And the World Turns

Three weeks away from my blog, a mostly forced hiatus due to moving house, and the world has become a very different place now to the one I was looking at when I last posted.

Of course, that last post was about the French presidential election and those of us that follow the news will know that socialist Francois Hollande was elected by what Alex Ferguson might call 'a squeaky-bum margin'. Of course, that means that despite the left-wing victory, France remains a deeply-divided country, and the sheer weight of debt across Europe means that no leader will be able to instantly approve large swathes of public sector spending. However, it was cheering that since the majority approval of Hollande's plan for growth on the night of his victory in Tulle, David Cameron has started slipping the 'g' word into his speeches. Of course, there is a big difference between words and deeds, but who knows, maybe the notion that you need growth to boost tax revenues is finally getting through to our leader. Meanwhile, for Hollande, there will be no time to settle into his new role. His first job will be finding an economic plan that mollifies the puffy German premier, Andrea Merkel.

And frankly, who would be poor Andrea at the moment? It's not enough that Great Britain continue to cock a snook at Europe and that she has now lost her closest ally in trying to preserve the fragile finances of the Eurozone (and I think we can agree that 'Merllande' just doesn't sound as sexy as 'Merzoky'.) She now has to contend with Greece's fractured election process, which sees the vote spreadeagled over a variety of left and right wing parties, some pro-Europe and pro-austerity, and others against. With the chance of a coalition being formed that can take the country forward virtually non-existent, there will most likely be further elections in a few weeks time, and a further period of political instability and economic stagnation.

Across the pond, American president Barack Obama has come out in favour of gay marriage, a view apparently shared by our own David Cameron but one which he is afraid to run past his own rumbling backbenchers. Nick Clegg has sold yet another portion of his party's soul for a vague suggestion that there might be a chance to reform the House of Lords, but I hope he's not holding his breath waiting for the discussions to begin.

Finally, I would like to offer my solidarity to the 400,000 public sector workers from PCS and Unite who have gone on strike today in the UK protesting at the proposed changes to their pension schemes. When will our government learn? They cannot continue to pay bankers fat bonuses while in the same breath claiming that the pensions of low-paid workers are unaffordable. It is a stance that lacks credibility and hopelessly undermines their 'All in this together' tagline. And while our own health workers are out on strike protecting their agreed terms and conditions, worldwide that trend is echoed. The foreign office notes that multiple social conflicts are ongoing in socialist Bolivia, where public transport strikes and ongoing health worker strikes have paralysed the capital city, La Paz, and other urban areas across the country.

Why Churches Should Celebrate Gay Marriage

In the Sunday Telegraph this morning, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the most senior member of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain, has criticised the government's stance on gay marriage.

There are some who would argue that given its history of defending clergy who were accused of child abuse, the Roman Catholic Church has lost the rights to the moral high ground on pretty much any issue of significance. Regardless of your position on the Roman Catholic Church, they still have millions of followers worldwide, and are keenly resisting what they see as government-sactioned efforts to marginalise worship in the UK. David Cameron has made clear that he supports gay marriage as he believes commitment in all its forms is in the interests of society. It is a demonstrably progressive position, and one that means conflict with the church is inevitable.

O'Brien's article makes a clear distinction between the arrangement that already exists for homosexual partners to have civil partnerships and hold equivalent legal rights to married couples of different genders, and marriage, which he points out is legally defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as being between a man and a woman.

The article follows on from comments by other high-profile clergymen, such as those by Anglican Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, who insisted governments did not have the moral authority to redefine marriage. This is an interesting point, and one that I'll come back to.

Cardinal O'Brien worries about the rights of teachers to teach what they believe - specifically suggesting that freedom of speech has more to do with the political orthodoxy of the day than genuine freedom. He also reminds us that the tradition of marriage predates governments and states, raising the question of whether marriage belongs to governments or churches. It is an interesting question but I would argue that the concepts of teaching and marriage fall into the same category as common law, a concept that brought civilised society into existence. All are defined by the representative governments of their ages to meet the purposes of society at those times. However, I would argue that the rights of minorities to receive equal treatment fall within the realm of natural law, which has heavily influenced common law in both the UK and US. The purpose of this should be to define the overriding principles that protect the interests of those who would otherwise be prejudiced against.

O'Brien argues that gay marriage forcibly denies a child a mother or a father, but he completely overlooks that a gay couple can offer two positive role models that circumvent the traditional gender roles that society still defines. Research suggests that a child with two parents is less likely to misbehave than their peers from single-parent families, but there has been limited research on whether having two gay parents has an impact.

When he refers to the idea of gay marriage as 'madness' and mentions the 'tyranny of tolerance', O'Brien weakens his argument. I see nothing wrong with primary school children seeing books that suggest two people of the same sex can be in love in just the same way as two of different genders. He refers to marriage as a stabilising influence but misses that it is the strength of the bond that creates the stable environment, rather than who it is between. By narrowly defining who may feel love in ways in which he deems acceptable, he implies that those who already feel love outside of his definition should be excluded. This does not help to build a coherent society.

It makes me sad to think that there are those who see the advent of gay marriage as somehow weakening an age-old tradition. As far as I can see, extending the definition of marriage will help to make society more inclusive, which can only help all of us at a time when we need to pull together. Surely in a time when the number of marriages has been falling and the number of divorces has been rising, when inequality is growing and demand on services increasing, the church should be welcoming a growing cultural subset of people who wish to participate in bringing love and companionship to the world?

'Vote for Me, It's Like Losing Your Virginity'

Does anyone else remember 'Tarrant on TV'?  For those whose memories of Chris Tarrant only go back as far as Who Wants to Be a Millionaire or the tabloid pictures of him being kicked out of his mansion by his furious ex-wife for having it away with a youthful TV researcher, he used to have a show where risque TV adverts from around the world were shown for comedy effect.

Of course, away from the stiff upper lips of flaccid grey Britain, adverts full of innuendo are used for party political broadcast purposes.  In Russia, Vladimir Putin's ruling party have released the following video that compares a young female voter's decision to vote for Putin for the first time with her decision to lose her virginity.

Am I alone in finding this sort of thing slightly sinister? I suppose that people who complain that living in the digital world means that your children are sexualised before the appropriate age will now at least find that they become democratically inclined as well, even if the vote itself is less than democratic.

Still, there's a part of me that would respect an advert for the Conservative Party that ran with the honest slogan - 'Vote for David Cameron, he'll screw the NHS!'

