Sexist Boy

I was going to blog about sexism following something that happened on Facebook the other day. And then Joey Barton opened his mouth on Question Time last night and brought the issue front and centre. So no time like the present.

I am going to preface this with a sort of health warning. I am thick-skinned. I spend my days working with and against litigation lawyers. They love to argue, for the hell of it. And if I couldn't cope with that I'd be a gibbering wreck. So I am perhaps desensitised to argument. And I have a dry sense of humour, to the point that if I express outrage or massive horror about something etc it is often not how I really feel; it's probably sarcasm or a wind-up/trolling exercise. So please don't think I was upset by any of this. Nor, probably, will I be upset by your comments on it. I genuinely don't know the answer to the point I am making, and welcome clarification - as a straight white middle-class middle-aged man, I've not got much experience of discrimination to relate back to.

Anyway, I shared this cartoon, from the Spectator and reproduced here with full acknowledgement and for the purposes of criticism.

I shared it because I thought it was funny - a play on the two meanings of the words deep and shallow. And you know how Facebook works. See it, enjoy it, share it, move on.

And after a couple of likes, I got a comment - "I bet a man drew that". And so I looked again. There is a clear inference that could be drawn that women are shallow gossipy creatures whilst men are intellectuals. The first time, I did not see it this way. But an allusion to the issue made it very plain to me.

It's hard in hindsight to recreate a thought process. Was I blind to the sexism? Was I completely focused on the wordplay and didn't see the sexes of the people? If the latter, should I have?

I've asked around - I've shown the cartoon to twenty people or so. Simply saying "what do you think of this?"

• Five (split three men and two women) did not get it. They are no longer friends. (Joke.)
• Eight (50/50 split) thought it funny
• Three said they understood it but did not find it funny. All men. Two of whom have very slapstick senses of humour - you know the type - thinks Milton Jones is rubbish. None of these people 'get' the titles of my blogs either*
• Four - (three women ) saw it as sexist, although two of the women also said without prompting that they thought it was accurate (I don't know what to make of this!)

Not much of a sample, and no clear finding. Some people were (very mildly) offended by it. At The Spectator, not at me. Is that enough that it shouldn't be published? Do I need to consider the sexist (and also presumably racist, homophobic etc) potential which could be in any joke before I make it?

My conclusion - modern life is complicated.

And in waded Joey Barton. His comment - paraphrased - on looking at the recent elections, is that it was like four ugly girls at a party and selecting UKIP was like selecting the least ugly one. And engage Twitterstorm level 3.

Barton has form. He has made derogatory comments in the past about other footballers and their sexuality. He has been violent. He has had, as they say, issues. He is though (it is apparent from QT) not stupid. But he's not, I suspect, formally educated - he was just born bright, and once he realised there was more to life than kicking a football, has done something to educate himself, through reading etc. (This is potentially a massive generalisation - but indulge me.)

How, dear Reader, would you cope on Question Time? I would be utterly terrified. Most of us, when put on the spot, tend one of two ways. We shut up - not good in a panellist - or we babble. And that is what Barton did, I think. I am sure that if he had been given time, he would have not made the analogy. (He has apologised and seems genuinely upset about it.) He could have found another example. Or simply stuck with what he had said before.

But now we know that, even if he had self-censored, that this is how his mind works. Is he innately sexist? Given my posting of that cartoon, am I - with me just lacking the pressure and/or opportunity to be openly so?

There is a difference of course. I am guessing that if you polled people, a very high percentage would see Barton's comments as sexist. It is obvious. Res ipsa loquitor**. So I think that's my line. Some things are so obviously offensive that they should not be said. But the things that divide opinion, or offend a small minority are just life being difficult. People have the right to expect me, Joey and everyone else to remove the first, but you just have to accept the second is going to happen. If you are the only person in the world offended by x, then unless x is personal and about you, it probably says more about you than the world.

Should Barton be ostracised and pilloried? No, of course he shouldn't. QT picks non-political panellists because it wants more than the 'on message' answers. It should be more interesting. More 'real', whatever that means. It was a throwaway comment and I suspect he will learn from it. We shall see, because I am sure, following that, he will get plenty more TV chat opportunities.


