OPINION: Low turn outs at elections

Yet again the British public has shown apathy at a set of elections with a turnout of only about 31% at yesterday's local and mayoral elections.

Across the world people risk their lives for the right to have a say in how their countries are run, and here, in the UK, there's been two world wars and the suffragette moving fighting for, and protecting, our democratic freedoms, and yet a majority of people just don't care.

Sure, the MPs' expenses scandal dented public confidence in politicians, but turnouts were low before that.

So why don't people vote?

They seem to think all politicians are the same, and that many are there to line their own pockets, they don't believe their vote will make a difference and they simply don't care about politics, preferring, instead, to vote on the X Factor or Britain's Got Talent.

There is certainly a problem with the major parties slowly morphing into one. All three now offer a variation of a centre right politics and the continual bickering between the parties seems to be arguing for the sake of it, rather than on principle. As I blogged the other day, party politics is bad for democracy.

There are those who argue that the first past the post election system is at fault. Too many seats are foregone conclusions and so most votes are irrelevant unless you live in one of about 50 marginal seats. They want to replace it with AV (rejected by the electorate in a referendum last year) or PR (which has lead to massive unstable governments in Italy since the Second World War.

There are, of course, some who want to introduce more postal votes or voting by text or online. All of these ideas need to be looked at, and if they can be introduced without making electoral fraud easier, I see no reason why more variety of voting methods can't be used - but I doubt this is the big solution.

I think another issue is that there are too many career politicians who have no experience of the real world outside of Westminster. Maybe there should be a minimum age for MPs?

I like first past the post; the winner is the winner. The elected MP has a clear local link maintained and there is no nonsense of the person coming third or fourth on the first round of balloting ending up winning. First past the post is simple, understandable and democratic.

So what should be done?

There probably aren't any quick fixes. We need more openness and honesty in politics. We need the electorate to believe that MPs are in parliament to work for a better society and not merely there like pigs at the trough. We need a true rainbow of politics with genuine alternatives to centre right capitalism. And, I think, we need to make voting compulsory.

Yes, it should be a legal requirement to vote. This would mean that there has to be an option for "No Suitable Candidate" or "Re-open Nominations" so that people aren't forced to vote for parties that they disagree with but, if we want a genuinely vibrant and democratic politics that is the change that is necessary.

COMMENT: Debating with the BNP

It's been announced that both Labour's candidate for London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, and the Green Party's candidate, Jenny Jones, have pulled out of a BBC London mayoral debate because the BNP candidate is taking part and they refuse to share a platform with them.

Aren't they being undemocratic?

Yes, there is much to object to in the BNP's policies, and, yes, I find those views unacceptable in the modern world. Quite how the BNP's blatantly racist policies could work in London, arguably the world's most multi-cultural city, is beyond me, but the BNP is a legal political party and are standing for election.

Why not debate with the BNP and show how ridiculous, divisive and objectionable they are?

Surely, as part of an election process, the best thing to do is engage all the parties so that the electorate can decide between them on the power if their argument and the strength of their policies?

Are Labour and the Green Party worried that their own policies aren't strong enough?

I can see many reasons why Ken Livingstone might want to avoid any public debate. He mustbe desperate to swerve further investigation of his income tax payments and he has many questions to answer about various racist, sexist and anti-semite comments he himself has made. Maybe Ken fears he would find himself agreeing with the BNP candidate too much?

I think there are many who find sharing a platform with Ken Livingstone highly objectionable.

I'm particularly disappointed that Jenny Jones has opted to pull out if the debate. In doing so I feel she has brought the Green Party, one of the most liberal and democratic parties in the country, into disrepute. I hope she changes her mind and debates like a grown up.

After all, the GLA will have representatives from a wide range of parties, and whoever is elected Mayor will have to work with them all. Would Ken and Jenny not work with an elected official if they were from a party which they objected to?

Another issue is that many of the BNP policies aren't that different from those of UKIP and the Tories. Some of the right-wing of the Tory party may as well be in the BNP.

So what should happen?

Ken Livingstone and Jenny Jones need to grow up and act like adults. They need to respect the democracy of the UK, and if they don't they should lose their right to take part in all remaining debates. They shouldn't be picking and choosing.

OPINION: What's the problem with Mitt Romney being a Mormon?

