Olympic Gold

Did anyone catch the Olympics Opening Ceremony by any chance? Wiping out three hours of the BBC's evening schedule, it would be pretty hard to miss. Personally, I'm glad I made a point of watching; it was a fantastic celebration of our nation and I felt very proud to be British.

So often I think that as a nation we suffer from a lack of national identity. It's a fluid concept as national interests and tastes change, but most nations are known for something very specific, either in the character of the people or the character of the geography: Germany is famous for engineering and efficiency, Italy is known for flamboyancy, France is known for being insular (sometimes even xenophobic) but also for gourmet cooking, America is the nation of excess, etc., so what makes us British?

I think our lack of identity sometimes stems from the fact that we aren't one single nation. Scotland, Ireland and Wales have their own sense of identity and it's something which can drive a wedge between the people of those nations and their identity as a British National. (Scottish Independence, anyone?) In addition, I think that we are also sometimes guilty of holding on to our historical identity so steadfastly that we forget to embrace our present. Then again, our present isn't always something we would want to embrace when there's rioting in the streets, petty crime is rife and the media is in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. However there are somethings that are completely unique to Britain and this is what Danny Boyle so successfully exploited.

We are an old nation with a history spanning millenia, not centuries. Britain was the seat of the industrial revolution and continues to be a breeding ground for some great technological wonders, celebrated in the opening ceremony by the inclusion of Tim Berners-Lee. We are recognised around the world for our British humour (so many of my overseas friends love the likes of Monty Python and Mr Bean), the British music scene is one of the most diverse and vibrant in the world and British literature is celebrated around the globe. And of course, we should celebrate the great British institutions, like the BBC and the NHS, which are both completely unique. Politically, we are both liberal and socialist, defending the rights of the individual and fiercely protecting the welfare state and institutions like the NHS, but also celebrating our monarchy. We are diverse and we are inclusive.

Danny Boyle reminded us of these facts by doing nothing more than putting on a terribly British show. For that alone, at least in my eyes, he is both a genius and a national hero.

NaBloPoMo Day 26 - When does unfair become fair?

On a day when British Prime Minister, David Cameron, should have is attention firmly squared upon the Eurozone crisis, a leaked report by Conservative donor, Adrian Beecroft, suggests that the government should repeal legislation that protects workers against unfair dismissal. The report, commissioned by David Cameron, suggests that employment law is holding back economic growth and that in order to encourage business, the laws should be scrapped. In the report, Beecroft says:

"Many regulations conceived in an era of full employment are designed to make employment more attractive to potential employees, That was addressing yesterday's problem. In today's era of a lack of jobs those regulations simply exacerbate the national problem of high unemployment." (Huffingtonpost.co.uk)

I fail to see how keeping someone in a job (whether they are lazy or otherwise) contributes to a problem of high unemployment.

Unemployment law in the UK is very detailed and sometimes complex, but if it is, that is because it has been honed to achieve the best balance between the employer and the employee. Having said that, the dismissal process is relatively straightforward, particularly for unproductive workers. How difficult is it to understand and implement a policy that is as simple as verbal warning, writing warning, final writing warning, out?

In my experience, all too often, unproductive workers are the result of the mismanagement of the employer. I have witnessed first hand an employee that literally sat with his feet up on the desk and got away with it over and over because the manager failed to follow the correct procedure for dismissal. Why did this happen? It wasn't because the law was ineffective, it was because the manager didn't want to deal with the problem and, when threatened by the employee (with an employment tribunal), didn't understand the process and the law enough to be confident to proceed.

While the employee must take responsibility for their own actions (or inaction),  the employer must take responsibility for addressing those problems. Individuals must be given a fair opportunity to reverse the negative behavior and improve their performance. Existing laws ensure that all employees receive due process when being dismissed and that they have a right of appeal. Even with laws as they are now, anyone can be sacked for any reason; it's just a matter of cost!

I have also witnessed first hand someone being summarily dismissed because the manager wanted to replace them with a friend, so it's not as if unfair dismissal doesn't still happen, even with the laws in place.


If there was ever any doubt that the Tories have changed for the better, this report removes it in one fell swoop. They are the party of the rich and the party of business and they have once again demonstrated how, despite a young, fresh image, and a selection of moderate policies, the party is the same old wolf wearing the same old sheep-skin rug and hoping no-one will notice. But we have noticed.

I understand the motivation and I even understand the principles on which Conservative policies are founded - small government, less tax etc. But the problem with small government (ie. repealing laws and removing government and civil justice responsibility) is that it is always the guy at the bottom of the ladder that suffers. After all, shit falls downwards.

Beecroft goes on to say in the report that:


"The downside of the proposal is that some people would be dismissed simply because their employer did not like them," and adds "While this is sad I believe it is a price worth paying for all the benefits that would result from change." (Huffingtonpost.co.uk)


The unjust sacking of even one hard-working individual is a price that I am simply unwilling to pay. Mainly because that person could, one-day, be me. We need more job security in a recession, not less and I'm pretty sure if Beecroft or David Cameron had normal jobs, this idea would never have been thought of, never mind actually making it to consideration. .

