The weekend saw, what many have called the ‘most boring leadership contest ever’, draw to a close with the younger Miliband brother, Ed, made leader of the Labour Party. Ed trailed behind his brother in the first few rounds of voting, but as Ed Ball’s votes were redistributed the former eventually won with 50.65% of the vote to David’s 49.35%. But will his appointment be the much-needed change of direction the Labour party needs and will it once again be a party that is trusted by the electorate to govern Great Britain?
But instead of spending this blog discussing what Ed’s appointment means for Labour’s future, I would rather argue why David was in fact the right choice and the choice that I believe would have strengthened the Labour party more and thus provided the coalition government with a greater challenge as opposition.
David has, like Ed, had an extremely successful career in politics and he particularly flourished under Blair, to whom he was Head of Policy from 1994-2002 when he became a member of parliament, holding various cabinet roles. He was born to lead it seems, winning a place at Oxford University not on academic achievement but possessing the all-important ‘gift of the gab’. One of his tutors commented, ‘the state-school boy impressed at interview’. But why else should the coalition government be relieved that their opposing leader isn’t the elder of the two Milibands?
As a Conservative supporter at the last election, I was sick and tired of Labour and particularly Gordon Brown. Countless mistakes were made in their final few years, whether it was their poor handling of the economy or the expenses scandal, I wanted change and could only ever see myself warming round to the Labour vision if their next leader could account for the sham that was their general election campaign 2010, and for the new leader to distance themselves from the ignorant policy adopted by the party. David for me was this man, or as close to it as the party could offer. He was quick to describe the election campaign as ‘a car crash’, which it was when we remember the confused proposals by Brown and Darling over plans for the deficit (which they could barely acknowledge let alone take responsibility for), or the numerous blunders by our then PM Gordon Brown on the televised debates or meeting potential voters. But more importantly, David’s stance put himself in a more central position than his rivals in the leadership contest. And it was this, it seems, that cost him his place at the head of the party. His brother Ed secured the votes of the Trade Unions and affiliated societies and this tipped the result marginally in his favour. But at what cost to the party? He is adamant that he is ‘nobodies man’ but Trade Unions are demanding and I can see him struggling to keep this as the case. He will do well to remember that when the Labour party had its most support, in their first term following the 1997 landslide victory, Tony Blair maintained the ‘no nonsense’ approach towards the Trade Unions that the Conservatives had. Their interfering nature, creating endless market failure through inefficiencies will do no favours to the Labour party in times when cutting costs and their deficit is crucial. The electorate is waiting for the Labour party to finally talk some sense economically, and I wonder whether the Ed and his strong-left leanings is the way to go.
But Ed could still be the man to unite the party, and lead them to some form of credibility that they have lost in the last few years. Something that reassured me of his competence was his admission that he ‘would not oppose every cut’. The nation needs stability at a time when essential cuts are to be made. Taking the easy road, by taking cheap shots at vital cuts, will be a quick way to gain votes but not a way to regain essential trust and reliable policy. As a conservative supporter, and after a summer without an active Labour Party, I look forward to the challenge Ed and his party will pose to the government… although im not concerned.
Monday, 27 September 2010
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Should Pope Benedict XVI be welcomed to Britain this month?
As the date of the Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the UK fast approaches, it seems there is most certainly a debate to be had. Lord Patten of Barnes who is to oversee the plans and the occasion in its entirety comments that, ‘the significance of the first ever state visit by Benedict outweighs the costs’. The costs to which he refers to are possibly the ever-growing bill which the taxpayer will be asked to foot (over £20 million to date claims the Daily Telegraph). Or perhaps he refers to the costs which will be imposed on homosexuals, women, victims of clerical abuse and actually every man woman or child who choose not to buy into this institution which spreads fear and ignorance. For Lord Patten of Barnes to be right, the Pope better be good!
