“Who was that on the phone?” “Gordon Brown”

“I was half-awake when the phone went this morning and when a Scottish voice said it was the Prime Minister, I thought it was someone taking the piss. But no, apparently he’s been reading the blog and wanted to talk to me about Britain’s nuclear policy. It also seemed that I was the ideal – young, middle class, educated (ish) Labour – voter who could be tempted away by the Tories terrible temptations. I assured him I wasn’t going to do anything like that and he thanked me and hung up…”

Up until yesterday that sort of statement would be confined to the outer grounds of madness, miscellany and poor satire. Yet “it is a problem universally acknowledged that a Prime Minister in possession of great troubles will always be in search of a vote” (I just wrote this to see if I could get Jane Austen on the phone, I bet she’s hot. Not that I’d know… )

I admit to being somewhat flummoxed with the revelation that the Prime Minister – the Prime Minister for Christ’s sake – has the time in the day to phone up individual voters and ask to discuss whatever they’ve complained about. Its said that the small-scale and local can sway votes much more than the big, massive and national… But I can’t help thinking this is going just a teensy bit too far.

On the other hand, since it has been pointed out that Brown took to doing this when at the Treasury (and presumably had a lot more time on his hands), it does show something in him which is generally and genuinely lacking in all his opponents both within and without of the Labour Party. That something is human sentiment. I would genuinely feel touched that the Prime Minister was taking time to answer my letter personally. I think it demonstrates that a real human heart beats in Number 10 Downing Street.

In conclusion, I can’t rant one way or the other about this issue (which is a blessing and a curse for anyone who wanted to feel indignant pride/rage at what I’d wrote, so I apologise to these people). Certainly, I’m sure there are bigger problems to be addressed in central government at the moment. But equally certainly, I have a newfound respect for the at-times surly and Scottish Mr Brown. 

Go Gordon. The clunking iron fist with the sensitive touch. 

Byee!

The Hour Is Near

It is coming. You can smell it on the breeze. The horror and the darkness and the dread. A fear so terrible that many wish themselves dead to avoid even a whiff of it. That’s right, the 20th Century Intellectual History exam is approaching. The ground shakes as it advances and my ears echo with the sound of drums, the drums of war.

Existentialism and Critical Theory stalk the city.

Will Cardiff ever be safe again?

Nuclear Reactions

It is practically the mantra of our time that the planet is going to hell in a handcart and we need to do something about this as a species quickly unless people want any of the following to occur: (a) the polar bear to disappear (b) the o-zone layer to disappear or (c) the Maldives to disappear.

This is of course a problem which would at best be dealt with by a world government. But since the earliest likely date for the establishment of a workable co-operative international organisation not riven by national or sectional interest is sometime after the o-zone layer has drowned, the polar bear has melted and the Maldives burnt up, it seems we are stuck with the current system of semi-co-operating nations trying (or trying not) to do their bit.

Britain is admittedly a very small country when it comes to any facile statistic such as the amount of atmosphere above it. It is larger when you consider the bits of continental shelf we own. It is larger again when you consider our contributions of CFCs, methane and general industrial junket into the atmosphere over the last three hundred years.

The current climate though is not just confused by the gradual process of planet slaughter which Western Europe has exported around the globe (sorry if I sound like a hippy but I’m trying to get into their mindset). Due in part to the increasing scarcity of minerals and other useful stuff, nations are starting to get prickly when it comes to sharing what they have with others (you only have to look at Eurovision 2008 to realise that. Hell, even Georgia gave Russia 12 points. I can imagine Mr Putin/Mendevev’s hand hovering over the gas taps as the votes came in!) We (collectively, globally, nationally and personally) are approaching what is probably the most serious energy crisis in recent centuries.

Given this backdrop, given the fact that even the evil nasty United States is moving away from its hardline opposition to global warming theories, the reactions of various green pressure groups to yesterday’s government announcements on fossil fuels and nuclear power seem odd.

I do not wish to get involved with all the pros and cons of nuclear fuels per se. What has got my goat (and indeed got my goat typing at a fair rate of knots), is the reaction of the Greenpeace spokesman, Friends of the Earth spokesman, the CPRE spokeswoman and a handful of other ethical souls during various news programmes last night (I don’t go out much) that (and here I paraphrase somewhat) “nuclear power is not the answer” to the energy crisis. In a nice piece of polly-parrot politics, this position which was incidentally repeated by the Lib Dems,almost word for word, presumably indicating they were too lazy to come up with a soundbite of their own. 