Nationalisation May Be Cheaper Than It Seems

Sometimes, when you live in a western country with a privatise-at-all-costs philosophy, it's easy to forget that things used to be very different. Utility companies and transport facilities, such as airports and railways, were owned by the state, rather than by unfeeling multinational conglomerates who see it as their capitalist duty to rob you blind while still offering a lousy service (the jury is out on whether nationalised services were any better, but at least back then there was a person on the other end of a telephone complaints line who had no choice but to listen to you moan.)

Modern political thinking suggests that private hands are the most efficient way to run services, when my own experience of private firms running local government services is that they are no more efficient and are often more costly and more prone to failure.

So should nationalisation of assets become part of the national debate once again? Goodness, even to use the n-word is to hark back to the 1970s and the times when it seemed the sun never shined (though of course, black and white TV is at least partly to blame for that perception.)

Seriously though. Should it? Only if the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) have anything to say about it, it could be cheaper than it seems to do so.

In Venezuela, the ruling party has instigated a sweeping pattern of political reforms and nationalised massive swathes of the country's vast oil industry. Of course, such nationalisations do not come without a price, but the compensation awarded to international oil firm Exxon is a mere $908 million - to give that figure a context, it is less than 10% of the figure that Exxon asked for, and less than 0.1% of the amount that the British government paid to bail out banks four years ago. So in light of this ICC decision, what is to stop us from looking at our own infrastructure and nationalising some of it on the cheap?

Now, before I am viciously assaulted by swathes of Tory trolls for daring to question their ideology, I am aware that such moves in Britain would not be as clear cut as this example. I am also aware that not every dispute would necessarily be due for referral to the ICC. But where there is a will, there is a way. If you play the stock markets wisely, you buy when assets are cheap and sell when the price goes up. Why not nationalise when the effective value of the compensation you would have to pay is low, and then sell again when it is high? Or have I just out-capitalised the capitalists?

Would such nationalisations reduce the amount of private investment in Britain at the time that I have been calling for it most? Well, theoretically that could be a possible outcome. But there is plenty of observational evidence suggesting that modern companies are greedy, dumb, and will descend on any untapped market as soon as an opportunity presents itself. We can therefore reasonably assume that as soon as the economy starts to pick up (which according to George Osborne could now be as late as 2016/17) someone will be there, ready to pay good money for access to British markets.

The prevailing political agenda is to reduce the size of government but the nationalising of infrastructure assets will clearly do the opposite of this. The wisdom of this move clearly depends on how much you believe in the Tory philosophy that states that private companies will move in to offer jobs and create growth when the public sector is deliberately shrunk - but in this respect, David Cameron has talked himself somewhat into a corner. He needs the British electorate to feel fear or otherwise they will not understand the need for austerity. But until there is enough confidence to overcome that fear, neither businesses or individuals will start spending again.

Addendum: A little background on Hugo Chavez

Left-wing Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez is a staunch opponent of capitalism and neoliberalism (which essentially means a relaxed economic state in which financial institutions are self-regulating - and look at how well that's worked recently.) He has been leader of the country since 1999 and has instigated political reforms that mean that in theory, he could remain leader, subject to periodic democratic vote, for the remainder of his life.

Chavez is a controversial figure even by the standards of the socialist haven that contemporary South America has become. He is intensely popular with his own people and admired in parts of the world for consistently opposing US foreign policy, but in March 2011 the international organisation Human Rights Watch criticised his administration, saying that it had 'effectively neutralised the independence of Venezuela's judiciary' and 'systematically undermined freedom of expression and the ability of human rights groups to promote basic rights.'

Chavez endeared himself to English audiences by demanding in 2010 that England hand the Falkland Islands back to Argentina. John Otis in 'The World' also accused Chavez of supporting Muammar Gadaffi and Bashar al-Assad following the Arab Spring - though we should perhaps be careful to temper our criticism of him for supporting these regimes, given our history of selling them weapons.

Dateline Samoa

By far the most entertaining news of the week prior to yesterday's new year celebrations was the little-heralded item that saw Pacific nations Samoa and Tokelau jumping westwards over the international dateline. The change was made in an effort to boost trade links with Australia and New Zealand, and comes 113 years after the decision was made to travel in the opposite direction in order to attract the trade attention of the United States.

The change was heralded by Samoan Prime Minister Tuila'epa Sailele Malielegaoi, who clearly enjoyed the opportunity to promote the tourist industry in his nation when he appeared in front of international news cameras wearing the shirt below.

Now, if this decision was as clean cut as it seems that it might be, it would make perfect sense. However, a minority of Samoans have good reason to be a little upset, because the change meant that earlier this week, Samoans went to bed on 29th December, and woke up on the 31st, having skipped the 30th entirely. What about people frantically preparing parties for new year? You think you have a couple of days to pick up the beer and prepare the food, and then you lose an entire day just like that. The change also meant that people born on 30th December now face a metaphysical quandary. Have they aged at all this year? If you were due to retire, have you now lost your chance? I should imagine that all the people born on 29th February are probably looking at this and thinking, 'Now do you see what a bloody pain in the arse this is?'

Of course, in any island nation where the average daily temperature all year round is a balmy 28 degrees centigrade, we can expect that such issues will not prove troubling for long. In 2009, Samoa made the decision to switch from driving on the right of the road to driving on the left, becoming the first nation in the 21st Century to do so. They also have a pretty fascinating colonial history, which culminated in an eight-year civil war that resulted from German, American and British interests funding and training indigenous troops in the region. The situation came to a head in March 1889, when all three nations sailed large warships into Apia Harbour and full-scale war seemed inevitable. However, at the last possible moment, a giant storm struck the bay area and sank all the ships, returning the country to temporary calm.

There is just one other potential issue with the decision to skip the international dateline - the possibility that it might set a worrisome trend. The decision by Samoa and Tokelau sees the west coast of the US as the final stop on the international dateline. It doesn't take a giant leap of faith to imagine one of the loony Tea Party presidential candidates might choose to take a break from bashing homosexuals and shooting Communists to imply that America's position at the back of the queue is an insult by the world against their nation, and demand that the US also skips a day to go to the front. It would probably suit a few of the emerging economies like Brazil too, though the outcome in Canada and other South American nations is probably a little less clear cut. Still, you can imagine the phone call from President Obama to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela - 'Damn it Hugo, if you won't sell us your oil, we're going to skip Thursday!'

