Norfolk People's Assembly - David Peel

Economic recovery! What economic recovery? It's rich for George Osborne to start making boasts when people in Norfolk are facing another winter of choosing between putting food on the table or staying warm. 

 

Five million people in Britain are out of work - the real unemployment figure - and they are having their benefits cut. Of those lucky enough to be hanging onto jobs, many are now on zero hours contracts and don't know if money will be coming in this week or next.

 

Across Norfolk and the rest of Britain, in accident and emergency departments, doctors and nurses are warning now that if staff shortages are not addressed, people will die this winter. Our NHS, which is loved and cherished and was bequeathed to us by our parents and grandparents, is today in meltdown after just 65 years.

 

Even fire stations are being closed down, a decision that our firefighters have warned will cost lives.

 

Students are leaving university with debts they can never repay and in schools, the government is privatising education and creating a new generation of haves and have-nots.

 

Disabled people are abused in the street egged on by government campaigns about shirkers. They are told they are fit in dubious assessments and are ordered back to work, irrespective of the consequences. The consequences are that disabled people are dying. And Ministers have the nerve to shut our Remploy factory. What sort of a society are we creating? It's breathtaking and shameful.

 

Meanwhile, queues at food banks are lengthening, more people are sleeping in doorways, not enough homes are being built and even spare bedrooms are being taxed while MPs sabre rattle about a war we apparently can afford, outraged about a chemicals weapons attack when it turns out this country is a chemical weapons supplier.

 

Out here in the real world, millions of people are facing years of deeper and harsher cuts to their living standards and the public services they need and rely on. This so called economic recovery is just a game of lies, damned lies and economic 'indicators' played by people who have never known what it is to struggle in their daily lives, and never will.  

 

This week the trade unions meet to plan the defence of our hospitals, schools, and welfare services and fight these cuts. This autumn, teachers, fire fighters and post men and women will strike to save our public services. They cannot fight alone.

 

It is time for us to get off our knees and stand with them. If we don't, it will not be our generation that pays the price, it will be our children and our children's children. The Norfolk People's Assembly is the best chance we have of coming together to create a better future. We urge people to join us. 

 

- David Peel, Norfolk People's Assembly

 

On Thursday 12 September at St Andrews Hall, Norwich, local people, campaigners and trade unionists from across the county, angry and hurt by Government policies are meeting at 7.30pm to officially launch Norfolk People's Assembly against the cuts.

 

For more information, see:

 

facebook.com/NorfolkPeoplesAssembly

 

facebook.com/groups/NorwichPA

 

NorfolkPeoplesAssembly.tumblr.com

 

Or email NorfolkPeoplesAssembly@mail.com

Some 'Facts' about the EU

I read an article today about the YouGov poll which has shown that since 5 January 2013, outright support for a British withdrawal from the EU has reduced sharply from 51% to less than 42%, with a rising number now supporting Britain's place at the heart of Europe, at least dependent upon a renegotiation of our position in it.

The EU is one of those strange subjects - almost no-one knows anything about it, but everyone has an opinion on it. UKIP would supposedly pull us out of it, despite the fact that it's the only part of politics where they wield any genuine influence. Labour admit they were wrong about it, but don't seem to know where they currently stand on it. Dave and his backbenchers quarrel over it all the time, and the promised referendum on continued membership still looks about as likely to arrive as the Rapture.

The thing that annoys me most is that amongst all the intelligent debate, there are a number of people who will insist on presenting their opinion as fact. For your benefit (and not least my own), I have done a little bit of research on the opinions of one 'elsyd', who does just that on the article above. Hopefully, it will answer some of those nagging questions that you always see thrown around in Facebook debate.

CLAIM: Britain's net contribution to the EU is in excess of £50 million a day.

ANSWER: False. The enclosed graph from the BBC shows that the UK contributes a net 3.5bn Euros per year, or approximately 9.831m Euros a day. Still not chicken feed, but let's at least be accurate. To give the figures context, the UK receives approximately £550bn in tax revenue each year, meaning that net EU spending accounts for less than 0.63% of our national income annually - akin to a person on an above-average income buying a Starbucks coffee each day. Or to express it exactly, we are contributing approximately 16 Euro cents each day for each person living in the UK.

There are those who will argue the value of what we receive, but just some of the potential benefits we receive in return for our money are that we avoid having to pay potential trade tariffs on new trade agreements, there are no legal obstacles for those who wish to set up businesses in any EU country, we receive subsidies for farmers and fishermen (though many will question the appropriateness and value of these), and we also gain a political union that can stand up to China, USA, Russia, Brazil and India in the global war for resources. As part of a bigger power base, the UK is more likely to be globally influential.

