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.

Better than a Certain 3D Christmas message

I have returned to Marlborough in Wiltshire to stay with my family for the Christmas week. As I start this Christmas break I have a funny feeling of deja vu. Many years ago, although it doesn't seem that long ago, I came back home to Wiltshire as a uni student, idealistic and looking forward to the future. But at the same time not entirely sure where that future would leave me. I find myself in a similar position today. I am yet again at uni, though not at UWE but at the posher (although founded long ago via tobacco industry money) University of Bristol. A part of me feels a bit like an overgrown kid, going to classes and spending hours at the library like I did between the years of 2004-2007.

 

The past term has been an eye opener. I have met some extraordinary people. Some who dwell in these soggy isles, others who have come from much further away. We have all congregated in the great city of Bristol to learn about the hallowed field of International Development, in my case it is to learn about that and International Security. When I was asked what International Development was in "in a nutshell" by someone who by their own admission didn't care about the answer, I gave them an offhand answer meeting their level of enthusiasm: "it is about feeding starving babies and shit". That may seem a bit crass, but while my nervous younger self used to feed the egos of people who treated with me with disdain, nowadays I am too old to entertain such sensibilities.

 

International Development seems to be many things, in a polite nutshell, it is about analysing why certain countries don't seem to work, and helping to fix them. In the colonial days and early post colonial days we were very confident we could cure the ills of other (and as far as we were concerned lesser) countries. Nowadays we have the vantage point of history, that is the ability to look on a history of unintended consequences, absolute failure, disappointment and often at best half truths. There are simply put, no right answers in International Development. Some academics say we should just get out of the Development business for good. While I am less idealistic about the cause I am when it comes down to it still a believer in the field's mission. As far as I can tell the field will not die but instead will change. It will have to take into account politics in the wider world (which is inescapable) and be aware that with great power comes great responsibility.

 

Politically I have changed too. When I first arrived at UWE a good Conservative friend of mine referred to me as a "wacko commie". Now I have still some beliefs that could be described as some as "wacko" but I am not in the least "commie". I am still republican (want an elected head of state) am staunchly against nuclear weapons and believe in the total separation of church and state. I have moved on from my Che Guevara phase, although I respect certain elements of his character and personal philosophy. I no longer look on those strange beasts we call Conservatives as money grabbing monsters that feed on the flesh of poor people, well not all of them anyway. While before I saw a wide unbridgeable chasm like divide, between the right and the left.  To me that chasm is looking less and less wide every day.

 

This probably sounds pretty wishy washy and far-fetched. I only realised how moderate I have become when I found myself encouraging some leftist activist students to engage with Conservatives with similar goals in mind. Some of the students reacted in a way I would have done 5 years ago, that is react like I have been asked to do a deal with the dark lord Sauron. Don't get me wrong, those on the right and left can't agree on everything and likely won't ever. But I think with the way things are in this country, with politicians as hated as they are, some co-operation may be just what we need.

I read a good article in The Economist the other week. It described the state of this country in a rather sad light. This country is basically in damage control. We are in full austerity mode. Public expenditure is down as are expectations. It is a time of licking ones wounds and not too great expectations for the future. A government once abound with great noises about reformism and radicalism (of sorts) has allowed that wave of excitement and expectation to pass and peter out. We are in short a country without a mission, a purpose. The article described us as in a way in stasis, on a flat line, seemingly drifting into irrelevance and terminal decline.

What gets to me most about this period of history is the base feelings it generates. Bitterness and tight fisted attitudes abound. People who need help are automatically suspect, people are encouraged to spy on their neighbours to make sure they are not benefit cheats. Rich people more than ever are singled out by virtue of being rich. Some of them are accused of not paying their way. Some of them probably don't, but it is not just the wrong doers who are being singled out in this witch hunt. At the same time we are fearful, we want our streets orderly and uneventful. In return for this order we are allowing more and more police control to creep into peaceful protests. Protesting once seen as a great British tradition is worryingly starting to be seen as troublesome and in some cases ‘disloyal’.  But we still have hope, some of it rests with genuine pillars of our community, others rest with false idols.