* not 'get' them individually - 'get' the fact that they are usually slightly twisted references to pop tunes. You all got that, right?
** the thing speaks for itself.

Like a room without a roof

I returned from Edinburgh with a suitcase full of soaking clothes. And I have brought the weather with me, because it has pretty much rained since. Sorry Londoners.

I came back from the Voxcetera tour in a fabulous frame of mind. A combination I think of a concert of (in my mind anyway) quite astonishing quality, some time away from the daily grind of work life and London, and being with a group of people who all get on so well.

And so, I've been generally enthusiastic about life, and feeling in a dynamic mode, and that I mustn't just let things slide. Life is there to be lived etc.* And, according to something on the web today, an astonishing number of people in this country have been prescribed antidepressants - One in three in Blackpool (which is pretty much where I grew up). Which says a lot about this country, but also shows what I have to be thankful for (and I don't mean leaving Blackpool!).

Voxcetera will finish in early July for a couple of months. So I have applied to do a couple of musical things over the summer to keep my had in, and which broaden my experience. One is big choral/classical, the other big and pop-based, so both things I've not done for a while. And I might have a couple of others on the go, you never know...

Plus I'm doing a scratch Mozart Requiem with the Bach choir this weekend just to try and embed it in my head.

Elsewhere I have ordered the parts to fix the two PCs that have been sitting at home needing it since before Christmas. Just about worth it I think, and it makes me feel good not to throw them away. (We've had a re-kit of IT at work - we have loads of quite old kit - but it all works and would be fine for internet and basic stuff. But it needs wiping of data and new software buying and therefore no-one will take it on a costs basis. Very wasteful.) And I'm started sorting out some other stuff that has been really festering (not literally). And I am kicking back into the gym and exercise mode.

Oh, and I haven't had any meat for a week now (see post here). I am eating fish at the moment, because having been away I was in so many places whether the true veggie choice was a cheese sandwich or a mushroom risotto, and I couldn't face that. Back at home now, I may scale that back too.I don't feel physically different not eating meat. Maybe it's too early to tell. But it does feel right, so I will stick with it for a while.

It will probably all have fallen flat by the weekend and I'll be back to watching Formula 1 in my dressing gown, eating bacon, but carpe diem and all that.

* this is not a self-help blog by the way.

Making plans for dealing with Nigel

I write this on a train from Edinburgh back to Kings Cross after a fabulous weekend with Voxcetera.

A good concert, a spot of clubbing, climbing Arthur's Seat in a hailstorm, and even a bit of culture. As I travel back the sun is shining and it feels that all is right with the world. 

Ah, yes, the European election. The cloud on my otherwise perfect horizon. The smug, Farage-shaped cloud. I do not understand why people have voted for UKIP because there is no chance I would ever do it. So I do not feel what those people feel.

As such, my "Why?" has to be speculation. But the lack of facts should never get in the way of a good blog, so here goes.

I don't think that the UKIP vote is borne of racism. Not for the vast majority. UKIP's best performances have not been in the area with the highest migration. London has performed much more as you would expect, with a drift to the official opposition.

And if a racially stronger policy was popular, we would not be celebrating the removal of the two BNP MEPs this morning, having lost 80% of their 2009 vote.

But I suspect the *fear* that jobs might be under threat to a surge of immigrants, no matter how far-fetched that actually is, is an issue. And the retired Colonels of Tunbridge Wells have always responded well to any call to raise the drawbridge.

More of an issue in my mind is that people do not see any real difference between the three major parties. There are no radical differences between them. If you want difference you either look to the Greens, or to Nige. And the Greens have done OK. Well, even. But they've never threatened a break through. Last time - in fact in my memory *every* other time there has been an alternative with the LibDems. Now they are part of government, so that one comes out. And their only chosen point of difference was Europe, more specifically the EU.

