"We Must Stop The BNP"

At the Green Party conference in Blackpool today, top North West candidate Peter Cranie urged the Green Party to redouble its efforts to push the far-right BNP out of this June's Euro-election race.

Liverpool-based Peter Cranie is the candidate set to thwart the electoral dream of BNP leader Nick Griffin. In regional list elections, the big three parties usually take most of the seats, and the highest-polling candidate from a smaller party the last seat. In the North West - where the far right seeks to build on the fears and insecurities of the recession - the race for the last seat will almost certainly be between the Greens and the BNP.

In his opening speech to conference, Peter Cranie spoke passionately about the need to support migrants living in Britain against a political party "that doesn't even allow Black British or Asian British people to join it."

He described the complete failure of Britain's handful of BNP councillors who, having use "the politics of hate" to win votes from desperate, disaffected people, had never done anything in office to help anybody, but had simply abused Britain's electoral system "to peddle the politics of hate."

Later today, when party leader Caroline Lucas MEP gave her keynote speech, she said: "I know of no-one more passionately committed to social justice than Peter Cranie."

Strange Things Afoot With the Conservatives Methinks!!!

What on earth is going on with David Davis? I understand that he and the rest of his party might be a little upset with the outcome of the vote in parliament the other day, but why would anyone from the Conservative party resign over it. It would be understandably thatsomeone from the Labour party might consider stepping down if in disagreement but the Conservatives are in opposition. This logically means that they will oppose the governments stance and will be defeated on certain issues. If they resign, and risk by-election everytime they are defeated in the commons there is no chance they are ever going to gain any ground. Apart from everything else it almost seems a bit like Davis is throwing his dollies from the pram.

When I heard the news, I started thinking that this was a gesture by a politician who actually has morals and ethics; that he actually feels so strongly about this that he is prepared to give it all up for his beliefs. The longer I thought about it though, the more the nagging doubts and cynicism started to tug at me. David Davis is a man who has on two or three occasions so close to running the party that I can't help thinking that nothing he does is without careful planning and strategic political advantage. It didn't take me long to forget all possible altruistic possibilities (and there is only one) in favour for the possibility that this move can only be politically motivated. The problem I have is that for the life of me, I cannot figure out what the motive is!!!

The first idea was that he was simply doing it to prove that the conservatives were a party of conviction and that the positive vote was so bad that resignation was the only reasonable option. Then I realised that this was not right. The only reasonable option would be to stay put and campaign agaionst the government and defeat them at the next general election.

The second thought I had was that the conservatives wanted to force a by-election based on the vote in parliament which would give the people a chance to tell the government what they really thought about their terrorist and extended detention without charge policies. However any result would be negated by the fact that David Davis would presumably be campaigning for re-election in a safe conservative seat so there is no way that anyone could saliently argue that a win would be a knock at the government. They could be trying to keep up some kind of momentum in terms of beating Labour by-elections and thus try to force a general election but I don't think that Gordon is going anywhere near the polls until the last possible second and will not be pushed.

I wondered if Davis was looking for an opportunity to resign from the shaddow cabinet without making the party look divided and this provided him with the perfect opportunity. It is possible perhaps that Cameron wanted him out and rather than sack him, gave him an opportunity to go with dignity and without tearing the party to shreads.

Whatever the reason, I'm not sure I will ever find out. I cannot even wirk out who benefits and who suffers in this. One thing that seems to be emerging is that it hasn't done the conservatives any good. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it has done them any bad either. All that has happened is that I'm totally confused (doesn't take much to do that though!!!)

Attenborough does the Labour Chimps

Watching the political landscape at the moment is a bit like watching a wildlife program. I could probably use any species of animals that have been striped of their privacy for our entertainment over the decades but for the purposes of this article, I am going to use the politicians themselves on location because I think the halls of Westminster have become just as dangerous as the Serengeti plains of Africa.

Gordon Brown, the alfa politician from the red troop looks out over the lands of his territory and stretches. The sun is up and it will be a hot day today before the rains arrive in the afternoon just after PMs question time according to Carol from the BBC. He has enjoyed his dominance over the troop as the old alfa politician's second in command and recently the old alfa retired allowing Gordon to become the king of the plains.