 

As a republican some of those false idols are the Royal Family.  I reject the institution of the British Monarchy on moral principle grounds, political technical grounds and personal grounds.  I shall not elaborate on this blog, for I have stated my views many times over on that matter.  But suffice it to say I think this country’s people need to find the confidence to challenge its institutions when they fail to meet their expectations or defy them outright.  Institutions are there to promote stability and continuity.  But I say continuity is only worth pursuing when its’ ends are just and serve the true ideals of the people. 

 

I have started a long term project, the Radical Party Manifesto.  It is basically my ideal political manifesto, with a difference.  With the exception of my main radical beliefs (republicanism/nuclear disarmament/church and state separation/environmental regulation) I have purposefully dedicated this manifesto as a centrist reformist project.  It is probably an idealistic project doomed to failure, but I thought I should try it as an experiment to see what could come out of it.  The idea is to basically analyse ideas from all parties in the UK systems and see if some kind of centrist course can be woven in between them to find some similarities and shared visions if not ideas.  It is basically a blue sky project, something that is not necessarily made with political realities in mind.  It is supposed to promote a more technical view of politics as a problem solving process, not an ideological shouting match.  How politics in this country has got to this state I believe is down to the hypocrisy of the public AND politicians.  The only way I see out of it is to get people to challenge conventional thinking and actually think, about why people who disagree with them think the way they do.  To actually get to know their enemies, before they are encouraged to hate them, bankers, welfare claimants, leftists etc.  To actually look at a situation, analyse a problem and solve the damn problem and challenge conventional thinking.

 

I have no illusions, I don’t think the above project will solve all problems within British politics.  But I am a confessed politics nerd, and this sort of stuff is like catnip to me.

 

I still don’t know exactly in what job I will work in when I graduate.  It will intersect with foreign affairs/development in some way I am sure.  I am not sure if I want to be an outright Development worker.  I am a humble politics nerd.  I have simple dreams of being a bookish and enthusiastic Foreign Office researcher living with my lovely girlfriend in a house clustered with my books and her art projects with a dog and a cat (brought up with each other so they don’t tear each other apart) in a liberal part of London I don’t detest.  But one day, one day I would like to leave this simple life to try to get elected to a seat within the House of Commons, with an idealistic manifesto.  Even if I would end up losing that chance I would be happy to have tried, to make that place less a place of disappointment and one of hope.  And then I would go back to my book clustered hovel.

A New Moral Crusade?

I have been reading more and more about the crime of Human Trafficking lately. It makes for interesting and at the same time very uncomfortable reading. Some aspects of it will appear in one of my marked essays so I will have to be deliberately vague here.

Like I said the material I have read makes for very uncomfortable reading. Especially from the standpoint of a male. While guys, often very young ones are susceptible to this kind of exploitation, the victims remain predominantly female. To be female in this world is to be more vulnerable on many levels than men to any number of sources of exploitation. Is this a coincidence that men have a monopoly on governance in this world? Probably not. So after us men have swallowed those hard pills what are we to do?

I currently reside in Bristol, a city second only to London in terms of the scale of Human Trafficking. I once lived in a, shall we say 'modest' room a few miles further north in Bristol. A year after I had left that particular household I found out that within the apartment block up the street, resided a man that used the services of a certain prostitution service. He requested the same girl every week, who herself was barely in her teens if at all.

So we know such immoral activities not only exist but thrive, and not on a TV screen but in some cases it can be as close as next door. And yet moral outrage is averted. We stay busy with problems more central to our lives, we have bills to pay etc. The problem carries on and the song remains the same.

It seems nowadays that our country is in national self-repair mode. We have austerity measures upon austerity measures to carry out. We are clawing back money from the EU while fiercely defending what it can and cannot touch (mostly the latter). When we send out foreign delegations it is to spread the word of UK business. International outreach for our national needs. I am not trying to argue that such action does not need to be carried out. Of course it does, international trade binds us all together, keeps the nationalist gremlins at bay and makes us much less likely to want to kill each other.