CLAIM: Auditors have failed to sign off account EU spending for the last 18 years.

ANSWER: True. This article in the Telegraph shows that the EU had an overall error rate of 3.9% in 2011, which is too high for the European Court of Auditors to sign off. The European Commission nonetheless point out that the error rate does not mean the money is lost, because when fraud or irregularities are detected, the EU claims the money back from the member state.

CLAIM: Britain cannot control immigration from EU because of open border regulations.

ANSWER: EU citizens have the unrestricted right to live and work in the UK where non-EU citizens require authorisation before taking a job. This is a strange thing to make an issue of, as citizens from outside the EU can still live and work in the UK if they fulfill certain criteria. The jury is out on whether this is a good or bad thing. Immigration brings skills that UK workers do not have and increases the flexibility of the labour market, but it also puts greater pressure om infrastructure, such as the housing market and the NHS.

CLAIM: Apart from Belgium, Holland and Malta, Britain has the highest density population in the EU, and is rising dramatically due to immigration.

ANSWER: True, or at least according to Wikipedia. The enclosed page gives these statistics. However, the UK has the second highest population in the EU too, so perhaps this is not surprising. As a comparison, Greece has one of the lowest population densities, so it cannot be suggested that low population density in itself is something to aspire to. Nonetheless, all the main political parties seem to be in agreement that the level of immigration should be controlled somehow.

It should be mentioned that there are potential benefits to high population. Many immigrants are young people looking for work, and this article from the Guardian suggests that this could help avoid shortfalls in pension liabilities that will be experienced in other nations where the numbers of young people are falling.

CLAIM: In excess of 500,000 Polish migrants alone are known to be in the UK (2011 Census).

ANSWER: True. The BBC have released the following figures from the 2011 census, showing that an estimated 579,000 Poles live in the UK. Once again, it is difficult to see the significance of this figure, particularly given the previous articles about how the population in the UK is set to grow to approx 77m by 2060. I am privileged to know several Polish people who work alongside me in local government, and the following Wikipedia page lists many individuals of Polish descent who have made significant contributions to the UK - including Labour leader Ed Miliband, who was born to a Polish mother.

CLAIM: If we left the EU, many of these jobs would be available to the British unemployed. Where sufficient British skilled workers are currently not yet available, visas could be issued to EU workers, as is the case for non-EU migrants at present.

ANSWER: Potentially, it would be possible to set up an arrangement whereby every immigrant, wherever they were from, would require a visa to work in the UK. However, immediately leaving the EU would not guarantee that many of the current immigrant population were forced to leave the UK - many could expect to receive visas by virtue of successive generations living and working in the UK - and as 'elsyd' himself implies, this does not guarantee that UK workers could be found to fill the gaps.

The counter question I would ask is that if you have a worker in post, who is diligent, effective and contributes both to your culture and your economy, why would you seek the upheaval of replacing them en masse just because of their nationality? Then again, perhaps we could find jobs for them in the new, massive, bureaucratic visa service...

CLAIM: There is a serious housing shortage in the UK which requires building on swathes of Greenfield sites. If we were not in the EU, many existing homes would become available, thus protecting our countryside.

ANSWER: Once again, this seems to imply that as soon as we left the EU, we could force large numbers of people to become immediately homeless, necessitating their swift return to the country of their origin. Leaving aside how ridiculous this suggestion is, we could instead look to articles such as this one, which suggests that greenbelt policy has more to do with boosting house prices than protecting the countryside. Then there are BBC articles that suggest only around 10% of land in the UK is 'urban', and that even less than that is actually built on. The one fact we can agree on is that if the population really is going to jump by 17 million people in the next fifty years, they will need homes to live in, so someone had better start building them, pronto.

CLAIM: Uncontrolled numbers of Bulgarians, Romanians and Roma Gypsies will have freedom to come to Britain at the end of this year.

ANSWER: As those nations become part of the EU, they will gain the right to move and work anywhere within Europe, as any other EU citizen already has. Some are likely to come to Britain, with the positive and negative impacts that have already been discussed. The Independent may like to suggest that Romanians in London are either 'beggars, pickpockets and prostitutes', but this ignores the fact that as with Poles and many other races before them, most of those that come here will do so to work and offer their families a chance at a better life.

CLAIM: EU migrants have the same access to benefits as UK citizens – jobseekers, housing, etc.

ANSWER: Partly true. However, the implication here is that anyone can stroll out of the EU and demand a huge house and limitless benefits without ever having worked in the UK. This presentation to Islington council makes it clear that those who have never worked in the UK are likely to have 'no recourse to public funds' (i.e. they are not eligible to receive benefits) and that the UK already has the right to restrict access to the labour market in the UK under existing EU treaties. This means that the UK can freely decide to restrict people from working, and by default, restrict their access to benefits.