NaBloPoMo Day 23 - Occupy X

Normally I would do some sort of X Factor blog (since I didn't do it last night) but today there is a bigger and much more inspiring story.

Today Libya celebrated its liberation from Gaddafi's dictatorship. It is a nation that has suffered under a brutal tyranny designed to entrench the leadership, and a people that for too long have been denied freedom. But today Libya is a nation that looks forward to the future and the hope of democracy. While the people remember their dead and the wounded recover, they are hopeful for better things; for simple things like the freedom to choose their leaders and freedom from the threat of death for descension. I celebrate the liberation of Libya and I celebrate the sacrifice that her people made to rebel against the rule of a corrupt man and his family.

How sad and how shameful that the Occupy protests that are taking place in London and cities in America should compare themselves with Libya and the Arab Spring.

I defend the right to protest and I applaud organisers of the OccupyLSX protest for how peaceful it has been. In recent years too many peaceful demonstrations have turned violent so it is a relief to see a well organised protest that is not aggressive in any way. However, I do take issue with this protest on a number of counts, the biggest of which is the association with the struggle of other nations where liberty and freedom are just words in a dictionary. If they think their campaign has any similarities with that of the Arab Spring, they need a wake-up call. Perhaps they should go a volunteer in Libya to get a taste of what revolution is really like.

These protests are Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Establishment, and Nihilistic. They offer no solution, no programme or suggestion for reform and many of the interviews that I have seen have revealed protestors views and reasons for joining in to be naive at best. It saddens me that these people can't see how fortunate they are. Here's a crazy idea, guys, why don't you get involved in politics - become a Local Councillor or an MP - and try to change society for the better? Or is that too much like hard work?

NaBloPoMo Day 7 - Open University

Day 7 already and still going strong. I am very proud of myself. :-)

Today I'd like to dedicate my blog to some wonderful and helpful people that I encountered. You see, last night I received one of the regular email newsletters from the Open University. I have been studying with them since 2002 (yep... Almost a decade) and working towards a degree in Literature. I have only one course left to do.

The email that I received last night had a section about next year's course fees, which increase from £700 for a 60 point course, to £2,500. Why the price hike? It's all due to changes to the way that universities are funded. When the changes come in next September, the Open University stands to lose £90m in funding from the government. In place of the funding, they have had to increase their fees. However, unlike the current fee and loans system, from next September, part-time students will be eligible for a student loan to cover the course fees.

Of course, even the lower fee is quite an item, so money being tight I chose to postpone my final course until next year... Until I got that email I mentioned. Panic! You see, I started a degree in 1997, which I had to abandon for personal reasons so I was unsure whether I would be eligible for a loan to cover the fees for next year. At the same time, registration for my final course for this year's intake had closed, so I was facing a fee I believed I couldn't possibly pay next year on the one hand, and a course I couldn't get on to for this year on the other. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

The good news is that it was all stress for nothing. Raj at Student Finance for England assures me that I am eligible for the loan for next year. So hooray! However is also spoke with Lynn and Elaine at the OU, both of whom were very helpful indeed. As it happens, had I needed to, they would have placed me on the intake for this year. All three folks offered me reassurance and excellent customer service, for which I am very grateful.

So after all that, am I against the tuition fee changes? No. I believe in a free education system but that's not possible at the momeny. However, the changes will make higher education much more accessible to those from lower income backgrounds and it is fairer because those who graduate and end up earning more will pay back more while those who earn less will pay less. At the end of the day, whether you come from privilege or from a council estate is irrelevant; where you end up is what will matter. It's not a perfect system but it's an improvement.

Tweet Me Right

In typical knee-jerk fashion yesterday, David Cameron made the suggestion that BBM (Blackberry Messenger) and 'other social media' could, in future, be turned off in the event that services were being used to harm. Twitter is my drug of choice and I have given much thought to its role (and the role of similar instant messaging services) in the riots.

I acknowledge the role that it played in escalating the violence and focusing trouble. Throughout Tuesday there were mad rumours circulating. Some people claimed things were happening when they weren't and others said there was trouble in places where there was none. Social media undoubtedly made it easier for people who were up for it to know where to go thereby swelling the numbers of rioters, and social media also allowed the criminal element to communicate and organise. If Twitter, BBM and Facebook hadn't existed, would the riots have happened? Surely the answer is yes. Riots happened in the past, long before the invention of mobile phones, never mind internet and social media. If social media had not been available, the rioters would still have communicated, but it would have been word of mouth and by telephone, text message or email.

Furthermore, if it's important to recognise the role of social media in instigating and escalating the riots, it is also important to recognise the positive role it has played. For me, Twitter was something of a double-edged sword. On one hand it allowed me to keep up to date with what was going on but on the other hand knowing what was going on was frightening. I have wondered several times if I would have been better off without Twitter that night; if I hadn't seen the news and didn't monitor Twitter I would probably have been completely unaware of the scale of the violence. I follow a lot of local journalists and broadcasters on Twitter so I was getting a lot of updates and while the flow of information reassured me, it also worried me. On balance, however, I would much rather have information and be able to make a choice, than be cut off. In all likelihood, on Tuesday night, even without Twitter to keep me informed, I would still have been aware of what was going on and I can only imagine how much more terrifying that night would have been without a steady stream of updates.