But in the past we have not been so self-interested. Nearly 200 years ago today our Houses of Parliament outlawed the institution of the slave trade (not slavery which took a few decades longer), thanks in large measure to the efforts of William Wilberforce. I would recommend William Hague's biography of Wilberforce. From then on our national strength was directed at liberating those still held in bondage by our own countrymen as well as others. With the strength of the most powerful navy in the world we had a massive stick to wield against the evil institution.

At the moment I feel we are a country without a mission foreign policy wise and in other senses. I wonder what would happen if we made a sudden change and declared Human Trafficking to be the new Slavery? If there is a cause worthy of a moral crusade I feel it is this one. Many of the solutions in terms of the crime are not just possible, in many places they have already been carried out. All that is required is the political will and the public backing. And why just leave it to the state? Politicians and the public would reap the rewards if people were actively encouraged to engage with the voluntary groups that already operate against Human Trafficking, I am sure they would welcome the help and the exposure.

One could be cynical and ask, with so much suffering in the world why start here? I have three answers to this. One this problem is so clearly visible and potentially solvable (at least in terms of reducing it) that we have a moral obligation to tackle it. Two, we the public are guilty by association of allowing it to continue. Some among us pay for the continuance of this vile industry, so we the majority of the British public have a moral obligation to make up for this, by showing that we reject their actions. Thirdly, this country long ago committed itself to getting rid of slavery. The fact is slavery still exists. Human Trafficking is a case of unfinished business on our part.

Any action on our part would have to tackle the problem at its root and cause parts. That is the reasons why people get enslaved by trafficking networks would have to be looked at and the traffickers punished. Victims of trafficking should not be treated like criminals, but in many cases are. Punishing them is waste of time when we could be making an example of those who profit from the trade, thereby creating a real deterrence from engaging in this trade.

Many of the barriers stopping Human Trafficking from being righteously attacked by the state are due to uncomfortable political truths.  Activists against Human Trafficking have more than once eluded to the fact that many officals in our political system use the services of this base trade, including some foreign diplomats.  With the former we can expose and prosecute, with the latter we can expose but cannot prosecute thanks to diplomatic immunity.  But we can simply hand over a foreign ambassador their passport and ask them to leave.  Such exposure would create a political firestorm.  But sometimes such firestorms serve a purpose.  People need to be worried and enraged about these issues.  Losing their constituency is the least that an MP deserves for being implicated in being involved with a Human Trafficking network.  Yes, such allegations need to be handled with care.  Any criminal investigation should have the suspect's right in mind to not be treated as guilty until proven to be.

Politically speaking a broad coalition against Human Trafficking could be constructed.  Besides the fact that the crime is morally indefensible, the crime presents us with many issues that will concern varied parties.  Those that hail from the right want our borders secure, the existence of this crime shows they are not.  The fact that this crime is being carried out so close to home means that there is likely a certain amount of corruption in our government institutions.  This kind of corruption, especially in our security concerned sectors of government is a concern to everyone all over the political spectrum.

My dream job is Foreign Secretary of the UK. I would love one day to invite all of the main activists against Human Trafficking, including those who have had to hide out from corrupt governments. It would be a pleasure to invite them into my office and then ask them freely: "what can we (the country) do for you?"

Exodus

Good things come to those who wait. About four months ago I made the big decision to leave full time work and support myself with part time work, to make way for my re-entry into Higher Education. I had been toying with this idea a while before, weighing up the pros and cons of such a decision, as well as the practicalities of the plan. Eventually the practicalities were worked out and the decision has been made: I am going back to University to study for a Masters in Development and Security.

This decision will come as a surprise to some who know me, but probably not so much to those who know me well. The years between my undergraduate saw me at first go from one agency temp job to another. Thanks in large part to our country's shaky economy. Eventually I came to have a permanent contract job. The office is nice and the people are friendly and helpful. I had found stability at last. But in some ways stability can be a mixed blessing. While I was confident in my job and able to do it, I just couldn't see myself there long term. I eventually saw it as a means to an end, the end I was still working out, and in many ways still am.

