a holiday abroad, don't have a mobile phone (or have home contents insurance that already covers your mobile phone), don't drive a car or pay separately for breakdown cover, this is money. It is better in your account than in your bank's pocket. Even if you do take advantage of one or two of these add-ons, you are still probably paying well over the odds for the product.

Today I read that the British Bankers Association is seeking a judicial review of new rules that are due to come into force on the 1st of December designed to prevent these kinds of practices and to ensure those that have been mis-sold PPI receive refunds. The BBA's reasoning for seeking a judicial review is that they believe the new rules are illegal. It seems the actual reason for the review is that the banks are concerned that they could be forced to refund billions in mis-sold PPI policies, but worse, that this could then set a precedent that would open the doors to refunds for other mis-sold products. It makes me wonder what else the banks have swept under the rug that might be a liability for them.

The fact is that practices that have been employed by most, if not all of Britain's banks, have left them horribly exposed to liability and litigation. These practices may not have been systemic, but the were certainly endemic. They were callous, ruthless, devious practices that were possibly encouraged and, when complaints started to roll in, were certainly ignored. The banks made a mint off unsuspecting customers and in many cases refused to issue refunds when they were caught out. This is a mess that is of the banks' own making. It's time they accepted the legacy that they have made for themselves. An apology for their collective arrogance wouldn't go a-miss either.

Making Your Mind Up

If you watched X-Factor at the weekend, you will probably number among the thousands (if not millions!) of people that were outraged that contestant Gamu Nhengu wasn't chosen to go through to the live finals. The question is, how far do you take it?

There's a lot being written at the moment about the decisions made on the Sunday night show. Firstly, I'm reasonably happy with the judges' choices in all three categories. There are some contestants I would have put through - Diva Fever were so much more interesting than 1 Direction - and some I would not. But ultimately, I feel the quality is quite high so it's hard for me to be too angry. However, I was just as disappointed as the rest of the nation to find Gamu cast out of the show.

Not only is Gamu stand-out talented but she also had a unique sound and image, unlike a couple of the other girls. Although I liked all the girls, personally, I would have put Gamu through in place of Katie Waissel. Of all the girls, Katie was the only one who completely buckled under the pressure. Cher Lloyd also failed to perform, but had serious tonsilitis and should not have been singing or even speaking. She tried and in doing so put her voice at risk of damage. I believe that shows enough committment to warrant her place in the final. Katie's performance, however, came on the back of a poor first audition and left me with concerns about her stability as a contestant and her ability to perform on the live show week after week. Gamu had no such problem and showed maturity and poise; traits that she has demonstrated consistently throughout the process thus far.

Having said that, over the last couple of days I have been pretty horrified to hear and read about the outlandish reaction of some viewers of the show. When I heard people had actually complained to ITV and to Broadcasting Standards, I thought it a sad reflection on the attitude of people to the business of entertainment. Boys and girls: It may come as a surprise to you, but X-Factor is a business! When I read online that the show's producers were working with the police to investigate death threats against Cheryl Cole, I was horrified!

Those who make and are involved in the show have no committment to you other than to provide a product that appeals to enough people to make it commercially viable. They don't owe you anything and - at this stage - their choices are their own and don't need to be justified to you, the audience. Get over it! Grow up! Put it in perspective: In a couple of years' time, the name Gamu Nhengu will be all but forgotten. (Unless, of course, she's returns for a second crack at it - which I hope she will.)

Obviously this sort of backlash is unfounded and, quite frankly, ridiculous. What further annoys me is the public response to the revelation that Gamu and her family have been instructed to leave the country or risk deportation. I have read all sorts of bizarre comments from 'it's terrible that Gamu lost out because she doesn't have a visa' to 'why let Gamu's mother claim benefits when she's not entitled to them' to outright 'let them stay' (for no reason other than liking Gamu). There is a propensity in this country, although we are not alone in the tendancy, to blame everything on immigration or immigrants: People who can't get a job often sit back and blame it on foreigners 'taking our jobs'; problems with the NHS get blamed on immigrants coming for free health care and stretching the system; sometimes people even try to pin social problems like bringe drinking or yob culture on 'foreign influences'. When I then find the general public advocating a softening of the rules for special cases, I find myself intensely frustrated. The Home Office is apparently 'damned if they do and damned if they don't'

I feel bad that Gamu and her family may be forced to return to Zimbabwe. It's one of the few places in the world that I really wouldn't want to live. However, a visa was granted based upon certain conditions and rules. If you break the rules you lose the visa. It's not complicated and it shouldn't be complicated. Gamu's mother took money from the state that she wasn't entitled to. I'm sad that she hasn't got a more stable country to return to, and that her children, who have made lives for themselves here will have to leave it behind, but that is where my sympathy ends.

So, am I disappointed that Gamu isn't going to be in the live shows? Sure am! Will I avoid watching or avoid supporting other contestants because of it? Sure won't! At the end of the day, I watch X-Factor to be entertained and I will continue to watch up to the point it is no longer doing so.

Fame Without Heart

I love movies. In all shapes and sizes. These days I don't get to the cinema for the latest releases very often, but I watch movies on Sky and I have a Lovefilm account to boot. It takes me a while, but I usually get around to seeing everything I want, sooner or later.

I remember when the Fame remake was out at the cinema last year. I wanted to see it with my mate, Claire. I always loved the original, including it's classic '80s theme tune and, as girls, this sort of girlie movie is right up our street. Unfortunately, we never quite got around to seeing it so I was pleased when I noticed it was on Sky this afternoon.

It wasn't well received last year. Film critics and movie goers seemed to agree that it was a poor remake. But, being stubborn, I generally like to make my own decisions. I wasn't expecting much and 'not much' is precisely what Fame delivered.

It's a broad retelling of the classic movie. The structure of the plot and the various situations that are employed are similar, but for some odd and unexplained reason, all the character names have been changed. It is by no means identical to its predecessor but the bones of the original story are still there.

