The Wat Tyler Letters Part I

18^th December 2013

Julian Brown, if you ever come to a pub in Bristol your money will be no good, for I will be the one buying you drinks.  Your letter last week giving UKIP a well deserved bashing made my week.  The likes of UKIP strut these Opinion pages like they are political messiahs.  There is nothing messianic about building up on old hatreds and prejudices.  People need the welfare state more than ever yet UKIP chide the government to hack away at it, instead of presenting ideas for making it more efficient for those who rely on it. 

     UKIP talk about opening up more Grammar Schools, ignoring the fact that many other countries vast perform us with schools with integrated classes.  UKIP promote the increased spending on defence with little vision about what to do with this new power, or how we can even afford it.

     UKIP have very few new ideas.  They are all reheated leftovers from the putrid carcass of conservative ideology.  Stuart Eels can save his snarling.  How can UKIP not be called a negative party when it is promoting hatred against the needy, the foreign and the foreign poor?

      As for Nigel Farage he is much like a creepy uncle at a wedding after party.  I don’t want politicians to assure me how like them they are by boasting how much they drink in their lunch breaks.  Integrity and policy is what I am looking for.  So far UKIP have delivered neither.

Wat Tyler

Bishopston, Bristol

 

23^rd December 2013

I am sick and tired of all of this misdirected outrage over the recent conviction of the Royal Marine who murdered an insurgent under his charge in Afghanistan.  Being at war is not a mitigating circumstance for his behaviour.  His colleagues seem to be able to do their job and behave themselves, so what excuse does he have?  Just because the Taliban fight without rules does not mean we should follow suit.  There has to be rules within war, and we are all the more morally superior for fighting under them, and long may we do so.

     The Marine deserves to be named because he is a murderer, pure and simple.  If you kill someone who is unarmed and has surrendered, you are a murderer.  If you do it while you are in a uniform you are a disgrace to that uniform and by extension the country you represent. There have already been too many crimes throughout history carried out by those wearing uniforms.  As for his family the shame he brings on them is unfair and I hope the British public will treat them fairly.  His reputation he has already sacrificed.  So I say good riddance to him.

 

Regards

 

Wat Tyler

Bishopston, Bristol

Left Wing vs. Right Wing in 2015: Prepare to be Underwhelmed

This time of year tends to make me quite nostalgic. It is nearing the end of party conference season. Just a few years ago I would be getting stuck in to the Liberal Democrat Conference. Aside from the motion debates, that can get a bit sterile, the fringe events offer an interesting distraction. Charities, business groups and political organisations host the fringe groups. In the evening you may be lucky enough to have food there. The Nuclear Industries Association's event last time I went had vats of fish and chips and a plentiful supply of wine, all inclusive with conference fees. Then there was Glee, the strange old liberal sing-along. I don’t remember a huge amount of Glee, a part from having an altercation with a very rude official with the Radical newspaper at the bar. Such are the hazards and opportunities at the conference. The last one I went to was in Liverpool in 2011 a great city to have a conference in. I met up with nearly everyone I campaigned alongside in 2010 including the candidate I still believe should have got in, despite my political differences between then and now.

This time around money, or more accurately a lack of which, and political uncertainties have lead me to sit Lib Dem Conferences out including this one. So now I am reduced to observer status at least for the time being. But on the whole the news coverage of all of the party conferences has given me an interesting vantage point from which to view the different courses of the UK's main political parties leading up to 2015. The Lib Dem conference wasn't particularly revealing. Although I notice that Nick Clegg is starting to sound a lot less apologetic and a lot more defiant. A part of me thinks 'good for him'. But then another part of me does wonder how in touch he is with the rest of his party and I am not talking about the MPs. I am talking about the rank and file members which not long ago included myself. Being a Lib Dem is constantly accused of as being synonymous with treachery or basically being a 'Yellow Tory'. Surely a bit of reassurance is due from the leader? More than the Letter from the Leader emails I still receive and line my Trash Inbox with. Some of the motions gone through in this conference tells me that the fight has gone out of us. Take our motion on our Trident nuclear missiles for example. We have decided we don’t want a like-for-like replacement of Trident, but we do want a nuclear missile launching system of some description, just cheaper. We missed an opportunity to have a serious debate about whether this country needs nuclear weapons in the first place. I am conscious that this is a debate that our Conservative partners are determined not to have, which makes me suspect that we have selfish motives for not advancing such a controversial position. But putting forward controversial and interesting debates is what attracted me to our party in the first place. If this is gone I am not sure what else there is for me.