So something had to give. I had to do my business or get off the pot so to speak. So I went back to why I went to university previously and what I would get out of it if I went back, if indeed such a plan was workable. Around the time that I did my undergrad in the great institute of the University of the West of England (UWE) I did it when my interest in current affairs was still fairly young, by about a few years. I decided that if my interest was genuine, it would certainly endure studying it in gruelling detail. And it did. I came out of the other side in one piece and with a 2:1, enough to get on to a Masters. I hadn't really considered further study back then. In part because I was sick of studying at the time. Most of the options open to me relating to my degree at the time were intern based, unpaid at that. So I let it go.

But now I know my interest in current affairs isn't just a temporary fad. I read the news regularly. I have read extensively in my leisure time about current affairs, particularly material relating to foreign affairs. I constantly update myself on the issues effecting the different regions of the world. I will always have an interest in domestic politics, but foreign policy is where I live and breathe. I know I will have to work hard and be competitive to get a job in the area I want to, but that is the reality I accepted when applied for a Masters.

I am realistic. When I graduate I may not get a job related to my Masters immediately. Perhaps not for months or even years. But I am prepared to play the long game. I work hard wherever I end up, whether it is working for imbeciles or paragons of virtue. Some people I know may think I am too unrealistic or idealistic. Some of those people may be my friends or other well-wishers. I don't hold it against them. I know they worry because they care. They should know a few things: I care about them too and I am doing this with my head held high and eyes open. I have the opportunity and it would be a great shame to let it pass.

I have a better idea of where I would like to end up eventually. Maybe I will work for a Development Agency. I also like the idea of working as a Research Analyst for the Foreign Office, a possibility that may be opened by the office's new interest in developing nations. If I pick the writing backup and build up a portfolio, the media is another possibility. The Foreign Office is looking at the moment to be near the top of my list. I would like to get close to where important decisions are made.

So there we have it. I have tomorrow and one more week of my current work, and then I am a student again. I am thoroughly excited. I am not sure of what some of my colleagues will think about my plan. I am admittedly a nerdy oddball about the office, hopefully a likeable one. I have my strict coffee routine and trot to lunch promptly with my book under my arm. I am by my own admission quiet. But this is not a meant as an affront to those around me. It could very well be that had I got to know certain people better, I may have made strong friendships instead of friendly acquaintances. But time passes by and ultimately I was not planning to stay for long. I wish those I leave behind in that humble establishment all the very best.

In Support of Pussy Riot

I strongly disagree with Rick Martin's letter in The Post on the 21st August regarding Pussy Riot's imprisonment. The Russian authorities should not be applauded for carrying out what was obviously a show trial by a kangaroo court. The court's refusal to hear many defence witnesses attests to the fixing of the trial from the start. The draconian sentencing was a statement made by the ruling clique of Russia that dissent against the country's 'managed democracy' would not be tolerated.

I take issue with the point Mr Martin said about the "older and religiously devout" being traumatised by Pussy Riot's protest. You need only take a glance at Russia's modern history to see economic collapse, enforced athiesm, war, terrorism and the choatic collapse of a police state. Amid all of this I am sure many elderly Russian worshippers would have seen more disturbing sights than Pussy Riot.

To dismiss Pussy Riots' protest as disrespectful religion is to miss the point of their protest entirely. Pussy Riot chose the cathedral in question as a venue because of alleged support that members of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church had given to Vladimir Putin's candidacy for the Presidential office. So far I haven't heard any messages from the hierarchy to object to the authorities' over-reaction.

I find it ironic that Mr Martin's remedy for the alleged ills for Pussy Riot is to force these feminists to read a book promoting patriarchy. As an athiest I find his assertion that a lack of religious leaning breeds bad behaviour offensive.

I commend the efforts of Pussy Riot to strike a blow for freedom. It is they who should be applauded, not the Thug-in-chief Putin and his minions in the Russian government.

