Click here for today's Project 366 photograph.
Bradshaw's
Pacific 231
Shiv
Showing posts with label MPs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MPs. Show all posts
Thursday, 19 January 2012
OPINION: MPs and "being seen" to do the right thing
Yesterday, Rachel Reeves, a Labour MP, tweeted that she had signed the Holocaust Educational Trust's Book of Commitment. I tweeted back that I thought this was tokenism and achieved nothing. She replied this morning that I should be careful about what I tweet and that it was important to remember the lessons of the holocaust.
Now I wholeheartedly agree that it is important that we remember the holocaust and learn lessons from it, as long as we put those lessons into action. Simply getting a warm glow, and using it to get some positive publicity is insufficient - that is why her tweeting about signing the book is tokenism.
Rachel Reeves, as I said, is a Labour MP. In the past decade, Labpur has taken us into two major wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, that have needlessly cost the lives of tens of thousands of civilians: lives lost, families destroyed, women and children injured and maimed. Has she, or the Labour Party, learnt any lessons from the past, from the holocaust, from history?
As well as being a party of civilian bloodshed, she has shown herself to be signing the book to help her own publicity. Why else would she tweet about it? As Immanuel Kant said, good deeds should be done just because they ate good deeds and not because of any other reason. This would include using a good deed for publicity and even if you just got a warm glow out of it. Sure, if it makes you feel good that's fine, but that shouldn't be the reason to do good. Do good because that's the right thing to do, and encourage others to do likewise.
What Rachel Reeves, and various other MPs, should have done, if they genuinely think signing a book is a good thing and makes a difference, is to sign the book and encourage others to do so. What they did was sign it, then shout to the world, via Twitter, "Look at me! Look at me! Aren't I wonderful? I signed a book of commitment!"
I hope you get the difference. I guess it's the problem with our increasing personality/celeb-inclined politicians who aren't unit to do good but to promote themselves and help themselves up the greasy pole.
By all means do good and by all means encourage others to do good but please don't use it for personal gain. And, ultimately, actions speak louder than words. Do any of the "Me! Me! Me!" politicians act in a way to prevent further genocides and oppression, or will they just cash their pay cheques and not give a toss?
Now I wholeheartedly agree that it is important that we remember the holocaust and learn lessons from it, as long as we put those lessons into action. Simply getting a warm glow, and using it to get some positive publicity is insufficient - that is why her tweeting about signing the book is tokenism.
Rachel Reeves, as I said, is a Labour MP. In the past decade, Labpur has taken us into two major wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, that have needlessly cost the lives of tens of thousands of civilians: lives lost, families destroyed, women and children injured and maimed. Has she, or the Labour Party, learnt any lessons from the past, from the holocaust, from history?
As well as being a party of civilian bloodshed, she has shown herself to be signing the book to help her own publicity. Why else would she tweet about it? As Immanuel Kant said, good deeds should be done just because they ate good deeds and not because of any other reason. This would include using a good deed for publicity and even if you just got a warm glow out of it. Sure, if it makes you feel good that's fine, but that shouldn't be the reason to do good. Do good because that's the right thing to do, and encourage others to do likewise.
What Rachel Reeves, and various other MPs, should have done, if they genuinely think signing a book is a good thing and makes a difference, is to sign the book and encourage others to do so. What they did was sign it, then shout to the world, via Twitter, "Look at me! Look at me! Aren't I wonderful? I signed a book of commitment!"
I hope you get the difference. I guess it's the problem with our increasing personality/celeb-inclined politicians who aren't unit to do good but to promote themselves and help themselves up the greasy pole.
By all means do good and by all means encourage others to do good but please don't use it for personal gain. And, ultimately, actions speak louder than words. Do any of the "Me! Me! Me!" politicians act in a way to prevent further genocides and oppression, or will they just cash their pay cheques and not give a toss?
Monday, 9 January 2012
OPINION: David Cameron and Scottish Independence
I love Scotland. Edinburgh is one of my favourite cities and I love it when I get to the Festival of a summer. The highlands and islands are some of the most fantastic places anywhere on earth. The history is fascinating, if a bit blood thirsty. So it is that I find it very sad that after 300 years of union, David Cameron has offered Scotland the opportunity to hold a referendum for independence.
Scotland has a population of around 4 million. Independence would make it one of the smallest countries in Europe. It has limited industry beyond a successful drinks industry, oil and gas (the ownership of which would, I'm sure, be hotly debated and negotiated) and tourism that's hampered by the weather. London has a population of over double that of Scotland, major businesses and financial companies based there, a huge tourist industry that Scotland can only dream about, and connections to Europe and the rest of the world that make it the envy of many nations, but London isn't calling for independence.
The main problem with Scottish independence, as lovely and romantic an ideal that may appear, is that Scotland is not a viable country in the 21st century. Currently the rest of the UK subsidises every Scottish man, woman and child to the tune of £1,000 per year. Being proud in a long gone heritage isn't grounds for a modern state.
