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.

The Napoleonic Wars and other distractions

I am a creature of habit with my reading.  I tend to binge read on subjects or have periods of reading various types of fiction, before plunging back into non-fiction. The world of non-fiction is where I mostly live in my reading world.  I have various reasons for this.  For one, I am a self confessed nerd, especially when it comes to current affairs and history.  I tend to go through these phases of reading to death certain topics that interest me: the Middle East, US Politics, WWI history, WWII history, UK politics etc.

Recently a particular subject has caught my attention and seems to be holding it longer than usual.  This is the period of history that extends from the French Revolution and throughout the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.  I was introduced to this period through the assistance of a massive, but brilliant book, 'The War of Wars' by Robert Harvey.  What is staggering about this book is it's sheer scope.  The Revolution itself is told with a fair amount of detail, emphasising the drama and significance of the time.  And how like any modern revolution, it was agitated by the middle class, with the poor doing the heavy lifting but still getting breadcrumbs, the beneficiaries were few and far between. The revolution as any had very high expectations behind it, but ultimately began to consume it's children, through the period of savage killing called simply 'The Terror'. 

It was this period, which took place after the killing of Louis XVI that made all European governments' hearts skip a beat.  The Republican in me says good riddance to the royalty of France.  But to end my opinions there would be to miss half the story.  The French Revolutionary government declared war on us, not the other way round, with high ideals at the forefront of their reasons.  But the real reasons where far more self serving.  To put it lightly the Directory (the French Rev gov) used war as a political tool.  To distract the poor by conscripting them, to live up to their propaganda, and to prove to their enemies that they were not at weak.  It was ultimately a disastrous miscalculation.

For our country the revolution put us on the spot.  The reform movement was gathering pace.  Parliament was riddled with internal contradictions and outright corruption.  So called 'rotten boroughs' existed where bribing the electorate gauranteed entry into parliament.  Patronage ruled supreme.  Sadly the Prime Minister at the time William Pitt the Younger, once a promising reformist, put the breaks on reform.  And even repealed what little democratic rights existed in the UK at the time.  It is easy to look back on those times and call him a monster and defender of the aristocracy.  But actions in history need to be understood in context.  These were violent times, and he made the decision of choosing stability over reform.  I believe looking back at those times via the books I have read, that peaceful reform could have taken place and defused a lot of revolutionary agitation.  It took over 50 years for the cause of reform to make gains.  Making reform and true democracy with it one of the most significant casualties of the war.

There are many reasons why I came to have an interest in this period.  One was sheer curiosity. I had heard intermittent interesting facts about Napoleon, his conquests and the long struggle to vanquish him.  But once I started to look at the long line of events and the characters that made them happen, I came to appreciate why people still look back on this period.  No matter how you look at it these were years of high tensions and drama.  Napoleon can be said to be one of history's great oppurtunists.  He took full advantage of the chaos of that period and his undoubtedly impressive military skills to get to the top of his adoptive country France.  His reputation got to such a point that long after he is dead, many French still revere him, despite those who vanquished him harbouring slightly less rosey attitudes.  I myself find him a fascinating figure, but still an oppurtunistic one.  He started out from very humble beginnings and undoubtedly had to work hard to get to rise in the French military establishment.  But in power he supported reform only insofar as it advanced his interests and quest for further power.  He was ultimately a dictator and a warlord, who could only rule his country by the continuation of hositilities with France's neighbours.

The characters on the allied side interest me greatly too, although it interesting to see how nationalist attitudes can paint long dead peoples lives.  The Duke of Wellington who lead the British against Napoleon's forces in Spain was long heralded as the quintessential British gentleman.  The truth was that while he was undoubtedly smart and exceptional at what he did he was far from a perfect person.  He was snobby, often rude, a terrible husband and ultimately an opponent of non-aristocratic democracy.  British naval hero Horation Nelson was vain, glory-seeking and also a terrible husband.  But both of their acheivements stand for themselves, they we very courageous and they both harboured humane concern for the men under their command (Wellington very grudgingly). 