Regards

Zachary Barker

Books that have Changed my Life Part I

Carrying on my books theme I have decided to conjure up a list of books that I believe have influenced my life.  This is an assortment of fiction and non-fiction works.  The serious to the fun.  And the straight laced to the crazy.  Take a gander.

'The Catcher in The Rye' by J D Salinger: I read this book after a bit of friendly coercion from my dearest girlfriend Ms. Fry.  This book was made infamous when it was discovered on the person of the man who shot John Lennon.  The American media then dully and unjustly made this book an infamous one.  On the contrary this is a brilliant book.  Told in third person prose the book tells a short tale of angst-full teenager Holden Caufield.  His frustrations, dreams and misadventures are laid out, written in 1950's pros (eg. people being dismissed as phoney).  This is a very fun and surprisingly addictive book.  The book is basically a short teenager's misadventure.  There is no massive ending to it, and the misadventure itself doesn't really have a point to it.  But it's the journey that is the attraction.  Not the destination.

'Dreadnought' by Robert K Massey: This is a massive book in many senses.  Accompanying its large physical size of over 900 pages, the scope of the book is massive.  This book describes the various sequence of events that lead to Britain and Germany ultimately going to War in 1914.  The book looks from the two main angles of the political side and the rivalry in the two navies.  Germany is described as an up and coming empire, with a domineering land army, but an at first tiny navy.  Then along came Admiral Von Tirpitz who inspired Germany to not only expand the navy but challenge the world's ultimate naval power, Britain.  Such a book written by anyone else I am sure would not nearly be as readable.  But Massey brings the stirring events and moving characters to life in a way I have not read in any other history book.  There are multiple biographies in this one book.  From Churchill, to the German diplomat in America who jumped out of a window for a bet.  Spinning a true tale of many years Massey shows how war between us and Germany became inevitable, and how decisions made long before dictated how the upcoming naval battles would play out.  This book had me gripped from its first few pages.
'For Whom the Bell Tolls' by Ernest Hemingway: Carrying on my history nerd obsession about the Spanish Civil War I decided to take the time to look into this book.  I'll say now that this book while is a slow burner, rewards the patient reader.  Very little action happens till towards the end.  But the suspense is built up to a convincing and gripping pitch. And seemingly uninteresting characters are slowly given more depth through snippets and flashbacks of their past which reveal more than a few dark pasts.  In a nutshell the story is about an American volunteer for the Republican side called Robert Jordan, who joins a guerrila band to blow up a nearby bridge.  The love story is a bit old fashioned but the backstories and the tension built up with the enemy closing in keeps you reading.  Your patience is rewarded at the end with one of the best cliff hangers I have ever read.

'The 60s Unplugged' by Gerard DeGroot: I got this book for Christmas after requesting it long ago.  I am not sure what made me ask for it or where I actually heard about it.  It was one of those impulse things.  But I am very pleased I did as for it.  This book is a Stealth Bomber.  It looks unassuming and you think you know what it is going to cover before you've read it. Then you start reading it.  Some of the usual events you associate with the sixties are there.  Woodstock, The Beatles, Hendrix etc.  These chapters which could easily have been a monotonous history are told with an unflinchingly frank narrative that exposes the ugly as well as the beautiful aspects of the times, and often with an ironic sense of humour.  Woodstock is revealed as an event that nearly didn;t happen, and ended with peace loving hippies being saved by medicals supplies flown in by US Army helicopters similar to those in Vietnam at the time.  The Beatles success is recalled, with a keen eye on the darker sides of the band members ambitions.  The mass production of transistor radios introduced a young generation to new music, that not played by the stuffy official stations.  In less well known events the Stonewall Inn Riots kick off in New York in one of the most important events in Gay rights history in the US.  The Sharpeville riot in South Africa intensifies the struggle against apartheid for the ANC, leading them to develop an armed wing in defiance of government oppression.  This is the real story of the sixties, in all of its wonderful, bloody and chaotic charm.