The Labour and Tory Conferences have been the real eye openers this time around. Mostly because the former has actually decided to grace the British public with the presence of some of their policies. The tone of these policies look decidedly left-leaning, socialist even by the look of the price freezing idea for energy bills. Labour have now openly declared a return to socialism of some kind, likely trying to become a magnet for leftist discontent with the Coalition, of which there is much. More controversially their proposals included one for the government to essentially seize unused land from any owners, to free it up for housing development. To back up their left hook the Labour Conference also made mention of taxing bankers’ bonuses to pay for certain reforms.

The Tory's on the other hand are advocating a distinctly free market orientated pitch for Britain with American sound-bites. "Land of Opportunity" was mentioned more than once by David Cameron. Essentially the Tory line is that state activism has its limits and ultimately only jobs produced by a vibrant economy will be beneficial to the country. This rhetoric pretty closely follows the Tory line of individualism, the conservative creed of self help. Taking advantage of public support for welfare cuts more of these were announced by George Osbourne to big applause by the party rank and file. Notably less applause came from Ian Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State who will have to actually implement the cuts within his own department.

Now lets get one thing straight, I have no intention of voting for either Labour of the Tories. I dislike them both in equal measure, so I make the following judgement from an equal footing of loathing. Both parties are propagating false visions while promising false dawns and are presenting a false picture of Britain and its' citizens.

Labour has breezily brought in a price freeze, neatly avoiding any inconvenient questions about what consequences these could have for the energy companies. The concern of the energy companies in Labour-speak is the less of their concerns than the people of Britain, which is all very well and good until you look at the detail. This freeze will likely effect smaller and often more ethical energy companies negatively, perhaps to the point of closing some of them down. The monstrosities of the energy market like Npower will power on while the Ecotricity's of this world will struggle to survive, thus killing what small private investment there is in renewable energy. Price controls of any kind always come with side effects, hence why I avoid state-planned economics. The Tory's are right in that there are limits in what the state can do, and controlling the economy successfully is one thing it has failed to do in the past.

And what of plans to seize so called idle lands for housing developments? The Daily Mail hailed this plan as Stalinist and in this one instance I am inclined to agree with this vile paper. Should the government just be able to order you to do something with your land? Surely we need some land idle for the sake of the environment. In general I agree with the 'my land, my rules' ethos, so long as you aren't building a private army or something else illegal. This is simply sidestepping the issue of the housing shortage and blaming the public for government inaction on this matter. I think a better plan would be to re-examine and simplify planning laws and give tax breaks to house building companies that renovate individual houses and neighbourhoods. I am not a fan of mass new building because I think this will only drive up prices further and imperil the environment.

When it comes to banker bonuses I really couldnt care less. I am not one of those people who discriminate people by profession, so I dont feel the need to single bankers out. We need bankers. Bankers provide credit to business which create jobs. And I am acutely aware that not all bankers are criminals or behave unethically. I dont see Labour advocating a tax on high paying Union jobs, many of which come for with a paid for house.

The Tories on the other hand are painting a very rosy picture of how things are now in contemporary Britain. The economy is apparently expanding, but there seems to be scant evidence of it in many places. Things are especially hard for many people my age. Unemployment for people in their 20s is disproportionately high. University fees has gone up meaning that in many British universities foreigners can often afford to go to university's more than the natives can. Colleges are either closing or having their facilities cut. Cameron's latest brainwave was to cut benefits for people below 25, imploring them to either 'work' or 'learn'.

This policy is disingenuous and completely separate from reality in contemporary Britain. How are young people supposed to work when there aren't enough jobs around? How are young people supposed to learn when the means of them doing so are being cut? And more importantly why are people under 25 less worthy to receive state help than their elders? I have been working consistently since I was 18 and my fiancé has since she was 16. If I had no support early on in my time in Bristol I have had to move back home where the job prospects would have been a lot less bright. But the language around this idea presumes that these under 25 year olds would not have their job prospects alter from such a move, and presuming that they actually have a parent's home to go to. But it is the sense of the lack of entitlement for the young an over-entitlement for the elder that I have a big problem with. The latter in many ways harbour responsibility for supporting policies that have put us in the dire straights we are in now. I don’t think either young people or old people should be put on the "scrapheap", a phrase persistently used by Grant Shapps on Question Time last Thursday. If there are cuts we should all feel the burden together.

I am inclined to agree that savings can be made with the welfare budget. But I don’t necessarily see it as a bad thing that we spend more on welfare than defence. This division of priorities merely reflects reality on the ground. Strategically we have few immediate threats in the world, at least in terms of ones that can be countered by armies. Furthermore our country is recovering from a very large recession, which many people need a helping hand to recover from. Many savings from the welfare budget can be gained very quickly by simply bring the Department of Work and Pensions into the 21st century. For instance, illogically DWP takes peoples email addresses but still insists on sending communications by letter, which costs money and time. This is just the tip of the iceberg for a terribly inefficient department. More than once during my recent period of unemployment the advisors at the Jobcentre lost my notes. The government needs to make sure the DWP provides a public service for its users, as oppose to just providing cutting chum to an ignorant public.