My favourite character of that period is Lord Thomas Cochrane, the naval hero who is immortalised in the Master and Commander books in the form of Captain Jack Aubrey.  Cochrane made his name as a commerce raider, essentially a legal pirate.  He was so effective at his job that he came to Napoleon's attention, who harboured a certain soldierly respect for him, christening him the "Sea Wolf".  His perhaps most famous feat was his capture of the 600 man Spanish ship the El Gamo with his crew of 60.  A feat only made possible by the sheer ferocity and quick thinking Cochrane instilled in the attack.  He was also radical MP (many naval figures were also MPs) who while was never a great politician, stood up for his beliefs.  When Prime Minister Lord Liverpool ordered the arrest of the Radical leader for speaking out against corruption, the leader barricaded himself into his home.  Just as people swarmed around the home, waiting for the army to storm it, Cochrane walked calmly through the mob and entered the house.  Much to the Radical leaders's suprise he brought out a barrel of gunpowder and threatened to blow the place up if it was stormed.  In this event the leader talked him down, but I think nonetheless the statement is very powerful.  But like all characters of this period (and today) he was imperfect.  He had an unsettling obsession with money, which often revealed a bitter side to his personality.  This lead it to being rather easy for him to be fingered in a stock exchange scandal which he may or may not have been involved in, after reading on the subject the jury is still out in my opinion on whether he was guilty.  In later life he fought on the side of Latin American independence movements, achieving naval victories that made their success inevitable.  Yet he charged through the roof for his services.  An interesting figure no matter how you see it.

Nowadays this period seems to get scant attention compared to other wars, WWII especially.  Yet the more I look at this period the more I see undoubted parallels with that war.  The 1809 withdrawal from Corunna has many similarities to the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940.  The failed Walcheren expedition was disastrous almost as much as Operation Market Garden.  And of course Napoleon was replused in his invasion of Russia in 1812 just as Hitler was, except Napoleon got to Moscow, albeit when it was practically deserted.  Granted, the course of the Napoleonic Wars was longer than WWI and II out together and much less easy to structure into periods.  Undoubtedly WWII is a simpler struggle to present than the Napoleonic Wars, with more defined themes of good versus evil.  But I think all to often this is used as an excuse for people to be intimidated at learning more about this era, and modern culture to forget this period while films continously role out about WWII. 

I am currently watching my girlfriend play Call of Duty.  Yet another WWII video game.  Surely a cavalry charge, a naval battle or Waterloo would provide an exciting experience in that medium?  In the latter case it would be far more challenging since you would likely be limited to one shot per 30 seconds.  And maybe just maybe....it would be nice to have a game in which the arrival of the Germans gives you cause for praise and not grief.  I think they have heard long enough about WWII for several lifetimes.

Xmas Message

I am not going to say it, I'll tell you this now.  Already I see people sending "Happy Xmas" messages to other people's facebook walls.  STOP!  It isn't Xmas yet!  It is annoying!  Although in the household I am in at the moment you would have the right to be confused.  We are breaking with tradition and having our Xmas dinner today on the eve.  This is out of sympathy for my Mum who unfortunately has a night shift on Xmas, and thus would rather avoid all of the stress/anger and finally joy that the dinner preparation brings before attending to patients.  It suits me because it seems to extend the Xmas experience.  Dinner today and presents tomorrow.  That suits me fine. 

I am quite thoughtful at this juncture.  Likely because in many ways, 2012 promises to be a year of positive change for me.  First and foremost I have made the radical decision to take evening classes that will tutor in how to write a novel.  Those of you who know me well may have had a curious feeling of deja vu, and you would be forgiven for doing so.  I have been yapping on about doing that for a while, and have barely started before abandoning the project.  That was unfortunate but at the time was for the best, my last project in many ways was a reflection of the sort of person I was nearly 2 years ago.  Disatisfied would sum it up.  And in some ways angry.  But I can say with a smile that I am simply not that person anymore.  And so my ideas about what to write have changed and settled on a different project.  I don't want to go on about it, I would prefer that anyone who is interested would ask me privately about the novel.  It is basically an anti-Twilight book, that is the only clue you are getting.

The other positive change that will take place is myself and my dearest girlfriend moving in together.  We have now been together for just over 2 years, and I can say with no exageration that she has changed my life (for the better in case you are wondering).  I mentioned before that I am not the same person I was 2 years ago, much happier, and she has played a big part in this change.  This will be an adventure for both of us.  We are both are own people and more than a little odd, but I am sure we will settle down in our new place before too long.  Wherever that may be.  So long as it is devoid of crooked/crazy landlords, money grabbing agencies, leaking walls, leaking ceilings, dodgy electrics, junkies and other obstacles to a setttled homelife in Bristol that have plagued both of us over the years.  I am greatly looking forward to it.  The other positive change in 2012 again I will have to ask people to contact me privately about, if they are curious to know.  Sorry about the mystery but I have seen people say too much online before and endanger their current circumstances.  Rest assured that everything is alright, no one will be hurt.  And this is definitely something I am looking forward to.  In many ways I should have done it a long time before, but I am pleased that it will happen soon.  Better late than never.