And of course, once nations get a taste for hopping around the dateline, where does it end? David Cameron could skip whole years to bring the next general election forward, then skip back again to continue dismantling the NHS. Vladimir Putin could go back to his entirely fairly contested Duma election in December 2011 and this time, he could arrange to fix a few of the ballot boxes. And most prominently of all, Bashar al-Assad could have delayed his crackdown on pro-democracy campaigners long enough to ensure that Syria had a presence at the Royal Wedding.

Farewell, 2011

Another year end blog post! One of the things you get from writing a (semi) regularly updated blog is that you get to reflect on the things you were thinking about, talking about and worried about at this time last year. You are really given a sense of perspective because the events that you were writing about remain fresher on the page than they do in your memory, and the things that you were doing yourself are inextricably linked to those memories.

I'm really quite pleased with the way that 2011 has gone. I have a new job, a new girlfriend, have met lots of new and interesting people. I have become closer to and learned new things about the people I already knew, while other people have moved away from me as they pursue the next chapter in their own stories elsewhere. I have been to Egypt. I have written the first 50,000 words of a novel and met some wonderful people whose own books will knock mine out of the park.

Memorably, 2011 has seen a desire for equality and democracy grip the world. We have seen uprisings, upheaval, political instability and a clarion call for fairness and justice. A lot of lives have been lost in the pursuit of the simple human rights that we in the UK take for granted, and these are rights that we, with our freedoms, must continue to campaign for others to have.

A new year should bring the promise of a clean slate and accompanying optimism with it. However, in the context of the world in which we live, we face a year ahead under a cloud. Austerity bites, and the pound in your pocket will buy less in the coming year in real terms than it did in the last. Our nation is politically stagnant and we are in dire need of good ideas and brave actions.

The wonderful thing about Britain is that it remains big on heart and character. We can still be proud of our culture and our resourcefulness. Hard times call for courage and inventiveness, and as I look around at the people I know and work alongside, I know that the challenges we face can be overcome.

I achieved last year's goals of travelling outside Europe and finding a new love, but I never did buy a camera and take up photography. It remains on the list of things I want to do. As with last year, I have set myself three goals for next year to try and help me on my way.

1) Lose some weight. Yes, I know, it's a New Year's resolution staple, but it's a cliche for a reason. If I get any bigger, I'll be visible from space and I'm not having that. So my goal is to be at or under 13 stone 10lbs in weight on 1 Jan 2013.

2) Finish my book. Note that that says finish, not get published or write a bestseller (I might do those things in 2013.) This should be the easiest of all goals. I already have 55,000 words of a firsr draft that I wrote in 28 days, so actually getting the words onto paper is the easy bit. Generating characters that don't feel contrived and having a storyline that gets and keeps your interest is a little harder...but that's something for a second draft.

3) Pay off my personal debt. God, these are aiming a bit low this year...but it needs to be done so I can start enjoying myself again. I'm glad David Cameron took the bit out of his speech about getting people to pay off their credit cards. Otherwise I'd feel like I was being told off by a Tory.

What are your plans for 2012?

When Time Called Time on Heroes

The significant details in life are often the small ones. The appointments forgotten, the words said or left unsaid, the people we meet and engage with - these are the details that determine the bigger picture in our lives.

When a Tunisian military policewoman insulted and slapped a fruit vendor in the market square of a tiny, unremarkable town just south of Tunis a year ago, she could not have expected that her small act of disrespect and violence would be seen as the trigger that has started a worldwide democratic protest that has inspired and involved the actions of millions worldwide.

That fruit-seller, Mohamed Bouazizi, enraged when his subsequent complaint was ignored, took himself to the local provincial capital building and set himself on fire. Those around him who were similarly upset with years of corrupt dealings with police and local officials, began to protest at the way in which they were treated. So began the Arab Spring, a movement that toppled governments, ended dictatorships and prompted similar explosions of discontent as far afield as Russia and the US.

2011 will be remembered as as a watershed in world history. The most singly defining year since the major financial crisis that has impacted all our lives, this was the year that people worldwide stood up as one and demanded a new form of social contract from the people that governed them. No longer would they accept corrupt systems that saw the richest siphon off the main share of the wealth as long as some reached the rest of us via the trickledown.

The decision of Time magazine to award the title of 'Person of the Year' to 'The Protester' is an interesting one in the context of the small details I mentioned earlier. To those of us in the UK who have defended our rights and the rights of those around us in the last year, it is a moment in which to reflect and be proud of the way in which we have conducted ourselves and been a part of something far more significant than the simple goals we hope to achieve. However, we should also remember that there is a world of difference between our struggles and those of protesters in Russia and the Middle East, who stand up against totalitarian regimes in the full knowledge that some of their number may never return to their homes.

For me, the most telling aspect of Time magazine's decision not to select a person of the year is instead that in a world which is desperately crying out for leadership, not one leader or prominent person of influence has conducted themselves in such a way as to deserve the title. In Russia, Putin is pictured as the pointlessly macho leader of a discontented people. In the US, the UK and Europe, the likes of Barrack Obama, David Cameron and Andrea Merkel stand at broken tillers as their countries swirl in a whirlpool of conflicting financial interests. Worst of all, in Egypt and Syria, strong militaries and politicians like Bashar al-Assad continue to oppress the populations they are supposed to protect and represent.

So arise to defend your rights, protesters, and bear your title with pride. 2011 was the year that you became heroes when your leaders could not.

A Bad Day In Britain

It's a bad day to be living in modern Britain. As the unemployment figures reach their highest level for seventeen years, the House of Lords has rubber-stamped the Government's plan to tender the NHS to any willing provider. Let's hope you weren't planning to get ill any time soon, because frankly, none of us can afford it.

I'm not going to go into a right wing vs. left wing debate about the merits of publicly vs. privately provided services, especially when there is plenty of scope to do that underneath the comments on the Guardian website. I especially love the trolls who comment that anyone with a public-sector ethos doesn't live in the real world and thinks that money grows on trees. All I can say by way of slightly smug response is that you can get a lot of money in the short-term by selling a goose that lays golden eggs, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.

For the benefit of the lobotomised, here's a quick summary. All else being equal, if a private sector company can deliver the services that the public sector would deliver to the same standard while funding the profit margin that the shareholders demand at the same or lower cost, then you should use the private company. Otherwise, public will out.