Ah yes, the EU. UKIP's rallying post. Author, if you believe Nige, of every problem this country has. The LibDems have struggled to say why the EU benefits us, just as both Con and Lab hint at the need to renegotiate treaties - which must mean they aren't the laws we should have. 

The first purpose of European union, back in the 50s, was to ensure coal and steel production was centrally controlled - with more than an eye on controlling rearmament. The Federalist goal has grown from there, and is still close to the heart of some Europeans, but of very few Brits. But Britain is a trading nation, and the Common Market was a serious attraction to us. Easier trade, breaking down of barriers, bigger markets - all good stuff. People don't see that in the EU. They see bureaucracy, and inefficiency, and perhaps corruption. 

Farage has played his hand on this well. Some of his claims are better supported than others. And of course no one significant* has left the EU, so we can't say that the world would end. He is saying "things are crap - do this and they will get better". 

So, do you** face a UKIP government in a year? Of course not. Will they fall back to a level of irrelevance as the Greens did after their big vote in the 1989 Euros? Perhaps, though not that far. Will they, horror of horrors, have enough seats to keep a Tory government in power at a disproportionate price? Yes, they might. But we have to find a way of engaging the UKIP voter with full-spectrum politics, and even more so the people who don't bother voting. And if we are serious about the EU we have to show the British people why it's a good thing. 

* Sorry Greenland, we love you, but you don't give me a working comparator here.

** I say you! because if it happens I'm off

Dancing the Night Away

I am sitting in a hotel in Leith, on a day when the title of the song and film can only be presumed to be ironic. If I stand on the table and peer out to the right I can just see the former-Royal Yacht Britannia sitting there attracting tourists.

Yesterday Voxcetera (the chamber choir I sing with) did a concert in Edinburgh with a local choir - Rudsambee (it's based on the Gaelic for 'anything at all'). They did the first half, with a programme ranging wildly in language - Welsh, Irish, Hungarian, Polish, and even a little English. And we debuted our  new Poulenc 8 French Folk songs, and ran some Britten too.

The audience seemed to love what we did; the Poulenc will be honed to perfection by the time we do it in London in October. And as for Britten's AMDG - which sets the poetry of Manley Hopkins to a range of accompaniments? It gets better and better I think. There were definitely a couple of moments last night where it took life beyond anything it has done before. In a good way, too.

A contrast. Two pretty accomplished choirs, but with a very different schtick. I think we blend better, and do stuff that is musically braver than them, but they interact better with the audience. Food for thought on where we might go next.

Of course, where I went next, post gig, was clubbing. Until 3:30 this morning. In a very pleasant establishment (no irony at all here) called the Jam House, with a live band and a good set of tunes - ancient and modern. But writing a blog at 9:30 (breakfast already done) reminds me of the benefits of not drinking. It is easy to have fun and dance the night away sober. Today, despite being from Edinburgh, I shall be doing the tourist thing

Some of you will be expecting comments on the election. Full thoughts can await the outcome of the Euro poll. In terms of the locals, Labour did well in London, but not nearly as well as they should have. Wandsworth remains Tory, but a little less so, with my ward having not split two Lab and one Tory. The greens have done well and UKIP has not, in London anyway - where in their own words the population is young, educated and culturally diverse. Spin that statement round and see what you could get as a UKIP strapline.

Elsewhere UKIP has done quite well, but I don't think it is all at the Tories expense, and you wonder how that will translate to a general election. One surefire prediction though. We are destined for an autumn of speculation about the Labour leadership. For me, Miliband looks finished. He doesn't attract outside the core, and doesn't seem to do well in it either. I'm imagining hushed discussions in corridors by friends of Yvette C and Andy Burnham.

Oh, and another prediction. Journalists everywhere will have been dispatched to dig up dirt on every councillor elected under the UKIP banner. They have a tough life, do journalists in these straitened times, so help them out. If you have taken coke with a new UKIP councillor, or helped him catalogue his Nazi memorabilia, do give The Mirror a ring and point them in the right direction.

Meat probably isn't murder, but I have questions

I listen to a fairly large number of podcasts. I have a commute of about 40 minutes each way (walk and train) every day, at least two trips into town (1 hour min return) and gym visits (where I need something to drown out the awful music) which gives me about 11 hours of time to listen.