Certainly, as the government pointed out, nuclear power is a medium-term solution. Certainly, this sits uncomfortably next to pressuring North Sea Oil companies to squeeze the last bits of sludge out of the seabed. But what I do not precisely see is how this is “not the answer to today’s energy crisis.” Possibly if planning for the current (and almost certain to deepen) crisis had begun when the Lib Dems were last in power, the current problems would have been minimalised somewhat.

So, we have the interesting situation that, whatever their wonderful ethical principles, the green lobby has now left the planet completely. They are correct that we have been dependent on oil for too long. And certainly, they’re correct that governments of every colour across the world should have listened (and should be listening) to them for several decades longer than they have. The old political maxim that only environmental policy which effects productivity/the economy will be enacted has again been proved true.

But it is also worth observing that the current government is taking action to establish a reliable, long-term solution to the energy crisis. This has, as the old maxim says, come only at the point where the people feel the pinch. It is churlish in the extreme – whatever high principle is at stake – to argue that this is not the time for nuclear. We are faced economically, politically, globally and environmentally with the energy crisis. It would be nice to be able to fall back on green energy sources but these have been so hopelessly underfunded by successive governments that, for the most part, we are not in a position to provide a reliable, cost-effective solution. In the meantime, we have the technology, expertise and industry to support an expansion of nuclear power.

Apart from the wringing hands and declaring portentiously that this is “not the time for nuclear”, there have, in the current climate, been two even more laughable anti-nuclear reactions. The first is the “scary terrorists” argument. Since nuclear facilities are some of the most secure sites in the country precisely because of their devastating power, this seems unlikely. Statistically (normally, I would never use that word, but for now I am forced to), there have been no major terrorist attacks on nuclear power stations in Britain (or the rest of the world), unless you count the at times reprehensible practices of environmentalists.

The second argument comes in two strains. The Chernobyl strain, which embodies everything that is bad about slippery slope arguments, and the “public health” argument. Here, as with any relatively new technology, there are arguments on both sides. Yet given both the massive amount of research that has gone into the safety and containment of both nuclear complexes and the waste they produce and the sheer levels of NIMBYism which something as innocuous as a wind turbine can provoke, it seems to me at least fairly clear that the government will be going into these things exceptionally closer, if only for the cynical reasons of avoiding unfortunate headlines such as “Darling the baby-butcherer.”

We are in a position which is only going to get worse. The public are opposed to nuclear power just because it sounds a bit scary, yet they also come out in OUTRAGE if green energy generation is proposed near their home. You only have to see the objections which (to name a few) offshore wind-turbines, the Severn barrage and a small tidal hub off Hayle have provoked to get the gist.

Given the fact that many of our European neighbours (France, Germany to name but two) have invested much more in nuclear energy than Britain in order to provide energy security and have programmes which have met with a lot less controversy, I feel it is vital that we as a nation grow up and accept the role of nuclear energy in providing energy for the UK.

The government are faced with a stark choice. The public seem unlikely to accept massive investment in green energies, yet are complaining at rising fuel costs. It is the government’s role to be realists, to look at the bigger picture, and guarantee energy security and provision into the future. It is simply being unrealistic for the green lobby to object to nuclear in the current economic, international and environmental situation. 

Wake up and smell the roses, or is that uranium on the breeze, tree-hugger?

Cookery

As a nice contrast from writing out revision notes and calling it a blog, I’m going to talk about food for a bit. This will not only demonstrate that I am a balanced individual with a variety of interests but also hopefully stop phrases like Beauvoirian feminism, the Great Incarceration and Three Phases of Infantile Libidinal Development from cluttering up my consciousness. Since my brain is experiencing the philosophical equivalent of a force 10 gale at the moment (cue: falling trees, thunder, lightning and dooooom), it should help everything feel better, hopefully.

OK, food, now where was I…? Colours, that was it! Have you noticed that the more colours there are in a meal, the better it tastes? The logic seems to work like this. A uni-colour meal has very little flavour, or excitement. Bi-colourity on the other hand can either indicate a fusion of eclectic textures, tastes and olfactory notions (aka smells), or something a little dull.