CLAIM: The tremendous pressures on our NHS, Schools and Transport would be considerably reduced, if we left the EU.

ANSWER: The answer to this is far more complex than a simple statement of this kind can address. If fewer people lived in the UK, there would be less need for infrastructure, but also fewer taxpayers paying for it, and if all the foreign nurses employed in the UK were asked to leave the UK immediately, this would leave the profession in crisis. You could respond with a similarly incongruous argument - namely that the NHS, schools and transport could all do more if they received more funding, so logically, we should automatically increase the tax rate to do this.

CLAIM: UK trade is declining with EU whilst exports are growing to emerging economies such as China and India.

ANSWER: Figures from UKTradeInfo suggest that for the last two years, UK imports and exports both inside and out of the EU have remained largely static - significantly, long term trend data is not easy to come by, so this is surely a generalisation. The sentiment that 'elsyd' is expressing - that it is advantageous for the UK to trade with emerging economies - should not be taken to suggest that we do not benefit from trade with EU markets.

CLAIM: The EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has all but destroyed our own Fishing Industry. Free from EU rules we would be able to resurrect this great, renewable resource.

ANSWER: Short of sending out warships, it is hard to see exactly how we could protect our fishing waters. Regardless, it could be argued that the CFP has played a role in protecting future fish stocks through a number of policies which are explained in detail here. With many of our stocks already overfished, it is not as straightforward as simply leaving the UK and sending boats back out to sea.

However, there remain stories about boats dumping dead fish back into the sea, and CFP will retain its status as a contentious cornerstone issue of the UK's place in Europe.

CLAIM: As a member of the EU, we pay huge subsidies to French farmers. Is it not time we supported our own agricultural industry?

ANSWER: France receives farming subsidies, as does the UK. However, the figures show that like the UK, France is a net contributor to the EU.

CLAIM: Our country is virtually governed, not by British Law, but by EU regulations, including many of the idiotic rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. If we left, we would be free to keep the 'sensible' ones and create a 'UK Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.' Britain would then be free to legislate in the interests of its own people.

ANSWER: Ah, damn those human rights...if only we didn't have them, there'd be none of this nonsense requiring employers to pay a minimum wage, nothing obliging them to provide a safe and comfortable working environment and nothing preventing governments from installing whatever crazy laws they wanted, without anyone being able to do a thing about it.

Since EU law is created from a consensus based on member law (something that the UK contributes to), it is arguably more democratic than anything we have in the UK. Yes, it still makes silly mistakes, but those are inevitable in any legal system and a system external to the EU would not make the UK immune to this problem.

CLAIM: The EU is moving towards a Federal State of Europe, with ever greater fiscal and political integration. Britain’s ability to rule itself would disappear and we would be ruled by the bureaucrats in Brussels.

ANSWER: Those would be the same MEP bureaucrats that we...elect democratically on a regular basis, correct? Fiscal and financial integration does throw up some minefields (e.g the Euro, common interest rates) but these are not a cast iron argument against integration. You could argue, for example, that integration of members states hasn't worked out too badly for the US.

There are genuine questions to be answered about the UK's role in Europe, and we cannot afford to let our biased newspaper owners and editors to own the debate. I don't claim to have the answers, but I can at least frame the questions. For example, large numbers of us would apparently prefer a renegotiated relationship with the EU. What, then, should we be negotiating? It is perhaps ironic that Germany, the country traditionally viewed as the one that gets the most benefit from the EU, is its biggest contributor.

Hollande Offers Hope to Progressives

As the afternoon votes in the French Presidential election are counted, it seems that it will be extremely likely that Presidential incumbent Nicolas Sarzoky will face off against socialist contender Francois Hollande in the second round on May 6th.

In the French constitution, unless any contender has a clear 50% of the votes in the first round, a second round is required when the two main contenders are pitted against each other for the spoils.  With those contenders rumoured to be virtually level-pegging, the significant factor could be far-right contender Marine Le Pen's monstrous 20% share of the first round vote.

It is amazing to think that less than a century after France was humbled by the war machine of Nationalist Germany during WWII, one in five French people can be found voting for a nationalist French party linked to fascists and extremists.  Having said that, at least the French contenders cover the entire political spectrum, giving voters a far better range of choices than that offered to us here in the UK.

