A different kind of Christmas

So here we are again, another Christmas, another month of frantic present buying and prayer for the speedy deliveries of Royal Mail (...or not!) and here I am writing possibly one of the last blogs of 2010.

What a strange year it's been. People, places... predicaments. Perhaps its fair to say that my life can be separated into just two segments so far; the times before these and the times after. 2010 has been a benchmark year. People seem to think that you grow and advance on the dawn of your birthday. At 18, you suddenly become 'responsible' and 'adult'... there are many people I know who still don't deserve such a title... Myself included. The Peter Pan of my friends and my classmates, I've never wanted to 'grow up'. All of my favourite things ask for my creativity, my passion and excitement. If you become an adult... I think these things can get lost in the ether.

I've met both people I've come to respect enormously, and people I've come to detest in equal amounts. I don't like pasts... I don't like previous encounters... I like to be able to start fresh. So why does that matter? Well, this year, I've lived differently. I've become dependent and attached. Once that happens, its hard to separate. You return to home, and its like returning to the age of 16. I think this must have been how Harry Potter felt after exploring the wizard world; and then being shoved into the cupboard under the stairs. I'm not imprisoned or limited, but I am lacking a certain part of me. Its as if you stop playing 'happy families' for a month and re-enter childhood. I don't like it! Whilst I long to be back in that familiar independent atmosphere, I want to bring the aspects of what make Winchester so amazing home but can't. Perhaps being so close is not as exciting as I may once have believed. The distance apart can sometimes be a good thing; knowing that there is no possible way to change anything. But, when you're so close to such a different world... its not the same. Harry Potter, I know how you feel.

Meet Those Parents

They say that one of the first initial things we use to figure each other out is our eyes. When we’re windswept, flustered, stressed and tired, our eyes might betray the smile that we’ve so elaborately illustrated and tell someone that we don’t really want to be doing this today. This we can’t hide. The nervous darting of those agitated eyes, the desperate and frantic desire to look into anything but their faces... No, we can’t put it off any longer. It’s time to meet the parents.

Whilst we can’t change this unavoidable in-built shortcoming of the human anatomy; we can go some way to hiding within the comfort of the way we come across to those dreaded in-laws to be (who knows?), through how we look!

It’s all about connotation. Whilst our eyes connote fear and panic with a hint of shear distress thrown in, we can stand, or sit, with our heads held high knowing that we look the part. Not suits, not a cocktail dress, not a tuxedo or elegant evening gown, just the clothes that make us feel like us. Don’t make an effort to impress. Make an effort to squeeze in all of the qualities that epitomise what you are all about into the fabrics that adorn that quivering, shaking frame.

If you smile when you’re on the telephone, people hear it. They hear the smile! This is no different. Wearing what makes you feel secure and comfortable to that first meeting of terror makes all of the difference. Your appearance is one of cool composure, of assured likeability, and of simple sophistication. Kill the cliché. All because you chose the worn-out faded jeans, not the Henley boating regatta chino’s, you chose the understated once-were-white converses not the six-inch heels (designed more for self-defence than actual mobility...), you chose to wear your hair down not in that tight bun that is quite frankly lying to yourself as much as anyone else. You get the picture... If you’re lying to yourself then you’re most likely lying to them too.

And don’t think they’re making some imperial clothing effort either. Intimidating though they may be, they are not going to try and out-dress you. Why would they need to, They practically have you a nervous wreck without going to the hassle of anything else! Remember that they are not your generation. They don’t know the music that inspires you, the films that drive you forward or the sports that motivate you. But that’s not the point. They will learn these wonderful things very shortly after they open the door to you in your own coat, not your older siblings’ leather jacket. Or the suit you rented from the Moss Brothers...!

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

So I realise, its been a fair while since I blogged. Like any addiction, fascination or even obsession, I feel myself being drawn to it irrevocably; as if something is telling me that I need to feel the same familiar feeling of release that it offers. Anyhow, here I am, and here is what I have to say.

Every morning when I rise, get myself up and figure out the manner in which I shall start my day - I glimpse towards the far corner of my wall. Upon it, a large poster hangs, covered in manuscript, bleached and coffee stained by the light of day and the fatigues of age and slight mistreatment which have thus far rendered it unreadable, but for a pressed copy - made from the original copy. Of course, right now, this document could be anything - the magna carta even. But to me, this document is more important than any bible or scripture, any page of great teaching or philosophy. On my wall hangs the declaration of Independence.

So why must I look upon it each day, with fresh, new eyes, and not see the same thing every time? Well, perhaps because one clause above all others stands out to me. It reaches out with both arms extended and pleads with me to try and interpret its meaning with new inference and understanding. It asks me not to be biased by my cultural teachings and conventions, but at the same time, it takes into account the immensely powerful philosophy of the right of the individual, and that individual's own beliefs and opinions. The phrase; "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" shimmers against the brown and scorched text that surrounds it. My eyes identify it immediately as the part of the text that is to captivate and challenge me. But why? Why this part and none other to such a degree?