In addition, we should also recognise how useful social media has been in the aftermath of the riots. The public clean up effort was organised almost entirely on social media. Over the past week, hundreds of people have turned up, broom and bin-bag in hand, to reclaim their media from the hoodlums and show how much they care about their cities. Let's also not forget how social media is now being use to catch the perpetrators. Greater Manchester Police have a constantly updated Flikr stream with photos of people wanted in connection with the riots and have actually been able to catch and charge people because of the information they have published on social media. Even Blackberry Messenger, which is an encrypted service, is considering handing-over details of those that have used the service to incite, organise or boast about rioting and looting. If social media had not been available during the riots, think of the wealth of evidence that would be lost to the police.

I do understand the argument that says shutting down social media would have made the task of containing and policing the situation much easier but it's a mistake to think that should take priority over the good that can come from social media and, I suspect, is a reaction based on a lack of understanding and perhaps even fear of something which is perceived by some as the province of youth. The fact is that millions of people of all ages use social media to communicate, debate and keep in touch. It is a tool and nothing more: A brick can be a lethal weapon but it doesn't stop us from building houses. Let us also be reminded about free speech. I for one do not want to start down the road that allows my government to control what I say, even via one forum. Who's to say that some time in the future a government wouldn't use these powers to stop a legitimate protest, or similar, because they simply didn't like it.

What we need now, instead of rash conclusions is a measured analysis. We need cool heads and clear thought and time to digest what has happened and we need to make sure that the steps we take now move us in the right direction, not towards a future more ominous than the present. If social media poses a problem to policing public order offenses, new tactics and new ideas are required, rather than the technological equivalent of a rubber bullet.

The Riots: A Resident's Perspective

I'm always in a hurry to get home - to see Hubby, to let the dog out, to eat, to sleep, to pee - but on Tuesday evening I came home from work in rather more of a hurry than usual. I had learned via Twitter and a text message from Hubby that it was 'kicking off at the precinct'. As far as I was concerned, the sooner I got home, the better.

Coming off the M602, I could see a mass of people gathered on Cross Lane next to RRG Toyota and my heart jumped into my throat. I have never seen that many people gathered for such a negative reason. Usually when you see a big group of people hanging about it's for a concert or some other similar event. The atmosphere is usually uplifting and positive as those gathered look forward to their dose of excitement or entertainment or pleasure. Coming off the motorway that day was a completely different atmosphere.

I have lived in Salford for almost five years. During that time I have got to know the area and the people really well and have never felt uncomfortable or uneasy walking the streets where I live, even at night on my own. On Tuesday I wasn't even walking; I was in my car and still felt unsettled.

As I turned off Albion Way onto Liverpool Street I locked my car doors and prayed that the lights at Cross Lane, where the crowd was gathered, would be on green. They were. And as I made my way down Liverpool Street towards home, although there were more people than usual milling about, there were thankfully no other signs of trouble. 

Throughout the afternoon and into the evening, we watched the TV news and monitored developments on Twitter. Salford precinct is only about half a mile from our house and there are plenty of shops and off-licences nearer than that, so we were rightly concerned. As matters got more out of hand it was easy to imagine rioters and looters driven away from the precinct by the police, only to spill out into residential streets to regroup. This was a pattern we'd seen in London on Monday night and a pattern which had resulted in homes being ransacked and torched, either deliberately or by accident.

We were prepared for trouble, half expecting a brick come through the window, or to hear our car windows being smashed. I spoke to my Mum, who lives in Scotland and had seen the precinct on the news. I told her we were fine and that the trouble was nowhere near us. I reassured her and made a few jokes even though I felt no reassurance myself; it had occurred to me that if someone decided to torch one or both of our cars we would be trapped, as the fire would block our escape route and would likely spread to the building very quickly. Afterwards I packed a bag with a change of clothes and a few of our most precious possessions that couldn't be replaced, which made me feel a bit better, and when I went to bed, the baseball bat came with me.

As it happens, we saw no trouble on our street at all. There were gangs of young lads moving about for most of the night and we could hear banging and general disturbance in the distance, but the next morning I actually felt a little embarrassed at how alarmed I'd been the night before. I took a quick drive around before I set off for work and saw a lot of damage, but nothing too extreme and the worst of it had already been cleared up.

I look back at it all now and I can be more objective. At the time everything appeared much worse than it actually was, but that's not to play down the seriousness of the situation or how it made me feel. In an article on Salford Online, Rev Hayley Matthews, the Chaplain at MediaCityUK, said this:

"as the drinking (‘free beer!’ (stolen from the aforementioned Bargain Booze)) got underway, cars screeched into the area that clearly were the organised element of the criminal culture... I watched teenagers loot an electrical good sole trader’s shop. Don’t get me wrong when I say this, but if they’d nicked the TVs and laptops I could almost understand it, but they simply brought them outside and smashed them to bits in the street. Young girls on alcopops ‘dared’ each other to go and nick something. Lads tried to break onto Lidl and set fire to it, and mothers sent small children in to fill shopping bags with food and beer because they are too young to be arrested.Suddenly a mass exodus: the precint had been compromised and there were shouts of ‘iPhones! Xboxes! Everything! You can get whatever you want!’ Hoodies went up and scarfs went over faces, in they went and more ‘respectable’ cars started arriving to collect the goods. Youths started arriving with hammers and the women and girls backed off. What appalled me most were the amount of families, and I mean kids in the back seat, involved in all of this. Like some kind of surreal supermarket sweep, winner takes all, what a larrrff! Children hung out of their car windows video-ing it all on their mobiles."