Despite his Super Tuesday wins edging him ever closer to becoming the Republican Party candidate to stand against Barrack Obama in November's Presidential election, there are still many who have a problem with him because of his faith. He is a Mormon, and the USA has never had a Mormon President.

Mitt Romney

Why though, in the "land of the free" should bring a Mormon be a problem? How is it any different from being a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu or a Christian?

The Mormon church, or to give it its proper name, The Church of Latter Day Saints, was founded by Joseph Smith in upstate New York in the 1820s. According to Smith, he was visited by an angel who directed him to a buried book inscribed in a language only he could translate on gold plates. He published a version of this book in 1830. (Surprise, surprise, the plates have only ever been seen by a dozen of Smith's inner circle and theit whereabouts are not known). Mormons believe in the Bible but also the Book of Mormon and they believe that after his resurrection Jesus visited the Americas.

Joseph Smith

Mormons have many unusual beliefs that don't sit well with modern society. They have compulsory tithing of a percentage of income to the church. They ban drugs, alcohol and caffeine. They say any adult male can become a priest but ban females and o ky allowed black men to become priests in 1976. They believe there are multiple heavens and multiple worlds, each with its own God. And the list goes on and on.

But hang on a minute....

While rational people will find Mormon beliefs and practises peculiar, if not outright bizarre, but why are they any more odd than the beliefs of all the other religions?

Why is Mitt Romney's Mormon belief any more lunatic than Barrack Obama's Christianity?

The answer, of course, that it isn't.

Both Mormonism and Christianity, and all the other faiths, rely on a good story, lack of evidence, gullible and stupid people, and a "priesthood" happy to abuse the stupid, feckless and at risk.

What we should be asking, instead of attacking Romney's Mormonism, is why anyone with religious faith should be elected to a responsible office?

Does it make any more sense to give power to a man who believes a person came back to life after their death, or that the world was created in six days, or believes our souls will be judged and some will go to heaven and others to hell?

And how does it make any sense to have a President who holds dear to his heart blatant bigotry?

These are, of course, the beliefs of lunatics and the mentally ill. People who believe in imaginary super beings should not be trusted to run local councils, let alone superpower nations.

Sadly,however, through the all-pervading cancer that is religious indoctrination, there has never been an atheist President of the USA and, in all likelihood, there want be for many generations to come. All of the Republican candidates for the Presidency are extremist fundamental believers and they will be standing against another extremist fundamental believer to try to depose him of the White House in November.

It is time for the skeptical, rational, logical and sane to stand up against the monster of religion and snatch power away from the churches because,ultimately, it is the churches who will be President. It's just their face that changes.

COMMENT: In exactly one year the U.S. President will be sworn in

Yes, exactly one year today, the President of the United States of America will be sworn in at his inauguration ceremony.

Americans have a choice between right wing, religious lunatics, though the Republicans are still sorting out which lunatic they want.

Increasingly it looks like Newt Gingrich will be the candidate of the GOP who will attempt to depose Barack Obama, who hasn't had the best first three years in power, and has certainly lived up (or down) to many people's fears that he was more about style than substance.

Increasingly, in the UK, we have a similarly narrow choice of party - right wing, capitalist and, sadly, of faith.

It is time both the US and UK looked beyond the gormless, extremist numpties and voted on principle rather than habit. It is time to accept that capitalism has failed too may times and needs to be replaced as the economic system that controls world finances. It is time to realise that those "of faith" cannot be trusted to behave sanely - after all, they believe there are invisible superbeings for which there is absolutely no evidence. And it is time we rejected politicians who have warmongering attitudes.

It makes no difference whether, in twelve months time, it's Obama or Gingrich being sworn in. Or, for that matter, any other moron the Republican Party puts up. All if them are equally ridiculous, all of them are equally stupid and all of them will be dangerous with their finger on the nuclear button.
,

US 2012 Presidential election: timetable of primaries

Here's the timetable of the various primaries and caucuses in the US Presidental election.