As ever I have watched 2011 from a political angle with a keen eye.  It has been a very busy year indeed.  Evil doer deaths have gone up: Colonel Gaddafi, Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il as a late entry.  There have also been some rather sad ones as regards talented individuals as well, including but not exclusively the actor Pete Posthelwaite.  The UK Coalition government between my party the Liberals and the Conservatives is battered but holding.  Riots sadly broke out in majory cities of this country, a very sad incidence which I am sure most of us will learn the wrong lessons from.  Mark my words interested politicians, the putrid press and the moronic sections of the public will look at Egypt and suggest that we should have police as skull-cracking as theirs.  But I could write a book about how stupid the public can be.

The so called Arab Spring has been a real object of fascination for me.  In many ways my interest in current affairs stemmed from  my fascination with the Middle East, which for better or worse caught my attention in the 9/11 period.  I learned from that horrific event, as good as anything to be salvaged from that terrible day one could say.  Since learning about the region I have long looked at the various kingdoms and autocratic regimes in the region, hoping that one day the people would cry out for freedom.  In a true case of the lesson of  'be careful what you wish for it might come true', it in many ways has.  Gaddafi in his arrogance tried to mow down his people with machine gun fire when they expressed their displeasure at him, he departed in an ugly way to be sure, but at least he won't harm anyone.  In Tunisia a graduate reduced to selling vegetables set himself on fire in public, setting off a chain of evens that pushed out the thug-in-chief Ben Ali out of power, and has subsequently lead to free elections.  Egypt is still in a state of flux.  And in a more bloody way, so is Syria.  These are exciting times to be sure.  I will watch them with great interest.

And so we come from the Middle East back to the UK.  I have often expressed my exasperation at my countrymen as well as those who lead them.  This year has been one of moral shocks that have hit us to the core.  And what have we learned?  Very little.  'Why is this?' one wonders.  A part of the reason is I feel because we as a people refuse to seriously look ourselves in the mirror and face our society's contradictions.  What we do is as much of a cause of these contradictions as what our politicians do.  And on that subject we have in some ways sadly become more cynical and conformist when it comes to suggestions of forcing positive change. 

Our press in one way or another is largely rotten.  No broadsheet barely bothers to disguise it's partisan bias.  Tabloids are for the most part putrid piles of garbage that feed lies, hate, superstition, fuel our mstrustful nature and our addiction to learning about other people's misery.  Our addiction to learning about other people's intimate private lives pushed the papers we made powerful to rise to new levels of unethical behaviour.  The phone hacking scandal was awful, but it or something like it will be sure to happen again.  Why? Because the cause is still there. WE are the cause.  We made the News of the World powerful and we could see as it died it's death, its filth hasn't really died, it has taken on many other forms.  Dreck like the Sun and other similar dregs of the press have taken up the News' refugee readership.  And thus the circle of life continues.

There has been a lot of fury aimed at the bankers in our country.  Some of this is encouraging, others not.  Smouldering public anger and resentment is a powerful force that can either be constructive for destructive, too often the later.  It is the former if it directed constructively.  Members of the last regime are shamelessly stoking this anger.  This is ultimately a move that will reap short term benefits for them but will bring terrible long term detriment to all of us. Let us get a few things straight, incompetence and greed that exists within some of the banking community lead to the crash.  They should deservedly be punished and ostracised.  Bob Diamond lives in a dreamworld.  And Fred Goodwin (I will not acknowledge his title) is a walking disaster.  But that does not mean that all of their rivals should punished for the bad behaviour commited by a few.  That isn't justice.  That is revenge,  so I say no to the Robin Hood Tax. Immoral behaviour is not restricted to the rich, nor is self delusion.