For me as a child, the state of America and its basis as a nation with no national language, and cultural philosophy as a nation offering the culmination of all cultures into a 'melting pot' - taking the best of all races, creeds, and religions, and creating something diverse, was enlightening. Why didn't England offer this? Why didn't we ask this of our people? Well, I suppose it all starts with the declaration itself. In a briefly concise historical context, the thirteen states of America (as they were back in 1776) were at war with Britain. On June 11, 1776, a committee of five gathered - John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman to draft what was to be one of the most famous, most quoted and most respected pieces of legislation ever committed to written word. Becoming discontented with their treatment by the British, forever being used and neither being treated fairly nor equally; five brave members of the American Congress worked to exhaustion on a document that very well may have sealed the fate of a nation. The striking prose of the document is perhaps what captivated me most, as much then, as it does today. The text was designed to rouse Americans, potentially asking them to give their lives to a cause: that every man should be able to pursue his dreams, his desires and his definition of a life of beauty to no end, without fear of retribution or vengeance. This phrase, this clause, is the very essence of capitalism. Whilst it may incorporate desire, it is not selfish in its resolve, nor does it ask man to kill in order to achieve happiness or wealth. It suggests that we are born to these ends, we are born to pursue not an ideology, but a journey. We are born to do as we please, and as we wish - so long as this is not to interupt or counter exactly the same desires found in each and every other person.

But as well as this, I take from the phrase almost a biblical teaching. To live my life forever looking to find happiness, not just in my own situation, but in the situation of others. Perhaps some people are currently 'pursuing happiness' and don't even realise it. Perhaps that is something even more beautiful; that we are sometimes not aware of our own perceptions. But to me, the most beautiful of all of these concepts lies in the fact that I may be giving happiness. I may be sharing happiness, and I may be creating happiness. If you take a short moment to question the very definition of happiness, what do you end up with? You most likely start thinking of your own happiness, and how you can become more 'happy'. I think that there are likely some people out there who see straight through themselves and ask how they can give this happiness to others - how they can be a bridge over which these emotions and sentiments can flow to someone less content than themselves. How can I ever truly be sure? Well, I suppose I can't. I guess I would ask every person who reads what I have written to ask themselves; what is happiness, what does it mean to me? Do I offer it to others before myself?

When you next go into a poster store, look out for the declaration of Independence, read about halfway down, and see if it stands out for you. Does it stand out in just a text, or does it stand out in life itself?

My Final Plea

In these, the few days before our future as a nation is decided; I write to ask everyone who reads my blog to consider just one thing. Now, more than ever before, you have the immense power, the infinite wisdom, and the undeniable resolve to change the country. Yes, you can change the country. And instead of backing one candidate, in the selfish vanity of my own decisions being influential on the thoughts of others, I  ask that you consider the next leaders of your country, and find it within yourselves and your own resolve to chose a party that represents and embodies your own beliefs, and no other. Don't settle for less.

Contrary to what some have accused me of, I relish and bask in the beauty of debate; I remain fascinated, intrigued and driven forth by the very fact that we as a people can come to question our leaders, question the decisions made on our behalf. We can work towards change without fear of war, of fighting and retribution, and of mindless destruction. The way in which we can sit around a table and talk as both opposition and delegation, without being revolutionaries and dictators continues to propel me, even when sometimes my faith in politics and democracy finds itself faltering or at a loss. This is the stunning privilege of democracy that I stand to fight for.

 I suppose all that I am asking you for, in equal measure, is your propensity to act, to become a part of your own future, of our own future, and to come on board. So vote, make a difference, and be able to say that it was you who made a change, it was you who used their right to vote for the better. Be able to say that it was you who shaped the future for your children, and their children - and as importantly, be able to tell those children that they too will be able to make that decision, when the time comes.  Don't lose faith, don't ignore and cast out politics - it exists only for and because of you.

How to lose friends and alienate people, a party broadcast brought to you by The Labour Party.

So, in another pre-election stunt, the Labour party moves to ban the currently legal stimulant drug in 'just weeks'. After increasing tension arising between the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the government; a seventh key adviser has marked his mistrust and discontent with the current government's methods of dealing with drugs. Eric Carlin, adviser to the Advisory Council on Mephedrone has resigned over what he calls Government minister's desperate attempts to 'appear tough' in the face of difficult drug questions and pre-election probing over Labour's stance on 'legal highs' currently possible with some drugs still legal and able to be possessed under UK law.