When preparing for a concert, this is largely spent with repeating the music over and over to try and drill it into my head. But the rest of the time it’s probably two-thirds or more of podcasts a week. And I listen on 1.5x speed – simply because I find regular speed a bit slow most of the time. If something is interesting and complex I will shift down to real-time. But I reckon that gives me 10 hours plus of podcast material to listen to most weeks.

And I listen to a wide range – from The Guardian on football, to quite a lot of economics stuff (Freakonomics is good, and More or Less can be), to law, to science and skepticism.

Usually (probably a factor of also having to be aware of surroundings and being on 1.5x speed) I skim across the stuff, and the most that happens is that something comes up in a conversation three weeks later, and I find that I know quite a bit about it*. But sometimes something really hits home.

And recently the thing that struck a chord was a discussion about vegetarianism. It was on a show called “Skeptics with a K” which is a (quite sweary) fortnightly podcast done by these guys.  It really got me thinking about my behaviour, and whether I should be changing it.

I like eating. Rather too much. And I like eating meat. I've never been squeamish or sentimental about it. I've eaten horse in France, and rabbit, and pigeon (not London pigeons – I'm not daft). I would baulk at a sheep’s eyeball I am sure, but Sainsbury's doesn't sell them yet. (Fill in your own joke about Wall's sausages here.)

But I have known for years that it is a quite a wasteful way of producing food. There are stats suggesting it takes 8 or 9 kg of plants to produce 1kg of beef (the argument presumably being that not having the cow allows three people to eat 3kg of plant stuff instead).

And there is an animal cruelty argument of course. I'm sure if we were being offered the choice, we wouldn't want to be strung up and have our throat slit, as halal and kosher practice requires. But, on being told that option b) was a much more humane death, but still a death, I’d be turning the paper over and looking for the third option – the one involving being alive.  Do animals suffer? Undoubtedly. In the way humans do? Probably not. So whilst this is a big issue for some and I respect that, it doesn't have me manning the barricades.

(On that subject, the halal discussion is another of those proxies – looking for a reason to be racist with a pretext – here animal cruelty. I didn’t see as much publicity criticising the French for the way fois gras is made, and that’s a lot more horrible. (No link folks – you might be reading this while eating your lunch.))

There are counter arguments: that it is harder to get protein from non-meat sources. And that without animals there is no milk, and no cheese, and no eggs (this latter isn't really an argument I suppose, it’s a fact). And that, try as you might, wheat isn't going to grow on the sheep fells of the Lake District. (Of course, much of this land wasn't sheep fell until we chopped the trees down – to allow for the sheep!)

In answer to that, I'm not suggesting we ban meat-eating, nor am I even advocating a non-meat or reduced meat diet for anyone else. I am just saying that this has made an impression on me, and I am seriously thinking about reducing my meat intake – perhaps all the way to nothing.

Of course, this produces all sorts of logistical problems – a lifetime of cheese sandwiches being one possibility – and I haven’t seen bacon patches available on the NHS yet. But for the first time in a long-time (and perhaps ever), I have started to think hard about what I am eating and the impact it has.

Being away this weekend in Scotland, I am guessing that a diet solely consisting of fruit and veg may be difficult to come by** so I will be tucking into the odd fried slice just as much as the next man will. But a seed has been sown, and who knows what is going to grow from it.

* Those of you who know me may be aware that I have a pretty good memory for fact and detail. Not quite eidetic (photographic) but pretty close.

** this is a joke. Edinburgh has plenty of fruit and veg. It may even have a Waitrose (it has two – Ed). Obviously, if it were Glasgow…***

***this is also a joke. Jesus people, do I have to put winky faces after everything now?

Makin' Your Mind Up

So I’m going all partisan on you. My strict policy of utter neutrality* is now to be abandoned to reveal what I will be doing on Thursday in the European election.

And the answer is that I have decided to give the Greens a go.