This leads me to postulate the significance of different colours. A meal which is mostly one shade of green (which we’ll call, for sake of argument, ‘lettuce green’) will generally not be that pleasant and/or exciting. Similarly, with the exception of quiche (see below), beige coloured foods on their own or with only the simplest of additions are, to be frank, quite rank. Anyone who lived with me in year one or two will doubtless have observed the rankness which I addressed by the laughingly polite title of ‘pasta with sauce’ (spaghetti, tomato puree, cheese).

This leaves us with muticolourity (which I think looks better as multicolarity, so that’s what I’ll call it). Multicolarity is a plate and/or dish which contains three colours or more. For example, meat (I don’t know much about this), green beans and yorkshire puddings (or quorn, if you’re one of those, we all know who you are). Similarly, although the outer appearance of quiche is one of uniform brown-and-beige dullness (or black, if you forget its in the oven), inside it is a delicious yummy eggy yellow suffused with whatever your particular penache for pastry-covered dishes happens to be. Cheese on toast, with onions, is a further case in point. And any good salad must have at least three colours. I would indeed be tempted to complain about vegetation selections which did not reach this stringent criteria, since it is wholly likely that they will (a) ming, as the youth of today say, and (b) that they will come in a Fort Knox style polythene container which renders the veggie goodness within unattainable.

At this point I tend to resort to sharp objects and return to the question. It should be stressed that multicolarity can be taken too far. For instance, the addition of certain brightly coloured ingredients to any dish is likely to render them inedible. As a guide, the addition of green mouthwash to plain beige pasta will not liven up the taste-experience, even if you sautee it. Although adding a toothpaste topping to a particularly uninteresting quiche may be a worthwhile experiment.

Potato wedges or roast potatoes should not be livened up with shaving foam. Equally, adding laptop, television, CD-Roms or newspapers to any dishes is to be discouraged, particularly at the preparation stage. The two exceptions to these are fish and chips, which have to be constituted to an approximate ratio of 1 part fish to 3 parts chips to 2 parts soggy papier mache from the newspaper which ‘wraps’ them up.

The second example is TV dinners, in which case any level of multicolarity (even to the mouthwash and shaving foam level) will not improve their flavour in any way whatsoever.

Now back to Beauvoir…

My Foot

Even when it is only your pride and dignity that is injured, it still hurts. In fact, it is probably more painful since it is something which you could have avoided. You could have watched your step. You could’ve held the handrail. You could, just possibly, have been a teensy weensy itsy bitsy bit more sober. All these would have helped, furthermore, all these were within the remit of your personal control.

No extraneous factor made me not watch my step. There was no monumentous event in the vicinity which for a split second took my attention away. Nothing made me slip, there was no fowl play. It was entirely my fault that I was off my tits at the time.

Thus, with a perfectly elemental sort of logic, it is me that is entirely liable for the fact that I am now hobbling around on one leg with a sprained ankle. I’m sure if I wasn’t in the predicament, it would be quite funny to watch the staggering, twitching walk which I have developed. Its somewhere between chronic constipation and that funny fat person walk of Oliver Hardy in those classic Laurel and Hardy films.

Of course, being a self-righteous little git, I’m not letting liability get too firm a hold on me. I will stand up in court, having waddled in like a constipated duck, hold up my right ankle and declare to the court — it was the footbridge what done it, your honour.

Could Freud have been right?

This is another in the occasional series of ‘proof that I have been revising’ blog entries where I pontificate without hesitation, repetition or deviation for several hundred words in order to demonstrate that it is just possible that some information has slipped in through the haze of laziness and alcohol which makes up the outer layers of my cranium (and hell, I need a haircut).
DEVIATION

Sorry about that, as I was saying. Could Freud have been right? Well, unless anyone out there in Internetland has secret infantile sexual fantasies about their mother, or has a castration complex, or alternatively remembers experiencing Penis Envy (why that has to be capitalised, I’ve no idea) as a young girl, the answer is theoretically a resounding “no”. Freud extrapolated his personal experiences as a bisexual fin-de-siecle white, middle class and proffessional Jew in Vienna to encompass the entirety of humanity.