Far-left contender Jean-Luc Melenchon has already come out in support of Mr Hollande, who favours a 75% rate of tax for high earners as one of his major planned policies should he win on May 6th.  In order to avoid becoming the first single-term president since the early 1980s, Sarzoky will now have to convince Le Pen's far-right voters that he is the man to tackle major issues such as national debt and immigration.  In doing so, he must be careful that he does not alienate his central-right supporters by adopting a racist anti-Muslim stance.

As in England with it's narrow, incestuous three-party politics, it is the small number of those in the middle of the voting spectrum which may have the decisive say.  The final reckoning in the election may be decided by the 6 - 8% of people who voted for centrist candidate Francois Bayrou.  The future of politics in Europe could decide whether those small number of potential swing voters land on the left or the right side of the fence.

France has the fifth biggest economy in the world and is one of Europe's two remaining economic powerhouses.  The outcome of this election will be felt worldwide, not just within the Gallic borders.  It's most pertinent for the United Kingdom that while we have opted for a conservative stance that sees us heading into double-dip recession, favouring lower taxes for the rich and reduced opportunities for everyone else, France may provide us with a comparitive position that would allow us to learn from our mistakes.

Whether our position improves or not, Hollande is a key step closer to ending the toxic austerity program in the heart of Europe and perhaps offering hope of an alternative to progressives everywhere.

Workfare, or 'Work Unfair'

You know that the Tory ministers - they of the rolling Oxfordshire estates, of trust funds and the Bullingdon Club - are getting desperate about flagship policy when they resort to calling those who oppose them 'snobs'.

The JobHits website posted an ad last week that showed that Tesco are in the process of taking advantage of that same government policy, which is known as Workfare. Under the terms of the policy, people are asked to work for six weeks at Tesco or other similar employers 'to gain work experience', but without being paid or with any guarantee of a job at the end.

The irony of the situation should not be lost on the British public. Until a change of law under the coalition government, taking unpaid work experience could actually result in you losing your benefits. Employment minister Chris Grayling was quick to accuse as 'hypocritical' those same organisations who were attacking the policy, such as the Guardian newspaper and the BBC, who were themselves signing people up for unpaid work experience.

Now, there are a number of problems here.

Yes, the scheme is supposedly voluntary, but a number of people have supposedly been told that unless they participate in the government's Mandatory Work Activity programme, they will lose their right to benefits entirely.

This is hardly the supportive approach that will be required to help those who have been out of work for long periods to regain their self-confidence. Also, it must be a terrifying prospect for those disabled people who face virtually-discredited ATOS disability evaluations to think that as well as being accused of being malingerers, they might be forced from their sick beds to work for three months in a work placement without pay or left to starve.

Tesco are trying to fly below the radar of angry opposition, claiming they never would have become involved with the scheme if it had been mandatory. The question I would ask them is: why get involved at all? Tesco face flak regularly from a number of quarters; they are supposedly anti-union, their contracts ban workers from discussing their terms and conditions with others and their minimum wage contracts mean that workers regularly require state benefit top-ups just to allow them to survive.

Regardless of your feelings about them, it should be remembered that Tesco are a fabulously successful business and a UK business success story on the world stage. They are reputedly the second biggest supermarket chain in the world based on total profits earned but they cannot avoid the negative PR that comes with their position.

Tesco are seeing falling market share in the UK and that is affecting their profit figures, but there is no reason why they cannot afford to pay the Workfare staff an equivalent wage to their other workers. More to the point, there is no reason why they cannot pay their current staff a living wage, and seeing as their position on the matter of their low wages is uniformly 'we comply with minimum wage legislation', it is clear that this will have to be the route by which a responsible government forces their hand. Of course, to do so would see unemployment jump again, and we know that this will not be a position that our government adopts. What is clear that is the taxpayer should certainly not be subsidising a successful business by paying people benefits so Tesco gets their labour for free.

And I'm sick of making this point, but only because nothing ever moves on the issue - why oh why is the coalition government not attacking financial sector speculators with the same iron fist it reserves exclusively for the poor and downtrodden? Whey are we not pushing for the financial transaction tax that seemingly everyone else in Europe wants to put in place but us? The only reason that our government is against it can surely be that those same irresponsible millionaires who were shored up by successive failing governments now stand ready to defend the government that looks after their interests.

That same government also has to accept responsibility for the unemployment figures in the first place. The private sector has not stood up and filled the gap left by hundreds of thousands of public sector redundancies. Regardless of your feelings about the public sector, would you rather they were working for you or being paid benefits for doing nothing? Perhaps the decision to force them to do non-jobs for free in Tesco is a logical continuation of the government's chronic dislike of public sector employment. Regardless, that doesn't mean that it's a policy that makes sense.