There is a whole host of reasons for this, but some of them are as follows:

Across a big multi-member constituency, there is real scope for smaller parties to be successful. 8 MEPS for London means that 12.5% guarantees an MEP for the Greens – and last time they got in with under 11%.

Across Europe, the Green Party is actually a far more cohesive force that many of the other groupings.

The Green group is the fourth largest in the parliament with 59 MEPS. The vast majority of these are Greens, with a few minorities (like the SNP) thrown in for light relief. Compare that to the left or right groups which have much more disparate memberships.

Whilst the EU has not been an unqualified success in all areas, it has generally set standards for individual rights (e.g. consumer protection) and environmental standards, which have improved our quality of life. And these are areas where the Green movement has led the charge. (On that point, when you here UK politicians talking about EU interference, think about this story. I watched a programme about the Thalidomide tragedy on TV last week. Distillers, the importer of the (German manufactured) drug defended on the grounds that they only shipped it in, and had no liability, having not done any testing. Nowadays that importer would have a strict liability – it is liable even if at no fault. And this is due to EU action.)

There are some downsides to the Green Party – and this is where I have had to do most of my thinking. 

There is still an anti-science tendency. They've backed down form supporting homeopathy – leader Natalie Bennett calling it “scientific nonsense” on the excellent Pod Delusion here. But I struggle with the “trashing” of GM test-sites (Genetically Modified foods). By all means oppose things, but stymieing research through violence probably isn't the right way.

And there is still a lot of bashing of bankers and capitalism in general. Whilst the last six years has shown huge defects in our current capitalist model, around complexity, regulation and concentration of power, it isn't all bad. But for capitalism, we’d all still be serfs working for the local Lord of the Manor.

I've at least parked these concerns, if not got over them – I think they’d be back if I thought the Greens were a government-in-waiting. All parties have their recidivist tendencies – there are true planned economy socialists within Labour, and anti-gay Tories, and Lib-Dems who don’t believe in selling out their principles for power. (If you are any of the things above, simply reverse the premise and see that as the unacceptable wing of your party – Blairite capitalist Labour, Conservatives with a conscience etc.)

I have decided that in the round, the plusses outweigh the minuses. For Europe anyway. For the local Council I'm still thinking. I have three votes. Standing are 1 Green, 1 UKIP, 2 Liberals and three each for Lab and Con. For this election I'm still in Buck Fizz time.

It still isn't easy ...

A couple of posts ago, before the UKIP stuff got in the way, I was talking about how different election systems and profiles allow, or arguably require, different ways of thinking and voting.

So having looked at decent examples of a two-horse race and a genuine proportionate democracy, that leave our local council election - which doesn't really fit into either.

Wandsworth. Or, as the press usually refers to it, Tory Wandsworth. And it has been Tory since the later seventies; pretty overwhelmingly so.

As with many council's, Wandsworth has multi-member First Past the Post. For me, that means that twenty wards each elect three candidates. We have three votes each, and the three biggest scores win in each word. Most Wards see a pretty dramatic split on part lines - the three Tory, or Labour candidates, get pretty similar scores. (In my memory we've never elected anyone from anywhere else, and the LibDems and Greens have historically fielded only one or two per ward, with little campaigning.)  And the Wards tend to elect three of something.  They are all Tory or all Labour.

Now, immediately, I think that mixing this up would be a good idea. Why not try and get a bit more of a spread? I could vote 2/3rds Labour and 1/3 Green - try to give the Council more of an eco-focus . Or 2/3 Tory and 1/3 UKIP, just to make sure the Council doesn't surrender its powers to Europe.

Now, I have lived and voted in some very different areas, and it is clear to me that local politics is very different. Wandsworth is a (very) low tax environment - a normal Band D property pays £682 per year. Even the biggest properties only pay £1,360. The next door borough - Lambeth pays nearly double these numbers across the board. It has been Labour for ever, except for a truly surreal Liberal led LibCo coalition in 2002.

The fact that both have been in power through both long Tory and Labour governments makes it hard to blame outside interference for things.