Simple, right? A calculation that any of us could do, surely. I have spent my career watching the private sector cherry pick public services and I know that as with most things, sometimes the private sector contracts work well and sometimes they fail. I also know that the failures tend to be expensive and spectacular, and for your convenience, I have enclosed links to news items on the Connaught and Southern Cross debacles which have both directly impacted on people living in Norwich.

What is often forgotten or ignored in the midst of howling rhetoric and hysterical political point-scoring is that the true cost of such failures goes well beyond the balance sheet. How can any accountant, however skilled, put a price on the anxiety of a private sector worker with no employment protection, or an elderly person who fears they may lose their home?

As George Osborne presides over a second risky round of quantitative easing in a desperate and forlorn attempt to kick-start the economy and inflation begins to spiral upwards, the ministers in charge of the government of these isles are spending their days debating cats rather than putting their noses to the grindstone and coming up with some new ideas for creating growth and social prospects.

At the head of the table, David Cameron dons his top hat, pours tea and spouts nonsense as his unelected minions ride roughshod over public opinion with all the social grace of Panzers in wartime Europe.

An amusing image it may be, but it could soon spell the end for a free health service envied worldwide but nonetheless soon to be sold off for private profit.

A Little Drop of Poison

It is so easy, as a member of the left-leaning community, to see Rupert Murdoch as a figure of hate that you sometimes forget that he's a human being. It doesn't help that as he has aged, he has acquired an increasingly cadaverous appearance, and at the age of eighty, some might think that his former vigour would be waning. Make no mistake though, his desire to make money and to cement his family's position at the centre of international power-broking goes unabated. Not for nothing did Tony Blair's deputy director of communications, Lance Price, once write of the last Labour government, "No big decision could ever be made inside Number 10 without taking account of the likely reaction of three men – Gordon Brown, John Prescott and Rupert Murdoch."

When considering the actions of fellow human beings, one wonders if those tawdry souls at the heart of the phone-hacking debacle ever stopped, even briefly, and questioned if there was a line that should be drawn. Even-minded individuals may or may not feel that public figures have a right to privacy, but either way, at least those public figures have a degree of control over their public profile. Today, printing the antics of a footballer, celebrity or politician risks lawsuits, super-injunctions and worst of all, public indifference. However, if evidence shows that you hacked the phones of dead servicemen or murder victims, you can expect the kind of public backlash normally reserved for the perpetrators of vile crimes.

If Murdoch thinks that throwing the News of the World (NotW) to the lions will bring about the end of the phone-hacking saga, he is going to be very disappointed indeed. Public opinion has now reached such an uproarious state that his every action will be called into question and every statement released by NewsCorp, his beleaguered media empire, will be scrutinised fully by those who would love to provide evidence of his insincerity.

There is an ominous and growing sense of public discomfort about Murdoch's close presence to successive UK governments that is starting to make the BSkyB takeover look like a sideshow. Ministers, MPs and the head of the opposition, figures who would once never have dared to criticise Murdoch or his empire for fear of media reprisals, are starting to garner political capital by biting chunks from the beleaguered carcasses of his former charges.

Regardless of his claims to have known nothing of the actions taken by his newspapers, Murdoch hired Rebekah Brooks. Where Brooks is, Andy Coulson was. Coulson's former employment with the current Conservative government ended when it seemed likely that the scandal would break. David Cameron has publicly declared Mr Coulson to be a 'friend', which is a politically-inadvisable statement given that the possibility seems to be increasing that Coulson will be joining ex-NotW Royal Editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glen Mulcaire with a spell at Her Majesty's pleasure. They may not be the last. Police have raided the offices of the Daily Star, and there must surely be further unsavoury revelations still to come.

The irrepressible taint that comes when a man sells his soul at the altar of capitalism has become an insidious drop of poison for all those connected to Murdoch. It can no longer be tolerated that this poison flows, unfettered and unseen, in the dark halls that lead between Fleet Street and Whitehall. The time has come for a full public enquiry that will blow the whole sorry mess apart.

Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too

I'm going to be a dissenting voice today. It's okay to have a blog and give people my opinions, but realistically if I don't want this page to become a pro-Labourite Tory-bashing page, I have to present an alternative viewpoint where I see one.

Today, the point I will be considering is this: I frequently get upset by the half-truths and absolute garbage that is fed to the British people by such execrable rags as the Daily Express and the Daily Mail. However, it is reasonable to expect that the liberal press will take every opportunity to push forward their own agenda and it stands to reason that their tactics will be the same as those newspapers I mentioned before. By separating fact from conjecture on the anti-government side of the debate, we benefit from strengthening our arguments.

The story that prompted this thought process was written by Polly Toynbee in the Guardian and can be found here. I won't discuss the story at length, except to say that it focuses on the many ways in which projected growth in the economy has failed to meet expectations. However, if I blindly accept this as the truth, I am no better than those Daily Mail readers who accept that immigration is the cause of all the problems in the UK.

How does one person measure the true story of fiscal strength in the UK? Commodity prices have certainly increased, based on the increased price of my weekly shop. But inflation will do that, and we have become so used to inflation at ridiculously- low levels in the UK that this could just be part of the normal rise-and-fall of the economic cycle. Yes, consumer confidence certainly appears to be low and spending on luxury items has decreased. But is this just good sense on the part of the informed consumer, who responds warily to the word 'recession' by paying off debts rather than seeking to incur more?

There are many different viewpoints on the above and based on my experience of those so-called experts that you see on the television and read in the news, they are no better informed than most of the rest of us. This may not even be such a bad thing. More power to your elbow if you take the time to learn about your own crisis, because you are better prepared to deal with it when you are working from a position of genuine knowledge and understanding.

When the government first proposed cuts to public sector jobs, I was the first person on my feet opposing the move. Now, you can argue that public sector cuts are necessary or not, but the pertinent fact for me is that I am a public sector worker and my first instinct is to defend my job. David Cameron then said that people who had lost their jobs in the public sector would be easily re-employed as a result of the thousands of jobs that would be created by the private sector. Rubbish, scores of voices boomed, my own among them. I'm working from a gut instinct that the private sector is suffering terribly from the cuts in the same way that the public sector is. But how do I know? I see no evidence to suggest the economic growth that would be necessary for such job creation to begin, but how can I be sure which way the wind will blow tomorrow? Who would I work for if I didn't work for the public? Tesco? Would that even be such a bad thing? I might have more responsibility, earn more, make them a better supermarket for my being there.

