ThunderDragon Blog

Hazel Blears aka the chipmunk, is trying to blame bloggers for causing the culture of cynicism in British politics:

Perhaps because of the nature of the technology, there is a tendency for political blogs to have a ‘Samizdat’ style. The most popular blogs are rightwing, ranging from the considered Tory views of Iain Dale, to the vicious nihilism of Guido Fawkes. Perhaps this is simply anti-establishment. Blogs have only existed under a Labour government. Perhaps if there was a Tory government, all the leading blogs would be left-of-centre?

It’s quite possible that, yes, had the Conservatives been in power rather than Labour, the centre-left would have the leading/highest traffic-level blogs. But they do certainly have a better blogging community thing going.

But mostly, political blogs are written by people with disdain for the political system and politicians, who see their function as unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy.

Yes, and no. Bloggers tend to have little respect for politicians as a whole, who are our representatives and as such we expect them to be sleaze-free. Only those politicians who have scandals to unearth, who make conspiracies, and are hypocrites have anything to worry about from bloggers.

The political system, however, is respected - except where it makes no sense or we can improve. However, bloggers tend to be democrats, not as in Lib Dems but in actual democrats. We respect the principle of democracy and its practice.

Until political blogging ‘adds value’ to our political culture, by allowing new voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair.

Political blogging does allow new voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge into the political system. That is what it is best at. Blogging allows and encourages everyone to participate in the political process - anyone can start a blog for free using any number of platforms!

Blogging encourages particopation in the political process. Without blogging, I wouldn’t be anywhere near as politically active or engaged. I had in fact become bored with politics until I started blogging.

Hazel Blears is entirely wrong that political blogging doesn’t “add value”. It does, just not necessarily in the way she thinks it should.

It isn’t bloggers who are fueling !a culture of cynicism and despair”, but politicians - primaily career politicians, who Blears does indeed attack [unfortunately ignoring that she is one of them]. It is them who cause the lack of political engagement in Britain and prevent people from getting involved. If politicians weren’t mired in sleaze every time we turn around, maybe we wouldn’t have a culture of cynicism. And if we didn’t see the government constantly trying to take away our freedoms, maybe we wouldn’t live in despair.

Today is the American election day. Either Barack Obama or John McCain will be the new American President, yet they won’t take office for another two months.

Why do they do this? We do it immediately. Out with the old, in with the new. Why do they take so long? What possible need is there for a two-month transfer period?

I agree with Gordo Brown that whoever is elected US President tomorrow needs to step up immediately. Two months with a dead duck President in the middle of a financial crisis is not a good thing.

The BNP are mentioned in three stories I have seen in the newspapers [well, on their websites - I don't buy the paper versions any more or, in the case of the BBC, watch the broadcasts] today:

Firstly, the BNP are rejected by UKIP after they proposed an electoral pact at next years European elections with UKIP focusing on the South and the BNP in the North.

Quite rightly, too. The BNP must not be allowed any lee-way to get any form of representaton anywhere. All parties must fight against them at the polls.

Secondly, trade unions want to be able to expel BNP members. As far as I can see, they have no real reasons to be do this except because they want to.

I don’t like the BNP, but as I have said before, banning them and refusing them their right to their own political beliefs and association helps no-one. We should rather engage them in dialogue and expose them that way. For as long as the BNP remain a legitimate political party, they must not be banned for their political beliefs, however disgusting they are.

And thirdly, BNP voters are thick, having an IQ level at the age of 10 of 98.4. Even those who don’t vote had an IQ of 99.7.

Of course this piece of “news” means little*, espiecally since what this study hasn’t done though is provide any form of correlation with their IQ now. But it does kind of make the point of the type of people who vote BNP…

* Especially with the “fact” that Lib Dem voters had an IQ of 108.2 at 10 - if they’re so clever, why don’t they vote for a party that could actually win?

Even though this is an American video, the sentiment runs true for Britain as well.

In pretty much this fact only:

A cap on immigration is not the answer

Of course not. We need a free market, where all are able to come and go pretty much as they please, but without the right to claim any benefits. A free labour maket, unmolested by unions and protected interest groups demanding protection at the expense of the rest of society.