So this looks like the classic choice. High or Low Tax. And, presumably, high and low service. Ah, no. Despite being cheap, as a taxpayer, Wandsworth is pretty good. My bins get emptied, they have an OK recycling scheme, the Leisure Centres are basic but OK, reasonable libraries. Some OK schools. Looking for bad points, well some of the roads are pretty bad - need a lot of repair.

And my experience of Lambeth (which I am told persists to this day)? God Awful. Nothing worked, Everything was late, or broken.

Now, I did write "as a taxpayer". I have been fortunate enough never to need the other stuff the Councils provide - services for the homeless, or troubled kids, or the elderly. And it might be that here Lambeth knocks Wandsworth into a cocked hat.

But why is this? Is Wandsworth good and cheap because of or despite the Tories? I simply don't know. Would I pay an extra £1,000 if I knew it meant better services, better conditions for Council workers etc? Probably not, actually, but I would pay something more. But the obvious first conclusion is that Lambeth voters put up with a crap service because it is a crap service from a Labour Council.

Surely this takes dogma too far. I've known a few councillors in my time. They have all been out to do the best for their local areas. There will be some auditioning for Parliament, but not many.

So where does this leave us? Well - you can't assume that cheap isn't linked with poor service. You can't apply the logic from one area to another. You can look at the service you have had, and vote accordingly.

Which does mean that, though I am still reflecting, there is a chance I am going to vote Tory in the local elections. Economically it is clearly the right thing to do, but the thought is not a happy one!

UKIP Twitter storm

An impromptu blog.

As I sat and simmered at the antics of Farage on Question Time, I came across a piece on a Green Party local Twitter feed which I forwarded on.

Normal Twitterage follows - and then I wake this morning to dozens of Retweets, and the first "replies" from the UKIPs.

People of Britain. Do you think that David Cameron's changes to the NHS are a good thing? Are they just a start but you'd like more please.

Nuttall's blog contains (as at now) this

Which links to this report, by these people - the "leading provider of independent health care services in the UK".

They are not advocating Privatisation. Let's be clear about that. They certainly say they are not. But they are advocating a greater use of private resources in Healthcare, through Partnership and for example:

• allowing transfer of NHS staff to the private sector
• charging for missed appointments
• tax relief on private medical insurance
• "allowing people to top up and buy extra services if they so choose" this is a direct quote.

This blog is not saying that there is anything wrong with these aims. Whether from a member of the European Parliament or from the "leading provider of independent health care services in the UK".

But lets have some openness UKIP. Is this party policy? If not, where does Mr Nuttall stand? If so, should this not merit a bit more of the debate? After all, at this rate, the Romanian's coming over here won't have a free NHS service to use. Perhaps that's the point.

corrected 13:05pm for fairly obvious typo. Blog in haste, correct at leisure! Sorry.

It isn't easy...

You may have guessed from past posts that I am not UKIP's greatest fan. You may also have guessed that I find professional politicians to be a depressing bunch; self-serving, dogmatic, inflexible etc. Hey some of us write blogs to utilise those parts of our character, rather than being paid by the public to do it.

And, yes, I accept there are some very decent, able and well meaning individuals in the wide political landscape (I include unions, campaigners and pressure groups here), even if their half-life in parliament seems a little shorter than you would wish.

But I felt the need to say a bit more, lest you view me as some sort of messianic Russell Brand-like figure, leading you in a Hamleinian Pied-Piperesque progress away from the Victorian voting booths (you see Russell - it's easy to use big words and tautology).

It is important that we all vote. I'm not one for mandatory voting like they have in Australia, because I don't like compulsion (dangerously libertarian argument there). But I think that the right to moan about it comes with the obligation to do something about it.

If you think a party represents a majority of your views across the spectrum (and the rest isn't egregiously nasty) then it may make sense to vote for them in everything. (If 'your' party represents all your views 100%, then you are either Vladimir Putin or you haven't really thought at all.)

But there is no reason why you have to sign up on the list for life. Different parties may appeal differently for different things.

 Let me give the example of me. It's a London-centric example, but if you don't like that, wait for a local sheep to write a blog and read that instead.