Gordon has a few problems though. The first problem for Gordon and his dominant troop is that for the last couple of years another troop who was feeding at the fringes of his territory has begun to increase its numbers and has been getting bolder and bolder in challenging the new red troop alfa. The old alfa was always quick to crush their attempts for dominance and chase them back to the fringes but Gordon has allowed them establish their footing. Another "yellow" group has also emerged and is beginning to look more and more confident every day. For Gordon, survival has become difficult because he and his troop are constantly under attack from all sides in a struggle for the rich plains of the United Kingdom.

As troops go, this would normally not present such a big risk to his power because they are still numerically superior. The biggest problem that Gordon faces, however is that there is now an increasing number of Betas in the troop who are starting to challenge the authority of their leader. They are young, inexperienced and all highly flattered, if not blinded by the media attention they have been getting over the last couple of months. They are well groomed and turn up on all the right TV shows. They are hungry for the attention and they are absolutely hungry for power which they seem to have been given very quickly. People like the Milliband brothers, Punrel and the two Alexanders find themselves in positions of power way ahead of their time or as it seems ability. They also appear to be politicians of the worst kind because their youth, inexperience and burning ambition turns any kind of political savvy they may have into something that looks like smarm of the highest order.

The fact is that these betas, deliberately or not are undermining their alfa on an alarmingly regular basis and I think some have become more of a liability that Gordon himself. Any one of the other troops vying for power at the moment will be able to use this situation to their advantage and are making their moves for power as we speak. The blue troop is way ahead in the polls. The yellow is not far off the reds at the moment. Either or both alfas are in a position to crush the reds if they are ruthless enough to do so, by exploiting and manipulating the situation as it is.

The new red troop alfa needs to act quickly if he wants to survive the rainy season. He will need to face these betas in a violent showdown to pull his troop together again. Insurgency will only bring them demise. He needs to fight and he needs to win. He then needs to banish the defeated and concentrate on tightening his remaining members for battle in the inevitable showdown with the blues and the yellows whenever it comes and when ever he is ready for it.

Alan Sugar? Politics? You're Fired!!!

I was watching BBC news this morning and I became quite excited when they announced that they would be talking with Sir Alan Sugar about his views on "Broken Britain". Now the reason I was interested was because I know that this old boy from Hackney is hugely successful in making money. He is also a credible celebrity who has maintained a colourful "no nonsense" image in the media from his early days to present. He is a man that knows how to get things done and profit from them. This should have meant that he would be going to have some hard hitting and revolutionary ideas about how to change things and fix the country.....It should have meant!!!

Now I don't know if it was because the time he was given was to short to say anything meaningful, but for the five minutes or so in which he also managed to heavily plug his TV show, he managed to commence the interview doing an impersonation of Alf Garnett, coming across like a whingeing old git, moaning about the youth of today, how they don't respect anyone and how when he grew up in 'ackney, people could leave their doors unlocked. In fact I began to get a bit angry at this waste of time because it seemed like his big idea to change the world was going to be to watch the Apprentice this evening at 9 o clock or whenever.

Then something happened. Something quite unexpected. He dropped a bit of a bomb. This bomb was unexpected because I always assumed that old "working class background" Alan with his special relationship with New Labour had been politically neutered and therefore uncontroversial. Ok so it is public knowledge that recently he has been swinging to the left and I think he has also been asked his opinion on stuff before, but he has never really rocked any cradles. But here he was on TV this morning and the big problem as he could see it was that the government had wasted all their money on the war on Iraq and couldn't therefore spend it on vital facilities for youngsters.

This was open criticism of the government over the war and in fact he wasn't mincing his words. I think I actually agree with him...to a certain point. I do think that the war in Iraq is a waste of time, money and human life. I absolutely agree with him on that. I think the Labour government lied about the reasons we went to war and the only justification to our continuing presence now is that the country if not the region would erupt into civil war faster that you can say "WMD" if we were to pull out. It is costing us a lot of money and resources which we could do well with at home. We are feeling the effects of the "credit crunch", the NHS is wobbling as always, we need more police on the streets, we need better schools and facilities for children, we need to provide pensions for the increasing number of pensioners who have not previously owned premier league football clubs and we need to reduce our national carbon footprint amongst other things. On top of this, we are expected to keep Africa and the rest of the developing world afloat and send money to whomever is unfortunate enough to suffer a national catastrophe.