Clearly, the media reaction to labour's pre-election campaigning has forced senior party and cabinet members to dramatically respond to events in desperate attempts to claw back votes ahead of a General Election; most likely to be announced on Tuesday 6th April. Labour ministers are not including Gordon Brown on the campaign materials of many senior Labour MP's, including Sadiq Khan and Harriet Harman. Labour are apparently avoiding difficult questions over 'the past', in preference of trying to prophesise the future of Britain under a continued Labour government. Well, it is plain to see that this clearly isn't going to bode well for anyone. Currently, 38 of the countries' leading business professionals are backing Conservative plans for National Insurance cuts - not just in favour of Conservative policy and the party, but rather more a demonstration of no-confidence in the current government's ability to deal with the finances of a country still reeling from the longer term effects of the recession, and a global banking crisis that has seen other countries such as Greece, have to take out huge loans in order to retain strength and confidence in their own economies. Let's face it; business leaders will be backing whoever can provide them with a strong, sensible, feasible, longer term solution, and on-going pragmatic response to a dynamic and constantly evolving financial situation.

Above all, increases in National Insurance will not solve such a deficit, and could indeed have the opposite effect of damaging smaller businesses and firms, together with taking more money from those earning under £45,000 a year. This would be funded by a £6 billion pound Labour government 'wastage' identified by the Conservatives, despite Labour allegations of a VAT increase to fund the slash of the April 2011 due tax increase. Lib Dem shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable, agreed that the increase would above all be 'damaging' to the current UK economy.

Dispatches: Cash for influence

An exclusive Channel 4 sting operation has revealed that three former cabinet ministers and a Labour MP were more than willing to accept funds of up to £5,000 a day in order to enforce and influence party policy on behalf of a false lobbyist company, registered to the home of a Channel 4 Producer. The revelations will be revealed tomorrow on channel 4's dispatches programme.

Let us all watch in awe and amazement as we see politicians continue to rack in money that they are not entitled to!

A Conservative Cornwall?

Okay, so everybody knows that the Lib Dems have come to own Cornwall over the past few years with their holding of all of the five constituent areas; but are the people of Kernow open to change?  Well, lets see. The newly established seat of Camborne and Redruth is up for grabs; Conservative PPC George Eustice is campaigning to become the new MP for the area. Previously established as David Cameron's Press Officer over at Millbank in London, George returns to his roots at long last - his family has ploughed the land and farmed in Cornwall for over 400 years.

Perhaps a lot of voters still believe in the traditional 'battleground constituent areas', those close to London and in the surrounding Southern areas. However, we must not forget that a lot of power lies in the West Country. 77% of the UK's land mass is maintained and supported by farmers, over 3,000 farming holdings exist within Cornwall itself; thus the needs and thoughts of a lot of farmers are important not just to those who understand and work in agriculture, but equally so to those who live and work in more urban areas and industries. The importance of this area, to both the victory of the Conservatives and the general welfare of our nation at large is not to be understated. Sure, values are different in different areas - but the goal remains the same, to offer the best the country can to as many people as we can.

"Don't do Politics"

So, did many of us watch ITV1 last night - Trevor McDonald meets David Cameron? Well according to Twitter; most of the country did! Bursting at the seems, often displaying 'overloaded - try again later' instead of the latest status updates, Twitter was indeed very busy with people eager to get over their own points in response to #trevcam, as it became known. Fascinating.

Yet in all of this, so many people that I have talked to/argued with/debated with/conversed with over the past year believe that politics is, in their own inimitable words "not for them". Well, I'm sorry that perhaps you didn't even realise your own interests, but anyone who comes out with comments like "Cameron is posh" or "I'm fed up of people getting benefits to sit and do nothing all day", is talking politics.

Politics are the things of today. They are matters that incite us, invigorate us and are the very essence of the fabric of our country. You don't like Labour's views on immigration, or its close proximity to the unions? Then don't vote that way. But please don't say things like "I'm not going to vote, they're all the same." Don't waste the importance of your right to vote.

Behind every political face, there are a dozen party members, volunteers, and workers that believe passionately in the cause for which they work. Obama promised great change in America. He offered Americans nationwide a chance to change history. They liked it. They voted... He won.

Some viewers wanted to question David Cameron's 'substance', accrediting him with style in the place of policy. It is true that 'DC' is a family man; he is just one of thousands in the UK. Every policy we make, every promise we make, in fact, is based on decisions that would be affecting the typical British family. A lot has been said about DC's links to the 'Old Etonian' way of life. Well, to me, it seems he lives pretty ordinarily. Nescaffe coffee and John Smith's Smooth Bitter.

 David Cameron never attempts to hide what he calls a 'privileged upbringing'; and neither have I. This is one of the traits that I most respect in DC - his honesty. But it is with his intelligence and pragmatic decision making that my vote mainly connects. We shouldn't elect a Prime Minister afraid of wavering from old-established policy; it is times like these that we need to find a leader who will make a decision in response to the situation it aims to counter. David Cameron is such a man.

So students who are afraid to vote, students who refuse to accept that their vote can provoke change, family men who fear that politicians are not, single parent families who feel that their vote is not important, people from less privileged backgrounds, parents who feel cheated by expenses politicians 'stealing' their money, and families most affected by tragic events in both Iraq and Afghanistan, come and vote, come and make a difference.