Labour's Fatal Assumption

For only the second time since he rose to the leadership of his party, I have found myself admiring Ed Miliband. When he spoke today, he was keen to emphasise the values of the modern Labour party and he even came up with the very quotable, 'When those in power say, "You're going to face five bad years and there is nothing to be done about it," that is a statement of their values and priorities.' There are no surprises about the values and priorities of the coalition government, who are pressing ahead with plans to reform the benefits system, despite widespread condemnation and a wealth of evidence that suggests those in genuine need will suffer tremendous hardship as a result of the changes.

The year ahead will prove to be a defining one for Miliband and for the Labour Party. The last Labour government sold the soul of their party in an attempt to frantically garner floating votes, and polls suggest that despite massive cuts that have savaged entire communities and crippling inflation that will see real incomes stagnate for at least five more years, the Labour Party's support doesn't appear to be growing.

With poll support for the Liberal Democrats having already evaporated, voters are instead looking to fringe parties such as the Greens or UKIP, or even switching to the Conservatives themselves. This phenomenon comes from a shared public perception that the longer austerity goes on, the more necessary it must be in order to tackle the economic crisis. And while cuts may help to balance the books, what will the price be in social upheaval, inequality and shattered lives in the decade to come?

What then, can Miliband do? Gregg McClymont, the shadow pensions minister, has written that the Tories are attempting to tag Labour as the party of 'tax and spend', and that the party will only avoid what he calls 'the Tory trap' by resisting the temptation to appeal to its core supporters in the public services.

I disagree. I am an educated professional, a public sector worker born into a low-income family with naturally socialist leanings. I should be a dyed-in-the-wool Labour voter, but I am not. Modern Labour thinking offers no alternative to the Conservative slash-and-burn policy, and I simply do not agree that cutting public services is an unavoidable necessity to promote an economic recovery.

So to you, Labour Party, I have this to say. I should be your core support. My vote is here, and I want you to claim it. But it would be a fatal assumption for you to assume that you'll get it without radically changing your thinking.

Today, there were signs that that change may be just around the corner. Ed finished his statement by saying that the Labour Party would promote the 'fairer sharing of rewards so that we discourage irresponsibility at the top and the bottom of society.' It is a statement of intent that shows that Ed at least is facing in the right direction.

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.

Discipline and Fear

Oh, I was doing so well. It's been a beautiful few days and I've been taking the opportunity to get outside, watch some sport, enjoy the sunshine and generally not get upset or offended by anything. Of course, then I happened to flick briefly through the liberal press, and at the risk of mixing my metaphors, I discovered a proverbial turd in the ointment.

Enter Oliver Letwin, Conservative MP for West Dorset. This craven Thatcherite relic, exposed by his regressive plans for local government as far back as 2001 when he occupied the position of Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, has already been a policy leader in the government's proposed breakup of the NHS. If that were not in itself a reason to despise him, he has now attacked those very workers who are responsible for ensuring that the country's most essential services are delivered for the benefit of those who need them the most.

The Guardian yesterday reported Mr Letwin as having said the following:

"You can't have room for innovation and the pressure for excellence without having some real discipline and some fear on the part of the providers that things may go wrong if they don't live up to the aims that society as a whole is demanding of them."

Firstly let us bear in mind that Mr Letwin is a banker, and by extension of his profession, can probably teach us all something about letting society down. We should also bear in mind that he went into hiding in 2001 as a result of his disastrous work on that year's Conservative election campaign. Yet, in a manner contrary to his own suggestion that failure should carry consequences, he has now risen phoenix-like to a position specially created for him in the Cabinet Office.

It is also worth mentioning that Mr Letwin's ill-advised comments were made at a report launch at the headquarters of KPMG, a private consultancy firm that has been among the first to benefit from tendered NHS contracts. In these times of cuts to health and social care budgets, I'm comforted to know that consultancy firms are still raking in hard-earned money from the taxpayer. As everyone familiar with consultancy firms knows, they rarely recommend that you waste less money on consultants.

I could go on and on about how Letwin is a figurehead in a government whose policies are in no way ameliorating the UK's perilous financial position, or that it is a truly horrible thing to expect fear of joblessness and resultant poverty to act as a motivator for excellence. The reason that this matters so much is that the changes proposed by this Tory-led government will have a massive effect on how the UK develops over the medium to long-term future. It may seem obvious to state, but many of the cuts being made by the coalition are resulting in real hardships for many and the services and expertise being lost are not easily replaceable.


