Comedy holding a grain of truth ...?

I don't normally find the cartoons on Guido Fawkes's blog that amusing, but today's is an exception...

Saturn’s Children

After a recent article in Total Politics (which I suggest that everyone with the time and an interest in Politics should read) I picked up on Alan Duncan’s book Saturn’s Children.

The main reason why I picked it up was its… superficial political leanings; that of a conservative-libertarian approach. To be honest I don’t expect it to find any sort of balance, or indeed (as many Libertarians would say) that a balance is possible, but its a nice idea for me.

In my head is the pulling – like for most reflective people – of heart and head but I guess my problem is I don’t know which one is which. My heart is my pragmatism, the real understanding that there is right and that right can sometimes cause problems and hurt and that there are ways to achieve your aims without a steamroller; either of philosophical strength or honed political understanding. My head is the knowledge of a path, and such a path is proven to be right above all others.

To me both fit both categories. I will leave you with a quote from the book of Karl Poper.

“There is no return to the harmonious state of nature. If we turn back, then we must go the whole way - we must return to the beasts.” Karl Poper [the open society and its enemies]

Labour have failed to control binge drinking

Conservative 'news story' on the website.

"Shadow Health Minister, Stephen O'Brien, has attacked Labour for failing to tackle binge drinking, saying:
"It's been low on their priority list, and now we're seeing the consequences, with excessive drinking and associated violent crime still not under control." "

Though in general the whole "government should refect the people and not alter behaviours, however disastrous they are. It seems as though to me this point has gone too far, they already meddle so much so as to result in the binge drinking we have in this county.

I don't really want to go into the details right now, but drinking can but only be seen as a societal response to the despondent nannying culture that controls the thinking from Westminster. If we, as individuals within the UK, are taxed to the hilt, lack any form of real privacy and are loosing rights left right and centre in a world which is made dramatically more gloomy by our own actions (that is the actions of our own elected parliament), then what is there to do but drink?

This is a very sketchy, and underdeveloped point. But honestly. Ask yourself. What does our government do other than dampen your prospects of a brighter future?

"He promised that a Conservative Government would clamp down on binge drinking and alcohol abuse by:
- Taking action to prevent the sale of cut-price alcohol
- And clamping down on shops who sell alcohol to under-age drinkers."

These actions wont solve anything. And I suspect that Stephen O'Brien knows it. But its political expediency to do at least as much as the opposition are doing on a topic. However much that does little or nothing to help. I mean, how many times a year do you hear a politician saying that will 'clamp down on shops who sell alcohol to under-age drinkers'. And who honestly thinks it is those drinkers who are the problem!?

Technorati Tags: British Poltics,Drinking,Conservatives

The West Lothian Question...?

The 'West Lothian Question' is a great example within English (note not British) politics elephant in the room where the Scottish politicians generally don't care and the English don't know what to do; there is simply no 'right' answer without dramatic institutional and constitutional change.

It is the situation, as we have now, of a scots parliament to which English (or indeed Welsh or Northern Irish) MPs cannot vote in along side a British parliament which Scots (et. al.) can vote in on every topic including only English only legislation.

Ian Dale has word of a leaked conservative proposal to the problem by cross-hatching layers of discussion and decision making within Westminster between English only involvement and Total Involvement. In other words, an appalling mess.

"If this is true, it is simply appalling. The phrases 'half baked' and 'dog's breakfast' come to mind. This is not a long term solution to something which even Scottish politicians recognise is a problem and it's not even a half way house. It reeks of a measure designed to placate rather than solve. And as usual with these things it won't even do that."

One of these days I must have a look through my old politic degree essays, as I have one on this topic. That being said the situation is simple. The solution is simple. The politics involved are disastrously complicated, obfuscated and complex.

And this is the industry (ha!) I am looking to join. Fun times.

I'm not going to lie to you...

I didn't read the whole of this speech by David Cameron... Not even half of it. But still, I am going to make a slight comment on this quote...

"Now I know there are some who think politics should stay out of issues like relationships, and stick to apparently more gritty topics like schools, the NHS and budget deficits. I just think that's incredibly superficial and short-sighted. Our efforts to get schools right are undermined if families are going wrong. We can ease the burden on the NHS if we act on the evidence that people in strong and happy relationships are healthier. And helping people maintain strong relationships is not some fluffy alternative to reducing budget deficits - it is the way to reduce budget deficits, by reducing the demands on the state caused by family breakdown."

Honestly, this seems a little idea. Either that, or a chicken-or-the-egg scenario.  Ideal in that he is saying that if families work then the NHS or Schools will work, and that failures can be blamed on the parents... Or the Children who later look at the parents (I assume). IF not this then its a chicken/egg situation of the schools wont work because of the parents who are earlier failed by failing schools.

Looking at the budget and family breakdown. I can only say that the best thing for government to do is to reduce itself. Every aspect of Government interaction with those on lower incomes is draining of the spirit and the goodness of the British people. What's the point in talking about relationship advice and development if the self-respect given to working for your living is lost in the midst of the reality that you are being stupid to earn your crust through anything other than the doll (Screw the lie that is jobseeker's allowance).

This was only meant to be a flippant comment, and I will leave it as such before I go into a rant. But in reality I can't see anything within the words of Cameron above even if the essence seems positive. There does need to be more emphasis on grownup positive relationships, be that between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a son and his father or mother and the state. Respect is what has been lost and it is government's responsibility to institutionalise again a system which holds that value among others to develop society... Maybe if I read the speech in its entirety I would see more of this.. But honesty, if I need to get through so much waffle to get to the crux then... I don't know. It is something hidden that should be shouted to the rooftops.

Cameron Direct

Within the constituency of Harlow it seems David Cameron has jumped off the fence on the Lisbon treaty/constitution and has said, directly to a question, that the conservatives would give the country what it wants in the form of a referendum.

Nice one!

I hope it is true.

Watch the vid, its actually quite good.

The true tory progressives...?

Written by one of my recent lecturers - a man of all trades - Philip Blond. Here he drops the theology for something more down to earth with an analysis within the guardian of the direction that the Torys are going within British Politics.

The claim by David Cameron to tackle disadvantage through the revival of civil society looks to many on the left like ideological cover for a revived neoliberal agenda. But is it? The lesson of the last 30 years is that neither the state nor the market is able to alleviate poverty or deliver opportunity for all.

Though the arguments about the failure of the market economy needs expanding Philip makes some interesting points. Not only is the tory party on the verge, it seems, of making some interesting political movements in terms of policy but it also seems to be making the right ones; reducing the state, decentralization and the rethinking of welfare. The only problem may be that Labour is making things too easy...

The danger is that with New Labour imploding after the local elections and Crewe, the Tories avoid visionary thinking and coast to victory. But this is perilous: the electorate is fickle.

The problem with Philip is the ultimate direction he drives his conclusions. Though the thinking above in general seems correct he makes two very radical points, 1) a rejection of the free market, and 2) the rejection of liberalism. Points which seem both worrying and difficult to comment on now. They just seem too radical.