And self delusion takes me nicely to the monarchy.  Now tomorrow afternoon I am sure many people will take the time out to listen to the Queen deliver her message.  No doubt she will touch on a theme which will be aimed to resonate with people which she deems lower than her, that is you, myself and everyone else.  A lovely propaganda broadcast, a sweet and well spoken elderly lady instead of some dictator with a beard.  You can question the bankers, you can take a dump on the press and you can make politicians sound like burglers.  But one thing that is always frowned upon in this country is speaking the  ill of the Queen and the royals at large.  You can't talk about their priviliged access to our government, their publicly maintained large estates, their publicly salaried staff, their corrupt behaviour or their special position in the eyes of the law.

Einstein was right, nationalism in many ways is a plague on mankind.  More like Alzheimers on mankind I say.  We forget simple facts and who we are.  And who we are is a slightly cantankerous but proud people who have survived various upheavals and 2 world wars only to call ourselves democratic, and yet keep the priviliged and undemocratic black heart of our society mantained the same as it ever was.  And even further, be pleased that it is still there.  Because they do good!  They give money for sure, but don't many Britain's?  Are they above the law?  Oh they are nice to foriegners abroad and bring in tourists.  The former is a stupid reason, the later is irrelevant.  I would hope we are all fine representatives to our country when we go abroad.  Versailles is devoid of inbreds (other than perhaps some tourists) and makes far more money than Buckingham Palace.

Protecting these so called blue bloods is a disgrace to our integrity, our democratic way of life and us as a people.  I will be happy to rain on their parade during next year's Jubilee, the Queen may think she rules over her subjects but she does not rule me!  And I for one am not afraid to tell her.  She is a historical hangover, WE are the people.  And we do not need her where she is, either she gets in line with the rest of us or she earns our scorn, by pretending she is better than us.  Kate and Wills disgraced this country by making London a police state when they got married, and confined us Republicans into the furthest random corner of London, surrounded by police.  This time we will be marching, and if peaceful protesting is an arrestable offence, then I guess I will soon have something interesting to put on my CV before too long!

This country is great, and we make it great.  Merry Xmas. I am off to fetch my grandma for Xmas dinner.

This Lib Dem wants an EU referendum

Ordinarily I would be gleeful at seeing the Conservative Party suffer a historically large rebellion within it's own ranks.  Yesterday in response to a petition sent in by the public a vote was put to Parliament, to decide if a public referendum about this country's membership of the European Union should take place.  The government and opposition voted against this referendum, the majority of votes for the referendum being from rebel Conservatives (111 votes were cast against, 80 of them rebel Tory votes).

Like I said ordinarily I would say good, what's bad for UKIP and the Tory 1922 Committee is good for me.  And ultimately good for the country.  Now I am not so sure.

If you ask many people about what the EU does many people wouldn't have much of a clue beyond it being involved in promoting trade in the continent.  Yet the body is ever expanding, and even has its own Parliament.  With this the body has gone on a law creating frenzy.  Many of these laws automatically become entwined with our legal system, only occassionally coming under direct parliamentary scrutiny.  Much of this is unsettlingly under the radar, we hardly take notice of it happening. 

We vote in MPs because we want them to influence the formation of laws in ways we see fit.  Already we substitute our interests to representatives in Parliament, this is the consensus to have us represented but prevent "mob rule".  But by that logic the consensus is stretched a lot more when our country's let alone our own voting power declines, in the face of representatives from other countries, voting in a parliament of 25 nations.  That isn't to say we are being taken over, that is to say it is harder to ensure that our interests are spoken up for in this wider forum. 

Suddenly our interests are smaller fish in a bigger sea.  It stands to reason that some people may worry about this.  And they have a right to.  Public concern in such institutions can be alleviated by measures that allow greater transparency to be introduced as well as measures to give them people more of a direct say.

People can put up with a lot.  But one thing they are intolerant of is being promised to have a say in a big decision, then having that oppurtunity taken away from them.  The previous government did it with the Lisbon Treaty and signed it, even when other EU member countries trusted their people enough to let them have a say.  And now our government is responsible for snubbing the will of the people.  It is as though the government turned around and said to the public "we are smarter than you, we have to make this important decision for you.  Because we know best".  By putting across this message our three main parties have effectively betrayed us all.

The EU have become an off limits debating topic.  The more it does the less likely its very real faults will ever get attention.  The inherent contradictions are there but somehow progress in solving them alludes us.  This is because the UK main parties have made the EU a political pillar issue, meaning to mention it in a critical way is sure to get you labelled as a crazy isolationist.