I also agreed with him that government statistics on crime reduction were nothing more than propaganda. It was actually quite refreshing to hear someone actually pointing this out as quickly and convincingly as he did when questioned on the matter.

What I didn't agree with was the fact that he seemed to be blaming everything that is wrong with society on kids and the failure of the government to provide the kids with a viable distraction in the form of youth clubs or sporting facilities. The fact is that there are facilities for kids to use and they are provided by both public and private sector. I would challenge anyone to ask me to find any activity in any area because I guarantee I will find it. Kids can do any countless number of activities anywhere in the country from football to ballet, cadets to horse riding and particularly with the 2012 Olympics only four years away, there is a definite rise in the visibility of organisations providing facilities. The problem is that a significant number of kids are not supported by their parents and this is another important piece of the puzzle because if we have the kids and we have the facilities, the only thing that can be missing is the physical, moral and financial support of parents.

The problem with our broken society is that it is not just our kids that are broken, it is that their parents and their grand parents are broken too. We live in a society where binge drinking and drunken anti social behaviour in our city centres has become accepted as the norm. Hard drug use, heroin and cocaine is widespread and conveniently ignored in society. It is glamorised by the media who seem to associate its use with rebellion and success depending on whatever celebrity is photographed openly using them. Gang culture is glamorised and normalised by Hollywood and our own rickety film industry as well as the video games industry. Pornography is on tap and regarded as a fundamental human right (freedom of expression enshrined in law by the Human Rights Act 1998). We allow all and any minority that can shout loud enough to abuse our legal and welfare system and we never shout back. This being so, we have to ask what kind of moral example we are setting for our kids in general.

Our kids didn't create this mess and I think that it is totally wrong to blame them. The generations before them created the mess, including mine and Sir Alan's although what is clear is that it is not our generation who will be responsible or in fact capable I think of clearing it up. I think Sir Alan is guilty of doing what he seems to despise so much on his own TV show and he is trying to pass the blame onto someone else for the trouble he has been partially responsible for. In that case Sir Alan, you stick to making money old boy because when it comes to fixing the country....You're fired!!!

Gordon Brown: Totally Insane or a Conviction Politician?

"Labour is always ready to listen to people's concerns, and take action on them." according to Gordon Brown.

He also said the government had listened to people's demands that police "come down hard" on gangs.

What on earth is this man going on about? Has he lost the plot and does he actually believe that he is in touch with the people or does he actually believe that the people will believe that he is in touch with them. Lets just have a quick look at labour's record on listening to the people.

The first instance I remember being hugely significant was the war on Iraq. Nobody wanted it but Tony and George had to do it because of all the WMD that Saddam was building & hiding which would presumably be used to destroy Israel and the west some day. Then after they invaded and it was discovered that in fact the Iraqis didn't have WMD, we were told that it was all about regime change to rid the oppressed Iraqi people of the evil dictator Saddam. Either way it never occurred to the government that the people, either them or us might not be behind them. In fact as I recall ,there was even resignations from the then government. Still they marched onwards.

I think that there was also a petrol demonstration early on at some point which was pretty much ignored but the next big thing I remember was the European Constitution which we were going to be given a vote on. Good old Tony never had to give it to us because I think the French and/or the Germans turned it down before we even got a look in. Then they changed the name of it from a constitution to a treaty & Gordon himself decided that we no longer needed any input because it wasn't a constitutional issue. Perhaps someone should point out to our unelected PM that an apple is still an apple whether you call it an apple or not.

The government told everyone that dental care would become easier and cheaper. They messed that one up too. The refused to listen to the BDA and their concerns about the new system of charging and now huge numbers of people cannot find an NHS dentist.