This language has carefully avoided the issue of where welfare is being spent. Interestingly enough the main beneficiaries of the welfare budget are the elderly. Yet while this is the case old people are not being portrayed as scroungers while unemployed young people increasingly are. Why is this? Well I think a part of the answer is that elder voters tend to be more conservative leaning. More importantly elders increasingly vote more than young people. That is why when I do eventually run for Parliament I want to focus on making young people enthusiastic about politics again. Surely some of them if not many of them have cause to be angry. The worse thing they can do is to give in to apathy.

Furthermore the Conservatives new mortgage initiative, while it may prove handy for many Brits, ignores those of us who live in rented accommodation with less than consistent good service from our landlords. Conservatives have quietly left questions aside about how to address the unequal division of wealth. Economic growth means very little to people who will receive very little from it.

The Spirit of The International Brigades

During the usual melee of Facebook group debating, as it is politely called I was suddenly faced with an interesting question. This debate was concerning the question of whether the West should intervene in Syria. I stated my position that I was pro-intervention, and then proceeded to be faced by the usual herd of Facebook keyboard chimps, flinging their excrement at me and shrieking. I was scanning through it when one critic interrupted his monologue of character assassination against me to put an intriguing question to me; since I cared so much about the Syrian overthrowing Assad, would I be prepared to put my life on the line and go to Syria to fight with the rebels?

My first reaction was to scoff at the question and dismiss it as ridiculous. Me? Go over there and fight? Then I went through it with a logical and moral mind. I have stated I support intervention, so surely if I don’t volunteer to carry it out myself I am a hypocrite? Is it right for me to in reality support intervention, when what that means is essentially volunteering someone else, members of the UK's armed forces, who will end up taking a bullet for the cause I support? In a legal sense it does makes sense given the government-society set up, whereby I pay taxes to fund those forces. Furthermore those people who are in those forces have sworn an oath, by stupid arcane tradition to the Queen, but in actual fact to do whatever the elected government of the day tells them.

So yes the armed forces are there, paid for me the UK taxpayer and will jump when our elected government will tell them to. But that still doesn’t get me out of my moral conundrum completely does it? Would I be willing to fight and very possibly die in the fight against Bashar Al-Assad? I am then forced through the practicalities of my hypothetical freedom fighting adventure including; a lack of knowledge of the Arabic language, a woeful lack of money, a lack of knowledge about who to sign up with and my Mum and fiance having a joint heart attack. But at the end of it I am forced to admit that no, I am not willing to go out there and fight. And I am faced grim prospect that I may well be in some way a hypocrite. Not for the first time, and likely not for the last time.

I then started to ponder over the tradition of people volunteering to fight for a cause in a foreign land on their own initiative. During the Vietnam War some British former servicemen volunteered to join the fight on the US-backed South Vietnamese side against the Communist North Vietnamese. In the idealistic view of these volunteers this meant fighting for democracy against Communism. In reality the South was anything but democratic. The US gave medals to the volunteer servicemen who dedicated their lives to the cause.

Perhaps the most famous example of a mass volunteer soldier effort was the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War, which took place 1936 to 1939. The Spanish Civil War started when General Francisco Franco lead an army revolt against the government of the newly proclaimed Spanish Republic. Franco rallied rebels within the army along with various conservative and right wing factions, all of whom were angry at the reforms made by the republican government. These reforms included the abolition of the Spanish Monarchy and the separation of church and state. While Franco had the elite Spanish Army of Morocco to rely on, much of the main army, the fascist phalangists and various conservative factions to fight the nationalist cause the Republicans had to cobble together a resistance quickly. Through the Socialist, Communist and Anarchist parties and their channels in Spain volunteers from all over the world were called up to fight.

Many answered the call. Some were ex-servicemen. Some were ardently of a socialist, Communist or Anarchist disposition. Many were very prophetic in seeing the danger that Fascism posed to the world if it was left unchallenged. The Western Democracies chose to sit the war out. But in so doing they left a vacuum to be filled by dictators; Stalin on the Republican side, Hitler and Mussolini on the other. By one estimate 32,000-35,000 members of the International Brigade fought. In the end their struggle was in vain. Franco won. But in recognition of their sacrifice, this year surviving members of the International Brigade were given honourary Spanish passports by a Spanish government that is not yet a Republic.