Well I am not an isolationist.  Far from it.  I know why my party has no spine on the hard issues when it comes to the EU, vested interests.  Our leader is a former MEP, that is why he used his recent public appearance to call for the scalps of Euro-sceptics.  Our former shadow foriegn policy spokesman Ed Davie has had business links with Europe for many years, and the Europe revolving door extends further into the party. It is arguable that the opposite bias exists on the Tory bench, with much of the party favouring a closer relationship with the US.  Labour tends to flop both ways in the extreme.  The Lisbon Treaty was dooley signed, and our airspace was made available for the safe passage of US terror flights under New Labour.

This power bloc mentallity is embarrasingly simplistic.  We need to start considering a balanced relationship with both power blocs, and appreciate the divisions within Europe especially.  For instance some eastern European nations who have worked hard at spending wisely have scoffed at Greece, an early member of the EU not know for fiscal discipline yet getting in far earlier than the eastern bloc countries.  Germany too is starting to wonder about the future of Europe since their capital is being used for many of the bailouts being carried out.  And let us not forget about the BRIC countries, the rising powers.  Less so Russia.  Perhaps it is time we use more of our energy to reach out to them.

The EU started as a free trade body, yet not many of the member countries as a whole operate on purely free trade rules.  Protectionism still exists.  The EU Cap and Trade scheme is a sham, that has ended up giving money to some of the continent's most polluting industries.  The EU parliament expenses report has been censored, not letting us know how OUR money has been spent.  The French farmer still gets more agricultural subsidies while British farmers struggle to turn a profit.  Serbia is given a fast track to talks after spontaneously pulling a war criminal out of its hat (more impressive than a rabbit trick any day of the week), yet Turkey struggles even to get talks about talks to enter the EU.  And the final insult is that France, a country has now banned the burkha has criticised us for breaching human rights.

This will and has gone on for years.  I think the EU and its advocates and detractors need to have an open debate.  If the EU is worth saving then let us go to political war over it.  If it is going to rob us blind more than it helps us then let us get out of it. At the very least we need to make the issue of the EU a lot more open to the public. More informative for sure.  Part of that is giving people a reason to learn.  Why look up something that you have no stake in?  Give people power, and they, some at least will strive to be responsible.

But please, no more telling us the economy is too bad to make this decision.  This issue will be less likely to be debated in the easy times, not more.  Besides the economy is hardly ever rosey these days, but life goes on.  And don't make leaving the EU akin to the country becoming an isolationist outpost of evil, slipping towards poverty.  I doubt European countries will all simply stop trading with us if we left the EU, they have an interest in continuity in that regard as much as we do.  Putting power out of people's hands is FEEDING anti-EU extremism, not reducing it.

If politicians want to destroy UKIP then fight them on their own terms.  Hit them where they live, blow their single issue wide open.  Then condemn them to obscurity for the rest of their natural lives.  And at the same time make the EU seem less inhuman and more relevant to people's lives.

This Lib Dem wants an EU referendum, and condemns his leader for cheating the public out of what they have asked for. 

Worrying about the Right Things is a Good Start

We can often get ourselves worked up over nothing, or nothing much.  Just a few weeks ago I found myself surprisingly nervous heading on the Eurostar for my first holiday in mainland Europe, to stay in Paris for a week.  My family bar a few are all shocking at foreign languages, especially French.  I am sadly not one of the exceptions to that rule.  As we got out in Gar Du Nord the dumb tourist persona overshadowed me (albeit temporarily), as I came to the realisation that I was in a country full of a majority of people whom I would not be able to communicate with.  At least not on any but the most basic level.  Oh sure I had my trusty phrase book, I bought two as though I was on an army partol and needed a back up lest I be defenceless in unfamiliar territory. 

Needless to say such concerns were embarrasingly largely irrelevant.  Myself and Anna got to our hotel using enough French and awkward gesticulation to get us to our destination to the taxi driver.  Tired and somewhat amused by our attempts at communication, the driver dully drove us to our hotel.  Everywhere else we either learned our phrases well enough to pass by, or like in the greasy cafe across the road from our hotel, we ended up talking to someone who wanted to practice their English.  With the exception of the hotel caterer at breakfast time, she was exceptionally rude at our attempts to communicate with her.  She offended all of the European guests in our room, to the extent that I thought we may have to band together, in a sort of strange re-enactment of the coalition that brought down Napoleon in 1815.  Nothing so dramatic happened, we left the crone to tyrannise the breakfast room for the rest of the week and got breakfast elsewhere.