Now, looking back the whole situation makes me angry. I detest how that night made me feel. I resent that these people made me feel unsafe in my own home and that they have had their fun at the expense of my community, particularly as it becomes apparent that the perpetrators were by and large from outside the area. If I'm honest, part of me wants to take the baseball bat and wrap it around a few heads to see if I can knock sense into them. I am furious and I am outraged. I'm also worried because I don't know how to fix this and no-one else seems to know either.

In the short term, charging and prosecuting as many of offenders as possible will help to deter others but it doesn't deal with the underlying problem. These were ordinary people: someone's child, someone's mother or father, someone's brother or sister. They get up each day and carry on as normal, playing with their mates, having a pint in the local pub or going to school or work. What happened to make ordinary folk sink to such detestable behaviour?

If you were able to line up all the rioters across the whole country and ask each of them why they did it, you would get a hundred different excuses. We've all seen the news; we all know what people (rioters, observers, victims, police, Councillors and MPs) are saying and everyone seems to have a different opinion. Everything from bankers to Twitter, from police being too heavy-handed, to police being too soft, from the government cuts, to racism, is being blamed. What that says to me is that this is a riot with no Cause, a view that is further reinforced by the indiscriminate nature of the violence: A small business was just as likely a target as a major chain and a bank was no more likely to be hit than a supermarket or a post office. Businesses, offices, shops and even homes were all fair-game and the police only came under attack when they turned up to disperse the vandals and thieves. There's no ideology here except for a greed for material wealth and a lust for violence.

To my mind, the riots are a symptom of a society too rooted in consumerism, too hung up on ownership and too selfish to appreciate how well-off and lucky we all are. As individuals are charged, we can see few distinct patterns emerging; people who are middle class and relatively well off have been just as involved as council tenants who survive on benefits and the unemployed stand side-by-side with the employed in the dock. It's not about poverty (you cannot make this claim when you're on TV wearing designer gear and carrying a Blackberry and be taken seriously) or cuts. There is a deep seated attitude that has infected some individuals and sections of society. It's an attitude that wants whatever it can get for free and that says it's right if I want to do it and can get away with it and only feels remorse at getting caught. To highlight this, I use the example of the lads Hubby and I caught trying to smash a bus-shelter a couple of weeks ago, long before the riots. He picked up a concrete block and was about to use it on the shelter for no other reason than he felt like it.

We raise our children to think and behave like us, to share our beliefs and ideologies. Society moves and changes incredibly slowly and attempts to deliberately shape it have been known to back fire horribly. So how can we fix it? I don't know. I don't have an answer. And that terrifies me almost as much as the riot itself.

For now, you can make the world a better place by helping to identify those responsible. GMP have photos of their 'most wanted' here. Shop a Moron now!

Burka Ban

Courtesy BBC.co.uk

It began with the smallest of steps: the banning of the Hijab head scarf in French schools in September 2004. Today, the French Government introduces another law that curtails individual and religious freedom. From today, it is illegal for a woman to wear a veil covering her face in France. A woman's choice over what she can wear, both as an individual and as a Muslim. A woman seen wearing a veil will face a fine and may be subject to an investigation.

Representatives of the French Government have said that the new law has been introduced to protect minorities. Sihem Habchi, a Muslim woman that has worked on introducing the ban has been reported to say "Five years ago hardly anyone wore the Niqab [full length garment that conceals everything except the eyes]. In another five years we will be like England where there are neighbourhoods and ghettos full of women wearing them." To me, this statement seems to reveal an underlying fear that women who choose to wear the veil are creating a problem for all Muslims. This kind of irrationality should never been translated into law. The French Government says that the veil relegates wearers to an inferior status. However, I argue that inferiority is not a matter of what a woman choose to wear, it is a matter of how other people choose to treat her. When I see a woman in the street that is wearing a Burka or Niqab I do not view her with fear and do not feel that I am better than her. I see a woman demonstrating a commitment to her religious beliefs. I see a woman that is proud to be a Muslim and proud of that part of her culture.

In my eyes there is little difference between wearing a Niqab and wearing a cross or wearing Jewish yamaka. By identifying yourself with one of these symbols, you open yourself to the possibility of criticism, victimisation and attack. By identifying yourself as different you risk attracting the scorn of others, but are you at fault for wearing the garment? No!

By introducing this law, the French hope to engineer a more equal society but what is more important; an 'equal' society where equality means everyone must dress and act the same way, or an inclusive and free society where people can dress as they please and observe their religion as they see fit. One of these two societies reminds me an awful lot of a certain novel by George Orwell.