I would have expected the Scottish Nationalists would have thought think it will be better and less embarrassing going cap in hand to the EU than to Westminster, because the only way Scotland could possibly survive is to continue to receive substantial amounts of money from elsewhere.
Scottish Nationalists have often claimed that Scotland was a viable nation economically because of all the oil and natural gas that belongs to Scotland. Wait a moment. The oil "belongs" to Scotland? It was found by British and American multinational companies, funded by them and by the Westminster parliament. Its closer proximity to Scottish soil hardly compares to the millions (billions?) of pounds and dollars of investment put in by people and companies that aren't, when it comes down to it, Scottish.
The same argument is put forward about the fishing industry. Nationalists seem to think that "owning" their own waters, and therefore controlling localised fishing, would make Scotland financially stable. Wrong. It would give the Scottish government control over dwindling fish stocks and see them having to go to Europe for help to save this cruel industry rather than someone from Westminster doing it.
And what of the failed Scottish banking system that was heavily bailed out by the Westminster government and is still now substantially owned by the British government? Maybe Westminster should withdraw the bailout? Let Scotland sort out its own problems?
Of course, David Cameron can see a political benefit to ridding himself of Scotland. There are currently 59 MPs representing Scottish constituencies who are returned to Westminster. At the moment 41 of these are Labour seats. Only 1 is Healy by a Tory. If Cameron can lose that block of anti-Tory votes, plus the upcoming boundary changes which appear to benefit the Tories, I'm sure he can see Conservative governments for many decades to come.
But what right does the Scottish Parliament have to hold such a referendum? Absolutely none. And Cameron saying do it now (or at least within the next 18 months) makes no difference. The act of parliament that set up the Scottish Parliament makes it clear that the Scottish Parliament has no authority to hold such a referendum. That power lies in Westminster. Will Westminster support such a vote? It could be thee straw that breaks the coalition's back.
If Scotland is given the right to an independence referendum I think there are two other options that should be considered:
1) The Scots might want to vote for independence but surely the rest of the UK should be allowed a say in losing it. Maybe everyone in the UK should be allowed to vote?
2) Maybe other regions of the UK should be given the chance to become independent too? Not just Wales and Northern Ireland, the obvious places that could, perceivably, want independence but what about Cornwall? East Anglia? Northumbria? the West Midlands? the Isle of Wight? Any of them becoming independent makes as much sense as Scotland going it alone. The problem is that in Scotland there are a bunch of gobby Nationalists who, instead of being mocked as loony extremists, have been given credibility and powers by successive Westminster governments trying to keep them on side for their own political benefit.
Yes, Scottish Nationalists are loony extremists who have no real idea how they'd cope were they to achieve their goal of independence. They're, basically, attention seekers who haven't really thought through their policies. Maybe we should ca their bluff, give them independence and see how long it is before they're begging to rejoin the Union?
You'd expect that Scottish Nationslists on the news today would barely be able to contain their excitement - surely this is like all their Christmasses coming at once. Oddly, Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, isn't happy and thinks that a referendum in the next 18 months is "too soon" - excuse me? "Too soon"? Surely people either want it don't want independence. A full national general election can be held with only 5 weeks' notice. Surely the polling of the opinion of a tiny proportion of the United Kingdom needs less time?
What the SNP want to do, of course, is manipulate history to support their case. Their case is sufficiently weak that holding back and waiting for a referendum to coincide with the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn - that way they hope to scrape a few extra votes. Maybe television stations in Scotland should be compelled to show Braveheart on a loop too?
It has been astonishing how poor the various SNP supporters are at arguing their case on phone ins. As soon as they are questioned on specifics their enthusiasm is seen as a veneer of ill-prepared and badly thought through ideas. They're not even sure who should be able to vote in any referendum - one I heard on the radio thought it should only be Scots currently living in Scitland, so my Englush mother and sister, both of whom have lived in Scotland for a decade would be excluded, as would prominent Scottish Bationalist who hasn't lived in Scotland for many a year despite regularly interfering in Scottish politics. Maybe the Scottish Nationalists would like the vote restricted to members of the SNP?
There was a time when Alex Salmond and the SNP argued that an independent Scotland would be part of an economic grouping with Ireland and Iceland. Whoops! Strange how they've dropped that argument in recent times!
I genuinely fear an independence referendum if it is held in the next 18 months. Most opinion polls put Scottish independence at between 33% and 45% but, at a time when a Tory-lead government is putting in place extreme policies that are very unpopular I many circles, I can see a situation whereby the referendum is hijacked as an anti-Conservative, anti-Cameron vote. Independence could be achieved for the wrong reasons.
Scotland has a population of around 4 million. Independence would make it one of the smallest countries in Europe. It has limited industry beyond a successful drinks industry, oil and gas (the ownership of which would, I'm sure, be hotly debated and negotiated) and tourism that's hampered by the weather. London has a population of over double that of Scotland, major businesses and financial companies based there, a huge tourist industry that Scotland can only dream about, and connections to Europe and the rest of the world that make it the envy of many nations, but London isn't calling for independence.