Public sector workers will shake our heads and batten down the hatches. We are used to continual abuse - both from our paymasters and the public we serve. Tomorrow they will attack us again - threaten our conditions, our pay, our pensions, always spreading lies about how much better the service will be when it is being provided by a private firm with a profit margin and absolutely no duty of care. No doubt if he ever needs an ambulance, Mr Letwin would want his privately-paid paramedics to be highly focused on their jobs as a result of his proposed reign of terror. Let's just hope that they're not too scared to go to him in the first place.

Public sector workers - your doctors, nurses, taxmen, binmen, social carers - know that we deliver a great and improving service on a consistent basis, and it is only a flagrant and unforgivable lack of resources from central government that prevent us from improving further. No matter that we are already disciplined enough to put the needs of others above the opportunity to earn higher wages elsewhere. The public sector already feels the fear, and does it anyway.

Guest Blogger: Alun Jones - Policing in the USA

In a(nother) break from ordinary service this Independence Day, Four Thousand Words would like to present guest blogger and fellow local government employee Alun Jones. His previous observations on Tahrir and Tiananmen Squares can be found by clicking here.

If anyone else fancies a stint in charge of the editorial desk here at FTW, please let me know, I'm delighted when other people want to be involved (not least because it means I can take a day off...)

Policing in the USA

The plethora of films and television series that come from Hollywoodland got me thinking the other day. I know they're not meant to do that, but this isn't going to be another discourse on the mind-numbing qualities of main-stream entertainment. It's just this; how many bloody law enforcement agencies does one country need??

In the course of my brief research on this subject, it seems that at any one time in the home of the 'free', 68 different agencies at federal, state and local level could take an interest in your affairs!! I tried to think of a scenario where you would involve all of them, but that was too much! However, if you were a native american former convict and discharged soldier driving a lorry whilst drunk to deliver contraband alcohol, bush-meat, counterfeit currency and books stolen from the Library of Congress to the University in Fairbanks, Alaska having previously made threats against the President you would be in trouble with at least 13 different agencies! All of them of course would resent the others and mouth the immortal line, "And don't give me any of your jurisdiction crap!!"

Similar counts yield the following information. The UK has 14 layers of law enforcement, whilst the North Korea has only 5 or 6!

Does this mean that we are 3 times as paranoid as the North Koreans and that the USA is 5 times more paranoid still? Not really, as the numbers in each arm are widely different, especially when you take into account the size of population they are meant to serve. But there must be a high degree of paranoia, otherwise why would we have so many different agencies? After all, the right-wing governments in control both here and in the USA are dead-set on cuts.

I'm not a big fan of cuts. I work in the public sector and believe that you need it to make the state run efficiently. For example, how would Mr Cameron's army of 'hungry' entrepreneurs be able to generate wealth if they had to stay at home to look after their elderly parents? Or if that simple cold became double pneumonia because there was no healthcare? However, I believe that both here and in the USA, concern about crime levels and the possibility of terrorist attacks means that we have allowed this proliferation and the erosion of many liberties. So come on Theresa May and Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security), make some cuts, save some money and restore some sanity to our law enforcement.

Shame about the films though...

Elections, AV and holidays

You'll hopefully forgive me for the long delay in posting before 1 May and the fact that my post below about the Royal Wedding doesn't go into any great depth with regard to finances or effect upon the national psyche. As an event it's a whole greater than the sum of it's parts - but then, so is the sunny bank holiday weather that has cheerfully swallowed up all of my recent free time.

5 May 2011 is the day when my fellow UK citizens will have a chance to vote in local elections and I would urge you to do so. Turnout in local elections is historically low and tends to go against incumbent governments but the important thing is to be a part of the democratic process, whether you feel that Cameron's economic policy will eventually come good or you just feel like giving Nick Clegg a (metaphorical) kick in the crotch.

UK voters will also have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to reject the First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system in favour of the Alternative Vote (AV) system. I honestly can't find a single, compelling reason to keep the current inflexible system which encourages an unrepresentative two-party monopoly and virtually guarantees tactical voting, so I will be saying yes to AV. If you haven't made your mind up either way, a full independent guide can be found on the Electoral Commission website. Just remember, if you have ever felt that politicians are all the same and cannot be trusted, this is your chance to make a positive change to the way in which they are selected.


Four Thousand Words will also be taking a short break until the middle of May 2011 as I will be leaving these shores for a few days R & R in Egypt. I have a sweet new hat, some luggage with wheels, my Horatio Caine sunglasses and a lot of flip-flops. I have yet to buy some Imodium.

In the meantime, I hope you enjoy comparable temperatures and have lots of fun to boot. I will speak to you all again very soon.

A Right Royal Hoo-Ha

So I've kept quiet about it this long, not least because I reached the point where I was sick of hearing about it. For the most part, I don't read papers or watch TV, and a lot of the time I go out of the my way to avoid talking to other people, but try as I might, I couldn't avoid hearing about the Royal Wedding.