Media Responsibility

This morning I read on twitter that a local journalist, for whom I have the greatest respect, has written an article concerning local authority budget cuts. In particular, this article encourages "the people of Greater Manchester to stand up against unfair spending cuts" by adding to a petition to central government - by purchasing the paper and filling out a coupon on the front.

The Manchester Evening News article claims that spending cuts are unfair because some local authorities will suffer higher percentage cuts to central government funding than others (reported to be 21% for Manchester City Council, 19.6% for Salford City Council vs a UK average of 15.2%). Whether you agree with cuts, or the general thrust of the article is very much up to you. My personal view is that this is a half-truth being pushed by Labour-led councils to make the public take a more lenient view their of their irrational spending decisions (£170m on a town hall extension, Manchester, or £700,000 on moving two cranes, Salford). The facts, as I understand them, are that the government has cut many of the grants upon which some councils are very much more reliant than others, while some of the direct funding (for example, to schools) has increased. This fact, it seems, will be somewhat off-set by additional government funding to the tune of £85m that will be used to help the poorest areas. However, whether or not any of this funding will end up in Greater Manchester, or the wider North West, is unclear. Therefore, I approach the government line and claims published in the paper with hesitation in equal measure.

My greatest concern is that I do not believe that a newspaper is the place for a party-political campaign and, for the second time in two weeks, I am bitterly disappointed by the standard of reporting.

Freedom of speech (and by cursor, freedom of the press) is not a license to say or print whatever an individual or group sees fit. Copyright and libel are the two most obvious manifestations of this fact, but there is, I feel, an unwritten responsibility or standard to which the media should hold themselves. The media has an incredibly powerful influence, particularly in modern society, and as Spiderman's uncle Ben says: 'With great power comes great responsibility.'

The job of the media is not to campaign. The job of the media is to inform. It is right that outlets like the Manchester Evening News should question and probe and criticise authority - both local and national - but they must do so in a fair and balanced way. When they fail to do so they sell-out and are willingly surrendering their right to press freedom. And for what? A cynical attempt to sell more papers! It honestly disgusts me how unbalanced modern media has become and how low the standard of reporting has fallen across the media spectrum. I hasten to add that I have often felt that local reporting and the BBC is the last bastion of honest reporting, which is perhaps, why I feel so strongly about this now as it seems to me that even my local press cannot resist the tidal wave of social irresponsibility that is plaguing us at the moment.

I can't change the minds of those responsible for the likes of the Daily Mail or Fox/Sky News who have long since whored their industrial freedoms in the name of turning of a profit, but I hope that this at least might influence those on the frontline and encourage them to hold themselves to a higher standard.

Oldham East and Saddleworth

Politics can be frustrating, particularly as you become more directly involved. It is true in life, but particularly true in politics, that everyone has their own agenda: Your opponents want to win, the media wants to sell their product (and advertising time/space) and commentators and pundits want to be heard. This fact means that getting a message across can be a challenge at the best of times. Actions and statements are twisted, misrepresented or misinterpreted and it can be difficult to get the truth across. Add to that a lazy electorate (not everyone, of course, but enough people) who don't make an effort to cut through all the rubbish to form a fully informed opinion and you've got one hell of a frustrating melting pot.

Of course, that challenge is all part of the fun!

On Thursday, the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth went to the polls in the first parliamentary by-election since the general election last year. The profile of this event was further increased after the winner last May, Phil Woolas, was found to have deliberately misled the electorate in his campaign literature. It was touted as everything from a test of coalition cohesion, to a measure of Ed Milliband's leadership. Some individuals and news organisations are already trying to draw sweeping conclusions for future elections based on this result but while there is an element of truth to the rhetoric, the reality is that the election is only a snap-shot of one constituency based on the very specific conditions of this election alone and therefore, what it tells us about any future election is very limited. Based purely on the outcome with no supporting canvass or polling data, even what it tells us about the views of the electorate in OES are limited!

The outcome was as follows:

Debbie Abrahams (Lab) 14,718 (42.14%, +10.27%)
Elwyn Watkins (LD) 11,160 (31.95%, +0.32%)
Kashif Ali (C) 4,481 (12.83%, -13.62%)
Paul Nuttall (UKIP) 2,029 (5.81%, +1.95%)
Derek Adams (BNP) 1,560 (4.47%, -1.25%)
Peter Allen (Green) 530 (1.52%)
The Flying Brick (Loony) 145 (0.42%)
Stephen Morris (Eng Dem) 144 (0.41%)
Loz Kaye (Pirate) 96 (0.27%)
David Bishop (Bus-Pass Elvis) 67 (0.19%)

Comparing these figures to those of the May election, Debbie Abrahams, the Labour candidate, was the only candidate to increase the actual number of votes (slightly) and also increase her vote share. Elwyn Watkins dropped almost 3,000 votes for the Liberal Democrats but increased his vote share slightly, while Conservative, Kashif Ali, dropped a substantial 7,200 votes and lost a significant share of the votes.