Although the bulk of the cast are little-known actors, (most of the actors playing the students had only done TV bit parts or uncredited work before) the makers did managed to secure some serious experience and talent. Kelsey Grammer, Bebe Neuwirth and Charles Dutton are all superb in their roles. Charles Dutton in particular is charming as the acting coach, Mr Dowd. Despite their lack of previous experience, there are some other surprisingly impressive performances too. Kay Panabaker (currently starring in superhero drama, No Ordinary Family) is beautiful and vulnerable as Jenny Garrison and Collins Pennie does a nice job with tough, yet sensitive, Malik Washburn. All the actors are clearly talented; dancing, singing and playing their way through Fame with conviction.

Director, Kevin Tancharoen, has experience directing musically themed TV shows and documentaries and his experience is shown in the visual and musical styling of the movie. Fame is visually appealing: There are some spectacular scenes, like the school 'CarnEvil' (I'm guessing this was supposed to be a Halloween Party) and the end of school show. And, as one might expect for a film about a performing arts school, it is musically interesting too, although the soundtrack is unlikely to appeal to someone who doesn't like hip-hop.

So why doesn't it work?

The problem with the 2009 version of Fame is all too obvious (and all too common). The weakness is not in the acting, the directing or the sound. The blame for this movie abomination lies firmly with the writer. Perhaps Allison Burnett has tried too hard to maintain the structure of the original, or perhaps it's because the characters aren't her own (new names, same stereotypes). Or perhaps the screenplay falls foul of the performing arts, collapsing under the weight of the visual and musical style. Either way, the retelling of this classic drama is undramatic and soulless. Sure, the actors do a good job with what they have been given, but tragically, what they've been given is one-dimensional and uninspiring. The acting performances are individually pleasing, but the characters are shallow and move around the flat world in near isolation. They don't grow or develop and crucial moments, like Kevin's near suicide, don't have any lasting affect.

When I think back to the 1980 original, I think of memorable characters on a journey of self-discovery, facing personal and professional challenges. It's a story that has heart; the one thing that the 2009 remake completely lacks. What a waste.

Dreamscape

When I was about 14 or 15 years old, I had an idea (which I called 'Dreamscape') about a story that blurred the lines between reality and dreams. Regretfully, I never put in the time and effort to develop the idea into anything more than that one line concept. If I had developed it, and by some miracle a Hollywood studio had decided to turn into a movie, I fancy that my one simple concept would have become Inception.

It took four attempts before I finally got to see the movie. The first time, I discovered I had an intolerance to milk by eating some ice-cream and then throwing it back up in the cinema! Naturally that meant I didn't even get to see the trailers, never mind the film. The second time I set out to see it, hubby remembered that Man U were playing so, of course, we had to turn back. The third time, we got stuck in football traffic and would have missed about 20 minutes at the start of the film. So it was fourth time lucky and the movie was well worth the wait.

Although I'm sure there are people that were confused by Inception, the plot is satisfyingly complex without being utterly confounding. I found the dream sharing idea fascinating and I loved the way that each of the layers of the dream communicated with the next so that sound and sensation trickled down through the dream world.

I also found the characters truly endearing. They all had a function. None of them were there for the sake of padding the cast or making a lofty point, and each one was unique within the story. Ellen Page was the stand-out performance for me. She's a pretty girl and a talented actress. She handled her role in Juno with such a lightness of touch, I was curious to find out what she could do with a big-budget sci-fi action thriller, especially playing across from much older actors (leading lad, Leo is more than a decade older.) Her character was strong, ballsy and intelligent - everything a female lead should be - and it is a testament to her skills that she didn't just do a good job; there was great on-screen chemistry between her character, Ariadne, and Leo's character, Cobb. Even DiCaprio, who has only really played two characters in his entire career, was enjoyable to watch and Tom Hardy plays a marvelous scoundrel.

However, the greatest flourish of this movie was in the visual, which brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'world-building'. The world in which Inception functions is both beautiful and mind-bending. It's a world where gravity and concrete are flexible and mirrors become reality.

If I have any gripes with this movie, and I hasten to add that this is just being picky, it's the fourth layer of the dream. The limbo layer. It's a concept that doesn't quite hold up for me. I can accept it. It doesn't spoil the flow of the film. But I know that if I let me brain go and really think about it, I could find a dozen problems with it. I'm also annoyed that Cobb's dead wife, played by Marion Cotillard, was named 'Mal' rather than 'Mol'. I had assumed that 'Mol' was short for Molly, which made sense. Mal, however, is a stupid name.

Nevertheless, this is, quite possibly, the best film I've seen in a decade. It is as visually ground-breaking and conceptually revolutionary as The Matrix was and, to Chris Nolan's credit, it is much more accessible: Friends who don't normally make a fuss over the sci-fi genre loved this movie and it's appeal is proven by the fact it was a trending topic on Twitter for months. This is definitely one to add to the blu-ray collection. It will be stunning in hi-def!

It's a Dog's Life

Like any other person heading off on holiday, I pack my holiday essentials: sun cream, toothbrush and books, Books BOOKS. This June was no different. One of the books I decided to take was Marley and Me by John Grogan. I saw the film a little while ago and thoroughly enjoyed the tortuous tale of a young family and their maniacal mutt. And the book was a marvelous read and I highly recommend it, whether you have seen the film or not.

When I was little - I mean really little - I always wanted a dog and was not allowed to have one. My parents were justifiably concerned that being a child, I would not take good care of a dog and the responsibility would therefore be left to them... or rather Mum! Mum finally yielded following a break-in and we went to a local family that had just had a litter of Border Collie pups.

It was my brother, David, that picked out our treasured family pet. She was originally called 'Dotty' but Mum insisted that she was not going to walk around the village calling "Dotty... Dotty... Come here Dotty!" so we quickly renamed her 'Brèagha', Gaelic for beautiful. Although the name was apt (she was a beautiful dog all her life), Dotty was perhaps just as apt because she was a complete nutcase! She hated men and barked non-stop at any man (other than David, Dad or my husband, Steve) who entered the house. She had a penchant for digging, which manifested initially in uprooted rose bushes or holes under the fence (despite the gate being wide open all the time) and later in a six foot hole at the side of the house, which Dad discovered only when my parents eventually moved. She used to sit on your shoulder (was she a dog or a parrot?) and watch TV. She was particularly fond of Star Trek The Next Generation and used to sit a foot away from the TV and tilt her head from side to side. She loved yoghurt pots, even when they was no yoghurt in them; plant pots, without the plants; and plastic lids, which she could destroy within 24 hours. She wouldn't eat unless you tried to take her food away and loved nothing more than a good game of 'My Bone'. She chased sheep, rabbits, birds, cats, people and even cars; one time she did actually catch a rabbit... and then promptly let it go because she didn't know what to do with it. Her answer to grooming was to swim in a river, in the sea or any other body of water, as long as it wasn't clean. She hated the bath and the brush in equal measure. She used to run in fear of Dad's hiccups but couldn't love enough when you came home after being away - even if 'away' was five minutes to nip round the corner to the shop. She was my best friend as I grew up and the day she had to be put to sleep (due to cancer that had spread in her hind quarters) was no less heartbreaking than the day my brother died because she was just as much a part of our family.