Selling England by the pound

So, in recent developments, the Scots have proposed to decide their nations' future with a 'bill' deciding whether or not they should claim independence from these great and beautiful isles... England, that is. Let us not forget that we have been divorced from them before, and seemed to manage adequately well - in fact, we seem to pay for them (and their mistakes) as a nation at the moment. Free university would be a welcome amendment to the British education system too; in fact, the Lib Dems themselves propose 'free uni' every time the freshers fair opens its doors to new students. In reality, we cannot afford such a proposal. The fact is, that at the moment, we can't afford much at all as a nation. Perhaps, if Scotland were to break away from us (by its' own decision) we could afford such luxuries as those that exist amongst our Northern friends... Just a thought....

Collecting Thoughts - A different kind of blog

Every once in a while, I find it particularly compelling to collect and collate my thoughts into some linear narrative - some kind of flowing stream of sentiment that encapsulates my philosophies, my thoughts and ideals and most importantly, the very essence of what I am - of who I am.

However, as much as I try to bring order to what is most certainly chaos; a deep, swirling, dark and revolving storm inside the eye of my mind, I can't. Perhaps memories are made of such things. Perhaps thoughts are not meant to be interpreted, assigned, categorised, or manipulated. Perhaps it is the stream of human conscience that gives meaning to all life. Perhaps we will never know.

This week I took a step outside of politics, and intrepidly walked those few bold steps back into poetry, for my own mind which seems to have found itself craving the other-worldly delights of such imaginative works of the mind, of art and of fine beauty. As much as I find myself wandering illuminated - fascinated and enthralled by what is one of my most favoured and important subjects; politics, it is poetry that captivates me, swallowing and catching me like a cushioned parachute whenever I need it to. It envelopes me like a cradling mother who seeks to offer reassurance to her child, it always has. Samuel Taylor Coleridge always beckons me back; alongside Wordsworth and De La Mare. They all offer me solace, in a world of many evils, of injustices and of unwelcome truths - I lap up their writings like those who enjoy the writings that lie within the most popular book in the world, The Bible. It was their works that gave me the strength to wrestle with my own ideals and decide that I want to change the world for the better, to use my skills to offer those who cannot, the chance to believe, to think, and to change. Because together we can change the world...

Curiously, I bumped into, alongside a few good friends, a Mormon in town a few days ago. The first thing she said was "Hello there, would all of you like the answer?" Naturally, my friends and I replied that we would indeed like an answer, to what we did not know. She gave us a card and said, have a look at this website. I still to this moment haven't done so - I think the card found its way to a royal mail post box nearby. Although the sentiment of the ladies' actions remain in my mind - not so much that she had the answer to my questioning of life and the philosophy surrounding it; but that she thought that she had found the answer. Whether I believed it or not, she felt that she had found what we are all looking for; and for that I was truly glad - in fact, I wish I had too.

The answer for me, I think, won't come to me, until my life is full. By that I mean, that I have accomplished my key goal in life, to love another as much as others have loved me. For now, I'm still working on that - but on some days (some more than others) I feel that I'm getting somewhere with it. Of course, I love my family and I love my friends, but collectively, that love is hard to repay. One day, I think I will - but for now, I stand indebted to them all...

We all make our own journeys, we all decide our own destinies and make our own fortunes. I've yet to find answers to many of my most probing and unanswered of questions. But what is life, if not a journey? To do what I used to do quite frequently, I shall conclude with a single quote... and ask you all to reflect on those around you for just a short moment, because life itself is made of these two things...



"Love is flower like; Friendship is like a sheltering tree..."
Samuel Taylor Coleridge

BrownVision - Family man, or Vote begger?

So, the other night Gordon Brown went on television; being interviewed by Piers Morgan, the man ITV seems to think is a high class act, and thorough cross-examiner/interviewer of celebs. Yes, he makes them cry. And yes, sometimes he makes them angry. But do his questions really get to the heart of the matter?

Whilst watching Brown, I couldn't help but think that this interview was a desperate effort for the Labour party to claw in votes from those who feel sympathetic to the man that is Gordon Brown. I feel terribly sorry for misfortunes within his family and the tragic loss of Jennifer; much the same as I was very sad when David Cameron lost his son, Ivan. However, the interview was hardly a modern version of the Watergate interviews made by David Frost in the 70's; as he swiftly and expertly cross examined the conscience of one of the most powerful men in the world. With Morgan's interview, there were sweeping tributes, to a man who puts work first, there were statements of sheer admiration for a man whose secret weapon lies in his 'humour'. Anyone watching the show must have been swayed by what seemed like a rocky-esque underdog story. In fact, I half expected Brown to get up halfway through, clenching his fists, beaten and metaphorically bloody, shouting "Adriaaan, I did it!" - perhaps lose the 'Adrian' part, and selectively replace with 'Tony' or 'Sarah', it would seem fitting.