The fact is that the list goes on and on. This government does not listen to the people. It never has and the fact is that is has never had to because of the size of its majority in the House that it has enjoyed and exploited for ten years now. If Gordon is serious about keeping his job, he needs to chop his PR machine because they are doing him no favours. They are making him look like a liar or that he has actually lost the plot. He and his party need to realise that although Blair was popular and did a lot for the renaissance of the Labour party, the fact is that they won their huge majority because people were sick to death of the Conservatives. Blair happened to turn up at the right time with a bit of razzle dazzle.

When people began to see through the razzle dazzle however and realised that there really was no substance ot the man, Blair was clever enough to depart. I think that the British people are beginning to expect more from their politicians than PR and marketing and would like to see candidates who could actually govern the country in the right direction, which at this point in time is in any direction away from the direction in which we are headed, thanks to Blair and New Labour.

In a way, I admire Gordon for sticking around, because that could mean that he is in fact a conviction politician and is ready to actually ride out the rough and do what is right for the people, in which case good luck to him. On the other hand it could also mean that he is oblivious to what people actually think and therefore a bad judge of circumstances and fact or even worse a raving loon. Gladly, I do not think that it will take us long to figure it out.

Teachers? Solidarity Brothers & Sisters.

I am going to come out on this issue from the start. I am in favour of giving the teachers of the NUT what they want. They are striking today because they find themselves in a position where they cannot afford to live and probably particularly in London. At a starting salary of £20k they are expected to work and live in often extreme conditions for long hours. Now if you look back to my article about poor Leona Lewis who was complaining that she was struggling to survive in London and get a decent home for around the £500k mark, I think it puts things into context.


For a teacher to afford a property, one would need to borrow 25 times that salary in order to find somewhere nice to live; not likely either now or a year ago when the banks were falling over themselves to lend money. So realistically what could a teacher afford? Well based on maybe three and a half times their salary they could afford a property worth c.£66k with a 10% deposit. Now the last time I looked in the paper, in 1996 this was possible, however today for a teacher to buy a property on his/her own, is an impossibility.


The fact is, these striking teachers are not asking for wage hikes allowing them to afford properties worth anywhere near £500k or even really a quarter of that. They are asking for their pay rise to be in line with inflation. What is wrong with that? Do these people not perform a valuable service on societies behalf? Do our children and did not we ourselves (or some of us anyway) give teachers a hard time at school every day and at every opportunity? Their student loans are linked to inflation and I don't understand why their salary cannot be too. I don't understand what anyone would have against someone being paid enough to justify going to work and doing the job they have chosen to do.


I get the impression that as long as you are paid from the public purse, you are expected to work for peanuts. The same can be said about nurses and the armed forces, who have all been utterly exploited and taken for granted for years if not centuries. I think that this is an awful indictment on our society that our public servants are expected to survive on the breadline only for the reason that they have a sense of civic duty which compels them to serve the rest of us and provide services that society cannot do without.


It makes my so angry to hear about the inconvenience that this strike has caused. I think that this is an utterly selfish point of view and amounts to nothing less than emotional blackmail. As far as I am aware, the purpose of a strike, as an action of last resort is in fact to cause disruption. I fail to see the personal inconvenience of having to look after the kids for an extra day. I personally cherish every day I have with my family so from my point of view that argument stinks. I understand that it causes businesses problems because they have to allow for absenteeism. Big deal! if the business hasn't been built to survive minor blips like this then it deserves to go bust because it is a bad business. I understand that it might affect some peoples money if they are forced to take time off work but again, if you haven't planned to deal with blips then I can offer no sympathy. Perhaps an insight into what it is like to have less money will demonstrate to those who do lose out what it is like to be a teacher.


The interesting thing about all of this however is the silence from Downing Street on the issue. The government and Prime Minister who sailed into power with cries of "Education, Education, Education" appear to be a bit quiet on the issue. Is it that they are still recovering from the battering they took in parliament yesterday and in the papers today? Are they sitting back, waiting to see what the popular opinion is on this issue before they commit to a course of action. They need to get it right because the local and mayoral elections are round the corner so I suppose I can understand their hesitation. I would've thought though as the name of the party suggests and the support, both financially and politically that they receive from the trade unions that they have no choice but to support the TUC. However as we've all come to expect from New Labour, they seem to be more worried about the City and economic effects of the strike than its social cause and effects. What really confuses me is why the opposition has failed to come out and take the high ground in Labour's reluctance to do so.