For many reasons the prospect for a similar International Brigade looks pretty slim today. I have geared my academic brain to asking why this is. One of the reasons I can nail down is that the world's public is not only more experienced in the horrors of war, and know what it looks like thanks to the era of 24 hour news. Images of carnage from half a world away bombard us every day, giving us a million different reasons not to leave our comfortable lives. A second reason is the cynicism that now accompanies the idea of fighting for a political ideology. Political ideologies in a globalised world are in a constant state of flux. That which do exist today have changed massively since the era of the Spanish Civil War. Idealism for better or worse is dead or at least dying.

A third reason which would make anyone think twice about embarking on an International Brigade style mission is exemplified by the Iraq War. Put simply, many people are tired of wars seemingly for wars' sake and the rest simply do not care. The Iraq War in many ways is an example of when idealism (some would say arrogance) is put ahead of being practical. Everyone is suspicious of someone sounding like a missionary who wants to do their duty at the point of a bayonet, well they should be.

Having said that there is still much evil in the world. Corrupt and dictatorial regimes that deserve to be overthrown are all around such as Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe and North Korea, yet stand pretty much unchallenged. They stand unchallenged mostly due to the war weariness of Western Democracies and their refusal to challenge them. But I wonder, if an organisation similar in style to the International Brigades existed, couldn’t revolutions in any of these troubled spots be given a helping hand? However any such organisation would be faced with many practical problems. Who would finance the organisation? What would stop government's using such an organisation for its' own nefarious purposes? Who would the ground troops be? What would stop these soldiers causing atrocities? I do not have a full response to these queries, but I would say that the constitution for this organisation would have to be carefully formulated.

So the International Brigades are a part of history. But they exist in a type of cruel imitation today. I speak of Muslim extremist insurgencies all across the world, but most notably in Syria. In recent years, idealistic young Muslim men have left our shores to fight under the banner of groups such as the Al Qaeda affiliated Al Nusra front. On one level I can admire their idealism and enthusiasm while I detest the ideology they hold. Holy War it seems is back in vogue. I wonder whether secularists such as myself will one day have to counter their idealism.

But I detest just as much the apathy and idealism gripping the British people. Not just as regards Syria but what happens across the rest of the world too. So what? There is suffering in this country right? I was asked this before by a colleague. He pointed out that there are kids in care in this country. I sat patiently and quietly and took this in. Then I pointed out that when it rains in Mumbai poor kids with no care homes to go to are often flushed down storm drains, where they drown. I then left him stunned and went about my day.

Syria: Watching it Burn

Suddenly Syria is back on the agenda. This issue has been meandering in and out of the main public discourse for as long as the conflict has been going on, pushed out by various issues deemed more important to Britons. An Olympics there, deteriorating economy there a Royal baby who you would have to live on the moon to avoid news of. Things started out in the now familiar Arab Spring context. The people protested against their government and demanded more of a say in how their country is run. In response the government shot at them, over and over again. Soon the inevitable happened; the people shot back. What started as a few simmering skirmishes turned into a civil war, then slowly and surely morphed into a glimpse of a regional one. But as bad as it got it wasn't quite bad enough to discuss anything other than sending over non-lethal aid. It was certainly not bad enough in the opinion of the politicians and the people who voted them in this country and much of the West. In the wake of a shaky Eurozone and austerity measures, this additional problem came at a time decidedly inconvenient for us. It is undoubtedly immeasurably more inconvenient for the Syrian people themselves.

 

So the brain trust of our political masters had a plan. Granted it seemed hardly justifiable to act now, it simply wasn't horrible enough as defined by their humble assessments. But if Assad or the rebels used chemical weapons a "red line" would be crossed, all bets would be off and the West would race in and settle accounts. It seemed no one believed that this line would come, then it did. And the US in particular as demonstrated for Obama opted for more caution instead of more action. If chemical weapons were used, verification would have to be carried out it was reasoned. Even when verification from the UK, France and Israel among other came Obama urged caution, the US intelligence juggernaut had still not delivered its verdict. Just to make sure the world was listening the culprits pulled the same trick again almost as if to make sure we were looking. Now it is no longer in debate that chemical weapons have been used. Certainty has been restored, and the inconvenient fact that over 700,000 lives have been snuffed out with good old fashioned firearms and bombs has been put aside as a minor annoyance.

 

So the arm chair politicians and strategists, admittedly a vice I am not completely innocent of, are out in force. What is to be done? How? Who's army? The latter question is the most permanent. Conservatives and UKIP supporters in particular are out for blood thanks to the UK defence cuts making a mockery of our previous imperial power status. We are not powerless, but our power is waning. But in this we are not alone. Europe with the exception of Germany is in economic recovery mode and suffering under similar austerity measures. So no one nation is really in a position to solve this problem alone. This has to be a coalition effort. France seems keen to get involved. The US seems less so but has begun to position itself on the warpath.