The main problem with Scottish independence, as lovely and romantic an ideal that may appear, is that Scotland is not a viable country in the 21st century. Currently the rest of the UK subsidises every Scottish man, woman and child to the tune of £1,000 per year. Being proud in a long gone heritage isn't grounds for a modern state.
I would have expected the Scottish Nationalists would have thought think it will be better and less embarrassing going cap in hand to the EU than to Westminster, because the only way Scotland could possibly survive is to continue to receive substantial amounts of money from elsewhere.
Scottish Nationalists have often claimed that Scotland was a viable nation economically because of all the oil and natural gas that belongs to Scotland. Wait a moment. The oil "belongs" to Scotland? It was found by British and American multinational companies, funded by them and by the Westminster parliament. Its closer proximity to Scottish soil hardly compares to the millions (billions?) of pounds and dollars of investment put in by people and companies that aren't, when it comes down to it, Scottish.
The same argument is put forward about the fishing industry. Nationalists seem to think that "owning" their own waters, and therefore controlling localised fishing, would make Scotland financially stable. Wrong. It would give the Scottish government control over dwindling fish stocks and see them having to go to Europe for help to save this cruel industry rather than someone from Westminster doing it.
And what of the failed Scottish banking system that was heavily bailed out by the Westminster government and is still now substantially owned by the British government? Maybe Westminster should withdraw the bailout? Let Scotland sort out its own problems?
Of course, David Cameron can see a political benefit to ridding himself of Scotland. There are currently 59 MPs representing Scottish constituencies who are returned to Westminster. At the moment 41 of these are Labour seats. Only 1 is Healy by a Tory. If Cameron can lose that block of anti-Tory votes, plus the upcoming boundary changes which appear to benefit the Tories, I'm sure he can see Conservative governments for many decades to come.
But what right does the Scottish Parliament have to hold such a referendum? Absolutely none. And Cameron saying do it now (or at least within the next 18 months) makes no difference. The act of parliament that set up the Scottish Parliament makes it clear that the Scottish Parliament has no authority to hold such a referendum. That power lies in Westminster. Will Westminster support such a vote? It could be thee straw that breaks the coalition's back.
If Scotland is given the right to an independence referendum I think there are two other options that should be considered:
1) The Scots might want to vote for independence but surely the rest of the UK should be allowed a say in losing it. Maybe everyone in the UK should be allowed to vote?
2) Maybe other regions of the UK should be given the chance to become independent too? Not just Wales and Northern Ireland, the obvious places that could, perceivably, want independence but what about Cornwall? East Anglia? Northumbria? the West Midlands? the Isle of Wight? Any of them becoming independent makes as much sense as Scotland going it alone. The problem is that in Scotland there are a bunch of gobby Nationalists who, instead of being mocked as loony extremists, have been given credibility and powers by successive Westminster governments trying to keep them on side for their own political benefit.
Yes, Scottish Nationalists are loony extremists who have no real idea how they'd cope were they to achieve their goal of independence. They're, basically, attention seekers who haven't really thought through their policies. Maybe we should ca their bluff, give them independence and see how long it is before they're begging to rejoin the Union?
You'd expect that Scottish Nationslists on the news today would barely be able to contain their excitement - surely this is like all their Christmasses coming at once. Oddly, Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, isn't happy and thinks that a referendum in the next 18 months is "too soon" - excuse me? "Too soon"? Surely people either want it don't want independence. A full national general election can be held with only 5 weeks' notice. Surely the polling of the opinion of a tiny proportion of the United Kingdom needs less time?
What the SNP want to do, of course, is manipulate history to support their case. Their case is sufficiently weak that holding back and waiting for a referendum to coincide with the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn - that way they hope to scrape a few extra votes. Maybe television stations in Scotland should be compelled to show Braveheart on a loop too?
It has been astonishing how poor the various SNP supporters are at arguing their case on phone ins. As soon as they are questioned on specifics their enthusiasm is seen as a veneer of ill-prepared and badly thought through ideas. They're not even sure who should be able to vote in any referendum - one I heard on the radio thought it should only be Scots currently living in Scitland, so my Englush mother and sister, both of whom have lived in Scotland for a decade would be excluded, as would prominent Scottish Bationalist who hasn't lived in Scotland for many a year despite regularly interfering in Scottish politics. Maybe the Scottish Nationalists would like the vote restricted to members of the SNP?
There was a time when Alex Salmond and the SNP argued that an independent Scotland would be part of an economic grouping with Ireland and Iceland. Whoops! Strange how they've dropped that argument in recent times!
I genuinely fear an independence referendum if it is held in the next 18 months. Most opinion polls put Scottish independence at between 33% and 45% but, at a time when a Tory-lead government is putting in place extreme policies that are very unpopular I many circles, I can see a situation whereby the referendum is hijacked as an anti-Conservative, anti-Cameron vote. Independence could be achieved for the wrong reasons.
Monday, 24 October 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)