The World and his Pals v. Al Fayed

The Jury in the Coroners inquest into the death of Diana and Dodi put a full stop at the end of what must the final chapter in this saga. As a country, as a world, I think we are done on the subject. I am not sure about Al Fayed though. Despite the fact that he said under oath that he would accept the verdict, I don’t think he does or will.

The problem is that he is surrounded by ‘yes’ men and women who can’t say no to the man. Fair enough perhaps, he is the boss after all and quite a powerful one at that; however you’d think he’d have a single friend amongst all the people who surround him who would be able to talk to him rationally and honestly about his beliefs. Maybe this is what they mean when they say it’s lonely at the top. If being at the top means that nobody around you will stop you from making a fool of yourself when you are vulnerable and alone then I’ve got to say that I’m quite happy being more towards the other end.

I hope perhaps for his sake that his slick PR machine which has slithered all over the press since the verdict, will perhaps see the benefits of promoting acceptance from a commercial point of view if not from a personal one at this time. If it is put in a commercial context then perhaps the man will begin to see reason, otherwise he will be destined to continue his crusade until either he or the establishment is crushed. I know who I’d put my money on and it’s not made in the Middle East.

If you pay peanuts, you get....?

....Leading politicians have come under more scrutiny than ever today with the publication of expense claims for key individuals. Amongst them Blair, Kennedy, Howard, Cameron, Brown and Prescott have all been highlighted by the press in some tiresome quest for muck to sling. £4k here £20k there, council tax, TV licenses, mortgages and even food (to the delight of the anti-John Prescott-brigade).

I was also in the car listening to LBC and a debate about MP's salaries and how they wanted to raise them. Putting expenses aside for a moment, our MPs get paid somewhere in the low £60ks a year and they are complaining and suggesting that it should rise to £100k or in that region. Predictably the media was adamant that this was extravagance to the extreme (bearing in mind that the media knows nothing of extravagance itself). Even I started off feeling anger at the prospect that these loafers who hardly ever actually go to parliament anymore and appear simply to do no more than mince about for the cameras in an attempt to persuade us that we've never had it so good, could be suggesting that even more public money be diverted to their pockets.

Then I started to think about it. Perhaps the reason why it seems like all our politicians are fiddling expenses and /or in bed with dodgy businessmen and doing shady ppp/pfi deals or worse (if there can be any worse) is because they don't get paid enough to deter them from corruption. When you consider what these people actually do for the country.....they run it! I think they actually get a very bad deal considering the reason why a lot of these people go into politics in the first place is because they are idealists wanting to make a positive change to the country and possibly the world or even the galaxy perhaps Mr Blair? You could almost suggest that as tax payers we even exploit our MPs to a certain extent, expecting them to run the country for £60k a year when you consider what some of us get paid for doing much less important and mundane jobs and I have found a couple of examples from both the celebrity and non-celebrity world to exaggerate my point

JK Rowling according to Forbes in 2006 was earning over £100k per day.

CatwalkQueen.tv claims that Kate moss earned £4 million in 2007 (up to £15million in previous years).

According to the Times in 2007 David Beckham is earning £70k a day

However I very quickly want to mention that poor Leona Lewis is only earning enough to survive (see previous posts).

Leona and JK aside, I probably wouldn't want either Beckham or Moss anywhere near to positions where they would have an atom of the responsibility it needs to run a country. David Beckham managed to achieve nothing as captain of England other than unmitigated failure for years. Kate moss is a Drug user who take off her clothes for a living (or puts them on? I can never remember), yet they manage to command much bigger salaries than our politicians. JK has amassed her fortune writing children's books for Christ's sake. Now I want to make it clear that I am not knocking any of the people I have mentioned for having made money or even how they have made it (I would love to make it too after all) however I am trying to make the point that considering what these people earn and the ultimate importance or what they do do, we pay our politicians very poorly in deed for running the country or if you look at it another way our lives.