The wonderful thing is, reading Marley and Me and chatting to a colleague at work who has just got a new pup, my experience of having a dog, and the love that I and my whole family felt, is not unique. John Grogan suggests that you can learn a lot from a dog and asks how many people in the world can make you feel so loved. What is also incredible is the connection that you can feel to other dog owners. You share a great common ground and together you laugh at your pets' follies, despair at their lunacies and you share joy and pain at their lives and deaths. A dog might bring noise, chores and fur in abundance to your home, but he or she brings so much more. I miss my dog and if it wasn't for the fact I work 5 days a week, I would have another in a heartbeat.

15 Minutes of Fame

Hrrmm, 29th of June. That was the last time I posted. Two and a half months... before I know where I am it will be 2011! The reason for my long blogging absence? Don't Stop Believing!

I have posted about Sing Live a couple of times before. I started singing with the Sing Live North West choir last April and have since sung with them three times at the Bridgewater Hall in Manchester and I have also sung at the fabulous Royal Albert Hall in London. Every time I perform the experience gets better, so much so that I constantly ask myself how each performance can be topped. But somehow, it always is. This summer has been no different.

I think it was back in April when a group of singers from Sing Live Merseyside, Sing Live North West and Sing Live North East gathered in a car park in Gosforth (because we couldn't get into the Civic Centre that had been booked for the occasion) to audition for a new TV show to be broadcast on Five. None of us really expected to get through, but we got the 'call' at the end of June, inviting us to perform on and spent July preparing for our fifteen minutes of fame.

I often wondered about the experiences of TV show contestants, like those on X-Factor. In interviews, they all seem to spout wonderful things about how close they are as a group, and how much they enjoy the experience. I used to suspect that it was bluster. Exaggeration. Turns out, it's not.

Performing with Sing Live on Don't Stop Believing is probably the single coolest and most exciting experiences of my life so far. There are something in the region of 4,000 Sing Live members spread across 11 companies in the UK and USA but the eighty-five of us that performed live on TV are part of an exclusive club. We are ambassadors for the company we love, and for the 4,000 members who weren't able to sing with us. We did get to know each other really well, having spent days at a time together, and while there were occasional upsets, everyone was very supportive of each other. It was a privilege and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for which I will be perpetually grateful.

It's impossible to fully explain what it felt like to be part of the experience. Many people have asked if I was nervous - no I really wasn't, I was excited. Standing on the stage, head down, waiting for the music to start, was incredible. Thinking of the millions of people watching at home, including friends and family that were probably just as excited as me, and probably more nervous, was empowering. And if I thought there was a buzz before we went on stage, it was nothing compared to the buzz coming off stage after performing. The atmosphere was exhilarating. I felt a bond with the rest of the group that I have never felt before, and I would gladly give my right arm to do it again. Although I don't think that would make for good choreography.

If you would like to see how I spent my summer, you can watch the show in full by clicking here, or you can watch our main performance and the judges comments by clicking here. I hope you enjoy it. It's also worth saying that we're not a special group of Sing Live members that are better than others; we're not all amazing performers. We are ordinary people.

Anyone can join Sing Live and there are no auditions to sing with us. If you would like to be part of one of our performances, there is nothing stopping you. :o)

Salford's Got Talent

I'm not a regular attendee of the Langworthy Community Forum, which meets every other month. It's usually quite well attended but is also usually on a night when I'm off doing something else! However, this month, I happened to be free so went along with hubby. I'm so glad I did.

At the end of the meeting, in the small upstairs room of the St Luke's parish hall, we had the pleasure of a performance by four very talented Salford superstars-to-be. The performers - three singers and a dancer - were all supported by the Salford Foundation, which helps children and young people in Salford to pursue personal development opportunities that would otherwise not be available to them because of family or financial constraints. Their talent was amazing. The singers all had beautiful voices and transformed from nervous kids to true performers in the blink of an eye. The dancer showed wonderful energy and character, although I wonder how many of the people at the forum really 'get' street dance! However, one young girl in particular, Megan, really stood out as being very special. She sang a Carrie Underwood song called 'Temporary Home' that literally moved me to tears. Performance isn't just about raw talent, it's about engaging the audience and drawing them in. As a singer myself, I feel I can say that performance is just as much about emotion, expression and acting, as it is about the voice and despite her young age, Megan was able to pour so much emotion into her song, it was truly remarkable.

All four kids gave wonderful and surprisingly mature performances that were throughly enjoyed by everyone in the room. They will all be appearing in the show Ollie wiva Twist on August 25th at the Lowry Theatre. Tickets are only £6 via the Lowry website, or £5 from the box office.

Proceeds from the show will be donated to the Salford Foundation Trust and the Salford Lads Club. If you can make it, I highly recommend coming along. Not only will you be supporting all the young people involved in the show, you will also be supporting two very worthwhile youth organisations and, I'm certain, you'll get an evening of great entertainment too.

Our House

Moving on with the many things I wanted to blog about during the election campaign, I want to talk about housing. It's a significant issue in Salford. We have a multitude of different types of housing, from high-rise to bungalows and from tiny shoe-box studios to huge detached mansions. We also have a big social housing deficit with, at the last count, almost 20,000 people on the council waiting list. Yet at the same time, hundreds of potential homes are boarded up, lie empty for one reason or another, or have been demolished in the name of regeneration. However, rather than cover one of Salford's big issues, I want to spend some time considering the bricks and mortar itself.