Now if that isn’t egoism, I don’t know what is. Let us not forget Sigmund’s closeness to his mother. “Meiner goldene Sigge” she used to call him. From much of his own life, we can find traces, clues, hints and outright massive example shaped demonstrations of the theories he was later to come up with (after a few false starts, involving, in no particular order, hypnotism, cocaine and cutting open women’s noses). 

Fun though it may be to rubbish his ideas (having cut open this woman’s nose, he recorded in her notes that she suffered “hysterical bleeding” – whether this was hysterical in the “feminine” or the “uncontrollable laughter” sense, well, is something which only the sick-minded amongst us will wish to consider).

We are always left with the faint feeling that – though he got a lot of things wrong – there was a kernel of truth in his psychoanalysis. For a start, the same modern science which discredited pretty much all of his ideas has produced a neuropsychopharmacology which rests on a similar determinism (of chemicals in the brain) of human action. Likewise, neurology and genetics have cast huge doubt on the extent to which being human is really the existential crisis which Sartre would have us believe. Most illuminatingly, the work of Gilligan on gender-difference and moral reasoning, and also the work of Simon Baron-Cohen on brain-types.

We are determined beings. Our human nature is not infinitely malleable. While Freud may have got the content of his view wrong, he is at least in the same camp as modern science. Liberating though the existentialist idea may appear, it is fundamentally a flawed ontology. Similarly, it lacks the ethical prescriptions of Freud’s pseudo-science. Psychoanalysis is not a science, yet it is based on a similarly rigidly determinist view of humanity.

Unless you want to question the entire epistemology of Western knowledge of course.

Mission Control – Sartre Calling

OK, another title which purely results from the lyrics currently emerging to musical accompaniment from my iPod (“80s Life” by The Good the Bad and the Queen). Really, this post is going to be short. I should be reading “Being and Nothingness” by Jean-Paul Sartre but for some reason not reading it is just soo much more tempting.

I guess that ironically demonstrates Sartre’s point about existentialism – that we are free to re-invent ourselves and our projected with every moment. Indeed, the fact that I have trudged through 30 pages of about 430 and then abandoned the enterprise seems to be an apt demonstration of the nature of man’s (as Sartre defines him) existence to precede his essence. I.E, the choices we make realise the multiple potentialities and alternative contingencies which are open to us and equally infinitely variable for us. 

Its ironic then that his philosophy has been employed to negate me reading his philosophy. Which is practically a paradox, in the linguistic if not the temporal sense. Talking of which, its also worth noting the inflexible relationship between signifiers and referrents in Sartre’s work…

Nose preparing to dock with grindstone, pickaxe approaching coal-face, all pigs fed and ready to fly…

New Torys?

The rise of personality over policy in political life is one of those ubiquitous phenomena of the modern age which is trotted out every time by tired hacks and politicos to berate various groups of all political colours. Equally, under the leadership of our Great Helmsman, we (i.e. Labour) have apparently become the party of ’substance.’ If I were to be cynical, I might observe that this is due to the fact that our Dear Leader lacks personality, echoing the comment on The Week in Westminster today that even top political correspondents are having trouble identifying members of the Cabinet.

Certainly, when you look at some of their illustrious predecessors – to name but a few, Robin Cook, Mo Mowlam, Peter Mandelson, John Prescott, Tony Blair, Frank Field etc – the current Cabinet seems a tad, well, anonymous; evenly split between the tired old men and teenagers (this comment is stolen from Private Eye, no copyright infringement intended). On this issue, the media seems to have been unanimous in declaring it a ‘bad thing’ for the Labour Party and government.

But I’m not so sure. Personality infects politics to such an extent now that any or all of the following seem to bar one from being taken seriously in public office: (1) being bald, (2) being Welsh/Transylvanian,  (3) being serious, (4) being Scottish. In contrast, one seems to only have to be youthful and slightly charming to be heralded as the best thing since sliced bread (take David ‘Call me Dave’ Cameron or Tony Blair in 1997 for instance).

But the “New Tories” seem to have taken this to a whole new level. I mean, if this was a Doctor Who plot, there would be some massive brain-washing scam behind it (cf. Timelash, 1985). Is it just be or is the entirety of the Tory party unable to get through a sentence without name-dropping Cameron?