 I am currently reading, amongst other books, Peter Watt's (Labour ex-general secretary) book, Inside Out. In it, Watt claims that Brown is far from humourous. Aside from being disasterously indescisive and often un-political in decision making, Brown cannot even hold a dinner party with American deligates without throwing a tantrum and leaving his unassuming guests to their own devices for the evening. Is this really the man we want running our country for any more time? One has to question how many takes were shot in order to achieve the desire 'effect', of Gordon being even remotely 'funny'. In fact, I had visions at the time of a Labour press officer sitting with the director of the show in the gallery (location in which shots are decided for a show like Piers') muttering under his breath "stick to the script, Gordon. You are funny. You are a funny, funny man." Yes, Gordon, you are, you are a funny, funny man - keep telling yourself that... Humour just won't solve the heap of recession gloom and deficits that we are sitting on as a nation at the moment. It also won't make me laugh that you want to tax us even when we escape the disasterous governance of this country and depart this mortal realm - with a £20,000 death tax.

 You truly are, a funny, funny man.

A Study In Political Life

Today I started reading yet another political autobiographical book; the Blair Years, by Alastair Campbell. I seem to be attracted, of late, to authors that try to offer us readers a unique and supposedly truthful examination of politics and how their respective parties acted and reacted to some of the greatest political challenges and crises of both the 20th and 21st centuries. Many of us delight in reading of the strife and misfortunes of others; how their once great ambitions and lives are often reduced to bare, empty and deserted dreams.

However, I find these works rather more an opportunity to get a glimpse into the matter of a lifestyle choice. Politicians make choices that not only impact on the country at large, they also make choices around their families. This is what fascinates and excites me - the way in which we do not perceive politicians and political operators as 'people'. Of course with reference to our friends across the big pond, we will always see snaps of Barack Obama with Michelle and the kids. But in British political climbs we hardly ever see those friendly sociable shots of our leader holding hands with an excited and energetically waving child - one of the key connotations of what most of us would consider the mark of a genuine and honest man; a man with a family. So why is this? Why do suits, ties and handshakes permeate and saturate the media surrounding our political figures? I suppose that it is in part due to the typically British traditionalism, that politics is a serious and dangerous arena of media frenzy, intrigue and spin - an atmosphere not suited to raising or implying the raising of innocent and untainted children of whom should not have to see their father, or mother torn apart limb by limb by people who decide to measure a human being by the way that they look; rather than how they act. Let's not forget that, however much a man can be measured by his actions, his actions can only come to fruition with the strength of his character. A strong and sensible leader can make mistakes, but it is his consistency of character that should allow him to prevail and make choices that may come to define an era.

To blog in favour of those who can't

Recently, I was accepted for internship at CCHQ (Conservative HQ) over at Millbank tower. Obviously, news of my endeavours has reached a number of people I know; culminating in me receiving a number of different points that I must raise with 'Dave'. To be honest, it is a grand thing to be receiving messages of such hope and desire for change; together with a spirit that allows us to turn things around and right a lot of Gordon's (and Tony's) wrongdoing. One issue that remains particularly poignant and has always been an intensely important area that I feel I must try and champion, is that of the strife of elder Britons. Now often we forget these valued members of our society; mostly in part due to their wish not to disrupt, unbalance or un-necessarily cause concern; yet they need our help and they certainly should not suffer in silence. Being so close to my Nan, whom I consider to be my second mother, I feel this is my duty, nay, my responsibility to spearhead such a crucial concern.

Winter fuel allowances have been a wonderous thing for many older people, who feel that this has allowed them to use their heating in the coldest of British winters, rather than feel that they have to 'turn off' due to heightened gas and electric charges. However, Liberal Democrats countrywide have aimed to use such an important and genuine lifeline as a reason to attack the Conservatives. How dare they use this to influence people against the Conservatives. Surely this goes outside of politics and becomes bullying scare tactics designed to intimidate and forcefully swing undecided voters. Outlined in the party manifesto; and in a recent conference, David Cameron whole heartedly wishes to keep the winter fuel allowance.

Whatever next, will the Lib Dems be forcefully loading these important and valued members of society into minibuses and forcing them to 'vote yellow' in the General Election, come summertime? Well, if they do, I will be rallying an army together to halt them in their steps - and I shant be asking them to vote my way either I shall ask them to vote freely, without fear and low political bullying playing on their minds.

http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Pensions_and_Older_People.aspx

The Great Competition?

So, here we are, in the big run up to a supposed May 6th General election and the Labour party are still desperately trying to claw in voters. Recently I read a rival blog, of whose I shall not reveal, on which the labour HQ's new campaign of pictorial Labour achievements was written about favourably. Basically, in this latest 'genius' idea (oh! how sarcasm does not work through the written word!), fans send photos of hospitals, schools and most likely benefit and job centres to HQ, who post them around like propaganda. Well, perhaps I shall create a photomontage just for their own benefit. It should include the following :-


- Hospitals desperately lacking in utilities and resources as wards are overstretched and bursting at the seams.