Before the industrial revolution, this area, which is now part of the city of Salford, was a township known as Pendleton. It included a vast swathe of open space interspersed with a few large houses, such as Chaseley House (now flats). Buile Hill Park and Seedley Park at the top of our road were once much larger parklands and Salford was then a humble market town to the east. The industrial revolution brought railways. With the railways came the mills and with the mills came jobs. Jobs meant more people and people needed houses.

At one time, the most common type of housing in Salford was the two-up-two-down red-brick terrace. Indeed, much of Salford, including where I live, is still characterised by geometrically arranged streets marched on either side by rows of orange-brown buildings. These Victorian constructions - a then modern take on the Regency town-houses of the upper classes - are solidly built and have stood for a hundred years. They offer generous accommodation, even with the later additions of indoor plumbing, central heating and fitted kitchens. High ceilings and large windows make rooms feel big, bright and airy. But these wonderful homes are a bit of a dying breed. There are still plenty of them but far less than 10 years ago or 10 years before that. Perhaps it is the lack of outside space - terraced houses have enclosed yards but no gardens. They are houses designed and built to make maximum use of the available space. They are the high-rises of the past, built horizontally across an industrial landscape, instead of vertically into the sky. This is the landscape of LS Lowry.

The next round of housing at greatest evidence in this area is the product of the great depression of the 1930s. Faced with a massive recession as a result of the 1929 Wall Street Crash in America, the UK government pumped money into the economy by building millions of new homes. 30's homes are mostly semi-detached. Unlike their terraced brothers, they have outdoor space to spare. Gardens front and back show a developing aspirational society. Homes were not just places to eat and sleep in between work, they became the castles of the working class. However, like the housing of the past, they are homogeneous. In between the columns of Victorian and Edwardian terraces, you will find rows of cloned 1930s semis squatting in little patches of green.

There is a third housing presence in this part of the city that dominates in a different way to the rest. The 60s and 70s brought the replacement of so-called slum housing. Vast tracts of terraced housing were demolished, either during World War II as a result of The Blitz, or in the late 50s and early 60s in the name of modernisation. Replacing them were the great towering high-rises of the late 60s and early 70s, augmented with larger low-rise accommodation. The high-rises offered a vision of apartment living with all the amenities of modern life. The maximised accommodation in the minimum of space and created communities in the sky. In some parts of the country, and indeed, in some of the high-rises in this city, the slums of the past may have been cleared but the modernisation of the 60s turned out to be the slums of the future. I have been in many of the high-rises in this area and they are generally well-maintained and attractive places to live. Some places, like Thorn Court, are genuine communities. But not all 60s domiciles are so pleasant.

Certain parts of our area are made up of the 60s version of the Victorian terrace. Set at odd angles to each other and built in quadrangles or walks without vehicle access, these areas area difficult to police, so are favourite escape routes for criminals. Although they make good sound homes, they are often unattractive externally. On approach you are never quite sure whether it's the front of the house or the back you're looking at, giving them a somewhat schizophrenic appearance.

Nevertheless, Salford has some great housing stock and it's been great to get out and have a really good explore of my area. Like it or love it, leafletting is the best way to get to know the place you live in. The fingerprint of the city's history can be seen in it's housing and when you look back to the past you can see the same steps being taken and the same mistakes being made time and again. Regeneration and modernisation marches on and poorly maintained or poorly planned housing of yesterday is demolished to make way for the demands of today. Here in Langworthy, housing is coming full-circle. The lost terraces of the past have been replaced with modern equivalents to one degree or another. It's fascinating to look around and imagine the cityscape of the past and what might come along in the future.

Letterboxes

It would be a strange circumstance indeed that would see me become Prime Minister tomorrow, or indeed ever. But should that strange circumstance occur, my number one priority would not be the economy, schools or the NHS. It wouldn't even be electoral reform. It would be letterboxes!

Over the last 7 days I must have walked 50 miles and posted thousands of letters and leaflets through the doors of my neighbours. It has given me a new appreciation of the plight of the neighbourhood post-person. It has also given me a nice set of nicks, bruises and scars on the back of my hands and on my knuckles.

So, as your new Prime Minister, here are the new rules that will be introduced as of June 1st (see... I'm fair... I'm giving you some time to sort out your letterbox!)

1. All letterboxes must be in the middle of the door. No more letterboxes at the bottom of the door. How more posties don't throw their backs out or get assaulted by their bags as they bend down to access such letterboxes, I will never know.

2. All letterboxes must lift up rather than push in. Push in letterboxes are usually so stiff that you can barely move your fingers by the time your done. They also have a nasty habit of taking your fingers off. There is many a campaigner out there that is missing the end of a finger, or a whole finger, or even a hand!

3. There must be no sharp edges on any part of the letterbox. Brushes on the inside of letterboxes are increasingly popular - they are a good thing because they stop drafts and in these eco-conscientious times, who doesn't want to stop a draft? The side effect is that you usually have to shove your whole hand into the letterbox to get the letter or leaflet in. Sharp internal edges have drawn blood more times than I can count and have left me with many a battle scar.

4. On the subject of anti-draft brushes, can we have nice soft ones, please. Soft ones are nice on our weary little fingers. We don't like the kind that feels like scraping your hands on sandpaper.

5. Brushes make internal flaps unnecessary and it's hardly fair that you get to try and sever our fingers twice in one go.

6. Narrow letterboxes are forbidden. Only children can effectively use these letterboxes and we do not condone child labour.

7. All letterboxes must be hung horizontally. Vertical letterboxes are hopeless - especially the ones that are hinged at the top. Although side hinged ones are almost as bad.

8. In houses where there are dogs, a cage must be provided, either for the dog or for the letterbox. A third opportunity for finger severance in the form of a dog (or dogs) lying in wait on the other side of a door, is most definitely not acceptable.

9. As an alternative to the above, an outside box for post can be provided. And if you want to put it on your fence or gate to avoid the trek up (or down) a hill that's like the north face of the Eiger, that would be most welcome. There will be tax breaks for homes with long or steep paths that use this type of post receptacle.

10. A letter box must be provided. What's the deal with houses and flats with no letterbox? I can understand the attraction - no pizza leaflets, take-away menus and election stuff - but how the heck do you normally get your post? You are strange people!