Kate Moss doesn't model because she enjoys putting on and taking off clothes only. She does it because she knows she can earn £4million a year doing it. Similarly, David Beckham isn't playing football for a living for the love of it alone. JK certainly isn't writing her books solely because she wants to entertain the children of the world. They are all arguably the best at what they do, but they're all doing it for cold hard filthy luca. If there's nothing wrong with that, then why can't MPs expect to be paid more for the job that they are doing. Presumably they are also the best at what they are doing, or maybe they are the best for the money we are offering.

On the other hand, perhaps if we were to offer more, or even a lot more, then we would attract a different caliber of politician. Imagine a country run by blue chip CEO calibre politicians. We would probably be much better off in the long run. We would probably have to speak to people in India if we ever had occasion to call government departments and it would probably take over 30 mins to get through to anyone (hang on a second that already happens!!!) but at least the country would be profitable. Who knows....even I might put my name in the hat if that were to happen.

Come in Ken Livingstone, Your time is up.

Over the last week or so I have written about two 'orrible little men, Mugabe and Al Fayed and I feel that I have to make it a trio. The third in my eyes needs no introduction or justification for his inclusion with the other two. I experience some very strong feelings whenever I see or hear Ken Livingstone. Not good feelings by the way but a similar sort of feeling I get when I get a parking fine or stub my toe when I get out of bed in the morning. I am trying to control myself even now in writing this entry and I have re-edited it and toned it down four times now but I feel that I have to be grown up and not be immature and petty even though I don't run the capital of one of the richest and most influential countries in the world.

I can remember my very first instances of news rage. They were when two smug gits, Tony Blair and Ken Livingstone were elected. I disliked both of them from the start (in fact way before either of them were in power.) and thankfully Blair has gone. Livingstone on the other hand is still there, but only by the skin of his teeth and apparently his sheer, blatent and gobsmacking contempt for the London Assembely who he has abused consistently throughout his regime. I have seen documentary after documentary and footage of Ken attacking assembely members on both professional and personal issues to a point that would undoubtedly be called bullying in any other arena.


I think his utter arrogance or utter delusion is perfectly highlighted by his handling of both professional matters like the Lee Jasper affair and personal matters like his drinking and now his extended family. He seems to think that both his professional and personal life is beyond our gaze and scrutiny. He seems to think that his moral compas, whichever direction it happens to be pointing in doesn't matter and shouldn't matter to the public. Wake up Ken or go to the doctor. Both your professional and personal life is within our interest, and your party put it there when they smashed the last conservative government. It does matter to the public. Everybody can see your hypocracy. Everyone can see that you have not lived up to any of your promises, everyone can see the smoke and you know what they say about smoke!

Thing is, if you look at the wider picture, old Ken is a perfect reflection of everything this present government stands for and has achieved. Absolutely nothing but smoke and mirrors.

See you in another political life old boy....I hope not!!!

Zimbabwe Elections....I can't hold it in any more!

I've been resisting and resisting to write about Zimbabwe for a while now because I have always thought little of the place and the little man who runs it. It's certainly not at the top of my agenda and the last thing I wanted to appear is negative towards a country that continually pokes the UK, runs away and escapes us when we try to swipe at it. Somehow we seem to look bad even against Zimbabwe when this happens. We come across as this huge vindictive and petty colonial power that is somehow doing its best to undermine this poor struggling martyr of Africa. How far from reality could that be.

In reality, I honestly don't think our government gives a stuff about Zimbabwe any more than it does about Tibet, Sudan or all these little insignificants. Why? because there is nothing in it for us to care any more. I think the reason Zimbabwe gets as much interest as it does is because Mugabe has banned the BBC and the British press from his country and it is driving them absolutely potty.

If you think about it, these elections aren't going to yield any surprises. We know Mugabe will win again. We know the system is about as corrupt as systems can get and in truth we also probably don't care much either. The chances are that there will be violence and that is a real shame. I like to think that things might for once go off peacefully. However the press wants action so it looms like a hungry wolf, waiting to see if Zimbabwe errupts into violence, perhaps on a scale similar to Kenya or just about any other African country at some point in the history of the world. If and when it does, the great british press will surely have its day once again and at any cost! Sadly nothing changes.