January 3, 2012
Iowa (caucus)

January 10, 2012
New Hampshire (primary)

January 21, 2012
South Carolina (primary)

January 31, 2012
Florida (primary)

February 4, 2012
Nevada (caucus)

February 4–11, 2012
Maine (caucus)

February 7, 2012
Colorado (caucus)
Minnesota (caucus)
Missouri (primary)

February 28, 2012
Arizona (primary)
Michigan (primary)

March 3, 2012
Washington (caucus)

March 6, 2012 - Super Tuesday Alaska (caucus)
Georgia (primary)
Idaho (caucus)
Massachusetts (primary)
North Dakota (caucus)
Ohio (primary)
Oklahoma (primary)
Tennessee (primary)
Vermont (primary)
Virginia (primary)

March 6-10, 2012
Wyoming (caucus)

March 10, 2012
Kansas (caucus)
U.S. Virgin Islands (caucus)

March 13, 2012
Alabama (primary)
Hawaii (caucus)
Mississippi (primary)

March 17, 2012
Missouri
GOP caucus

March 20, 2012
Illinois (primary)

March 24, 2012
Louisiana (primary)

April 3, 2012
District of Columbia (primary)
Maryland (primary)
Wisconsin (primary)
Texas (primary)

April 24, 2012
Connecticut (primary)
Delaware (primary)
New York (primary)
Pennsylvania (primary)
Rhode Island (primary)

May 8, 2012
Indiana (primary)
North Carolina (primary)
West Virginia (primary)

May 15, 2012
Nebraska (primary)
Oregon (primary)

May 22, 2012
Arkansas (primary)
Kentucky (primary)

June 5, 2012
California (primary)
Montana (primary)
New Jersey (primary)
New Mexico (primary)
South Dakota (primary)

June 26, 2012
Utah (primary)

OPINION: One Year to go... will Obama get re-elected?

We're just 12 months from the next election for US President. Has Barrack Obama done enough for the American people to give him a second term?

I think it's fair to say that I've been disappointed by Obama, he's been style over substance from the word go. Then again, I guess I've been disappointed by just about every American President. The difference between UK and US politics means that we in the UK have a choice of two centre-right parties (plus a barnacle that, last time round, found something to stick to). In the US they have a right-wing party (the Democrats) and an extreme right-wing party (GOP). The choice is limited, but, then, the parties on offer only represent the views of America.

To me, I'm sorry to say, Obama was elected BECAUSE he was black, rather than anything else he said or had done. On the campaign trail, he never promised much, and he's lived up to that promise well.

Obama has had some success: with Healthcare reform; the killing of Osama bin Laden; the killing of Colonel Gadaffi. There's a worrying theme growing there. With attention spans short I think the leaders of any rogue states would be best not annoying the Prez until after the election, it could just be an electorally positive act for him to complete his hat trick.

But he's failed on so many levels. Surely, Obama is, perhaps, the most disappointing Presidents since at least Ford?

To me, his saving grace is the opposition being put up against him by the Republicans. They're all nutters - most put the Bible before science, most would probably bomb the hell out of the whole of the Middle East (except, of course, Israel) if it meant they'd get a vote, and all are stupendously wealthy and have no idea about the real, ordinary person.

Yes, Obama is also a "believer" - at a dangerously evangelical church - but his idiocy is nothing compared to the "faith" of the morons being put forward by the GOP.

So what will happen next November? It's probably too early to tell, one major event, one significant cock up, one more Axis of Evil's leader's head on a pole and things could change.

If I had to guess, I'd predict Obama will narrowly get a second term but, by 2014, be a lame duck President unable to do anything.

Mind you, he's done little so far.

OPINION: What do Tory MPs and Jockeys have in common?

No, it's not a joke! In the past week both Tory MPs (possibly a few Labour ones too) and horse racing jockeys have both had problems with whips - but not, for once, revelations in the tabloids about S&M parties.

I am against both type of whips - they are both wrong and have no place in a civilised and modern society.

MPs
Today, MPs from all three of the biggest parties in the House of Commons will be under a three-line whip to follow the orders of their party leadership; they will be told they HAVE to vote against the motion calling for a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU.

Now don't get me wrong - I will be by happy if this moronic and xenophobic motion is defeated in parliament later, but I am very much against party whips.

In the UK, in elections to parliament, we vote for an MP, we put a cross beside the name of the individual candidate that we feel is the best of those who have put themselves forward to represent our views, and the views of our locality, in Westminster.

We do NOT put a cross against a party name.