Some have been quick to suggest that those who voted Conservative last year, voted Labour instead. I personally find it unlikely that Conservative voters shifted directly to Labour, which makes me wonder if the reality is that Elwyn lost some of support to Labour but gained support from people who previously voted Conservative. However, I find even this possibility a stretch. Those Conservative supporters who are most likely to be disillusioned at the moment are the hard right as their party has had to take a more central position in order to compromise with the Lib Dems. It's conceivable that there was a tactical vote - that Conservative voters recognised that their best chance to have a coalition MP was to vote Lib Dem - but I doubt this factor has influenced the voters enough to cause Ali to lose over 7,000 votes.

Another common perception is that this result represents a swing from Lib Dem to Labour. This is certainly more plausible as, for some time, the Liberal Democrat party has been a protest vote for disaffected Labour and Tory supporters. However, like all political parties, Lib Dems lean left or right. Left-leaning Lib Dems, and ex-Labour supporters will surely be irate about the coalition and the tuition fees debacle has upset many voters. Having said that, I wonder how much influence these two factors have had on the result. Right-leaning Lib Dems and moderates will almost certainly be supportive of the party's achievements in government and even those who previously voted Lib Dem, having switched support from Labour, might be completely disillusioned, rather than switch support back, particularly in the light of Phil Woolas' shame.

Therefore, it is my belief that ultimately the vote in Oldham East and Saddleworth hasn't changed that much. Although I am certain that some people have voted differently to how they voted in the general election, I believe that the most significant factor that has influenced this election is the turnout. I believe Labour successfully located and mobilised their vote (picking up some ex-Lib Dem votes along the way) while a large proportion of Conservative voters stayed home. The Lib Dem vote is, unfortunately, renowned as being somewhat unstable (some might say 'fickle') and it would seem enough voters either stayed at home or shifted their vote Labour's way, to result in a Labour win.

If that's the case, what does it mean for the Council elections later this year? Is this a good result for us local Lib Dems, or a bad one? Firstly, it seems to suggest that not much has changed in real terms. Where Labour are strongest, elections might be theirs to lose and the win in OES (particularly if it is reinforced with more by-election victories) might make Labour complacent. In areas where the party takes their electorate for granted, there could be some shocks but I'm not going to hold my breath. Ed Miliband's leadership is very weak, but fortunately for the Labour party, it is easier to be in opposition than in government because you only have to tell people what they want to hear and, I fear, that's exactly what Miliband is doing. The challenge for Lib Dems everywhere will likely be twofold: one, to convince those who voted Lib Dem in the past to continue to do so, and two, to find that support and transfer it to the ballot box. But then again, hasn't that always been the case?

Regardless of what the OES result means (or not), I'd like to extend my congratulations to the Lib Dem team out there for a well-fought campaign. It is deeply disappointing that Elwyn Watkins didn't win - he deserved it after the dirty campaign Labour ran last May and, judging by his tenacity and determination to see the right thing done, he would've made a great MP. Next time, maybe.

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.

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)

BNP Legal Injunction

It has been announced this afternoon that the BNP faces a legal injunction over its membership and employment policies. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has received numerous complaints from the public and believes that the party's policy of excluding non-white people from membership (and employment) is in breach of the Race Relations Act. The Commission has written to party leader, and recently elected M.E.P., Nick Griffin, issuing an ultimatum that demands changes to these policies by 20th July or else the BNP will face a legal injunction that will force them to adopt inclusive policies.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is charged by law with protecting the British public from discrimination as well as enforcing equality and human rights law in the UK. The Race Relations Act legislates against discrimination on racial grounds, which it defines as 'colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins'.

The BNP repeatedly claim that they are not a racist organisation and that they seek to champion Britain and the British people. However, their membership rules are clearly racially discriminatory and, because Britain is a multi-cultural society that incorporates people of differing ethnic ancestry, by excluding non-whites from membership, the BNP actively excludes British people from membership: people that have not only been born British, but whose parents, grandparents and sometimes even great-grandparents have also been born British.

Order! Order!

So, yesterday, Parliament chose a new Speaker of the House. John Bercow was elected yesterday by democratic process and already some of his peers are throwing their toys out of the pram and whispering about a challenge. Don't they get it? The public aren't interested in their bitching and whining! This guy was elected by them just as they were elected by the public. They have to respect the democratic process or risk looking like stirrers, at best, or at worst, like spoiled children!

The fact is that Mr Bercow was elected because he appeals to members from across the political spectrum. Such a person is exactly the right choice for the Speaker of the House, who must be able to set aside political allegiance. Congratulations to Mr Bercow. I wish him a successful tenure as the Speaker.

Photo credit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

"My Vote Doesn't Count": Bollocks!

Today is polling day in local elections all around the UK and in European Parliamentary elections across Europe. If you choose not to go to the polls your vote definitely doesn't count. If you want to make yourself heard in a crowded room all you have to do is open your mouth and speak: so get up and speak already! Mark your ballot any way you choose (because even a spoiled ballot is louder than silence) but for goodness sake, vote!