 

We the UK seem as little more than an assertive and at times a little bit of a morally self righteous little country at times like this. But we are far from powerless and we still have a powerful voice. I am divided for practical reasons about what a military intervention might achieve. My pessimism is mostly down to my belief that an earlier intervention may have supported a more cohesive and less extreme rebel force. Now extremists are growing among the rebels. But for principle and long term stability's sake, I am pretty certain that President Assad has to go. But in order to bring this about there is one angle we have avoided for reasons of political expediency, leaning on Russia.

 

Assad's Syria has long been a client state of Russia. Even now despite sanctions and international condemnation Russia backs Assad, only slightly wavering at the chemical weapons. You need only look at the tone which Russia addresses the West with to know that the Putin clique does not respect us. An infamous feature of the Syrian debacle has been their Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov wagging his finger at us, urging us to stay out while Assad 'resolves' the problem. Despite the fact that such resolving seems to require an extreme amount of bloodshed. And yet what is the UK's response to Russia? There were pictures taken and handshakes given in front of No 10. Putin is feted like a statesman while he acts in the manner as anything but one. Meanwhile a Russian ship carrying arms to Syria is stuck in Scottish waters in insurance grounds, hardly a bold blow struck for freedom.

 

Germany is one of the only larger nations that have taken a harder line against Russia. Germany under Chancellor Angela Merkel has openly criticised Putin, cancelled state visits between Russia and Germany and has encouraged the growth of Russian human rights activist groups in Russia. I firmly believe that it is in the UK's interests to encourage Germany to come out of its World War Two shadow. The decline of European hard power thanks to defence cuts means a more assertive Germany has a place in the world. I hope one day Germany will be as keen to commit to interventions such as Syria as much as France is.

But today is Friday 29th August 2013, the day after the House of Commons vote on Syria. The government has been defeated, meaning that the UK will militarily at least sit this one out. Many people are happy about this, including many friends of mine. For myself I could not be more disappointed. As far as I am concerned Labour has done the "right thing" to exorcise the demons left from the Iraq debacle more than anything. Ed Miliband is now spoken of very disingenuously as a statesman. And now the UK will sit by and do nothing, while the unlikely alliance of France and the US may take the lead instead.

 

My anti-war friends tell me that this is good news. We aren't going to kill anyone. No imperialist solutions etc. Despite what I believe, for better or worse they have their way now. Maybe future events will prove that this fight will resolve itself before too much more suffering befalls the Syrian people. However I would like my friends to consider this; if you were the Syrian rebels, after your victory over Assad, would you come to the UK's aid if they were in need?

The Star Wars-ification of Star Trek: A concern for all dedicated Trekkies

I have a dream that one day people will respect your Science Fiction franchise, without it having to sell its soul to the mainstreaming ambitions of up and coming directors. 

I have a dream where such franchises will not make its loyal fans mourn for its golden years, by littering it with cheap gimmicks like pointless little creatures following around main characters and jokes that aren't funny.

I have a dream that the dumbing down of the political-cultural make up of the universe the said franchise will cease.  To show respect to the fans who took the time to understand it and the writers who had the vision to write it.

These are the thoughts and feelings that swept over me as I watched the latest in the series of the Star Trek reboot, Star Trek: Into Darkness.  On the whole, I have to say it is a film that is hard not to enjoy. However I think this is more from the standpoint of someone who hasnt experience the wonder, the magic of the Star Trek world.  Yes I speak about this from the standpoint of an out of the closet trekkie. The film hits you with a sledgehammer of expensive CGI, blends a few War of Terror related issues into the plot and has plenty of gags in the script and is generally very well acted.

So what is the damn problem?  The damn problem simply put is I want Star Trek and this isn't it!  Too much of what I saw calls me back to the tragedy-comedy and at times car crash awfulness of the Star Wars reboot that began with the Phantom Menace.  Plenty of money was spent on a story which while hinted at depth, largely avoided depth of any kind.  It was basically a cinematic theme park and not much else.  And that is where I see Star Trek going, and it is for the most part already there.  Let me tell those not blessed by the world of Star Trek (the real one), so you know what you are missing.

Put simply Star Trek has everything.  The Klingons are a warrior race who place a high value on honour.  They at first act like an imperial power until suddenly disaster strikes.  Their moon explodes, polluting the atmosphere of their homeworld and leaving them without their main source of energy.  They are threatened with extinction, so have to start a peaceful partnership with the United Federation of Planets next door.  They eventually become valuable allies, eventually fending off an empire seeking to dominate all civilisations in their quarter of the galaxy.