When the New Labour project began, there was indeed renewed (and desperately needed) innovation in party policy. Yet I don’t remember hearing every single Labour MP continually releating the ‘as Tony said…’ litany. OK so the Tories have always tended more toward paternalism, but this constant obsequious referencing of all policies to Cameron strikes me as taking that a bit too far. Whether its the economy, social justice or crime control, it is never “the Conservatives’ new strategy”, nor is it “our” radical agenda. The agenda, the policy, the consultation, pretty much everything is referenced as belonging to “David (call me Dave) Cameron”.

There are, clearly, two conclusions which could be drawn from this. The first is the prosaic and obvious that Cameron is in fact the only person in the Conservative Party who is capable of consulting, innovating and implementing new party strategy and policy. Yet this answer seems unsatisfactory even if you go in for the hardcore (practically homoerotic) arselicking of the right-wing press.

In which case, one is forced to be cynical. To my knowledge, the Labour rebranding in the 1990s never wet as far as printing on the ballot papers “Tony Blair’s Labour Party.” It was “New Labour” – a radical and vital reconfiguration of core Labour values. Perhaps “New Conservatism” is an oxymoron, but “David Cameron’s Conservatives” strikes me as taking personality a tad to far. I mean, to be facetious for a second, is there an alternative Tory party headed by someone else?

This leads me inexorably to conclude that the reason for this personality cult rebranding of one of the oldest political parties in Great Britain originates primarily in the Tories’ desperate attempts to reject the label of the “nasty party” which stuck so firmly following their 18 years in power. Furthermore, Cameron and his closest colleagues seem to me to be the only fresh thing in the party, the rest being split between the ultra-right-wingers (John Redwood) and the classically liberal One Nation Toryism of Alan Duncan.

Therefore, the constant reiteration of the “as David Cameron said” litany by individuals of all shades of blue suggests a party clinging desperately to its sole successful progeny as they sky-rocket in the polls. Perhaps this is just a more overt form of the strict party discipline which New Labour achieved for the majority of Blair’s tenure. Yet I cannot help thinking that such an approach devalues the seriousness of politics in its overt and sycophantic creation of personality cult politics. Particularly given the vapid and ephemeral character of Dave himself.

Creative Distraction

EXAMINER: “You may now turn over your exam papers…”

With a deft flick of the wrist, I turn over the paper and examine the questions. Things don’t look good. Its that awful moment where I look and see lots of familiar things, but all approached from maddening angles which my revision has obviously missed. I glance back at the rubric (good word, rubric) on the cover and curse my ability to distract myself with parentheses.

It says (among other things):

• There are TEN questions.
• Answer TWO questions.
• You have TWO hours.

I sigh and set about the questions, there must be something I can answer here…

1. Why is it so hard to focus? 
2. “Distraction from Revision can appear more productive than revision itself.” Discuss
3. “The average undergraduate is beset by alcohol induced inertia.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Discuss in relation to two subjects and/or beverages.
4. “Highlighters are central to academic study.” Defend this statement with reference to the four key goals of highlighter deployment.
5. To what extent has the electronic age revolutionised modern learning method?
6. “The internet has benefited the procratinator and masturbator more than the serious scholar.” Discuss.
7. Critically evaluate the merits of two distraction techniques from the following: (a) Blue-tak (b) Alchohol (c) Facebook) or (d) Wikipedia.
8. Demonstrate with appropriate formulae and graphs the inverse relationship between number of pages read and amount of information absorbed.
9. “Alchohol, sex and doodling destroyed my degree.” Evaluate the importance of this statement by a sorry and failed under-graduate on finding out just how much the last three years of hedonism has cost him.
10. Is the following quote from Boffin (1987) an accurate portrayal of your emotional state as you enter this exam: “You’re going to fail, you little shit. You really are and you know it. And that’s what makes setting this paper so deliciously enjoyable. Watching you squirm there from my desk at the front, like some sort of God… Why did you do a degree anyway?”

I digested these for several moments. There were advantages in the last one – the ‘failure’ question – but glancing round, I could see that the girl next to me was starting on that one. And judging by the fevered expressions which the diagonal line of sight afforded me across the space of the examination hall, it was probably going to be quite a popular one… Therefore, more people will answer it. Thus, more clever people will answer it. Basically, I’d be screwed to go for that one…

And then question 7) caught my eye. Then I realised everyone would answer it on Facebook and  alcohol – but that was all I’d revised. I made a few notes on blue-tak, then switched to paper because the letters showed up easier.