11. Everyone must test their own letterbox several times to ensure full compliance with the above. Trust me, it will give you a whole new appreciation of the trouble this small, rectangular orifice causes.

Now aren't you glad you ended up with the present no-man's-land of politics, instead of me? :o)

The Fear

The election is over... sort of. After all, no party has really 'won' yet and, for the campaigner on the ground, there is still all the tidying up, thank you letters and the campaign autopsy to do before we can really say that the election is over. But for now, there is a little time to recover from our 'war wounds' (aching feet, lack of sleep and 'letter-box knuckle') and chance to reflect. Election week was so busy I didn't have time to post all the things I wanted to. So I will be catching up.

Last year, Lily Allen released the single 'The Fear', with the chorus...

I don't know what's right and what's real anymore
I don't know how I'm meant to feel anymore
And when do you think it will all become clear?
'Cos I'm being taken over by the fear

Wise words indeed. It's almost as if it was written about the election as the various parties vied for votes and power and tried (perhaps in vain) to use the black cloak of fear to confuse the electorate into supporting them.

Early on, Labour came under heavy criticism for sending postcards to cancer patients. Not only did the party make rather dubious use of NHS patient information in order to do so, they attempted to scare said cancer patients into supporting them by claiming that the Conservative party would cut cancer treatment and put lives at risk. It was a desperate tactic that backfired horribly. Rather than garnering support, it put people off the party. Far from being scared of a Tory government, it seemed the majority response was horror at the blatant attempt at manipulation that was just about as subtle as a brick and the general misuse of patient information.

The Conservatives tried a similar, albeit slightly less brick-like tactic. Feeling their divine right to power slipping through their tightly clenched fingers, the Tories tried to scare the electorate into avoiding a hung parliament. It'll be bad for the economy, the stock markets won't like it, it'll be all shady back-room deals... they failed to mention any of the nations where minority governments, coalitions and hung parliaments are run-of-the-mill. The SNP minority government in Scotland has managed to do just fine for its people. Fortunately, it seems that people were just as unconvinced by this tactic. The electorate didn't like to be 'told' how to vote and returned a hung parliament anyway. Take that, David Cameron!

The British National Party are of course the party of fear. They play on the general fear that surrounds immigration, 'foreign' cultures and some religions. Less than a week before the election, some of our neighbours received a mocked up letter and other material purporting to be from a Muslim organisation. I will not perpetuate the lies, but the stunt was designed to instill fear of the Muslim community. Thankfully, people here saw straight through it. Many of the mailings were handed to the police. Most were simply discarded. I am proud to say that the BNP vote collapsed.

So generally it seems that people do not allow themselves to be taken in by such tactics, but having said that, there was a large proportion of voters that remained undecided right up to the last minute and I wonder if these sort of tactics might have had something to do with it. 'Spin' is one thing - the presentation of information in a positive or negative way - but some of the strategies and tactics that have been employed have gone far beyond mere spin. It's tough enough picking a party or candidate to support without the media and the opposition making matters more complicated with fear, half-truths and sometimes even lies. Perhaps rules are needed? But then again, rules are made to be broken.

Style v Substance

There is little doubt, in this election, that celebrity is playing an important role. Until the first televised leaders debate, the Lib-Dems were very much the third party and no-one realistically expected a strong showing. But the debates have changed that. Here was a platform on which the Liberal Democrats were entirely equal to their opponents and here was a platform on which two young, charismatic men competed with an older, less attractive, and perhaps more typical, politician, for public affection. In a society that is increasingly driven by celebrity and media attention (Princess Diana, Jade Goody, Susan Boyle, Brangelina, Katie Price and Peter Andre, Heather Mills and Macca, etc, etc) Gordon Brown was perhaps always doomed to failure.

Of course, the outcome of the election hasn't yet been decided - we'll have to wait until Thursday for that - but this raises interesting questions about the influence of celebrity and media in modern politics. It is a concern for me that voters might be swayed either by the image a candidate projects in the media, the attention they get in the spotlight, or by the celebrities that support them, rather than by their policies. This set me thinking about another aspect of celebrity politics: Is it wrong for celebrities to endorse parties or candidates?

My head says, no (after all, celebrities are voters too and they have a right to support whomever they wish, just like the rest of us) but something in me finds this whole area of politics a little distasteful.

Early on in this election campaign Sir Michael Caine was seen doing the rounds with David Cameron
in support of Conservative proposals for a National Citizenship Service for 16 year olds. The Labour party have the support of comedian Eddie Izzard, who has been out on the campaign trail; and actor, David Tennant. Both have been seen in recent election broadcasts. The local Labour party has been at it too. They have the support of local artist and LS Lowry protege, Harold Riley, who, this year, signed the nomination papers for Hazel Blears. As for us, who have we managed to call out in support of the Lib Dems? We have presenter, Floella Benjamin; actor, Colin Firth; and Harry Potter (well, Daniel Radcliffe - sadly there will be no 'accio Lib-Dem Voters' for us). Even the BNP have tried to associate themselves with one of the most recognisable British Politicians ever, and wheeled out the corpse of Sir Winston Churchill for a controversial guest spot on the front of one of their leaflets. Bah!

Of course, as much as we'd like to think this is all part of some wider media furore surrounding this particular election, or perhaps a side effect of having live, televised leaders debates for the first time in UK history, having a celebrity or two stepping out in support of your politics is nothing new. There are few Scottish voters that will forget Sean Connery's stirring party political broadcasts in support of the SNP. And does anyone remember John Cleese's 1992 Lib-Dem broadcast? No, I thought not, but it did happen! This is nothing new. In fact, over the pond, the celebrity campaign has been used to great effect for quite some time. During Barack Obama's campaign, he had the support of high profile celebrities such as Madonna, Oprah Winfrey and Scarlett Johansson and USA Today traces celebrity endorsement as far back as...