Why did this happen?  Why did I waste my energy worrying?  I snapped out of it eventually, just so you all know I very much enjoyed my holiday.  I was after all going on holiday in a civilised country (some would perhaps disagree).  The fear was eventually replaced by a sober reality check.  Bouts of fear can make people do crazy things, so can anger.

At the moment I feel there is too much fear and anger in this country.  Much of it, though not enough has been ploughed into constructive outlets.  It in many ways isn't surprising, our country has gone through a rough patch.  We have made it through a recession only to be faced by an ever bleaker economic future being slowly revealed.  Then came the cuts.  Then came the riots.  Then phone hacking.  You hear noises about us not being able to trust: bankers, cops, journalists and especially not politicians.

Right now much of the anger is being taken out on the corporate world for alleged (and in some cases definite) greed, through the now global protests inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement.  In many ways I smile at this new trend for activism.  But the beard stroking former politics student in me urges caution.

A common theme I see in these current activist upheavals left and right wing, is the theme of big monoliths (government and corporate) disadvantaging and in many cases betraying people outright.  The betrayal myth has existed in politics in many forms for years.  Sometimes it has been rightly invoked.  But at other times it has been invoked to provoke base feelings of resentment and anger for destructive ends.  A negative example of this betrayal myth is the 'Stab in the Back' myth used by the Nazis to deadly effect in the 1930s.  This myth described the German people being corrupted from within by a fifth column of Jews and Communists.

Now I am not trying to say that teenagers and middle aged Mum's in New York or in London are going to start causing genocide.  Activism trumps apathy in my book any day, so I am pleased to see people up and out.  What I am concerned at is the undirected and unconstructive display of raw emotion on display, where will it lead?  Where is this going?  Does anyone know?  I guess my main worry is that people are talking about problems everywhere, but actual solutions are hard to come by.

What is the answer to corporate greed?  Does anyone want to answer it?  Why not?  Too complicated?  Perhaps.  But if one is out on the frontlines, surely they shouldn't be afraid to be put on the spot.  Myself on the anti-nuke protest a couple of years ago would say the solution to the problem I have highlighted is unilateral disarmament.  I am concerned that if this movement does not get constructive really quickly it will either run out of steam or turn into something undesirable.

I think a lot of this rests with people's acceptance of easy answers.  The hardest answer to hear though, is that you are not part of a solution, or that you are unknowingly part of the problem in some way.  Corporate debt is rampant, but so is personal debt. Yet the movement to highlight the latter is miniscule compared to the movement to the former.  Having said that, yes corporations have a lot to answer for, but we too remain imperfect.

Make no mistake though.  The government too is at fault. David Cameron and Nick Clegg have allowed a culture of fear to descend on the country.  Suddenly people are afraid to protest, and the disgraceful restrictions on protesting in London remain.  London became a totalitarian state during the Royal Wedding, casting us protestors for a republic outside of the party like a dangerous revolutionary linch mob.  People are being demonised by two former vandalisers and arsonists.  In this respect the world has trully gone mad.  We are told that this kind of societal distress is new and requires harsher medicine, this is complete tosh.  Read a history book, we have been through worse.

The point I want to make from all this is the following.  Misdirected fear and anger are hardly ever good things to have around.  Yes, blame those responsible.  But remember that your farts don't smell of roses.  ALL people have a stake in a better tomorrow.  Just raking up the past and getting bitter over it will only go so far.  People need to dare to think of solutions, not worry about the consequences.  If you are proven wrong, admit it, and take it in your stride.....and start again!  We're British, the stiffer upper lip is a national treasure.  And so is our knack for succeeding in times of adversity.

Environmentalism: Its All In the Presentation

I had a discussion with my girlfriend the other day about a subject which is quite dear to both of us.  That is the world's efforts to take greater care of the world we live in and combat the phenomenon known as Global Warming.  Sometime it is nice to talk to someone who agrees with you, preaching to the choir as it were.  When I talk her about this subject it is clear she has strong feelings about this subject, that people aren't doing enough to prevent damage to the Earth, she usually has stronger feelings than myself about this. 

Strong feelings about global warming and the state of the planet in general can be positive.  They get people motivated into either thinking constructively or better yet towards equally constructive action.  But you can only learn so much from people who agree with you.  I find often far more interesting discussions can be had with people who either disagree with you or half believe you.  It really gets you testing your arguments to defend your beliefs and hopefully advance them, on the unconvinced or nearly convinced.