- Pictures of Wooten Bassett and British soldiers; the icons that have come to encapsulate British politics since 2001.

- A faultering education system; just the other day 3,000 students took an A-level exam that they had not been taught how to answer (yes, the fault lies with the exam boards, but how can this happen?!)

- An economy that has had 'equivalent of a major heart attack', to paraphrase Andrew Grice (The Independent) with a 0.1% growth rise, instead of the 0.5% originally expected. The 'Boom and Bust' Brown aimed to destroy could be back upon us later this year.

- Social services that are grossly ran by statistics and figures rather than realities; overwhelmed by paperwork and bureaucratic conformity. 1/3 of a sample 479 incidents last year were incorrectly filed by Police - most likely due to unachievable targets.

- Whilst services are on my mind, why not throw in some pictures of lavish and luxury items and houses  of M.P's, paid for by tax payers; of which the Labour party was complacent in noticing and dealing with.



Now I know, I could go on. And I know that if I did, I would only make people shrug and nod. I also understand that a lot of things were not necessarily directly caused by a Labour government. However, since 1997, Labour have had ample opportunity to right wrongs and prevent catastrophes and perhaps even negate the harsh effects of the recession. But who knows? What is done is done, and what is certain is that someone must fix these things. Its all very well saying 'we did this, oh remember that...' but this is a time in which we need to move forward at rapid pace. Just like a victim of a heart attack; you wouldn't look back to the times when you felt certain something was going to go wrong, would you?

The Iraq Inquiry: All's fair... in politics and law?

Whilst sitting at a table in Starbuck's today, reading today's Independent, the phrase 'all is fair, in love and war' suddenly came to mind as I briefly glanced at the day's news. Though perhaps what I was really thinking was: how does this principle apply to the Iraq Inquiry. So, today Lord Goldsmith went up against the panel, discussing his part in the ever-unfolding story of invasion. Yesterday, Michael Wood, a senior legal adviser to Tony Blair exclaimed that he had felt that invasion was 'contrary to International law'; today Lord Goldsmith (ex-Attorney General to Blair) insisted that the military had asked for a 'yes or no' definitive answer to the legality of military action against Iraq as he swiftly changed his stance. The whole inquiry is in danger of falling towards a contest of absolution of responsibility. What will Tony be saying on Friday, who will he blame? Civil servants and their advice to the government at the time has got to be one of the main areas that he will try to use in his defence. If Goldsmith had given the legal go-ahead, then it was within the mandate of the Prime Minister to authorise such use of force - perhaps even if misinformed by an advisor. However, this ultimately throws into question the transparency of Blair's leadership, should it have relied upon false information and ill-defined legal advice. Of course there are grey areas and aspects of EU law that can be overlooked due to some more ambiguous clauses that can be sidestepped, however, one would not expect a nation like Great Britain to have to find reasons to invade a country and mobilise an army - it should be clear that when we need to exercise these powers, it be with the utmost inevitability and reasoning. I think the inquiry looks to piece together the circumstances through which we went to war, and its status as a panel of non-judicial examiners and lack of any real legal clout will prove to be a great issue in emphasising the relevance of such an inquiry.

Brown targets middle classes? Actually, he's been 'targetting' the middle classes for quite a while already.

So, in the latest franchise rebranding project; 'New' Labour targets the middle classes with Brown declaring more middle class jobs than ever before". Well, hang on just a minute, Mr Brown. Some of us are not so complacent as to think you can spin this one just ahead of a General Election. For middle classes, your party created 111 new taxes, and unprecedented national insurance increases. And now you try to tell us middle classes that you are the mainstreamers who seek to look after us as well as the working and upper classes? Unfortunately, after you raised higher income taxes alongside Mr Darling to 52%, what are we supposed to think! It is true that people are indeed holding their voting cards very close to their chests ahead of this election; most likely due to the still turbulent attitudes towards British politics and the general feeling that the voters will be deciding who will win this election; not political parties and pressure groups.