So, there are simply too many unknowns, and watching George Osborne with his hand on the tiller of the HMS Future Prosperity, I am hoping that his view is clearer than mine. Sadly, I suspect that that is not the case. Gambling with your own future is fine, especially when if everything goes wrong, you will have millions in a trust fund to fall back on. For those of us who do not have such a safety net, we may become ever more reliant upon our quick wits and fate dealing us a good hand.

March for the Alternative, 26th March 2011

I have a confession to make - despite my unerring belief in the cause promoted by yesterday's March for the Alternative in London, I didn't attend the event myself. Today, as I watch coverage of the event on the news and read the stories of those that marched, I realise that I have missed out on something very special and something that I had a great responsibility to be a part of.


As I know I have a few overseas readers, I realise that I may need to explain a little about yesterday's event. Put simply, the coalition government in Britain is utilising a number of questionable fiscal justifications to privatise institutions that are central to Britain's culture and living standards, such as the National Health Service. Rather than examine in detail the root causes of our financial crisis, they have sought to address the deficit issue at a breakneck speed, despite evidence suggesting that this is not the best way to support the fragile economic recovery. Using the deficit as an excuse, they have introduced policies that benefit the largest companies in Britain while penalising and marginalising the poorest and most vulnerable individuals.

Yesterday, finally, the government's plans were publicly opposed as more than half a million trade unionists, public sector workers, pro-peace groups and concerned individuals marched through the streets of London to a rally in the city's Hyde Park.

As anyone familiar with protests in modern Britain might have predicted, today's headlines are about the minority of violent thugs who descended upon Trafalgar Square well after the march had ended, and those members of protest group UKUncut who took direct action by occupying thirteen shops on Oxford Street that members believe are dodging corporation tax responsibilities. I cannot condone any of those actions and Trades Union Congress have publicly condemned those who have been involved in violent acts following the demonstration. Credit should go to Metropolitan Police Commander Bob Broadhurst, who was quick to state his belief that the destructive minority were not associated with the peaceful marchers who did so much yesterday to promote their genuine cause.

The march must be taken in context. Those on the route covered an entire spectrum of respectable society, including retired care workers, representatives of disability rights groups, middle class parents who purposely took their young children, and students burdened with debt as a result of the regressive policies of consecutive governments. More importantly, it represented the first genuine show of opposition to devastating coalition reforms. For me, it is a tremendous irony that opposition leader Ed Miliband did not make the march alongside the very people he will see as his natural supporters come the next general election.


The March for the Alternative was the largest march of its kind since the protest about Blair's war in Iraq. However, it alone will not be enough to derail a government who are gambling massively on economic growth paving the way to a stable future. Margaret Thatcher once famously stated that she was not for turning, and David Cameron will be keen to show that just because he does not have a mandate does not mean that he cannot seize an opportunity when one is presented to him.

It is a fact that strong opposition leads to stronger and more accountable government and this is the first evidence that the labour movement is stirring from its long slumber and preparing to face down the threat to its survival. 26th March 2011 will hopefully be remembered as a watershed for many reasons - it may be a day that prompted government supporters to consider the genuine consequences of their decisions, or a day which began a movement that successfully demonstrated the massively positive role that well-funded public services play in a healthy and vibrant society. Perhaps, most importantly of all, it will be remembered as the day that trade unions in Britain regained their pride.

'Necessary, Legal and Right'

I made the mistake today of getting involved in one of the BBC's fiscal blogs, when I became incensed at a suggestion on the website that the ideal way to tackle the country's financial crisis was to do away with the minimum wage and send those Jonny Foreigners back where they came from. What an idea! Let's add skills shortages and an ever-decreasing wage spiral to our many, many problems. Just don't tell Dave, right?

Fortunately, David Cameron is currently distracted from bothersome domestic difficulties by channelling the spirit of Tony Blair and carving himself a Legacy as a Politician on the World Stage.

Except of course, he's at great pains to point out that he is not Blair and this is not Iraq. In Libya, France led the charge to force the resolution through the UN and has seized the moral high ground by doing so. The US has shown that it has learnt from past indiscretions by indicating its desire to transfer its lead role in Libya within days of becoming involved. The Arab League has skirted around the issues raised by the situation in Libya, but has carefully avoided supporting the idea of further regime changes in the region. In the midst of the maelstrom Britain strode around, an overzealous and wizened schoolteacher with an ever-shortening ruler, looking for a way to assert some authority over proceedings.

It was a familiar feeling for me as I turned on the evening news. Hand-wringing MPs jostled uncomfortably in the House of Commons as justifications for British involvement in the conflict were bandied around. The news cut to eerie green night-vision pictures of tracer fire in the sky over Tripoli and I thought, 'Here we go again.' Just once, it would be nice to get through a five-year political term in Britain without our involvement in another yet another futile, expensive and unnecessary war.


After reading an article in the 'i' newspaper today by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a writer I am really beginning to appreciate, I have taken the time to consider the position I felt initially when the bombs began to drop.

As an self-described Arab exile in Britain, Alibhai-Brown admits to a feeling of political anxiety about the UK's involvement in Operation Odyssey Dawn. I'm not of Arabic descent but I can assure her that she is not alone. I am in agreement that allowing the conflict (note that no-one uses the word 'war') to escalate would be to offer a permissive stance towards a potential civilian genocide, but nonetheless I am still very uncomfortable about our role in proceedings.

While I am willing to give David Cameron the benefit of the doubt with regard to the genuine issue of defending human life, it is unfortunate (or very fortunate, depending on your viewpoint) that supporting this cause has so many potential positive aspects for Britain that could be viewed sceptically from a retrospective standpoint. Yes, we are defending civilians by bombing strategic military targets - in the full knowledge that contracts will surely be offered to British firms when rebuilding work needs to begin and new military hardware is purchased. If we go the whole hog and support the removal of Gadaffi from power entirely, we do so knowing that any potential replacement will make their gratitude clear when determining the price of their oil.

The irony is that the Libya conflict could potentially be a watershed for the countries involved in the coalition force. Britain can go a long way towards cleansing our international reputation by making it clear that our loyalties are not determined solely by the money that lines our pockets. The true measure of our role in this saga will be determined by what happens next. So far, what we have done is indeed, to use David Cameron's own words, 'necessary, legal and right'. It is a phrase he will do well to remember and observe in the weeks ahead.