If it wasn't internet articles telling me about the expected audience of 2 billion people or grandiose pieces written by foreign journalists claiming that 'everyone' in Britain is looking forward to it, it was scathing socialist rhetoric about £48 million of wasted public money or the normally excellent Johann Hari conjuring an unconvincing piece about how royalists should frankly be a little bit ashamed of themselves.

Hari makes the point in his article that most of the people in Britain are ambivalent towards the Royal Wedding but regrettably a straw poll of the people I know shows, as ever, that in fact everyone seems to have an opinion. Some think it's a beautiful example of pageantry and will be going down to Westminster Abbey to wave a Union Jack and shed a tear with Her Maj. The ultra-left of my social circle will be holding anti-wedding parties where the curtains are drawn, the TV is unplugged and anti-establishment music is played. Moderates may lament the silence in the streets but they'll happily take the day off work and comment on Kate's dress.

Me? I really don't mind. If Kate and Wills are happy together (and let's face it, none of us really has any clue if they are or not) then I wish them all the best. Be true to each other, I'd say, and let the media machine that supports the monarchy go to hell.

My theory is that Royal Weddings represent a microcosm of that desire for happiness we see in ourselves. There are those who are curious about the inherent possibility, those who reject it beforehand for reasons best known to themselves, those who fall upon it and embrace it like it might be the last chance. Then there are those who stand to one side and observe it, and despite the best will in the world, write about it regardless of how many times they told themselves they wouldn't.

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.'

A Rant About Ignorance (and the EU)

I'm starting to think I should have a snappy start for my postings. It could be a phrase that I use that captures that feeling I get when I see something, read something or do something, and the entry for the day begins to take form from the disorganised blurriness within my mind.

It could be something along the lines of 'An annoying thing occurred to me today as I read a British daily newspaper'. I'm starting to think that I could describe my country to someone who knew nothing about Britain by collecting up a copy of the Star, the Sun, the Mail and the Express, forcing them to read the whole mess cover to cover and then telling the poor soul that not only do people voluntarily pay money for these travesties against truth and taste, they actually form opinions based on the content.

I knew and indeed had warned some of my friends who are more susceptible to influence that in the weeks before the discussion about the Alternative Vote (AV) system, we could expect mainstream Tory and Labourite newspapers to attack the concept as being 'bad for democracy' (i.e. bad for those parties, as it reduces the likelihood of tactical voting, which both parties have been reliant upon in the past to secure their majorities.)

The Daily Express first posted a Tory MP's opinion of the Alternative Vote system in October 2010. Edward Leigh, MP for Gainsborough, wrote in the Parliamentary House magazine that the proposals were 'unsatisfactory, un-British, and causing frustration and anger'. At first I agreed with him, but then I re-read his comments and realised that he was describing the AV system rather than the coalition government.

Mr Leigh also objected to the plan to hold the referendum on the same day as the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh elections, which is a manoeuvre that he felt would concern voters in England. He finished by saying, "a referendum should be held when conditions are consistent across the nation. I understand that a coincidence of dates will save us nearly £8 million, but let's not sell our political principles for the price of a nice house in Chelsea." He's certainly correct that political principles should not have a price, but £8 million would train a lot of nurses, and I left the comment in because his knowledge of Chelsea house prices neatly juxtaposes how he is obviously in touch with the average British voter.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that we currently have a government with no electoral mandate to govern, the Daily Express implied today that the average voter cannot be expected to know much about AV or the democratic process, and on that basis a referendum about electoral reform is entirely unnecessary. However, on the matter of the European Union, The People Have Spoken, and a referendum should be organised on the subject of Britain leaving the EU immediately.


In January, the paper submitted a petition containing 373,000 signatures with the aim of forcing the government to hold a referendum on the issue. Today it had this to say on the subject of the EU:

"The EU has already made a number of ludicrous decisions since the Daily Express delivered its historic 373,000-strong petition to Downing Street in January. Its judges were accused of “utter madness” this week after imposing new gender equality rules on pensions and insurance, leaving millions of Britons out of pocket. Women’s car insurance will rocket by up to 25 per cent after they ruled against discrimination in their favour. Men, too, will suffer with lower pension payments because providers will no longer be able to take into account that they die earlier than women."

You'll notice that the paper doesn't actually note who made the accusation, and I'd be a little more sympathetic to the dewy-eyed bleating about how the decisions made in European Court leave my gender disadvantaged on the matter of pensions if the British government weren't making me wait three extra years to claim my pension in the first place (68 as opposed to the current 65.) Likewise, if Cameron and Co. are that concerned about drivers, they could always look at reducing the cost of road tax and the frankly obscene amount of tax levied on petrol. But here we come to the central tenet of this entry - this is not a call for a referendum on the basis of knowledge, but instead, one of ignorance.