The 'C' Word

Why do people get worked up when you admit that you are a Conservative voter? Is it because of old cliches and false rumours or is it because people are caught; ensnared by the old Labour 'up the worker' mentality? I feel that I should at least attempt to unravel some of these myths before they begin to affect voting ahead of the General Election in the coming summer months. Firstly, 'up the worker' is not a mentality solely supported by the Labour party, contrary to what their spin machine and propaganda might insinuate. Every governmental party believes in the safety and welfare of the working man, or woman, and the subsequent safety of their careers and lifelihoods. Without this crucial factor, our country simply couldn't exist. Contrary to what those harsh and outdated Labourites might have us believe, we all support the worker. I suppose, upon reflection the 'up the worker' phrase in itself, is too vague, too weak to warrant further understanding - the fact is, every person, and their mother, is most likely a worker of some description. The phrase, when used, indicates to me that the Labour party are lacking in votes and popularity and try to use the old unionist beliefs to claw back some kind of voting percentage. Yes of course, the well-informed Labourite will target the Conservative dealings with the unions in the 80's as a pretext to all of this. However, I sometimes find myself explaining the model of capitalism to those who are somewhat perplexed over why some earn more than others. It is simple really, in a capitalist model of government and society, both the higher earners and the lower earners co-exist by turn of mutual prosperity. Yes, so the higher earners might want to spend more on a huge house, or a larger car, but they are taxed accordingly for the amount these factors affect the population. For instance, if you have a bigger car, expect to pay more tax, due to the larger effect this will have on the environment via carbon dioxide emissions. The lower earners do not live in abject poverty either; some may choose to invest money in more practical options, such as saving accounts for their kids, or possibly an extension to their home - but the choice is theirs, and theirs alone, such is the nature of capitalist democracy. There is nothing to say that those born into lower income families cannot achieve the wage of a higher earner through promotion and their own merit; although these things do not come without achievements within a company or business. Anything can be accomplished in a free society.

What is often a larger myth about the Conservative party, is that they only accept into their ranks, elitist politicians who enter the party through a wrongly labelled public school like Eton: known as the 'nurse to Englands politicans'. William Hague did not attend Eton, and was in comprehensive schooling throughout his childhood; rising to the post of leader of the opposition through his own intellect and ability, rather than fast tracking through the system. It is true that in the past, convention has dictated who could rise through the ranks, a ceiling was imposed on those who did not have such 'crucial' schooling. Well, it may be news for some, but the times have changed, people from all walks of life, all backgrounds can enter politics in pursuit of making a difference. And this is perfectly feasible. There is no divide, and the sooner that certain misinformed traditionalists realise this, the closer we will be towards a democracy where people vote for what they really believe should be done, instead of playing party faithful to a party that may not be what it was, and may not stand for what people truly stand for. The north doesn't have to vote red in favour of the worker, and the south does not have to vote blue in turn, this election will be about the views of the individual, so we must vote accordingly.

The Bealsburg Address (The Art Of The Live Debate)

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln wrote and delivered what was to become one of the most revered speeches of all time.  In the aftermath of Civil war and the division of the Northern and Southern states in both ideological conflict and cultural contast; Lincoln made a speech on behalf of every American. Whilst researching the speech (I am currently examining American presidential speeches), I figured out where the problems inside our own political system stem from. The thing is, whilst realising this, I also realised why I currently favour modern American politics to those of our own. British politics are steeped in tradition, in convention and in elitism; and I don't think it is at all indicative of the changing environment in global politics - we need change before our government collapses and combusts from within - we need to adapt and modernise quickly.

We are now more open than ever before, we are not tolerant of political coverups and the Machiavellian back stabbing and the dominance of the current government over media and news; the new media has afforded us such freedoms of information. The British people are choosing a different type of political understanding and practise. It is time for the British people to embrace a new kind of politics, one of which recent events have encouraged us to develop. Now we must concentrate on the heart of the matter, the very bane of politics itself - what do we want for our country and its people? This is real twenty-first century politics. Mistrust and skepticism surrounds our M.P's, as a rising tide of discontent engulfs the public; caught between the ever impending consequences of the recession and lack of faith in not only the people, but the very system behind our method of government. People vote for dangerous parties in order to prove that they still hold the power of the electorate - yet in doing so, they further the efforts of those our society frowns upon. These are the holders of misplaced and radical views - those that look to dismantle and deconstruct our society, a society that our troops enter warzones and arenas of tyranny and oppression to maintain and defend. Voting for these parties is not the answer, voting for these parties does not endorse diversity or change, rather, it inhibits it.

For the first time in these British politics, our politicians will stand the test that their American counterparts have traversed for years. The power of the televised debate will unhinge those who lack strong morals, who are unsure of what they stand for. Of course, politicians debate in the house of Commons almost every day but this is not the same. Restricted by outdated and over regimented implementations and regulations - the bigger issue is never discussed; as Mr. Speaker oversees the content of the debate - and holds the tongues of those who seek to challenge tradition. Now, through the freedom of television provided by an independent network, we can finally confront the real issues. The concerns that both unite and divide society; and previously stood unchallenged in debate will now be freely articulated as points of great interest by politicians who aim to preach their beliefs and abilities to the public rather than expect their vote through necessity - the dominance of the major parties.

Let us not forget who the most important party is. We, the voters are the most important party in politics. We affect the vote, it is our concerns that become those of the politician and in turn, the prerogative will always be ours to choose who we feel will be the best representative to our own individual concerns. The televised debates may well shake off the recent stigma associated with British politics due to the expenses scandal, yet the real questions will remain, who will be the best performers, who will have the greatest ability to present the public with what they need to hear, and finally, who will deliver what they promised? It is one thing to make a written statement, but the words spoken infront of opposition candidates can not be easily repealed. Hopefully, opposing candidates will probe and seek to understand the feasible ways in which their opponents claims can be made realities and future enacted policies - if these fall to major scrutiny, the public will decide based upon that.