No use, no easy essay in that one. Perhaps I’d just have to swallow my pride, follow the herd and answer the ‘you’re going to fail, you little shit’ question after all. Maybe I could find a new angle – perhaps I could disprove the question…

Over an hour into the exam, I finished my first paper. I argued that, despite not having a shower, I didn’t really resemble a little shit and therefore the question provided a misleading impression. And then some stuff I half remembered about teachers not being allowed to swear. Phew, glad that’s over… Now to make my second choice…

Although I was initially drawn to the first question – why is it so hard to focus? – it occurred to me that since I had answered one question successfully already, that implied I could focus and would be logically incompatible with choosing question 1 as my second option. Bugger.

That left me with questions 4 on highlighters, and the two distraction questions – 6 and 9. But after some furious doodling, I found myself unable to concentrate on the latter so I tried to remember the four key goals of highlighter deployment – well, rigour, accuracy and differentiation were obvious – but no idea what the fourth one was… Best to leave that one then… Golly, only half an hour left, perhaps I should’ve left doodling till after the exam…

I settled on question six and made up half of the answer, though some of my doodling helped with the second part of the question. Finally, those hallowed and horrible words were declared…

“Put your pens DOWN and stop WRITING” 

I made a mental note to look up the fourth highlighter principle when I got home and then kicked myself when I realised it was ‘don’t loose the lids’.

Oh well, off to the pub I thought. And then wondered, after those two hours of hell, ‘is that really sensible?’ I’ve got general time-wasting the day after tomorrow and the philosophers of study avoidance a few days after that.

I mean, its not like they can make you resit an examination in procrastination, is it? Its not like doing it all again is going to improve your marks when the study guide suggests you distract yourself as much as possible. Then again, I thought after my fifth pint, perhaps I’m taking that advice a little bit too literally…

Onto the sambuca.

Shadows of Andropov?

I’d hate to bring politics into this. Lets face it, it hasn’t happened before and hopefully it won’t happen again. For the moment, I’m guessing we’ll just have to go with it and hope it goes away quickly.

With the disclaimer out of the way, I suppose I’d better get started. In the news yesterday, there was some alarming statistics about the rise of alcohol related admissions to hospitals and the consequent strain on the NHS. This set me thinking – not about anything very productive, but thinking anyway – so bear with me, it could be interesting (allegedly).

This ten year period over which apparently alcohol related problems have increased sharply correlates fairly neatly with the era of New Labour. Yet these statistics have only emerged now, under our new Great Helmsman. And, whilst the media at large has picked up on the Stalinist association for poor Mr Brown, I wondered if perhaps there wasn’t another, more obscure, Soviet era leader whom we could link him to?

Yuri Andropov* served in a range of high profile positions in the post-Stalinist Politburo under both Khruschev and Brehznev, finally succeeding the washed-out (though formerly a popular reformer) Brehznev in 1982 on his death. Unlike many world leaders, Andropov’s anonymous features proved a problem for cartoonists in the West when he was first appointed – and many took to labeling his caricature just to ensure their readers knew who they were poking fun at (in contrast to the grotesque features of his predecessor).

Andropov has been fairly maligned by commentators and historians as another Soviet stooge, in it for himself with little regard for the Russian people. Yet it was Andropov who promoted future-reformer Gorbachev. He admitted the increasingly dire state of the Soviet economy and actively worked against the croney-ism of Brehznev’s later years (dismissing 18 ministers and nearly 40 first secretaries). 

Andropov was the first General Secretary to acknowledge the declining fortunes of the Soviet Union economically and socially, in a similar way to Mr Brown. Similarly, Brown has sidelined many stallwarts and warts from the later Blair cabinets. Brown has promoted many younger colleagues to ministerial positions. Although I accept that totalitarian parallels probably aren’t what Labour needs at the moment.

Oh, and the best bit. Andropov’s successor (whom he did not approve of or agree with) was an unashamed retainer for the Old Guard, maintaining the Soviet system for personal greed and gain. What’s better, he lasted only a year in the job, was perceived as an absolute failure and was utterly out of touch with the needs of the people. Cameron, anyone?

I guess it goes to show the smugness of the historian – and the dangers of the lax historical parallel.