Killer Shrimp Take Cardiff

This spoof entry looks at a theoretical version of events whereby the city of Cardiff is overrun by a large number of 33m-long killer shrimp. The chain of events that led to this improbable tragedy is too long to recount here, but the following is a report taken from a press conference attended by a number of journalists and senior government figures shortly after the story breaks.

This entry is dedicated to Erin Whiley.


Assembled journalists and senior government figures were clearly shocked to be told of the events that had seen the city of Cardiff fall to the Killer Shrimp, but David Cameron looked stoic and statesmanlike as he stepped forward to the podium.

It was Sun reporter Tom Wells who asked the first question. 'Mr Cameron, why did the government not anticipate the attack which has seen Cardiff fall to the Killer Shrimp?'

Cameron replied, 'I think it can be said that there were not very many people who saw this attack coming. None of us came into politics to face accusations about being unprepared. Rather, I came into politics because I love this country. I think its best days still lie ahead and I believe deeply in public service.

'And I think the service our country needs right now is to face up to our really big challenges, to confront our problems, to take difficult decisions, to lead people through those difficult decisions, so that together we can reach better times ahead.'

There were appreciative murmurs and nodding from the crowd and the Prime Minister posed for photographs before stepping aside for his Foreign Secretary William Hague.

Guardian journalist Ben Dowell asked, 'Mr Hague, why are you, as Foreign Secretary, involved in this briefing?'

The former Conservative leader adjusted his suit and said, 'Well, Ben, I think we can all agree that being engaged in the world is an indispensable part of the British character.'

'But Mr Hague, Wales is part of these British Isles.'

Hague nodded approvingly. 'Indeed it is, and the fact that no-one there votes Conservative has barely registered in our strategy. Talks are currently ongoing about the establishment of an American-sponsored no-fly zone over south Wales that will prevent the shrimps from parachuting in reinforcements.'

There was a brief hiatus as tabloid journalists in the front row argued over the subject of whether shrimp can fly. When calm was restored, Mr Hague intimated that he had information that the leader of the Killer Shrimp had abandoned Cardiff and was now on route to Venezuela. When challenged on the assertion, Hague admitted that he really had no idea if shrimp even had leaders, but that everyone was in agreement that if they did, it was only just and fair that they should be selected via internationally-observed democratic elections.

It was the Times who put the next question to the government. 'Do you feel that the government's recent decision to make the entire armed forces of Britain redundant in order to save money has proved to be a good one in the light of these events?'

Hague pulled himself up to his full height (5'6") and calmly insisted that despite the decision, the UK would remain a military power 'of the first rank, made up of flexible, highly deployable forces.' Upon hearing expressed doubts about this, the Foreign Secretary reminded the assembled crowd that the UK defence responsibilities had been privatised and the contract sold to the highest bidder, which had turned out to be Libya.

Mr Hague said that despite the problems the Middle East was currently experiencing, international contract law meant that he was confident he could force Libya to meet their military responsibilities to the UK. 'If not,' Hague boomed, 'they can expect to receive a big fine.' The crowd agreed that this would certainly make Colonel Gadaffi think twice before breaking the contract.


A keen-eyed journalist in the back row noted an election manifesto pledge by the Liberal Democrats to buy and thaw out Mega Shark (who had been previously frozen by Icelandic counter-terrorist forces to prevent it from swallowing Reykjavik) as a means of dealing with a potential Killer Shrimp problem. A clearly-reluctant Nick Clegg stepped forward and made the following statement:

'The Mega Shark proposal has proven to be something of an impediment to social justice.' When he was greeted with silence, Mr Clegg continued, 'It was determined that the mere existence of such a beast was due to inequalities that had occurred in the social system at a much earlier stage.'

When the journalist who had asked the original question stated that he did not understand the response, Mr Clegg stammered, 'The current government policy is a much better way of making Britain a fairer place!'

The journalist then asked Mr Clegg if he actually understood the original question. Clegg glumly replied that he didn't actually know what he was doing at the press conference, but said that he was told by David Cameron that if he publicly agreed with all of the government's policies, he would be allowed to run the country on his own for a few minutes. Clegg then began to cry and had to be led away by Theresa May.

The Daily Mirror then voiced rumours which had begun to surface on the internet that a passing contingent of Welsh choristers, who were involved in a medieval battle reproduction outside the city, had managed to capture one of the Killer Shrimp and hand it over to local council officials. 'It's all utter bollocks,' Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles said, before belching loudly and suffusing the room with the unmistakeable smell of prawn bhuna.


Cameron stepped forward again and fielded a question about the possibility of a nuclear response. 'As you will all know, it was part of our coalition agreement to consider the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent system with something suitably fit-for-purpose that would not cost an arm and a leg. Ladies and gentleman, I would now like to reveal that replacement. I give you...Trident Mk II.'

Mr Cameron stepped back as the cameras began to flash and held aloft a three-tined fork made of dull metal roughly four feet long. As soon as it began, the applause abruptly died away and the crowd stood open-mouthed.

'It might not look like much,' Mr Cameron enthused smoothly, 'but this trident was available very cheaply as part of a larger package of economic assistance from Greece. It is the actual trident once owned by the Greek god Poseidon, and it will ensure that once again, Britain will rule the waves!'

At that point, the press conference broke down as pro-European MPs stormed the building, citing that Britain's attempts to rule the waves were in direct contravention of EU Common Fisheries Policy. As police waded into the scene and set about the crowd with metal truncheons, the Spanish foreign minister, who was on a visit to Britain, was heard to say, 'We can sue for that.'

Libya and Mansour Osanloo

For a few days now, we've been hearing news about continued developments in Libya, not to mention our own government's predictably ham-fisted attempts to remove British citizens from the increasingly desperate situation.

I wrote my last entry about Libya a full five days ago, and subsequently wished I had waited twenty-four hours before doing so. While I have long relied upon the BBC as a reliable source of unbiased information, the first twenty-four hours of the Libya situation were marked by unreliable reports of possible protests and unconfirmed suggestions of conflict, while BBC reporters were posting blogs about the difficulty of accurate reporting in the country.

After posting the previous entry, I read a few forums on the subject of Libya and while I cannot verify that all the entries I read were genuine, there was an overwhelming number of entries from those purporting to be recopying emails or conversations had with residents of Tripoli and Benghazi.