2010: A Political Odyssey

Another year beckons as we exit 2009 with relative ease; perhaps looking to 2010 to provide us with new found hope, increased confidence in our position as a world-leading country, and maybe, just maybe, the prospect of change in British politics. Though it is not solely a change in politics, but rather a change in the public's attitude towards it that is what is most needed in order to salvage some good from all of this rocky and turbulent ride in politics we have all been a party to throughout 2009. After the whimsical, irresponsible and largely inert responses of the Labour Party to some of the most pressing matters of our times; who can blame us? To lose faith in something that is so ingrained in each and every one of our lives on a daily basis, is dangerous. The expenses scandal and its' subsequential effects on the British public and, to some extent, the image of British politics that will now be carried by foreign politicians the world over will not be easily reversible(I could just as easily write 'scandals', but I believe the whole topic needs to be looked upon as gross misconduct within the paradigm of politicians, rather than individual cases).

Of course, we still have the war(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan; for this, readers should delete where applicable the aforementioned 's', as it could be argued that the media coverage of both of these conflicts conjures images of Wooton Bassett and British flags draped over ceremonial coffins - the final resting places of 108 soldiers this year: these conflicts do not seem like wars, but rather appear as isolated incidents in which British soldiers perish each day. We rarely hear of successes in these danger-zones, where our soldiers have trained and professionalised what are best described as militia into an organised and reputable law-enforcement service. And don't forget our efforts as a nation battling climate change in 2009 at Copenhagen. 190 countries signed the agreement; with China agreeing to steeply decrease its greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. However, the summit raised questions over the timescale to which nations would have to declare their emissions as in keeping with the terms of the treaty - Ed Miliband's anxious comments over China's 'hijacking' of the Treaty, and claims over the Summit potentially becoming a 'farce' raised concerns that the summit was a media  gratifying stunt rather than a real climate change initiative. Thus more must be done in order to secure and hold in place a lasting agreement, which is more specifically tailored to suit the needs of each country that is a part of the summit, rather than a one-size-fits-all promise to reduce emissions by 50% by 2050: the original proposal of the summit before a last minute repeal which saw each countries pledge written into the appendices of the document after the summit itself. Promises should be made and negotiated on the table, with real results being promised by  member nations in front of others; hopefully spurring less confident nations on to commit to similar efforts to decrease their outputs on a definite timescale. The summit should be a pivotal meeting, both politically and historically and should finalise with a landmark mutual global agreement brokered between the leading countries of the world.

And then, by far the worst crisis of 2009: the great economic recession. In American history classes, I'd often wondered how it would feel to live in the midst of an economic downturn - this, unfortunately became a reality, as word of 'banking bail-outs' and rising unemployment reached those of us largely unconcerned with how banking and financial speculation was to conduct itself: were such things usual, was this not the usual way in which the 'Fleet street' operators worked? As people rose up angrily in protest outside the banks in central London; I felt the resentment as all manner of people called for resignations and cut bonuses, at the time it felt as if capitalism was itself being threatened. In any event, was there enough being done to counter all of this? Well, we saw the VAT rate fall to 15%. Did this really make any difference to us? Of course things became cheaper for the average consumer at first; I expect most people felt like they were making back 2.5%, what a way to make people feel like they were getting a return on their purchases. The more shrewd of us realised that this missing 2.5% was inevitably going to reappear somewhere else; and sure enough it has. The 49% 50% 52% tax rate that Alistair Darling has slapped onto those 'higher earners' with an income of £150k per year will no doubt see to paying off the 11 billion deficit caused by VAT reduction. A friend of mine speculated that we would have to 'spend our way out of this mess'. Of course, this is a reasonable judgement, the marketplace needs confidence at times like these. It would not be surprising to hear that a lot of people took money out of their own banks and hid it under their own beds in order to stamp their own kind of 'confidence' on their money; and when the banks decide that it is time to cease lending money, who can blame them. In such a very finely tuned and delicate system, things must be offset and balanced. As such, it is no surprise that we see prices rising higher on essential everyday items, however, with so many people's jobs sitting on tender-hooks, some found this pinch indicative of a failure in government in response to the crisis. 

So, enough reminiscing, is it too late to make a change? With a probable general election upon the not-so-distant horizon in May, we have the chance to bring the Government to account for its evident lack of reactionary response to such crises as the recession and conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Vote, make a difference and give us all the chance to experience something new: real people listening and reacting to real issues. Of course as the Labour party quickly and vainly try to change the flag hanging above the mast of H.M.S. Gordon Brown (two brave seamen hang from the bow at present, trying to repaint the ships name to what they do not themselves know - fellow crewmen could not decide...) we are forced to ask ourselves, how low will they stoop before they float into the harbour too late in a small dingy, the vast majority of crew lost at sea.