* For the purposes of what follows, I’m going to narrowly tiptoe round Andropov’s less salubrious role in the KGB and do not intend to libel anyone.

Reformation of Manners

OK, so the title is just what I happen to be revising at the moment. Technically, I think my SROM revision is done, but I would probably get some odd comments if I labelled this post ‘Infanticide’ since that is what I’m currently revising. The blog has been ‘down’ for a few days due to vital revision/procrastination activities (and hangovers), but I’m going to endeavor to post something different, exciting and new as often as possible throughout the next few weeks of exams.

Exciting thing 1: New Union building plans discussed at Student Council. Given that I tend to like a fight, I was surprised that there didn’t seem to be anyone representing the 2,000 strong OUTRAGE contingent. There was almost a mature and sensible debate going on, and a general lack of OUTRAGE. This pleased me because although OUTRAGE sounds funny, it can be quite trying on the nerves to be in the company of a lot of people suffering from OUTRAGE. I can only presume that OUTRAGE at the Union plans only went as far as Facebook, which is almost as ironic/oxymoronic as the comment along the lines that many people were ‘actively protesting on Facebook.’ Presumably, since I last read the dictionary, the new definition of OUTRAGE is ’setting up a Facebook group with the word OUTRAGE in the title.’ Of course, this is not to say that Facebook cannot contribute to any form of debate/discussion/development of the plans (or any other issue for that matter), simply that a group with OUTRAGE in the title which contained a letter which conflated homosexuality and building plans maybe is not making such a constructive contribution to the process. Homosexual architecture fetishists must have been happy with that.

Exciting thing 2: Xpress Speech handover meeting yesterday. For no good reason, I’m going to write this in the style of the chapter headings in the Moist von Lipwig Discworld books by Terry Pratchett:

Plans to book Richard Wilson (English lecturer, apparently some sort of God) for radio show (TO BE CONFIRMED) — the many ways to outwit security and gain access to the studio at weekends considered — no swearing — a big bag of scripts — the curse of the soap — technical hitches and their manifold joys –producers and the usefulness of — ‘is it a lemon or an orange?’ — formal forms are formulated — the library and its stultifying dullness — delegation and its benefits — disadvantages with being one person and not two — the Quiz.

Exciting thing number three – New Doctor Who Box Set in my possession. Featuring: Sontarans in the following: The Time Warrior (classic), Sontaran Experiment (classic), Invasion of Time (less classic), The Two Doctors (classic, ish). I should clarify, in my possession indicates that I have purchased said item and not that it fell into my hands by some nefarious process.

Incidentally, due to this new purchase, I am currently selling my existing (good as new) DVD copy of The Two Doctors for £15 of your English pounds (RRP in HMV: £20). Its a two disc set and has only been viewed once. Get in touch if you’re interested.

Exciting thing number four: It has occurred to me that the IF (Interesting Fact) scale which was formulated last month has been superseded by the Exciting Thing scale (or ET scale, if you prefer). In future posts, I will of course make it clear which scale I am employing on an appropriate and intersubjective basis with the possibility of developing a rational consensus model of truth statements which can be logically proved or disproved in order to make an appropriate selection between ET and IF scales. This will be clarified at a later point.

That seems to be about all the IF/ETs I have to share at the moment, so until the next time,

Byee!

Criminal Mastermind?

Its that point in revision where you think “have I done enough?” Where you wake screaming in the night, knowing you haven’t. Where the mere thought of opening a book brings you out in cold sweats and a faint sense of dread pervades the desk. This is it. The moment of dread… into the exam!

And I’ve got two weeks and a bit till the bloody thing. It seems when the Time Table Gurus of University Administration looked down from on high onto the student body it appeared unto them in their majesty that early modern Crime and twentieth century intellectual history were not options which many students opted for. And lo, the Great Gurus of Time did decree that the exam of intellectual history from the century of 20 and the history of crime from the centuries both 15, 16 and further 17, should be placed within two days of each other.

And thus it came to pass that there was great terror and smiting in the heart of Hector. And yet also, lo, great anger and rage and hatred at the Gurus that did make the Table of Time for it was they that had decreed that he would have a paltry day – and a Sunday at that – between his first excursion to the land of Exam and his Second journey into that Place.*

And yet because it was decreed, it was so. And I had to live with it.