 To avoid war with the Cardassians the federation has to withdraw its presence from the fringes of its territory, leaving many colonies to the Cardassians.  Former Federation settlers refusing to abide by the terms of this treaty form a paramilitary organisation The Maquis in order to defend their homes from the Cardassians.  The Ferengi are a commerce obsessed race that abides by the Rules of Acquisition like a holy book. 

Data is an android who enlists in Starfleet.  At first devoid of human emotions he learns to fit in with his human crewmates and adapt to human behaviour.  When he gets human emotions he struggles to control them, but eventually sees their value.  His Captain Jean Luc Picard passionately defends him in a trial to argue that he should be treated as a person, not a machine.

This is but the tip of the iceberg of Star Trek and its multiple series and films.  Full of depth and complexity which is being crushed out of it with a big budget steam roller.  I have come to the conclusion that what the overrated JJ Abrams is trying to do is adapt Star Trek for 21st century culture.  And it angers me that this is being done.

21st century culture is against complexity.  In this world of instant gratification where you can see a youtube clip on your phone without having to wait to see it at home on your PC, who has time for complex subplots about character development?  Who has time for long running debates about technology's effects on human beings?  Who has time to care about the intricacies of an alien culure someone has took the time to make up?  Who has time and who cares?  Not the people carrying the baton of Star Trek right now.  What we have now isn't Star Trek, it is Star Trek-lite.

For those who disagree with me I leave you this thought.  If you dont want complexity, compelling character development, cultural debates and genuine nerd-tastic sci-fi then stick around the JJ Abrams incarnation of Star Trek will fit your bill.  But be warned, this is not Star Trek and your lives will be duller for not experiencing real Star Trek.  To call it Star Trek is blasphemous and dishonours its great legacy. 

And one final thought to stop you all sleeping at night; what kind of a culture are we if we reject complexity and debate for the sake of money?

Running

In September 2007 I found myself in the living room of my first post-university house in Bristol.  As days went by I eventually managed to meet all of my housemates and introduce myself.  One night a few of us were in the living , I think we were watching CSI in the background.  Not knowing a huge amount about each other we asked each other what we would like to be in 10 years time.  A teacher came the first.  A businessman was the second one.  Then there was Prime Minister as the final answer.  That was myself.

I was almost as surprised as my housemates, who gave me a kind of disconcerting as though I was a megalomaniac.  I only knew there was a glimmer of truth in it myself.  Did I want to be an MP?  Certainly, but Prime Minister is a different ball game.  I am not even anyway near being an MP and the 10 year timetable I seem to have set myself since 2007 now stands at 4 years.  It is conceivable to be elected as an MP in those years, but without the assistance of a future coup d'etat, PM is almost certainly a near impossibility. 

Looking back on my impulsive declaration to my housemates, much has changed since then apart from the scrapping of my hairbrained semi-serious political timetable.  I do not as it stands fully identify with any of Britain's political parties, the big 3 included.  Historically I stood with the Liberal Democrats and indeed there are many Lib Dem MPs and councillors I proudly speak up for.  While they have put some useful reforms through while in coalition government, which they will never get credit for, I get the feeling that something has changed in the party.  Some of the MPs have become too pro-establishment and too hard skinned towards the public to whom they used to be more approachable.  Power changes people, and if I am elected into political office I am sure power will change me too.  But I will endeavour to remember not to bite the hand that feeds me.

So as it stands I have one of my goals to run for Parliament at some point in my life.  I must stress this wont be any time soon.  Financial restrictions aside, as it stands I feel I am simply too young to stand now.  I need more life experience, which informs my own developing political views, which are never concerete.  As John Maynard Keynes said "when the facts change, I will change my mind.  My political views generally hail from the left although the possibility of progress through practical centrist politics fascinates me.  I started out as my Tory friend once called me as a "wacko commie".  After coming to my capitalist senses, due to growing up and talking to my friends on the right my views have moderated.  But some of my views associated with the hard left remain.  I remain a secularist and a republican.  I am also ethically against the use and maintaining of nuclear weapons.  I think a few Tory friends of mine are hoping these ideals will chip away in time.  With all respect to them I know different.  Some views are just a part of who you are.

So why do I want to be an MP?  The short answer is, I would like to help people and as many as I can.  I would like to help people with their bread and butter issues.  I also want to renew peoples enthusiasm with politics.  I hate political apathy, but I can see why some people feel it is easier just to sit on the sidelines.  I dont because instinctively I am a fighter and an unashamed political nerd.  But many people dont get involved because they dont feel knowledgable enough about our system.  I think this is very sad.  I want to be an MP, but I dont know everything about our system.  Even many MPs are lacking in expert knowledge, not in the least about the issues they are voting on.  I think the healthier attitude is to get involved and freely admit that you are learning as you go, and more importantly want to learn more, even from your ideological opponents.