What Hazel Did Next

Hazel: picking up the pieces of her political career. (photo credit: dailymail.co.uk)

Hazel Blears has resigned from the cabinet. Unfortunately, the residents of Salford are still stuck with her. She claims that she is 'returning to her roots' out of a desire to renew her personal committment to the people of Salford. Rubbish! She's jumped before she was pushed in the impending cabinet reshuffle. The timing of her announcement and that fact that it has come from her and not Number 10 suggests that she is playing a rather skilful political game. Allow me to elaborate.

Hazel must've realised well before now that her position on the cabinet was under threat and she must, by now, also realise that her popularity in Salford is ebbing away. In the last election in 2005, Hazel won with over 50% of the vote. However, the Lib Dems' candidate, Norman Owen, has been making up ground on her with every passing election. Now that Labour is polling lower than the Lib Dems nationally, she must anticipate that the Lib Dems will be nipping at her heels - especially in the event of a snap election! With all this in mind, I believe she has taken the decision to resign in order to distance herself from an obviously failing government with the hope that it will stall her similarly failing popularity here in Salford. She has nothing to lose and everything to gain. If Gordon Brown is deposed (as the media seems is certain will happen very soon after the European Elections) taking an anti-Brown stance now will increase her chances of being re-selected in a new Labour cabinet. Particularly if she can does manage to boost her popularity. If she is not re-selected for the cabinet, it still isn't a disaster for her: You can bet she will come out fighting to keep her parliamentary seat. She's a smooth talker and an experienced politician - she knows the words that will sooth and charm you and she'll tell you whatever you want to hear to try and sway your support to her.

Don't be fooled: this resignation is more about her political career than the people of Salford!

The fact is that Labour (and the Conservatives) and so completely out of touch with the public that they wouldn't know honesty if it crept up and gave them a big sloppy kiss! Nationally, Labour got it wrong on expenses, they got it wrong on Gurkhas, they got it wrong on fuel duty and locally they got it 110% wrong on the congestion charge, ice rink, propaganda wagon etc etc etc. The Conservatives are no better choice - they only know how to oppose and have no new ideas of their own (no good ones anyway). A vote for Labour or a vote for the Tories is a vote for the status quo. Vote Lib Dem if you want change for the better!

Take Back Power

Any regular readers might note that I have resisted the urge to weigh-in on MP's Expenses. There are a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, I'm not sure that there is anything further to add to the debate and secondly when it's all you hear on the news and read in the paper this sort of thing very quickly becomes quite boring. However, there is one point I feel really needs to be made.

Over the last few weeks it has been made clear to the public that a number of MPs have been on the make, exploiting the expenses system to work to their benefit. Some MPs have treated their allowances like a target to be reached, claiming tens of thousands of pounds of money from UK plc. The minimum that an MP will receive as an annual salary is over £64,000. They will earn even more than this if they are on a committee or if they have a seat on the cabinet. Expenses are then paid on top of all this which means that an MP can earn very much more than their basic salary while average earnings in the UK are less than £25,000. With a high proportion of people earning very much less than this it's no wonder that the public are so infuriated

However, it is also important to remember that out of 646 MPs in UK Parliament, the Telegraph have named only 169 (which includes some MPs that no longer hold a seat in Parliament). This means that there are still well over 400 MPs that have not been singled out - probably because any expenses claims that they have made are entirely appropriate and unremarkable. It is also worth remembering that of the 169 named MPs, very few have actually broken the expenses rules. I'm not saying that it's morally acceptable but I am saying that it is understandable. Don't agree? Let me put it to you like this:

You start working for a new company and are told that you can claim expenses for certain items that enable you to do your job - fuel and stationary perhaps. To begin with you claim only for those items that you purchase that are related to you carrying out your duties until... one day, chatting with a couple of your colleagues they point out all the things that you can claim for, and indeed, lots of other employees already claim for. So your choice is this: do you continue to claim only expenses relating to your job or do you start to claim everything you can? Some paper here, staples there, a bit more fuel that you actually used for work... it's not right and I'm certainly not condoning it, but it happens and thousands of people do it and get away with it.

Of course, they aren't claiming £30,000 for gardening with £1600 of that for a 'duck island'!

Essentially, the point I'm making here is that people can be relied on to behave like people, not angels. At the end of the day, many people enter politics on a truly alturistic basis. They want to make a difference and they want that difference to be positive. However, we can only rely on people to behave like people and people lie, they steal, they cheat and they look after number 1. We can't count on anyone (including ourselves) to be whiter than white but that's what rules and laws are made for; to discourage us from doing things we ought not to. The same goes for the government. There are more than a hundred MPs that have made ridiculous expenses claims, but they have been able to do so because the rules are not good enough and they have been able to get away with it because the oversight is not tough enough.

That's why I am supporting the Liberal Democrat Take Back Power campaign. The people of the UK need a government that works for us, not for the financial gain of its members. We need proper oversight and we need proper representation. Labour have proposed no serious changes to the rules - they would like the status quo to remain so that they can keep their fingers firmly in the cookie jar. The Conservatives have proposed only the very weakest of reforms that will make no real difference to the people of this country.