I had the opportunity to engage in one of these debates with a more right wing leaning friend of mine, over a drink (which turned into four).  I put it to him that the planet is clearly being abused.  He agreed.  I declared that sensible and constructive legislation should be put through to regulate human activity (the 'r' word often being a toxic one in the right wing vocabulary).  He agreed on principle.  Wearing my politics a bit more on my sleeve I said that is near lunacy to declare that man made global warming is anything but a solid fact.  My right wing friend looked uneasy, and then decided to intervene.  And shock horror he presented himself as a climate change denier. Given my strong feelings on the subject you would have thought I would have taken a disliking to him after this.  For an instant I was, but then I got to thinking: he cares about the planet but he is unconvinced about global warming, perhaps he isn't alone.

Indeed he is not.  And he has a right to that opinion, and he has the good fortune to live in a society where different opinions are expected.  But all too often I feel conformity is an even more expected element of modern British society.  Not just in British society either, I sense the US is not much better.  Over there the global warming issue in the wake of political polarisation between Republican and Democrat have regrettably turned this issue into a political football.  I am admittedly naturally left leaning which stereotypically would incline me to more readily accept the more pro-environmentalist camp, which at the moment does not look like the Republican side.  Over in the US it seems as though in some quarters global warming scepticism or indeed denial is shown as a badge of honour.  In Britain I find a general acceptance of global warming is the accepted norm, with the other extreme almost being treated as the ugly sisters of our society.

This I feel is the ultimate logical flaw in the ideological minds of both extremes in the political spectrum, left and right.  The more readily you write people off, be they an alleged murderer, an anti-capitalist, a hippy, an unemployed person, a climate change denier or even someone who just simply disagrees with you, you are in some way taking easy way out, and avoiding the easy answers.  There aren't always easy answers for difficult questions.  And simply erasing people who are seemingly in the way of a solution to a big problem is ultimately a fools’ errand.  Especially since you will likely need at least some of those people on your side, if not at least listening to your position.

I share the environmentalist's frustration at people who are climate change sceptics.  For myself the evidence is overwhelming, and as far as I can tell a majority of the world's scientific community believe that climate change is in part at least due to man-made activity.  But wishing away people with frustrating opinions never works.    And railing at them like they are puppy killers and baby eaters (which I feel some pressure groups do) I feel does massive harm to the cause of environmentalism and its supporters. Some people just are not interested in what may or may not be happening now that may have severe consequences later.  They want pragmatic solutions, and to be talked to like a human being, not a simpleton.

At the last party conference for my party in Liverpool I had a long talk with some of the Green Liberal Democrats at their stall.  I ended up having a long conversation with one of them, subtly moving us away from talk about me giving them a joiner’s fee to their group (it cost me enough to stay in the city); we ended up talking for a while about practical ways of promoting sustainable living.  I have to say, many of the examples I had been shown amazed me.  What I particularly found interesting was the introduction of so called Smart metres to homes, thus allowing people to monitor and regulate their energy use.  I thought this could potentially be marketed to people less sold on the global warming concept, since they would likely be a lot more interested in saving their pennies.  Before I left on a high though I decided to confront the man before me with the question of nuclear power, and where he stood on it.  Judging by his unease he agreed with our party's critical stance on it.  He mentioned that this issue was being debated.  Sensing another donation drive coming on in the conversation, I stated my views politely and bluntly.  Nuclear power isn't perfect but it is statistically safer than the media portrays it as, and it is a damn-site cleaner carbon-wise than coal.  I thanked him for his time and then left the conference for the day.  On the way out I dodged a small kid with his trade unionist family jumping in my face and calling me a right wing Tory-Nazi.

Back in 2006 while on holiday in St. Ives Cornwall, while enjoying the sun I also enjoyed a lot of reading.  It was then that I read a book which blew me away, when I least expected it.  This book is "The Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock.  James Lovelock a British independent scientist is known in environmentalist circles for advancing the Gaia theory.  This theory represents the entire planet as one giant self sustaining and self regulating organism.  Not as an organism in the same self aware sense in which we exist, but still very much living, and to a certain extent self healing.  That is self healing to a finite amount. 