The purpose for the visit is to ‘reaffirm the faith of Catholics in Britain, at a time when harsh cutbacks point to a period of hardship’. On his visit (following invitation by the Queen), the Pope will hold ceremonies in Scotland and England and meet former prime ministers Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown; but should the monarchy have requested a visit from the leader of a church which has been internationally disgraced this year and for many years before? Is there honestly sufficient demand from our secularist country to warrant an expensive and offensive tour made by the head of the Catholic Church?
To which I reply and will continue argue, ‘let him come!’ This visit could not have unfolded more perfectly for those of us ‘blessed’ with an open-mind and opposed to the church; it has been a sham from day one. Firstly there was a leaked memo from the Foreign Office which suggested the Pope should bless a gay marriage and launch a Benedict-brand of condom while visiting. Furthermore, we were treated to venue changes, a general election which shunned the Vatican’s upcoming holiday as a priority leading to delayed plans. But I wish to focus and dedicate my main writing to the explosion in evidence which finally tarred ‘the cloths’ of the Vatican and its leader regarding the sexual abuse claims, with evidence to support, against the Catholic Church.
I’m sure many who read this will have read the stories about how many men in positions of high responsibility within this church abused young men and women. Often to such an extent that they would never speak out about their experiences, and when some victims were so bold as to attempt to hold those responsible accountable for their monstrous actions, they were silenced by Pope Ratzinger and others in the same corrupt and disgusting organisation. Child rape allegations were not dealt with in North America, Ireland and Norway, and accused priests were simply moved to different parishes putting more and more children at risk. But I continue support the visit of the man who shamelessly leads this because of what I hope it will do to the institution. What it will, I hope, do to the Catholic institution, is to show the open minded and free people of Britain and the world the church for what it really is. An institution that prefers to put their struggling and flailing reputation before the justice and safety of those who put their trust into said corrupt organisation. Supporters claim Ratzinger to be the most pro-active Pope to attempt to address complaints, which im afraid says far more about the sick nature of a dying and exposed faith than it does about the Pope.
The height of protests to the visit comes from two humanitarian lawyers who, with the backing of prominent intellectuals and atheists Hitchens and Dawkins, wish to arrest the Ratzinger on charges of crimes against humanity. ‘He is not’, claims Hitchens, ‘above or outside the law. The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment.’ Dawkins continues with, ‘(The pope) is man who’s first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence’. Britain, I hope and am sure, is a nation which will reject the Catholic mission to reaffirm faith and belief and instead replace it with anger at a man who heads such an organisation.
So where to conclude? This has been by far my most unbalanced post to date, but where religion is concerned and particularly Catholicism, the way in which it feeds off fear and the unknown is cowardly and shameful in my book, and I am tired of hesitating in voicing that view. I have always wanted more to be done to reduce the role religion plays in society, so that one day children weren’t taught its message as though it had a shred of evidence supporting it; so that people were rational and sceptical where necessary, always able to ask ‘why’ before believing or claiming to know something. But now I perhaps think that the times are allowing these institutions to dissolve themselves. Ratzinger himself said, ‘the greatest threat to the church comes from the sin within’ and he is right. The church continues with arrogance as though its supposed authority is listened to in the modern world as it once was when the human race wore the heavy coat of ignorance and fear, but the times of changed and we will one day refuse to listen any more. When asked if the Pope should resign, Dawkins perhaps surprisingly replied, ‘he is perfectly qualified to lead the Roman Catholic church… No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.’ And as an atheist who wishes to see the church crumble, I concur that it is good to see him remain. Keeping him may have held onto some form of dignity; leavng him at the helm ensures that this offensive organisation crumbles from the top and within.
The purpose for the visit is to ‘reaffirm the faith of Catholics in Britain, at a time when harsh cutbacks point to a period of hardship’. On his visit (following invitation by the Queen), the Pope will hold ceremonies in Scotland and England and meet former prime ministers Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown; but should the monarchy have requested a visit from the leader of a church which has been internationally disgraced this year and for many years before? Is there honestly sufficient demand from our secularist country to warrant an expensive and offensive tour made by the head of the Catholic Church?