"nearly a century ago. According to journalist Ronald Brownstein's account of the connection between Hollywood's glitter and Washington's power, the first formal endorsement of a presidential candidate by a major show-business figure came in 1920, when Al Jolson organized a group of Broadway celebrities on behalf of Republican Warren Harding's presidential campaign. Four years later, Jolson publicly backed Harding's successor, Calvin Coolidge. But it was not until the 1930s, when Franklin D. Roosevelt captured the loyalty of scores of actors and actresses — including a later president, Ronald Reagan — that endorsement of presidential candidates by performers became commonplace."

Mind you, in the same article USA Today also discusses how celebrity endorsements can sometimes backfire, as happened in the 2004 John Kerry campaign when Whoopi Goldberg made an inappropriate joke at George W Bush's expense.

"Candidates have often found out the hard way that stars are a bit like uranium: precious, but radioactive."

But I'm still not convinced that it's right. There's something about the parading of music, TV, movie or other cultural icons in politics that I find uncomfortable. The implication is something like, 'look, your favourite celebrity votes for us - so you should too'. It leaves a somewhat sour taste.

However, the attraction of the celebrity endorsement isn't only in the potential to draw votes, it's also in the draw of the media. Dragging out your highest profile celeb to shake some hands or make a statement at a press conference is a virtual guarantee of coverage in the media. In a society that hungers for star gossip, what a celebrity is up to at any given time sells papers and boosts ratings, so of course the media will sit up and pay attention. Perhaps the real impact at the end of the day is negligible compared with the potential positive benefits, because the difficulty for any candidate, whether in a local or parliamentary election, is getting your name and face out there, and the attention of the media is an exceptionally powerful tool that can be used to do just that. In truth, if we had a local celebrity willing to publicly back our parliamentary or local candidates in this election, I wouldn't hesitate to use him or her, if only to get us some extra media attention. I suspect I might not sleep very well, having done so, but I don't think I could pass-up the opportunity.

So perhaps celebrity and politics can happily sit together on the same park bench. Perhaps it is wrong of me to think that voters are so easily swayed or so shallow... or perhaps not? But spare a thought this bank holiday for the accidental celebrity in this election. I am, of course, speaking of Mrs Gillian Duffy, who found herself thrust into the media spotlight while out buying a loaf of bread. The 'bigoted woman', as Gordon Brown so unwittingly dubbed her, is now somewhat of a local heroine for confronting the Prime Minister on the campaign messages that were important to her. What a shame, however, that it wasn't her earnest and heartfelt challenge that earned her the attention of the TV camera's winking eye, but the far more sensational and far less inspiring gaff made by Gordon Brown - a weary man in a moment of weakness.

"Style over substance" is a phrase that has been used many times over the past few weeks and one which summarises this post most succinctly. If Mrs Duffy is anything to go by, perhaps substance is winning after all... although it's a disappointment that she has been so disillusioned by Gordon Brown's behaviour that she is saying that she will not vote for anyone. Ultimately, as long as most people vote for the candidate or party that most closely represents their views, no matter what role media and celebrity played in that decision, I'll be happy because democracy will be the outright winner.

Does Politics Have the X-Factor?

Last Sunday I spent two thirds of my day hanging around in the cold at Old Trafford waiting for my one and a half minutes in front of an X-Factor judge. Yes, I succumbed to the temptation of bright lights, fame, fortune... not quite! I auditioned, safe in the knowledge that I am neither a good enough, nor bad enough singer to get beyond stage one, so it was never about any of that stuff! My interest was purely one of experience and exploration. I took it as an opportunity to get some audition practice for the one that really matters - for a Sing Live Beatles solo audition, which will be next weekend! It was an interesting experience. I had some fun and it has ended up being a surprising confidence booster, so I'm glad I did it.

While standing there waiting in the longest queue I've ever stood in, it occurred to me that if people paid as much attention to politics as they do to X-Factor, Britain's Got (So-called) Talent and Big Brother, British politics would be much better off. Mind you, the thought of Gordon Brown singing and dancing on a Saturday night for votes kinda makes me want to vomit! But seriously, millions of people that won't vote for free in an election will actually spend money to vote for contestants on these shows - and it's not just sixteen year old girls either! How many people talk about X-Factor on a Monday morning, compared with how many people talk about local or national government (except to have a moan)? It seems that people are quick to complain and slow to act.

I think one of the main problems is a lack of understanding. I have lost count of the number of times recently when I have had to explain the concept of two elections on the same day and I constantly find myself explaining the importance of local elections to people who only vote in parliamentary elections. So many people seem to think that when they vote they are doing so to elect the Prime Minister. They don't realise they are actually electing the individual that will represent them in Parliament and that the Prime Minister is never actually elected (except as the MP for his or her own constituency). With so little understanding of how our system of government works and why it has been set up that way, it's no wonder people think their vote doesn't matter.

So, what's the answer? Do we need to change the way things work? Well, yes, sort of. I support Lib Dem electoral reform policy in full. However, I do not believe it will promote understanding (who here knows how proportional representation works?) and consequently I believe it is unlikely to improve voter turnout or encourage people to engage in politics. Instead, there are three things I would personally like to see introduced.

First, I would like to see politics and citizenship taught in school. Obviously, party policy must be kept out of the classroom but that isn't what I'm talking about here. Our kids should be taught about national and local government, how it works, why it's important to vote and what the affect of non-voting might be. This is a factual subject that can and should be taught. I believe that understanding will promote engagement.

The second thing I would like to see introduced is compulsory voting. There are many that disagree with me, including my poor husband who gets bullied over the subject at regular intervals. There is a general concern that compulsory voting is like putting a gun to person's head, but if an individual doesn't want to vote for any of the candidates they still have the right to not vote by removing or spoiling their ballot paper. In recent years, so many people have said to me that they don't vote in order to 'send a message'. Indeed, in the Irwell Riverside by-election last year, voter apathy was particularly high as many electors stayed home in the wake of the expenses scandal. But staying home doesn't send a message, it just makes you seem lazy. If the vote was compulsory, by removing or spoiling the ballot you would be sending a much clearer message. There is a risk that compulsory voting would mean people would make an uninformed and random choice, but I believe that having to make a choice (whether that be to vote for a candidate or to not complete the vote) would encourage people to make themselves more aware of their options. Understanding does not fall in fairy dust (or volcanic ash!) from the sky; it is something which you must seek out and choose to accept. When you are 'forced' to make a choice (for example, from a restaurant menu) do you just pick something without knowing what it is or do you ask (the waiter) for information or a recommendation?