With this theory laid out Lovelock drawing on a massive crash course about how the basic chemical processes that sustain life occur, and how ancient natural cycles and processes are being disrupted by man, proceeded to deliver a well aimed wrecking ball at many myths held up as true in Green circles.  Buying organic food is basically an expensive con scheme tells Lovelock, which represents farming practices often more damaging than those using more 'artificial' methods.  Nuclear power isn't perfect but it is suicidal to the planet to completely disregard it, therefore more nuclear plants should be built.

The book was incredible.  It was like being hit by a sledgehammer made of years of scientific research, the bluntness of an old man (Lovelock is 92) who hasn't got time for wasting, his awe for a truly incredible planet trampled by mankind's ignorance,  and most importantly; sheer common sense.  If anyone has to read just one book about the cause of environmentalism, take my word for it that this one is worth it.

After reading Lovelock's book, talking to my right wing friend and putting my door step canvassers' and my politician's brain on I re-evaluated my thoughts on environmentalism.  It struck me that as Lovelock pointed out, that the awful truth is that anything we do now will in some ways be too late.  The Earth will be damaged one way or the other, the various crises will inevitably come, so any plans now will have to involve crisis management (flood defences, learning to adapt etc).  My second thought is that not everyone is going to buy the same argument.  Some will need reasoning as much as coercing.  Door step canvassing by experience nurtures a certain instinct within you about which are the right buttons to push, when trying to put your point across.  But what most people loathe and are quick to rebel against, is being treated like an idiot, or being made to feel that they are not being listened too.  Certain interest groups point at the shrill cries of environmentalist groups, and cry hysteria and extremism.  In my view the response to these attacks should be a counter-attack with reasoned debate, and a respect for the other side's position.

When it comes to the offensive on interest groups that either claim that the environmentalist case is flawed or exaggerated, parties on the side of environmentalism may find it an advantage to advance a charge on several fronts. It is a fact that global warming is not the only issue facing this planet.  Soil erosion, deforestation, the mass extinction of species, water pollution/shortages and air pollution are debating points to advance for starters.  Many of which have their own scientific data built up over years to back up their case.  Much of the talk I hear from the tub-thumping front runners of the Republicans concerning environmental policy is that they simply think global warming is a phantom menace.  A paper tiger made out of hundreds of alarmist reports released by liberal leaning members of the scientific community.  The way to deal with these people is to simply outflank them.  People may be in doubt about global warming, but you can't ignore trees disappearing, water becoming toxic, tuna becoming contaminated and air in cities becoming toxic. 

While watching 'Gasland' a documentary about Shale Gas drilling in the US, my girlfriend sighed when she heard the Chairman of a Senate Committee mentioned something about their concerns about "the economy and the environment".  At first I didn't understand the distaste she was expressing, then I realised the point she was making.  We humans have become the masters of self delusion.  We routinely reshape the world how we want it, cutting down stuff here and concreting stuff there.  Until we kid ourselves that we are completely separate.  Separate from plants, animals and ultimately the planet.  That we are the masters of all we survey.  And within this little fantasy land we create our precious economy which dictates our lives, to the point where the planet and thus life itself becomes cheap.

This is the point we need to get across most I feel.  We are not and will never be separate from the planet.  And like it or not, the Earth is much more likely to survive us than the other way round.  I believe that as we trash the world, we will ultimately be the ones to suffer.  Recessions will seem like cakewalks when we really reap what we sow, as a result of our actions and inactions.  The only question now is how much life will be left on this planet other than human life, when we finally change our ways.  Like it or not the changes we have to make come into conflict with some of our long held beliefs.  The long held belief of man's superiority and omnipotent intelligence on this planet needs to be taken down a notch or two.  I feel some although not all of this human arrogance has its roots in some aspects of religion.  But that is not likely to just disappear, so we come back again to pragmatic reasoning.

To sum up, I feel that environmentalism at the moment is a cause that will only today go so far.  The often impatient and dogmatic approach taken by many of the movements supporters I feel will only do push it further towards irrelevance, in the eyes of the public mainstream.  Changes will have to be made most definitely, but they must be workable ones.  And they must not be at the price of people's freedom, most importantly their freedoms of speech and expression.  I despise smug middle class Greens preaching against air travel, now budget airlines is making international travel more accessible for millions.  I care about the environment, but I myself will still fly.  The carbon emissions of planes, needs a pragmatic and effective solution.  Not the severing off of my country into a permanent island.

Environmental damage and green house gases need to be reduced quickly.  Common sense is what we ultimately need a lot more of.