Showing posts with label parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parliament. Show all posts
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
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?
Sunday, 6 November 2011
COMMENT: The UK is still a medieval country with modern nick-nacks
Most living in the UK would say that it is a modern nation, with modern politics and freedoms, with a modern world view and with a modern outlook.
I'm one of those who disagree.
I think the UK is still little better than a medieval country with a population that is being conned.
Yes, we don't have an absolute monarchy but the monarch and heir to the throne are given vetoes over new laws. Elected officials bow down to the Royals who have done nothing more to be given their position of privilege than pass through a particular vagina.
We still have umpteen unelected peers in the House of Lords, including umpteen unelected bishops, who oversee what laws are passed. The bishops ensure that the church has a voice way beyond the size of the nation's "faith community". Quite why any superstition is given legal powers is beyond me.
The UK has a large aristocracy, headed by the Royal Family, for whose benefit society is organised. "The Establishment" isn't just a silly Hale and Pace joke but a real strata of society who look down on the rest of us while they reap the benefits of passing through various birth canals or licking up to the right people.
Don't be fooled by our democracy - it is tokenism. It is a fraud. It is electing different flavours of the same crisps.
And then there's the UK's foreign policy. Surely it's to just me that sees recent involvements in Afghanistan, Iraq and, in particular, Libya as nothing more then modern day Crusades - spreading "our" way of life because "we" know best - oh, and, of course, oil!
Commentators and newspapers often look at other nations and refer to them as "third world" or "medieval" in the way things are organised - the UK is hardly different. Yes, in the UK we have a wealth and have developed in many ways - the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution enabled this, plus the evils of the Empire which, thankfully, has now ended - but this is nothing more than a generous dose of blusher on the bad skin of our society.
The UK needs fundamental change: we need a genuinely democratic system of government; we need to remove the powers of the Royal family (and their numerous hangers on and yes men) completely; we need to stop the insanity of religion from imposing it's nonsense to the rest of use; and we need to have a more sensible, caring and grown-up world view.
The UK is ready for change. Stop being conned!
I'm one of those who disagree.
I think the UK is still little better than a medieval country with a population that is being conned.
Yes, we don't have an absolute monarchy but the monarch and heir to the throne are given vetoes over new laws. Elected officials bow down to the Royals who have done nothing more to be given their position of privilege than pass through a particular vagina.
We still have umpteen unelected peers in the House of Lords, including umpteen unelected bishops, who oversee what laws are passed. The bishops ensure that the church has a voice way beyond the size of the nation's "faith community". Quite why any superstition is given legal powers is beyond me.
The UK has a large aristocracy, headed by the Royal Family, for whose benefit society is organised. "The Establishment" isn't just a silly Hale and Pace joke but a real strata of society who look down on the rest of us while they reap the benefits of passing through various birth canals or licking up to the right people.
Don't be fooled by our democracy - it is tokenism. It is a fraud. It is electing different flavours of the same crisps.
And then there's the UK's foreign policy. Surely it's to just me that sees recent involvements in Afghanistan, Iraq and, in particular, Libya as nothing more then modern day Crusades - spreading "our" way of life because "we" know best - oh, and, of course, oil!
Commentators and newspapers often look at other nations and refer to them as "third world" or "medieval" in the way things are organised - the UK is hardly different. Yes, in the UK we have a wealth and have developed in many ways - the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution enabled this, plus the evils of the Empire which, thankfully, has now ended - but this is nothing more than a generous dose of blusher on the bad skin of our society.
The UK needs fundamental change: we need a genuinely democratic system of government; we need to remove the powers of the Royal family (and their numerous hangers on and yes men) completely; we need to stop the insanity of religion from imposing it's nonsense to the rest of use; and we need to have a more sensible, caring and grown-up world view.
The UK is ready for change. Stop being conned!
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
50 Years of PMQs
Today marked the 50th anniversary of Prime Minister's Questions in Parliament.
Here's a Top 5 PMQ moments from 2000-2009.
Here's a Top 5 PMQ moments from 2000-2009.
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)