As it stands I am playing around with some democratic reformist ideas.  Needless to say this includes a vision of Britain with an elected Head of State.  But more short term are some ideas that have been around since the foundation of democracy.  Ancient Athenes had a system called Ostracism in which voters could decide to exile a select number of elected officials for 10 years.  The idea behind this was to ward off possible tyrants and deter career politicians who dont pull their weight.  I am experimenting with the idea that we bring this back in the form of a 10 year ban on politcians being able to hold political office.  In addition I am considering promoting the idea of ballot initiatives, the public voting on laws that they choose to do so.  All of these ideas lie within my Radical Party manifesto, a continous work in progress.

So this is all to come one day.  Along with my plans to finally finish my novel (pending my plans to edit it to avoid possible lawsuits).  I am in no hurry with to accomplish either of these plans.  I am not going anywhere and I plan to live a while.  In the meantime I hope to embark on a career within the International Development sector, likely as a researcher and sit back and enjoy life.  I will marry the woman I love, read and watch my country's journey through the years. Then I will prepare for one of the biggest challenges of my life.  I am looking forward to it.

A Lightning Rod For Russian Democracy

Ever so now and then the media identifies a cause that generates a certain amount of buzz. They are often agitated by celebrities of some kind and may spread to become supported by sports personalities and the like. The genius of them lies in the simplicity of their message, and the contrasts between an issue here and somewhere else. In this case the issue is Russian Gay Rights, or lack thereof. This issue has piqued the consciences of many in the western world, due to the practical non-existence of government discrimination against homosexuals in the west (a few exceptions exist granted). How can they do that? Can you imagine that here? These questions are often heard in the context of these campaigns. As far as I understand Russia has had a rocky road with gay rights before, but the latest concerns have arisen from a law passed about preventing spreading "Gay Propaganda".

Words fail me when I mull over the term "gay propaganda", especially when it comes from the legislature of a country past and present that has much worse propaganda to worry about. From what I can tell this odious waste of Russian taxpayers money basically seeks to restrict awareness within the Russian public about gay issues. I believe this law is concerned about the teaching about gay rights issues to children. It is always about the children when it comes to backward social conservatism, then way I see it. And in some ways so it should be. Children need to know that people are born different and that the lives they lead are to be respected. The biggest lie of arch-social conservatism is that being gay is some choice. A gay friend of mine once turned around to me and said, "you know Zac if I could choose to be straight I would. Why would I choose a life that makes me more likely to be persecuted". Then my right honourable friend turned around and concluded with "But I like cock, so that is that" with a cheeky grin on his face, no doubt trying to make me squirm and thus leave me in a fit if liberal guilt. He failed in both endeavours I may add.

So homophobia is bad. I have established my tolerance credentials. Now for the controversial part. While I am acutely aware that the "gay propaganda" law will make many people's lives possible I think it is a campaign that is stealing the limelight from another one that will affect all Russians. I am referring to the steep decline in democracy in Russia. It is exemplified every day by stories of yet another opposition figure put on trial for fabricated corruption charges. It was exemplified by Vladimir Putin unconstitutionally running again and winning again the Presidency of Russia, allowing him to carry on putting nails into the coffin of Russian democracy, never fully realised. This Czar mentality was very publicly demonstrated when an operative of Putin's killed Alexandrer Litvinenko on our soil.

The Germans, through their Chancellor Angela Merkel have very publicly shown that they have had enough of Putin. And yet in the year of Alexander Litvenenko's inquest I see pictures of Putin striding across Downing Street to No 10, grasping the hand of our Prime Minister like some respectable state leader. President Vladimir Putin is a gangster-in-chief who is barely fit to crawl through Larry the No 10s cat flap never mind be given the full State welcome package. Dont get me wrong, diplomacy has to carry on. We still have diplomatic links with the inappropriately named Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.

So Stephen Fry to his credit highlights an important issue, gay rights under threat in Russia. But democracy in Russia is important to gay Russians too. In the media the issue of democracy in Russia took on a high profile with the reporting of mass demonstrations and the righteous outrage that came out over the imprisonment of the punk band Pussy Riot. But this very soon died out. In the interim between then and now came the issue of legalising gay marriage in Britain, which surprisingly enough the government turned into a debacle. The issue was widely talked about, the issue could be described as fashionable.

I think for better or worse the gay rights in Russia campaign is a typical 21st century campaign. The issue is important, because it is picking up a thread that has been bubbling around the media ciricuit in one form or another almost constantly. But in some ways that makes the prospects for other campaigns very bleak indeed. Are we so full of information and hooked on trends and issues of the moment that we can lose perspective? While gay rights is seized on now, questions about what is happening to democracy in Russia and what it means to us is being left alone.