Parties are a very bad thing for democracy. I don't think they should exist at all. MPs should vote on their own conscience on every issue. Groupings of MPs should vary accord to the subject being discussed and not simply to look after party interests and seek personal promotions (or keep affairs quiet).

There are anti-EU MPs in both the Conservatives and Labour - they should be able to vote together. When it comes to taxation they might vote differently.

Politics needs to be returned to principles and removed from the hands of the party whips.

Jockeys
Following a lengthy consultation, the horse racing authorities introduced new rules to limit the use of the whip in races and to increase penalties for those jockeys who broke those rules. When the new rules were introduced a large number of jockeys found themselves breaking the rules and in receipt of fines and bans.

Now, jockeys are not the brightest of people - an unscientific sample from those who have been interviewed on the media in the past week suggests they are mostly a bit thick.

It seems jockeys struggled counting to 7, or to notice the furlong marker - imagine that when driving on the road: "Sorry officer, I didn't notice the STOP sign!"... you'd expect a fine and posts on your license.

The authorities reviewed and watered down the regulations and jockeys, for now, are happier. Maybe they now have a numeracy hour in the weigh-in room at meetings to help them count?

The problem with the amended rules is that jockey's wallets are now being hit less than the horses.

Whipping an animal is just wrong.

To me there is a solution; I'd ban horse racing. It is animal abuse. Sadly that won't happen yet, but I hope the public wake up soon to the atrocities of horse racing - hundreds of horses killed each year because they don't run fast enough, awful injuries in races, etc.

As a result of a tweet, I was asked by @thesamosa to write a response to this article.

Here is my response:

“Faith” and the election

Religion has been sidelined in the current UK general election in a way that Americans, for example, could probably never understand. In the USA the idea that someone running for President could, publicly at least, be an atheist is just not conceivable to many and yet, at this election, we do have one party leader who is openly non-religious. This is a major breakthrough and has, perhaps, been one of many reasons for the sidelining of religion in political matters in recent months.

Personally I find it scary that the most powerful man in the world, a man who has his finger on the nuclear button and who controls the biggest economy in the world, also believes in a superbeing for which there is absolutely no evidence. Shouldn’t he be offered help, guidance and psychotherapy instead of being given the ability to blow up the world? Isn’t this putting the crazy man in charge? Isn’t “faith” in such matters simply a lunacy?

And yet the religions, despite their blatant lack of sense, fact and evidence, want to be taken seriously and want to hold sway at election time. To me this is wrong and dangerous for a number of reasons.

It seems, many people of “faith” abandon their “faith” when it gets to an election. We’ve all seen those little bracelets with WWJD on them – “What Would Jesus Do?” – well, let’s be honest, Jesus, had he existed (and there’s no contemporaneous evidence – but that’s another whole article!), would not be voting for any right-wing/capitalist party and yet few in the Tory ranks would say they are atheist or agnostic – most would say they are Christian. Jesus WOULD have voted for some sort of socialist party – the communists even.

The most religious parties are often the most bigoted and extremist parties. Take a look at parties like the British National Party (BNP_ and the English Defence League (EDL); these are both parties who many consider to be fundamentally racist, xenophobic and highly bigoted. Does this fit with the “love your neighbour” message of Christianity? Of course it doesn’t. And yet it is these extremist parties who, as well as the national flag, often proclaim their support and defence for the national religion. Why? Is it because religion is also fundamentally bigoted and divisive? I would say yes.

So why do people of “faith” struggle to see the contradiction that so often exists between their belief and their politics? This is harder to explain but, in my opinion, it is because they are confused, ignorant of the facts, brainwashed or simply lunatics. Take your pick!

Faith may have been justifiable in the 14^th century when society as a whole was ignorant of so much about the universe but today, in the 21^st century, it has no place.

It is right that, in this election, “faith” has been sidelined. We need to grab politics back from the mad men, the ignorant, the bigoted and the confused, and bring it into the modern world – a rational world of fact and the principle of genuinely loving your neighbour.

Election playlist

With the impending UK General Election (May 6th 2010) I decided to make an Election playlist - this will be a work in progress as I gradually add more things to it up to the election! Then I might make a "INSERT WINNER'S NAME HERE" playlist to mark the result!