What struck me was the uniformity of those stories - in a matter of hours, protests had been savagely put down and political oppression had become starkly and brutally violent, with rule of law imposed from the end of a gun. Some writers had friends or relatives who had been beaten or killed by the Gadaffi administration, and a number suggested that the troops carrying out the violence were not in fact Libyans at all, but paid mercenaries from Bangladesh and Chad. Some entries stated that they simply wished the truth to become apparent to influential parties outside the region, while others registered plaintive cries for assistance.

Each entry I read sickened me more and at the same time made me more curious about what was going on. I am naturally sceptical and aware of astroturfing on forums, but I didn't believe that this was occuring in this case. How could so many stories be emerging from the country and yet so little be known? I looked for the first time ever for news from Al Jazeera, and was astounded.

Al Jazeera had everything the BBC did not - stories, pictures and video clear enough to dispel any doubt that the country was descending into civil war. There were graphic pictures of shooting victims, stories of government buildings being seized by protestors, a close-up of a deceased mercenary on a ravaged street whose skin was clearly a different colour from those Arabs taking cover nearby. It was a full twenty-four hours before the western media caught up with events.

Muammar Gadaffi's personal guard and those still loyal to him are waging a battle against the protestors, and the outcome of the battle is still not certain. However, events appear to be leaning towards an endgame and we can only hope that the bloodshed there will end soon. Even so, the consequences will undoutedly echo round the world for a while to come. David Cameron is still in the area, promoting stability and democracy by selling arms to bidders in the region.

Milestones - I celebrated my 32nd birthday yesterday. I also celebrated 1000 pageviews on this blog, which is one of those mild coincidences that shows that there are at least some people who have good enough taste to choose this page as an alternative to tabloid editorial. Thanks to you all, and whether you agree with me or not, I hope it has been as enjoyable to read as it has been to write.

I am not the only person who has been celebrating a birthday this week. Iranian trade unionist Mansour Osanloo celebrated his 51st birthday on 23 February. He has been in prison now for four years for the supposed crime of creating an independent workers' union in Iran.


As part of a protest arranged by his union, Tehrani bus drivers refused to collect fares from passengers. In response, Osanloo was beaten badly when he was abducted by the security forces from a bus on his way home in Tehran on 10 July 2007. He suffered from cataracts as a result, but it took a major international campaign simply to let him have surgery just in time to save him from losing the sight in his left eye.

From time to time, he is sent to solitary confinement. Some inmates have attacked him. More recently, opportunities for him to contact his family or to go out of his cell have been reduced deliberately and increasingly he is in a "prison within a prison" acccording to his family.

Under these conditions, he developed a heart problem and was taken out of prison for brief medical treatment after complaining of chest pain. Still, he was sent back to prison within three days and there is no guarantee that his health has recovered fully.

If you are a trade union supporter, you can send Mansour Osanloo a message of support. The campaign to promote genuine workers' rights in Iran is firmly rooted in the international trade union movement and we continue to put pressure on the Iranian government to release all trade unionists who are jailed in the country.

You can post your message to Osanloo on the Facebook Group here, or send it by email to info@justiceforiranianworkers.org.

We Like To Be Listened To

Not to make too fine a point of it, but perhaps it's OUR aspirations that could do with being understood.

Also, what's good for the macro goose is good for the micro gander. 400 members of the public, including council staff, gathered outside County Hall in Norwich today to try and indicate to local councillors the strength of opposition to plans to cut millions from the budget in Norfolk. Councillors steadfastly refused to consider a raise in council tax as even being an option, and as a result it is Norfolk's most vulnerable people that will suffer. Still, who cares about them, right?

I hear today that Cameron has made £100 million pounds available to a Big Society Bank to sponsor local development projects. Two questions: firstly, where did this £100 million come from? Secondly, given the context of the mess this country is in, do we really need another fucking bank?!

A Hellish Epiphany

I've been suffering some computer problems lately so I apologise to those people who read my page that I've gone a week without blogging.

I was going to do a humourous comedy piece today to cleverly juxtapose the serious political issues that I discuss but I was in the newsagents an hour ago buying a Mars Bar and had an epiphany that I realised I needed to share.

Standing and waiting to pay for my chocolatey goodness, I scanned the newspapers at the counter in the idle way that I do. The Daily Mirror defied everything we know about mathematics to suggest that there is "a chance" that Posh Spice may give birth to a daughter, and the Sunday Sport was running a piece called "Kimberly Walsh in boob shock!" In short, it's a typical tabloid Saturday in Britain and all seemed well with the world.

I then reached the bottom of the rack to see a small column on the front of the Independent entitled, "My War on Multiculturalism". It is David Cameron's personal take on how Britain's ethnic minorities are failing the decent, God-fearing, Daily Mail readers of our country.

Now, I don't want this entry to descend into comment on a specific policy. The story itself will undoubtedly be unfair to minorities, contain conjecture stated as fact and to top it off, it will probably be entirely unrepresentative of how Cameron actually feels. This entry is not about minorities. Instead, it's about a moment of realisation that made me almost choke in shock.

With every single cut that this government makes and every socially-divisive piece that is written in its stead, I, my fellow union stewards and my politically-aware friends and coleagues have yelled, 'ideology!' but I confess until this moment, I didn't fully realise the implications of what I was saying. As part of this government's slash-and-burn policy, we have seen the NHS, local government and social care decimated, to mention just a few of the coalition changes. I have braced myself to oppose whatever the government suggests as an alternative to the current state of affairs - and here's the horror - they aren't suggesting an alternative. They are simply cutting in the belief that it is the only way to change our society.

David Cameron is not a tinkerman, simply looking to keep the system and replace one face with another. It is not even that he is looking to change the system. Instead, he has decided that the only way to change Britain for the better is to tear down everything that has been built and start again completely from scratch. Like God looking down before the Great Flood, he has seen, judged and deemed us all unworthy.

As I staggered, bleary-eyed, from the shop, I wondered frantically if everyone else sees this already. I wondered if I was the only blind one, or the only one who can see. It is simply this. If you are elderly, there will be no care. If you are disabled, there will be no support. You will accept the reduced terms of your pension scheme, or you will get no pension. If you are attacked in the street and the police are unable to direct resources to you, you will get no justice. Most tellingly of all, if you are sick, you will get better on your own, or you will die.