In an electoral cycle, I get to vote for:

• The UK parliament (once every five years or less)
• Wandsworth Council (once every four years)
• The Mayor of London (every four)
• The London Assembly (every four)
• The European Parliament (every five)

Take the Mayor of London. (Please, take him.) OK, take the election. The last two have really been a straight choice between a newt-fancying Evening Standard hating, Blur-song-narrating* leftie, and a Bullingdon, blond, cycling lothario. (Check for libel). A vote for the Libdems, or the Greens is a waste. My choice is, depending on your view and you can guess mine, either the candidate I like more, or the one I hate less. Ken or Boris, Boris or Ken. If I don't vote for my 'favourite' then I've increased the chances of the other winning.

Pretty much the same goes for my UK constituency - Labour - not safe but not marginal. Tories closish second, everyone else - don't bother.

But then look at Europe. All of London is one constituency, with 8 seats. Elected by Party List Vote (d'Hondt system if you care, which you don't). This basically means that you need to get one eight of the votes to get a seat. So if the Tories got 25% straight off and Labour got 37.5%, they would get 2 and three respectively. You then redistribute surpluses, eliminate the hindmost and reallocate quotas until you get to 8 elected. (I used to be a Students Union vote counter you know.)

So for, say, the BNP to get a seat they perhaps only need to get 12.5% to get a seat straight off, but can end up getting a seat with perhaps 8%. So your vote really can make a difference for smaller parties.

Which would allow you to vote with my conscience rather than using the Least-worst option discussed above.

This is a long post already. Next time, I'll extend this thinking to local elections, and might even discuss how I am thinking of voting (though there is a huge clue in this post for those who look). And if you put BNP? in the comments, f*ck off now.

*Ernold Same on the Great Escape

They Fade to Grey

I had a comment on yesterday's blog via Facebook as follows:

Farage gets airtime because, however else he is found wanting, he doesn't lack character. He makes good sound bites because he clearly says what he's thinking. Same has gone for paddy pantsdown, Alan Clark, Ann Widdecombe (aka Doris Karloff), Dennis Skinner and many others over the years. At least they don't have to check their pagers and phones and get clearance from ground control to stay on message with HQ.

A perfect excuse to do another political post, so here goes…

It is certainly true that many politicians are bland and safe these days. And it is true that Boris Johnson is popular because he is a "character", and that I struggle to think of too many others right now. So it is probably right that Farage gets airtime for that reason. But airtime doesn't always means popularity.

And I don't know if this is worse than in previous generations. I suspect more convergence - it is much harder to tell Conservative from LibDem from Labour, as they increasingly come from a background of similar degrees, universities and non-jobs. But back in the 1970s there was a Labour type, just as there was a Tory type, and success often meant resembling it. There were non-conformists like Tony Benn, but were they more frequent than the ones we have now, and if so, is that because running a modern organisation allows and requires more control?

I don’t think that is why Farage is a) popular and b) doing well. I think he is gathering support because he is offering easy answers. Implicit for me in the UKIP message is that if we withdraw from Europe, and stop poor foreigners coming over here (and make those here more likely to go back) then everything will be fine. The other parties are promising more of what we have now, or very similar, at least to the untutored eye.

Of course, it cannot be as simple as that. If UKIP were to be in government and to follow through on those policies, we would still be a country with a huge deficit. And we would lack many of the low-paid individuals that the NHS relies on (and that much of London also requires). And we would be a country that had turned its back on some fairly fundamental human rights legislation, but let's gloss over that for the moment*.

But they give us an answer. A simple answer, even if it is the wrong answer to the wrong question. And people want an easy answer.

The real problem is that this country is hugely over-reliant on house prices and low interest rates to keep heads above water and the only way to sort the deep-lying economic woes is to reduce that reliance. Plus we need to educate people in relevant skills and ensure that jobs exist. Ideally higher wage jobs, rather than call centres. A recovery led by employment, not buy-to-let. And before you start calling me a socialist (because I don't see what any of the above  had to do with who controls the means of production) look at the US recovery - which has been built on jobs. Often poorly paid ones, but jobs nonetheless.