What is the EU? The smart and well informed members of this blog will know that it is an economic and political union of 27 member states that operates through a hybrid system of supranational independent institutions and intergovernmentally-made decisions negotiated by its members. But if you put those 373,000 petition signatories to the test, could they honestly name a single function that the EU performs?

I don't have a position on the EU. Fundamentally, I am willing to accept that as an intelligent and apparently well-informed member of society, I still don't understand enough about how it operates to determine if it offers us (as UK citizens and voters in MEP elections) value for money. I do know, however, that if any such referendum occurs, I will endeavour to educate myself on the subject and learn more so that at least my vote is cast from a position of relative understanding. I rather fear that my measly single vote will be drowned out by countless others that have the neither the wherewithal or the inclination to do their own fact-finding.

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?!

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.

Tie Your Ribbon To The Right Tree

Three days of the four-day weekend have gone, and I have to admit that I've had a wonderful time so far. Norwich City might have been cheated by some truly awful refereeing decisions on Friday, but my poker game has been going well, the French Market has supplied me with some top-notch food and I've spent my time in excellent company.

I want to take this chance to shout out for BBC2 as well. While other channels continue to commission pointless reality TV and Z-list celebrity shows, BBC2 leads the way for quality broadcasting. This evening alone sees Simon Reeve studying religious tension along the Tropic of Cancer and Professor Brian Cox in his quite excellent show about how the laws of nature apply throughout the solar system. Turn off the phone and get on iPlayer now.

I promised that my blog earlier this week would not be about the general election...but it turns out that I'm more eager to talk about it than I thought at the time. I have no secret line to Government, but the hustings have been cleared and it seems likely to me that on 6 May 2010, one-third (or thereabouts) of the population of the UK will make a choice of government that will hopefully see an end to the economic recession.

At this point I believe I should point out that the suggestion that only one-third of the population will bother to vote is entirely my own estimate. Nonetheless I would imagine that even the most optimistic observer would struggle to believe that the turn out will be in excess of 50%. This is a sobering thought, as it suggests that half the country either cannot decide or don't care who will lead them for the next four years. It would be easy for me to sceptically suggest that contained within the set of '40 million people who do not vote in general elections' there will be a significant subset who also fall into the '20 million people who do vote in Pop Idol' category, but this is perhaps missing the point.

The low turnout is critical for the UK, as numbers have dwindled in successive elections and the reducing turnout weakens our democracy. This is beneficial for extremist parties such as the British National Party, who rely on a small but dedicated hardcore of supporters who are frustrated with the perceived failings of the main political parties. If for no other reason, we all have the responsibility of voting to deny extremists the chance of benefiting from such opportunism.

Low turnouts also suggest a high degree of apathy within the electorate. Of course, with the ongoing MP expenses scandals, it is hard to be critical of those who don't vote because they feel that politicians are all crooked and self-serving. Despite the stories, I really feel that this is little more than apologism for laziness. I simply do not believe that all British politicians are in it for the perks of the post. This is not to say that there aren't individuals who are, of course, but I would imagine that most MPs are dedicated and hard-working individuals who really want the best for this country and for their constituents.

Compared to the average British voter, I would consider myself to be an intelligent and knowledgeable person with a high degree of political awareness. Among my friends, there are many keen political observers and I am fortunate that their opinions and knowledge ultimately challenge and enhance my own. However, even after watching the news and studying the literature, I openly admit that I have struggled to find what the main parties these days actually stand for. The political billboards are all about image and media capital - primarily, the content tends towards mocking the opposition parties rather than championing the success of one's own. One notable friend, coincidentally a candidate in the last local election, describes it as 'the usual bunch of public schoolboys teasing each other in the playground'.

I'm thankful then, that there are sites like http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey. Rather than decide where your vote should go based on personalities, you can read summaries of half a dozen manifestos, broken down by subject, without knowing which one belongs to which party. You then select which policies you like for each subject, and the site then tells you which party you have supported with your choices. I would actively encourage anyone who will be voting in the forthcoming election to give the site a try, and you may just be surprised - a lifetime Labour voter, my preferences matched a measly 1 in 9 of their policies this time round.

The results overwhelmingly pointed towards one party at the expense of the others, and on polling day I will therefore be flying the flag for the Green Party with pride. It makes me wonder just how the different the outcome might be if all voters were asked to complete the survey at the link above rather than just being given a voting slip.