To which I reply and will continue argue, ‘let him come!’ This visit could not have unfolded more perfectly for those of us ‘blessed’ with an open-mind and opposed to the church; it has been a sham from day one. Firstly there was a leaked memo from the Foreign Office which suggested the Pope should bless a gay marriage and launch a Benedict-brand of condom while visiting. Furthermore, we were treated to venue changes, a general election which shunned the Vatican’s upcoming holiday as a priority leading to delayed plans. But I wish to focus and dedicate my main writing to the explosion in evidence which finally tarred ‘the cloths’ of the Vatican and its leader regarding the sexual abuse claims, with evidence to support, against the Catholic Church.
I’m sure many who read this will have read the stories about how many men in positions of high responsibility within this church abused young men and women. Often to such an extent that they would never speak out about their experiences, and when some victims were so bold as to attempt to hold those responsible accountable for their monstrous actions, they were silenced by Pope Ratzinger and others in the same corrupt and disgusting organisation. Child rape allegations were not dealt with in North America, Ireland and Norway, and accused priests were simply moved to different parishes putting more and more children at risk. But I continue support the visit of the man who shamelessly leads this because of what I hope it will do to the institution. What it will, I hope, do to the Catholic institution, is to show the open minded and free people of Britain and the world the church for what it really is. An institution that prefers to put their struggling and flailing reputation before the justice and safety of those who put their trust into said corrupt organisation. Supporters claim Ratzinger to be the most pro-active Pope to attempt to address complaints, which im afraid says far more about the sick nature of a dying and exposed faith than it does about the Pope.
The height of protests to the visit comes from two humanitarian lawyers who, with the backing of prominent intellectuals and atheists Hitchens and Dawkins, wish to arrest the Ratzinger on charges of crimes against humanity. ‘He is not’, claims Hitchens, ‘above or outside the law. The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment.’ Dawkins continues with, ‘(The pope) is man who’s first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence’. Britain, I hope and am sure, is a nation which will reject the Catholic mission to reaffirm faith and belief and instead replace it with anger at a man who heads such an organisation.
So where to conclude? This has been by far my most unbalanced post to date, but where religion is concerned and particularly Catholicism, the way in which it feeds off fear and the unknown is cowardly and shameful in my book, and I am tired of hesitating in voicing that view. I have always wanted more to be done to reduce the role religion plays in society, so that one day children weren’t taught its message as though it had a shred of evidence supporting it; so that people were rational and sceptical where necessary, always able to ask ‘why’ before believing or claiming to know something. But now I perhaps think that the times are allowing these institutions to dissolve themselves. Ratzinger himself said, ‘the greatest threat to the church comes from the sin within’ and he is right. The church continues with arrogance as though its supposed authority is listened to in the modern world as it once was when the human race wore the heavy coat of ignorance and fear, but the times of changed and we will one day refuse to listen any more. When asked if the Pope should resign, Dawkins perhaps surprisingly replied, ‘he is perfectly qualified to lead the Roman Catholic church… No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.’ And as an atheist who wishes to see the church crumble, I concur that it is good to see him remain. Keeping him may have held onto some form of dignity; leavng him at the helm ensures that this offensive organisation crumbles from the top and within.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
The Lib Dems; sacrificed for Britain's future?
It has now been 100 days since the start of this coalition government and rather than give a general review, I thought a more specific comment on the important Liberal Democrat involvement was necessary.
As we now know, the days following the general election result saw the future of the country in Nick Clegg’s hands as the two major parties met with him, offering deals and compromises with the hope of forming a government (needing the additional seats his party provided for a mandate to govern). Often I feel credit was not given in its rightful amount to Clegg for the sheer scale of the decision he had to make, and the sacrifices that would follow.