Finally, I would lower the voting age to sixteen. I was initially against this when it was put to me (how can a sixteen year old make an informed decision about something a thirty year old can't?) but on reflection, if politics was taught in school, I see no reason why not. At the age of sixteen an individual can serve in the armed forces, can get married, can work (and consequently pay taxes) and can leave home. If you are considered responsible enough to make these decisions about your life and future, you should be responsible enough to make a choice about your government representative. Furthermore, politics is just as relevant to young people as it is to adults and if you speak to young people, you can see that kids as young as thirteen or fourteen are already becoming aware of community, society and government. They know what they want and need in their community - just ask them; they have some great ideas. Sixteen year olds are becoming increasingly accustomed to voting, whether it is for their favourite Big Brother contestant or the best singer or group on X-Factor. Rather than look down my nose at that, I'd prefer to use it! Get people to start voting young and they will continue to do so as they get older.

Voter turnout has been slipping for years. I believe that fostering understanding of the electoral system and local and national government is the key to improving it. Alternatively, we can get rid of candidates and just have people vote for their favourite party by calling an 0901 number or texting at 25p per message... I am, of course, joking about this last part! :o)

Who's Fault is it Anyway?

No campaigning for me yesterday. I had other things to do (more on that subject later). However, I was out on Saturday afternoon posting letters around our ward. It was a gorgeous, warm, sunny day, which meant that a lot of folks were out and about or sitting in their gardens. The sounds of the Grand National rolled out of open doors and windows and kids were kicking footballs in the streets. On days like that it's a great opportunity to catch views and responses because, for once, people are not locked away indoors!

A couple of things were clear. Firstly, the level of awareness of the pending election is very high, which is great because I've campaigned in by-elections when no-one even knew there was an election due. Mind you... you would have to be living under a rock to not know about this one! The second thing that's clear is that there exists a group of people who insist on blaming it all on the immigrants... whatever 'it' is!

People are entitled to their opinion but this is something that thoroughly irritates me. It is a position that shows an utter lack of insight and a determination to bury one's head most firmly in the sand. There is no denying that immigration is an important issue; an incoming population can have both positive and negative effects on a society, but it is somewhat ridiculous to blame all society's problems on immigration - as some people seem so bent on doing.

Sometimes, immigration is undoubtedly a good thing. It allows us to employ the best and brightest and specialists in their chosen field. We should also welcome overseas students who come here to learn, because as well as skills and knowledge, they also gain an understanding of our society and culture. Many industries also rely on overseas workers for seasonal work like fruit picking, because it's something British workers are rarely willing to do. This is very good for business and for the economy. However, immigration can simultaneously lead to a number of problems, not least a loss of identity.

The human being is a social creature. We identify ourselves by groups that we belong to or are excluded from. How often have you asked someone where they were born or what they do for a living? How old are you? Are you a cat or a dog person? What's your favourite colour? Wheelchair-bound people are constantly and frustratingly defined by the fact that they can't walk rather than by their views or experiences; it isn't that unusual to hear people talk about 'seeing beyond the chair'. We seek out people who are like us, with whom we have a common ground, because it makes us feel comfortable and safe; we like to belong. Mass immigration, I believe, scares people because it threatens that feeling of safety and belonging. It threatens identity. This is particularly true because minority populations also want to belong so they often seek each other out too. Minority communities thrive within larger towns and cities. Is there a Jewish quarter in your town? Does your city have a 'China Town'? In the case of religious beliefs, there is the additional consideration that communities spring up in places where there is a church, temple or mosque, simply because it's convenient for the population that worships there. (It's really no different from someone moving to be nearer work, or a family moving to be near a good school.) The unfortunate side-effect of this is that 'native' people begin to feel like the minority, even when they aren't. Additional problems arise when the national sense of identity begins to erode too.

The British are a nation battered by negative phrases like 'Broken Britain', 'Yob Culture' and 'Brits Abroad'. We are losing what it means to be British and more specifically what it means to be English. The Scottish, Irish and Welsh are fortunate to each have clear national and cultural identities. They are nations within a nation that each have a proud heritage and cultural quirks that the majority both acknowledge and, in many cases, adopt. They are people that are proud of who they are. But what of the English? Bangers and mash and fish and chips have given way to Chinese Take-out and Curry Mile. Tea and Crumpets has lost out to Starbucks and Costa-lotta Coffee. Not that those things really matter - I love take out and curry and drink tea or coffee depending on my mood - but when people don't understand what makes them culturally unique, they are even more inclined to feel threatened by other groups. When you feel like you have nothing in common with your neighbour who looks like you, talks like you, has a similar upbringing, family and social status to you, of course you will be concerned by the fifteen people in the next street who - to you - all seem to be alike. It's because you feel alone.

Of course, none of this is the fault of immigration but people who are not like us are an easy target. It takes so much less energy to point the finger at someone with brown skin or a different accent than it does to acknowledge and understand the real sources of society's problems. The person who lives down the street popping out one kid after the next so they can live at home on benefits is more guilty of draining the welfare state than an immigrant who is entitled to no benefits at all, and the young men who ride around my area on uninsured bikes making a racket and putting the lives of others at risk are not from overseas but from right here, in Salford.

My point is simply that society is far more complex than the 'blame it on the immigrants' attitude permits. There a thousand nuances to consider and immigration is only one facet of this little gem. There are sixty-one million people in the UK each with his or her own combination of problems, perspectives and circumstances, and I promise you that 'the immigrants' remain the minority by quite some margin. So don't come bleating to me about immigration. At least not until you have taken a long hard look at the issue you're complaining about. Understanding is the key - and not just understanding of the person who is different from you, but understanding of yourself and why you feel the way you feel.

It's All About the Money

The General Election is finally upon us but judging by the media, anyone would think that campaigning only started this week. The truth of the matter is that many activists, like myself, have been campaigning since before Christmas. Across the country, evenings have been spent in meetings or at home preparing leaflets, envelopes or the letters to go in them. Weekends have been spent meeting the public in the street, or posting leaflets through doors. However, now the real work begins.