'The Revenge of Gaia' by James Lovelock: It was during my revision for my degree about environmentalist movements that I came across the name James Lovelock.  I studied his theory of Gaia: the concept of planet Earth as a single living and breathing organism.  Far fetched yes, but through this framework James Lovelock reveals some home truths about our world that everyone should hear.  Lovelock is remarkably and refreshingly frank: mankind has excacerbated global warming and poses a massive threat to biodiversity the world over.  And it is probably too late to patch things up.  What we are dealing with now is damage control.  What surprised me, and immediately made me take this book seriously was that he didn't just take aim at easy targets ie Climate change deniers.  Like an old man who has had enough he bluntly lists the ways in which the environmentalist movement is shooting itself in the foot, namely by mindlessly promoting organic food production (presuming wrongly that it does not cause environmental damage).  He clearly and loudly calls for the expansion of nuclear power as a way to produce low carbon producing, consistent and above all SAFE (statistically) power.  This is the ultimate anti-beard and sandals brigade book, consequently it is my environmentalist Bible.

'Jurassic Park' by Michael Crichton: Once you have read this, you will be reluctant to go back to the film.  This quite simply blows it out of the water.  This is how to write a thriller.  The plot is fast moving, but gripping.  This book has the action of the film mixed with intriguing philosophical debates, such as the issue of playing God and the intricacies of Chaos Theory.  This book is brainy and fun at the same time.  The characters as well are for the most part convincing, aside from the annoying screamy kids.

'Wiseguys' by Nicolas Pileggi: This is the book that eventually became the film 'Goodfellas'.  I admit I have a weakness for gangster flicks. But as a book in itself, it is a fascinating read.  The protagonist of the true story is the recently late Henry Hill.  As he describes it as a young man growing up with few prospects in Queens, he had few job prospects.  Eventually he gets attracted to the prospect of joining the neighbourhood mafia crew which is a part of New York's Lucchesse family.  This to Henry opens up a world of infinite possibility.  A word without consequences and lots of rewards.  Not a full Italian (he is half Irish on his father's side), he can only go so far in the ranks, and is barred from being 'made'.  Nevertheless his criminal exploits still escalate over the years to pull in some big returns.  Not in the least the famous Lufthansa heist at JFK airport.  Eventually Henry is forced to confront the rather large ugly side of the mafia, and eventually ends up on the wrong side of his former bosses and friends.  Left with no choice he turns witness and goes into hidding.  I am not quite sure what attracts me to this book.  Maybe it is the inner anarchist in me that likes it's sticking it to the man undercurrent.  We all need guilty pleasures when it comes to reading, this one's mine.


'Fear and Loathing Las Vegas' by Hunter S Thompson: I would not be suprised if this book would appear under the dictionary definition of 'chaos'.  The so called 'outlaw journalist' wrote this when he was sent on an assignment to report on an obscure motorcycle race.  He sent his bosses this, they were dumbfounded.  Straight away it throws you into the action.  Raol Duke (Hunter) and Dr Gonzo (his lawyer friend Acosta) are speeding towards Las Vegas out of their mind on drugs, with Hunter driving and seeing huge bats swooping in his face.  What follows that is a quick (the book is only a few hundred pages long with frequent breaks) dash of drug frenzied men behaving badly. It doesn't make sense.  There isn't really a plot as such, but I guarantee you won't read another book like it.

Stay tuned for part 2.

Why I am protesting the Jubilee

Where to begin?  To start I would challenge your idea Brendon, that the privileged and the wealthy should predominantly have the keys to power.  We all have a stake in this country, rich, poor, wealthy, educated and not.  And many of those who fit that description pay tax.  Therefore they have already have a stake in the country and should by rights have a voice within the government.  There have been some remarkably effective ministers who could be classed as uneducated or undereducated.  A great example is Ernest Bevin.  After little formal schooling he began his working life as a dockworker, in Bristol no less, often earning less than a fiver a day.  And yet he rose up to become the Minister of Labour in WWII and then one of the best Foreign Secretaries (my dream job) in our history.  With his lack of education he still managed to help form NATO and navigate political minefields like the formation of Israel.