The most obvious choice for the Liberal Democrats was to form a government with the Labour Party; a party that fell much closer to itself on the political spectrum than it did to the Tories. The Conservatives, a party that has always been deemed elitist and a party where the policy was steered toward helping the wealthy was at first look a staunch contrast to the Liberal Democrat foundations which plug the importance of greater equality and individual freedom.
However, whilst all of this historical differences between the two, the crucial facts were the same. The leaders of both the parties wanted the same two important things: to put the stability and future of the country before party politics and to remove a party that had done, and were planning to do, great damage to this country.
In choosing to enter into the coalition government with the Tories, Clegg has faced a crisis of conscience and constant opposition to any move he makes. With polls suggesting that ‘of those who voted for the Lib Dems on May 6th, only 46% would vote now’ and ‘just 40% (of those who voted Lib Dem) approve of the coalition’s performance’. A common view – and fear for many liberal supporters – is that the result of this coalition government will leave the party in tatters and set them back years on the progress they have made.
However, this is nonsense! If you’d asked me prior to May 6th to comment on the Lib Dem campaign and ‘Clegmania’ I would have laughed and spent five minutes arguing that the party, although having some cute ideas such as ‘no tuition fees’, were not serious candidates and definitely not ready for government (their plans for crude bank legislation and the removal of Trident supported this decision). But in the 5 days that followed the general election, with Nick Clegg at the helm, the Liberal Democrats went from being political lightweights to heavyweights and an important part of a reforming government boldly confronting the deficit and making some of the biggest decisions made in recent years.
So, I would conclude without second thought that the country and its future are in much safer hands with the current government. But a more important conclusion is that Britain’s more prosperous and stable future is as a result of the brave move made by Clegg and his party to move into the unknown, at the cost of present popularity in exchange for the bigger and wider issues we face.
As we now know, the days following the general election result saw the future of the country in Nick Clegg’s hands as the two major parties met with him, offering deals and compromises with the hope of forming a government (needing the additional seats his party provided for a mandate to govern). Often I feel credit was not given in its rightful amount to Clegg for the sheer scale of the decision he had to make, and the sacrifices that would follow.
The most obvious choice for the Liberal Democrats was to form a government with the Labour Party; a party that fell much closer to itself on the political spectrum than it did to the Tories. The Conservatives, a party that has always been deemed elitist and a party where the policy was steered toward helping the wealthy was at first look a staunch contrast to the Liberal Democrat foundations which plug the importance of greater equality and individual freedom.
However, whilst all of this historical differences between the two, the crucial facts were the same. The leaders of both the parties wanted the same two important things: to put the stability and future of the country before party politics and to remove a party that had done, and were planning to do, great damage to this country.
In choosing to enter into the coalition government with the Tories, Clegg has faced a crisis of conscience and constant opposition to any move he makes. With polls suggesting that ‘of those who voted for the Lib Dems on May 6th, only 46% would vote now’ and ‘just 40% (of those who voted Lib Dem) approve of the coalition’s performance’. A common view – and fear for many liberal supporters – is that the result of this coalition government will leave the party in tatters and set them back years on the progress they have made.
However, this is nonsense! If you’d asked me prior to May 6th to comment on the Lib Dem campaign and ‘Clegmania’ I would have laughed and spent five minutes arguing that the party, although having some cute ideas such as ‘no tuition fees’, were not serious candidates and definitely not ready for government (their plans for crude bank legislation and the removal of Trident supported this decision). But in the 5 days that followed the general election, with Nick Clegg at the helm, the Liberal Democrats went from being political lightweights to heavyweights and an important part of a reforming government boldly confronting the deficit and making some of the biggest decisions made in recent years.
So, I would conclude without second thought that the country and its future are in much safer hands with the current government. But a more important conclusion is that Britain’s more prosperous and stable future is as a result of the brave move made by Clegg and his party to move into the unknown, at the cost of present popularity in exchange for the bigger and wider issues we face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)