UKIP offers none of this. Mind you, neither do the three main parties - because it is not appealing to the core middle England voters to say that this may mean your house price is, at best, not going to go up for the next decade, but your mortgage payments probably are.

And of course, we aren't voting for someone to run the country. Officially we are voting at one end for people to represent us in Europe, and at the other for people to run our local services. And there is no reason why one party should be good at both, or good at that and at running a country. But we are encouraged to view this as a referendum on the government – a big vote for [you decide] will mean changed policies for all three big parties at the next election. And if that means you are left with a bunch of idiots running your local council for the next four years – well, tough.

And that's I think enough about people and personalities, and a trailer for what this should be about, which is policies. So that's where we will be next time.

* Here's a tip. Whenever anyone suggests leaving the Convention on Human Rights, or repealing the Human Rights Act, ask them which of the rights they would like to get rid of. And wait for an answer. You'll have time to make a cup of tea.

On politics, holidays and snooker

Back to blogging.

We've had a major rewrite of our website going on at work, which has meant lots of rewriting of content and agonising over synonyms. I just haven't felt like writing in my time away from work in those circumstances.

Working for a business that is American in its parentage means that it is at these times that the "two nations divided by a common language" becomes most evident. Words that sound fine ("just fine", perhaps) from the mouths of my US colleagues sound "folksy" to British ears. Or, the fifth time you have to make the same change, they sound "shite".

So, having finished that job on Tuesday last, it's taken until today before I can face words again.  I am doing what one traditionally does on this Bank Holiday; watching snooker, trying to avoid watching snooker and moaning about our horribly asymmetrical distribution of bank holidays. The US seems to have a public holiday every six week or so. Aren't they fortunate that their big events occurred with such a distribution through the year?

They are helped by their comparative official atheism. First amendment issues mean Easter isn't a holiday, and Christmas is limited to one day, with Thanksgiving and Independence Day (which commemorates the US special effects industry) being the big ones. Whereas once May is out, we find ourselves thinking that August is the only one left in the year (given that the business year stops about December 20th).

The kids like this bank holiday though. Its the only one they notice - the rest all falling in a holiday week. (I guess it is the same for teachers though I had never thought about it - they get so much holiday they probably don't notice*).

Three weeks from today I will be on a train back from Edinburgh where I will have been doing some concerts with Voxcetera. If you are up there, look us up and come along. Which means I have two and a half weeks to learn some French lyrics, a task that would have been helped by not leaving my folder behind at the rehearsal venue last week. But that still leaves me time to blog and annoy you further.

And it's handy that the same timeframe will see the European and (for Londoners) local elections, to ensure I have plenty to blog about. If you are looking for frothy talk about the comparative public holidays of the US and UK, come back in June.

We are starting to get electoral leaflets through the door - though the Tories and Labour are only talking about local issues, whilst the Greens and UKIP have a more European focus. Of the Libdems, there has been only silence.

I don't really understand the appeal of UKIP, though I don't think many do in multicultural inner London. Farage went to school locally to me (at Dulwich College) but hasn't really made his presence felt here. So we are a bit bemused about why his party gets so much TV time, or how that squares with the BBC's institutional left-wing bias.

The European elections give us all a chance to vote tactically - voting for parties in a multi-member constituency means that a vote for a fringe party (like the Lib-Dems#) can have value. I'm not sure if that explains the relative quiet from the big two. They may just be embarrassed about Europe I guess.

So stay tuned for some feisty political blogging.








* A good friend, on reading a post I had made on Facebook said to me, "you do realise that some people don't always get humour?" If there is no set-up or pay-off (I think drum-rolls or a boom-tish) they assume you are being earnest. So here goes: that was not a serious comment - I do not think teachers get too much holiday, and think they deserve a medal, more money and lots of holidays. Educating the next generation is the most important task. Go on, hug a teacher.

# similar comments. Go on, hug Nick Clegg. Or Lembit Opek if you must. Mike Hancokc, hmm, not so sure.