 Democracy is there to solve the problem of contemporary society.  If the representatives only a few small sections of that society it will be inadequate to do its job.  I would be quite happy to see more former tradespersons etc in the House.  If people don’t want them there, they simply won’t get voted in.  Avoiding that uneducated mass takeover you mentioned.  Simply put both the educated and the uneducated have something to offer.

 You bring up an often used argument used by monarchist supporters.  That of if a Presidency comes in, then won’t the same hangovers from British politics transfer to the Presidency.  To a certain extent this argument I acknowledge has merit, except for one glaring issue.  Doesn’t that say more about what is wrong about this country’s attitude to politics than anything else?  As soon as we talk about opening up politics we talk about how it will go wrong if we do?  We are simply a nation terminally negative about politics, and I think that is a damn shame.  In my view the monarchy acts as a convenient safety valve to public discontent.  But once the valve does its work, the impulse to action, to actually do something about our system’s ills goes.  And so we have greedy and corrupt politicians on the other and seemingly lofty monarchs on the other.  This country needs a radical shift in its attitude to politics.  We may laugh at the Americans and their Tea Partiers.  But you know what?  I admire their pluck.  I disagree with just about everything they believe in, except their idea of their duty to speak out against the wrongs (or perceived wrongs of their system).  We whinge too much and have not enough follow through.  The local election turnout bares testimony to our unhealthy attitude to politics.

The monarchy quite simply represent an ideal.  An ideal which I would argue when you scratch the surface, is not all that pretty, and in many ways is very ugly.  And this is coming from someone who actually reads history.  I couldn’t give a damn if anyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.  I was born in a well off family myself, not rich, but not worrying about money.  But then my parents didn’t start there and had to work hard to get there.  The issue I have with the monarchs is that they are born into privilege and status, by a specific structure in our society which I feel is outdated, wrong and an affront to democracy.  Take it or leave it.  That is what I believe.  You many call Cameron incompetent or what have you, but the Queen is an officeholder too and she and the institution she represents deserves scrutiny as much as any other.  They are not scrutinised enough in my view, and have on more than one occasion been evasive on the issue of greater transparency in the monarchy.  It is culturally acceptable to criticise and even demonise politicians, yet even doing the former with the Queen is considered worse than wrong.  I think this is a great affront to a free society.

As for political short term thinking, yes this is a problem.  But the monarchy hardly solves it.  Issue such as national debt and humans destroying their own planet can only be tackled by a change in political culture.  This has to come from the bottom up, simply we need to demand change more.  The monarchy is inadequate to bring that change about, in my view.

Pip, to answer your question I will tell you a little story.  My lecturer at uni told me about a conversation he had with a friend.  The friend asked him if he thought that the lecturer had a chance of stopping the Iraq War if he joined the March 2003 protests.  The lecturer said no, he knew the war would happen, but he went anyway.  Asked why he went he said that he went to the protest, to let the government know that although the war would go ahead, he did not agree with it and would use his democratic rights to express it.

It is similar with myself and this cause.  I would consider myself very lucky if the monarchy was abolished in my lifetime.  The way I see it my job as the Co-Ordinator for Republic in Bristol is to raise of the campaign as much as I can, and thereby expand the movement.  I am not going to settle for a majority opinion simply because they are the majority.  I believe differently, and in our free society (other than one object) I will express those views as I see fit.  All movements start small, and the debate itself at the moment I feel is distorted by misconceptions about what we are and what the monarchy is.  If I can help make debate more favourable to us before I reach a ripe old age, then I will be satisfied.  For other issues, I am a member of a political party and as such will never be a one issue pony.

And yes I realise that abolishing the monarchy won’t cure British political culture.  But it is a start.  And a post about what would cure British political culture would dwarf even this post.  I don’t hate monarchist supporters except those that accuse me of being unpatriotic.  I do this out of patriotism, because I believe my cause will improve the country for all.  Those who disagree with me but respect my views, I of course wish them well and respect theirs.