The last issue what democracy means to us I think is the one that is most disturbing. From the evidence I have seen, I think a part of the reason of why we don’t trouble ourselves with the issue of democracy in Russia is because we are so disillusioned with our own. Turnout at the polls is shameful and the numbers are getting worst year after year. Anyone who talks about politics is seen as frankly a bit sad, or at best a nerd (derogatively). Even when people do talk about politics it is in reference to a few key issues. And always in reference to the bottomless cauldron of hatred the British have for politicians. There are very few places in the world where the profession is seen as entirely honourable, but even in places with worse corruption politicians in the UK are disliked disproportionately.

This sea of despair in the UK over our politicians halts most talk of what democracy means, and what it should look like structurally as well as how people would like it to change. But in order to go that far the British public needs hope. Hope that we can change our system for the better, which is in very short supply. Put simply, addressing questions about Russian democracy brings up inconvenient questions and bad feelings regarding our own.

If there is anything I want people taking the time to read this to take away with them it is the following. If athletes or visiting politicians feel the need to show a gay liberation flag at the Russian Winter Olympics, what is the harm in them flying the purple flag of democracy? Because by flying the colours of democracy in Russia they would be reminding Russians and their politicians of what we have and what many of them hope to achieve.

Fear of a Young Planet

The topic for this blog post came to me during an incident I experienced a few weeks ago.  At the time I was attending a grassroots campaign meeting aimed at improving British democracy and making it more accessible and ultimately more popular.  While I was waiting for the meeting to start I nursed my pint of ale while eavesdropping on a conversation between my fiance and another attendee at the meeting.  The gentleman in question, probably at least 50 years of age made a remark stating his concerns that the meeting would be dominated by "young people".  While I took these concerns on board I was somewhat puzzled by this remark.  Not in the least because aside from myself and my fiance ("young" in the sense that we are on the wrong side of 25), the older demographic outnumbered the young by at least 75% in that meeting.  What I found more disquieting was the fact that the implication was made that because we were young we were automatically some sort of invasion front for young interests, whatever they may be.
     This is not a new trend in British society, or society as a whole.  The media, politicians and lay people often display a more suspicious attitude to young people's involvement with current affairs more often than they look on such interest in hopeful terms.  I think this is a great shame and his wholly unnecessary and not a little patronising if not at times outright infuriating.  The legend of the elder and supposedly wider statesmen has wide reception.  In many ways the British Monarchy, an institution I wholeheartedly reject is guilty of supporting this line of thought. 
     Even Al Murray aka the pub landlord, one of my favourite comedians thinks that people of his age (late thirties I believe) are too young to be politicians.  The History Masters graduate Murray feels that political positions are better wielded by older and allegedly wiser people.  I would argue with him that his objection to the current political class is more due to his disatisfaction with their policies and content of character that may or may not have anything to do with their age.  Peter Hitchens made a comment portraying our current "young" generation of politicians as excitable and juvenile as naughty school children, even alleging that this mentality drives them into misjudged liberal military interventions in foreign countries.  This conveniently ignores cases of more elder statesmen in the past pushing us into questionable military adventures, such as Eden in the Suez Crisis in 1956.  Where was the elder restraint then?
     The comment from the meeting attendee made me somewhat disollusioned, albeit temporarily.  It seems us young people (however you define young) can never do any good.  If we ignore current affairs we are accused of being irresponsible apathetic drones. If we get involved then we are mounting an invasion.  And besides, since we are more wet behind the ears we obviously cannot offer as much experience as our elders.  Well I am experienced enough to bare in mind one Earth-shaking life lesson: age does not necessarily bring wisdom.  It is true!  I see it every day from parents (not naming names for PR reasons) who psychotically live their lives through their children, over fifties who do their best to run me over at pedestrian crossings and other offenders are all pieces of evidence I put towards my case.  And what of the case for bringing in new blood?  New and enthusiastic decision-makers and thinkers?  Are we so in love with what we have now that we don't want any of this.  No, to the contrary we live in a country so disollusioned with the establishment and the political class that it practically cries out for input from the young.
    The most important argument for young people's involvement in politics is simple, we have a right to be at the table and many legitimate interests to earn us a seat there.  Our country is beset by many long term problems that will preoccupy my generation and our children for years.  The environment globally is in crisis and our country faces an apocalyptic amount of national debt.  Of most concern to those critical of young people becoming politically engaged is the issue of care for the elderly.  It is our generation who will decide how to manage the care of our elder critics.  Because of this, surely it is a time that they learn to talk less at us and more with us.  We are hear to stay and we deserve respect.  It is about time that we are given some.