Even as I am writing this, I feel like the lowest of the conspiracy-theorists you see sometimes on American TV. I am miserable and cannot even look at my Mars Bar. But most of all, I understand now why I'm really involved in a campaign to derail this government's policies. I cannot stand and do nothing as Cameron pushes more people into poverty, promotes inequality, induces misery and adds to the suffering of millions of people around me. We all deserve better.

My Message to the 1%...

I'm struggling a bit this week, used as I am to my daily diet of Facebook, blogs and tweets from UKUncut about whichever Vodafone branch they have occupied today. My beautiful desktop computer, which is without doubt my closest friend bar none, failed me on Monday this week when the hard drive pitched out and I am now surviving by borrowing laptops for an hour here and there and licking batteries whenever I get bored - which is often.

On my rare forays onto the internet, there is a Facebook group I have seen this week which has made me sad. It is titled as follows: "Doesn't make sense does it?? Homeless go without eating. Elderly go without needed medicines. Mentally ill go without treatment. Troops go without proper equipment. Veterans go without the benefits they were promised. Yet we donate billions to other countries before helping our own first. 1% will re-post and 99% wont. Have... the guts to re-post this. I KNOW I'm in the 1%"

Now, there are a whole host of reasons why this upsets me. I'm going to go through them quickly, because I could rant about this for days, but here goes. Firstly, homeless people may go without eating, but primarily they go without a home. This is a simple inequality and true frustration should be aimed at people who have obtained obscene wealth and multiple homes through self-interest and duplicitous behaviour. Alternatively, you could pick on foreign aid organisations, who are only wasting money on such worthless projects as supplying clean water to fellow human beings. Choose the targets of your anger carefully.

Secondly, elderly people generally don't go without much needed medicines - in fact, quite the opposite. Many are abandoned in uncaring residential homes and medicated as an alternative to being socially stimulated. They are also given antibiotics by the bucketload that they simply don't need - this is why we have superbugs such as MRSA popping up in our hospitals. If you really care about the elderly, do something positive and write to your MP and David Cameron and demand that they increase spending in real terms on the NHS and social care. Believe me, this is a cause that really needs your support. Now, I'll be truly amazed if the '1% who post this message' actually strive to do something constructive.

The mentally-ill do sometimes go without treatment, it's true, but the argument for the increase in real-terms NHS-funding covers this as well, so I'm satisfied that we're all reading from the same hymnsheet. Let's move onto soldiers.

I struggle to see why the UK needs a standing army. We have no resources worth seizing and no enemies who would regard invasion as worth the effort. We continue to kid ourselves that the UK has a role to play in policing the world's fragile democracies, with the irony being that the money we waste on sending young men to be pointlessly killed would be far better spent on social projects to help those in need, increasing our diplomatic standing with the countries in question. Every pound we spend on trying to secure a supply of oil for the next decade could surely be better spent on developing alternative energy sources that could free us from our dependence on the whims of other countries.

This does not change the fact that our soldiers should expect high-quality equipment. However, the UK is no longer a major military player on the world stage, and with the stakes so high, intelligent youngsters considering joining the army should wonder if the country really has their best interests at heart.

This leads me onto the final point I would like to make - the group does not offer any mathematical basis for removing foreign aid. Billions of pounds were indeed spent on foreign aid last year - six billion, in fact. Consider the fact that the UK spends over £700 billion every year - and somehow found £800 billion more to bail out the banking system.

In the context of the world at large, will the six billion we spent on foreign aid last year make any difference? This does not even consider the ridiculous sums the UK makes from third world countries, providing loans and receiving debt interest through the World Bank and IMF, and without considering the social consequences thereof. Haiti is still suffering from the after-effects of the devastating earthquake there last year. Australia, Brazil and Sri Lanka have suffered hundreds of deaths due to flooding in the past few weeks alone. Are we truly saying that we are happy to spend £800 billion on compensating for the auspices of the world's wealthiest and least-deserving, but that we begrudge the £6 billion we give to the entire rest of the human race? Because if we are, we should truly be ashamed.

Cameron's Glass is Half-Empty

I must begin this post with a simple acknowledgement: there has been so much to write about this week and I have been lapse. Large swathes of Australia, Sri Lanka and Brazil are underwater thanks to flash flooding, with hundreds of lives being lost and entire communities disappearing into the swell. In Tunisia, discontent among the population, inflamed by politically-motivated violence, has seen the loss of many lives and the fall of the government. These are the things that International Officers should write about. The outcome of the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election looks a little unimportant in comparison.

My mind is stuck firmly in the domestic however, as both Red Ed and David Macaroon have put the boot firmly into trade unions this week. Ed Miliband (who, lets not forget, is only in his current role thanks to trade union support) has said that he is 'appalled' at the idea of strikes upsetting the Royal Wedding celebrations. Implicit within that comment is the suggestion that he is happy for downtrodden workers to continue to be treated appallingly by uncaring employers as long as one of the richest institutions in Britain is allowed to continue its activities unimpeded. But enough of Ed, who is a dull, uninspiring and hopefully short-lived alternative to our current unpalatable coalition leaders.

More intriguingly, David Cameron has indicated that he would like to change the law making it even harder for unions to take strike action. The prime minister has suggested he could look at the law on industrial action, amid calls for strike ballots to be unlawful if under half of a union's membership takes part.

There is a mischievous, nay evil, part of me that thinks maybe this wouldn't be so bad. It might make currently disaffected workers more militant, make complacent union officials work harder and generally inspire more activity than it suppresses. But it is still an attack on trade union institutions, and it is worth drawing a parallel with our current democratic process.

In that same Oldham and Saddleworth by-election mentioned earlier, the turnout was 48%, a huge reduction from the last time it was polled. I suspect this has a lot to do with local people becoming disenfranchised from the tie-wearing, public-school toffs who claim to represent them in government. The political parties cited 'rain' as being the reason behind the reduction. Seriously? Do they even live in the same climate as the rest of the UK?

The keen-eyed observer will note that 48% by-election turnout is below the minimum-required 50% turnout that a trade union ballot would need to be legal under the proposed changes. If we take Cameron's suggestion to its logical conclusion, why not make the outcome of the by-election illegal too? Local voters are clearly too disaffected to desire any involvement in our democracy or be able to make reasoned decisions about who should represent them. It would be a deserving punishment for failing to engage with any of the increasingly homogenous cardboard cut-outs that pass for political leaders in the modern UK.

Or maybe the rain is to blame for that, too.