The Liberal Democrats' Take Back Power campaign aims to reform the expenses system in full, ensure the public have the right to sack any MP that has been suspended for misconduct, reform the outdated House of Lords, reform party funding so that the government can't be 'bought' through party donations, introduce fixed term Parliaments, reform the electoral system so that each vote really does count and change procedure to reduce executive power. More detailed information can be found at http://www.takebackpower.org/.

It is important that we take the opportunity NOW to press for true electoral reform rather than letting the government get away with a continued abuse of power. Therefore, I urge everyone to take a stand and sign the online petition. It's time to make our voice heard.

What Does Gordon Brown Eat?

Barack Obama has been pap-snapped popping out for a burger - something he can pull off because he's pretty much the most powerful man in politics and can do whatever the hell he likes, but also because his charm and easy-going nature makes it seem perfectly normal. Meanwhile, Gordon Brown couldn't be less normal or more distant from the public. His attempts at YouTube are forced (just like his smile) and he it seems he has been pap-snapped too... standing in front of a Nazi Swastika (apparently taken in a school he was standing in front of a WWII display about Nazi Germany).

So Barack Obama is normal and eats burgers. Gordon Brown is clearly an alien (I wonder if he has the right to live and work on our planet) so what does he eat????

A Social Conscience

It's been a while since my last blog post - following a lovely weekend visit by my parents I fell ill with a throat infection so I haven't been spending much time at the computer. This weekend we are up at my parents in Scotland for a well deserved Easter break but I have a bit of time on my hands (with the boys out and Mum watching Holby City) and shock, horror, I have some political views to blog (or whinge!) about.

Wednesday saw hubby selected as the Lib Dem candidate in the local by-election for the Irwell Riverside ward. The recent Clifton and Pendlebury by-election results were disappointing for the local Lib Dems (coming fourth behind Labour, Tories and BNP) despite the current Labour council's insistence on insane spending that sees money squandered on 'tourism' (ice rink!) while essential services are cut back. However, I am increasingly amazed, esepcially while visiting the Highlands, by the widening gulf between the social conscience in England and in Scotland.

I am the first to admit that Salford Council does some things exceptionally well. The refuse collection in Salford is probably the best I've experienced in 10 years living in Manchester, and Salford is one of the few councils to offer energy grants, in the form of totally free loft and cavity wall insulation, to the over 60s. My parents would fall into this category and are far from infirm, but there are many over 60s that are already quite vulnerable, especially those with serious or terminal illnesses. It is a great comfort to me that older people living in Salford can take advantage of schemes like Heatseekers, even if they are not necessarily that vulnerable now. These schemes will allow them to stay in the homes in comfort as they do become more infirm and will hopefully help them to maintain financial and physical independance into their later years. However, Scotland seems to be doing so much more.

My Dad, SNP council member for Badenoch and Strathspey, is always talking up a storm about the great things the SNP are doing for Scotland. These days my political allegiances may lie elsewhere - it'd be pretty difficult for me to support the SNP from Salford - but I can't deny that he's got a point. Council tax has been frozen - a vital relief in tough times that I'm certain most Salfordians would praise - business rates have been cut to boost the Scottish Economy, prescriptions are free now and so is education. All part of a series of improvements that benefit every Scot while free nationwide public transport has been available to the over 60s for several years while. It almost seems, in some respects, that England has lagged behind while Scotland marches forward. There is still plenty of room for improvement in Scottish politics but there is a different air here. There is a freshness while English politics grow stale and stagnant. The difference is social conscience.

In our house, we have a running joke at Hazel Blears' expense. We never see her, we never hear from her, in fact, we often wonder what exactly it is that she does for Salford. And then we open the Salford Advertiser and see her face over and over in photo-op after photo-op. It seems that she has a sixth sense for getting snapped and comes running back to Salford only when an opportunity knocks (or snaps!). While this is only a joke, there is also a disturbing element of truth to it that isn't just limited to one woman, or indeed one political party. These days it seems like all Labour and the Tories care about is looking good on TV or in public. They carefully craft their public image. They are careful to say and do they right thing - not for their constituants, but for their political careers - all hoping one day that they might be... who knows? I have no problem with ambition, but in local and national politics, the ambition should be to 'change the world': to improve the lives of the people around you, not to make more money or be more popular or more powerful.

We live in a self-centred, target driven, money orientated, selfish society, where everyone cries out 'What about me?', usually while climbing all over someone else. Look to your left and you will see the benefit leach popping out kids to claim more benefit just so that they can have the new car or the big TV, while the rest of us have to work damn hard to earn it. Look to your right and you see the NHS and social care networks trying their best but unable to deliver really good care because they are targeted like sales people on how many people they can get through the revolving door. In front of you is the company you work for that has cancelled your annual pay review in the name of profit, while your food and fuel bills escalate (also in the name of profit) and the banks collapse and take your savings with them (in the name of profit). Finally, behind you is the politician, slyly weaving his propaganda and whispering sweet nothings and empty promises in your ear, more interested in his own position of power than in solving any of these problems.

We need a change. We need a breath of fresh air. We need honesty. We need to demand it - from our politicians, from our neighbours and more importantly from ourselves.