It’s interesting that a socialist is proposing a free market. Well, I suppose there must be a first time for everything.

Where she is wrong is in referring to the BNP and immigration caps as “rightwing”. They’re not. They’re far left-wing - beyond even Abbott herself.

It’s control that gives them away.

Not only is it one of the longest words the dictionary, it also describes precisely what Phil Woolas is saying. A definition of disestablishmentarianism:

–noun
1. a person who favors the separation of church and state, esp. the withdrawal of special rights, status, and support granted an established church by a state; an advocate of disestablishing a state church.

–adjective
2. of, pertaining to, or favoring the disestablishment of a state church.

I fully support this aim. It is precisely what we need. The State and religion - all forms of religion - should be separate. No religion should possess a favoured link to the government, since we are not a mono-faith society. We exist surrounded by many faiths and many claims of truth. Who is the State to proclaim which is the truth?

However, neither should the State be athiest or anti-religion, but entirely agnostic and make no claims to religious authority.

Within fifty years, the Church of England should have lost its privileged position. It has no right to it. As with other religions, the CoE should have complete control over its internal organisation. The Prime Minister should not have any decision-making authority over the Anglican church, up to and including who the Archbishop of Canterbury is.

As for the “consequences for the monarchy”, they are minor. The only differences are that the titles “Defender of the Faith” and the “Supreme Governor” would become within the rights of the Church of England to offer to the monarch - essential if the rights of succession are reformed.

Separation is the only way forward. When the House of Lords is reformed, either all Bishops must be removed from the Lords in the reformation or representatives of all religions must be included, with no voting rights. There is no alternative.

We do not live in a religious country any more. Secular is the order of the age. No longer does the Church of England mean anything to most peoples everyday life. And so disestablishment is inevitable.

Phil Woolas is correct to raise this, even as politically inexpedient as it may be. Because it is an issue that does need to be resolved before too long.

Whatever it is that he has done, it’s not illegal.

So he had meetings with a rich Russian. And? So have lots of people. What the basic facts of this are:

• No money has been donated to the Conservative party by Deripaska or any of his companies
• No law has been broken.

The worst claim that can be made against Osborne is that he is guilty of having a lack of common sense and a malfunctioning of his political antennae.

No, he shouldn’t have been having meetings with a Russian billionaire, especially not when Britain is suffering from a recession. But he hasn’t done anything that is actually wrong - a view supported by the [Labour] chairman of the public administration select committee:

We are not talking about corruption here, there was no corruption. We’re not talking about law-breaking, there is no law-breaking. What there is is a massive misjudgement.

That’s it. A misjudgement, and no broken laws. So Gordon Brown can call for “the authorities” to intervene all he likes, but there is nothing to investigate.

Mandelson’s dealings with Deripaska, which appear to have been rather fogotten by the media recently, are worse considering his position then and now. And I don’t even think that he has done much wrong.

The most revealing thing that has come out of this is the apparent level of class snobbery that still exists today. Why does the family into which someone was born matter in the slightest? It’s what they have done that matters.

George [or "Gideon" as some bloggers seem determined to call him] Osborne has done nothing illegal and nothing wrong. All he has done is something rather silly - and that’s not a crime.

From the BBC:

The watchdog conducting an inquiry into local authorities’ decisions to invest in Icelandic banks has admitted it has also got £10m tied up in the country.

The Audit Commission’s job is to ensure that £180bn of public sector spending provides “value for taxpayers”.

It said it deposited £5m in Landsbanki in April this year - and a further £5m in July in Iceland’s Heritable Bank.

The commission said the deposits were in “full compliance” with their guidelines “on prudent investment”.

I make no comment, except that it should guarantee the quality of the report while running the risk that it may be too mild.

Statements that make you go “well, duh” for today:

• The database of phone, email, and internet use is “Orwellian“;
• The Barnett Forumla must be fairer to England;
• SATs at 14 are useless; and
• Socialists are not vindicated by the credit crunch.

Brown might want to re-think that particular soundbite…

Yes, I know I said I wouldn’t be writing about the economy, but this definitely comes under the category “throwing a few stones from the sidelines”.