Over the next few weeks I hope to try and blog regularly to give an impression of what it's like, as an activist, campaigning for local and national elections. I hope that you'll get some opinion, some insight and a feel for our constituency. I will try not to make it too dry. ;o)

So, the beginning of 'day four'. Where are we at?

Last night a group of us headed down to Salford Arts Theatre for a local 'Question Time' style debate. On the panel was the sitting Labour MP, Hazel Blears, Conservative candidate, Matthew Sephton, Liberal Democrat front-runner, Norman Owen, local journalist, Pamela Welsh and local TUC secretary, Alex Halligan.

There is a lot of ill feeling in our constituency (Salford and Eccles) towards the Labour party and Hazel Blears. During the summer of last year, it transpired that Hazel Blears had 'flipped' her home in order to avoid paying £13,000 in tax. She was far from the worst offender but has come out of this side of last year's expenses scandal very poorly. At the time, she showed up on TV waving a cheque, which she said would pay back the tax she had avoided. The reality of the publicity stunt was that the cheque was meaningless. Had she sent it to the Inland Revenue, they would not have had a mechanism to accept it. In addition, £13,000, the amount which seemed so insignificant to Hazel, is close to what many people in Salford get paid in a year. Thus, she came across as arrogant and effectively set herself apart from her voters. The only worse response would have been to stick two fingers up at the public on live TV. She followed this up by stabbing her party leader in the back and consequently losing her cabinet position. She saw an opportunity to progress her career and it back-fired. Needless to say, she is not a popular woman.

The event itself was very worthwhile and aside from a group of hecklers, served to genuinely engage the public. I think it was clear by the end of the meeting, that Hazel had done little to change the minds of those present, which is good news for our campaign! The event also served to confirm my worst fears about Labour and TUC politics.

Frankly, I have never seen so much ass-kissing in public. Throughout the event, the TUC panelist sucked up to Hazel at every opportunity. And the same was true in the opposite direction. There is a lot of back scratching going on and it couldn't have been more clear that the two organisations are in bed with each other if their representatives had stripped off right then and there! The TUC donates a significant amount of money to the Labour party, which in turn gives them a lot of power. I'm not saying the TUC dictates Labour party policy necessarily, but I do believe the Labour party is afraid of pissing off the unions for fear their funding will dry-up. Whether intentional or not, this will ultimately influence the behaviour of the party. At this point, you might be wondering what's wrong with that? Well, put simply, it's a conflict of interest. How can a government act in the interests of the nation when they are worried about their funding?

This is not a problem that is unique to British politics. It is a topic that featured in American politics time and again. Allowing unlimited donations to political parties and candidates means that it becomes possible to 'buy an election'. No-one really likes to admit it, but people are generally more impressed by a glossy full colour leaflet than by something produced in black and white on a Risograph, regardless of content. In also means that you can put more feet on the ground, stage more events and sometimes enables you to be more visible. Big money allows parties to campaign more aggressively over a much greater area and makes it more difficult for independents and smaller parties to compete. It's unfair and, in my opinion, undemocratic.

I think Lib-Dem policy puts it best:

"Politics should be a battle of ideas, not marketing budgets. No-one should be able to buy influence or buy an election. We will take big money out of politics by capping donations and spending throughout the electoral cycle."

Snow Business

Sub-zero Britain

After a chilly and snowy build up to the Christmas period, the weather has continued to bite. Here in Salford we had a six inch fall overnight on Monday night and daily sub-zero temperatures mean that is still lying now, five days later. The amount of snow combined with low temperatures are virtually unprecedented and conditions are causing chaos across the UK. I am fortunate that I am able to work from home, but millions of others have had to stay off work because they can't get there safely, or because their kids are home and they have no childcare. Yesterday was the first we had been out in the car since Monday and the short drive to the supermarket was easily the most terrifying drive of my life. Many roads have not been gritted or cleared of snow. Only the very busiest of routes around our area are completely clear and that is mainly due to the volume of traffic.

Snow in Salford - 4 days after initial fall

Of course, there are many other countries cope annually with conditions similar to, or worse than this. Consider the nations that sit much further north than us, like Scandinavia and Alaska. Even in Scotland, six inches of snow doesn't present too much of an issue. So why is the snow presenting so much of a problem for us now?

Firstly, the reality is that for the most part, England doesn't have to deal with this kind of weather on a prolonged basis. The usual snow fall here is a light dusting that melts quickly. This means that most councils don't have the infrastructure to cope with the conditions. It's a problem of resources, not a problem of will. Therefore unfair to compare Salford with Stockholm or even Strathspey! Of course, this lack of experience results in another problem: what few resources are available have not been used to their best effect.

Around our area tonnes of grit has been dumped on main roads over the past week and none has been used on any side road. In addition, it seems that the grit has been spread on top of lying snow - basically that the snow has not been cleared first. What happens in this situation is that snow turns to very slippery slush. This will be cleared by moving traffic. However, in a lot of cases, because side roads are not safely passable and because there is a lot of lying snow (and then slush), the traffic simply isn't enough to clear the road. Gritting on top of lying snow is therefore a false economy. The snow must be ploughed first for the grit to have the best effect - namely preventing the formation of ice. In addition, I think that it is reasonable to expect the majority of side roads to be ploughed, even if they can't be gritted. Clearing the roads of snow will make conditions easier to cope with and will therefore enable more traffic to get onto the main roads. The policy of only treating / dealing with main roads and ignoring everything else is bizarre and always be doomed to fail in these conditions.

Having said this, I do not blame my local council, or indeed any other local council. Decisions about where and when to grit and how to manage winter resources are being made by people who have little knowledge and experience of these specific conditions. If I were to point the finger at anyone, it would be squarely in the direction of central government. It has been clear since Tuesday that this situation has the scale of a national crisis; it is certainly of much greater significance than the so-called flu-pandemic, yet, the 'big freeze' has prompted very little public response. In my opinion, central government should have had plans in place to deal with disruption on this kind of national scale and should have begun issuing advice to councils and residents before the snow even fell. Had a few simple steps been taken in the early stages of this 'crisis', I suspect that large scale and ongoing disruption could have been more easily avoided. Local roads would certainly have been much safer!

Snow in the Highlands of Scotland.