 

* At this point, I was distracted by invites (1) to go to town, (2) to watch Dr Who (v v good), (3) to eat pizza, (4) to watch My Name is Earl (v funny), (5) to go to the park, (6) to play frisbee, (7) to play piggy in the middle (I was in the middle, mostly), (8) to play 40-40 (like we were all 8 years old again! ) and (9) to go to the pub, before finally (10) to finish this.

G’night!

In It For Themselves?

A recent conversation set me thinking (never a good sign) about how cynical the British public can be. The cliched truism that everyone in politics is in it for themselves is a good case in point. Equally, the view that one must be some kind of venal, self-interested egocentric villain to even consider getting involved in politics seems to have a particularly wide purchase on both the looney left, retarded right and apathetic mainstream strands of public opinion. In the British psyche, standing for parliament seems to automatically label one as a wrong ‘un, with the main division in opinion being the extent to which politicians are part of some serious, dangerous evil conspiracy against the ‘people’ (whoever the fuck they are) or is instead some sort of cartoon-style villain capable of twirling moustaches and evil laughs.

This view is a clear demonstration of how – even intelligent, culturally aware politically conscious – people can be at times labelled as ‘a bit thick’. I expounded this view at length last night to a flatmate who gave a brief summary of the preceding paragraph of opinion. Since no other ideas for today’s post occurred to me, I thought I’d go on about it a bit more.

First off, in my humble opinion, when I think of the venal, self-interested egomaniac character, I do not immediately see the parallel with giving up time to serve others. Because, I mean if you’re self-interested to the extent of some conspiracy theories (and the contemporary zeitgeist) would suggest, the logical, rational and self-interested thing to do is to give up time, alternative more lucrative career oportunities and general blood, sweat and tears to help others.

Secondly, politics is not some big conspiracy theory. There is (to my knowledge) no secret nod, wink and handshake or Da Vinci Code style plot behind mainstream parties (this is arguably less the case when one looks at fringe parties who are often the first to allege this). The infamous quote at the heart of representative democracy (I forget who first said it, I have a feeling it might have been Disraeli or Gladstone) ‘government of the people by the people and on behalf of the people’ in no way suggests self-interest. Certainly, politicians are (if you like) ‘governors’ in charge of political issues. Yet this authority is conferred on them democratically (by the people), and is always engaged on their behalf.

MPs, councillors and volunteers spend a huge amount of time dealing with constituents and residents problems, often at moments of dire crisis. Just how is this self-interested? More importantly, just how is this corrupt? Being elected by the people to serve the people and doing just that on low wages (relative to, say, industry or comparable service sector jobs) at all times of the day and night is surely just fulfilling the democratic mandate one was elected on.

Given the somewhat unpleasant company this zeitgeist keeps (Hitler’s attacks on the Weimar Republic were along similar lines), it strikes me as a nauseating reminder of the bitter cynicism which any public or generalised group can be capable of.

Certainly, I will admit that – to name probably the most notorious – the likes of Rupert Allerton and Jeffrey Archer are never going to be the best adverts for public service through politics. Yet they are – and I hope always will be – a minority among a group of hard-working selfless individuals who have given up their time to serve others. If you compare the number of scandals associated with politicians and compare them to scandals of a similar random cross-section of apolitical or antipolitical members of the public, I reckon you will find at worst that politicians are as fallible as everyone else, or at best that entering into the public sphere in the first place is an indicator of altruism (not cynical egoism).

It is important not to confuse policy decisions which one disagrees with which political scandal or venal self-interest. The former is the product (and luxury) of living in a democracy, the latter is clearly a serious issue. Whatever one may think about the political views of Blair, Mowlam, Thatcher, Clarke, Brown or Cameron, I would suggest that the conduct and commitment of all of them in their jobs has been exemplary.

Lets have some respect for politicians – not unconditional – but appropriately respectful of the massive commitment they make to us, the British public.

Time

OK, anyone reading this for any sort of information on chronology/clocks/time-keeping should probably stop now. The title was purely random and based on the fact I’d just looked at my watch and was stuck for a blog-idea. Random ideas have a certain power, and in this case, at this point in our multiplicitous universe, the hypothetical title of ‘time’ was indeed employed.

Of course, if we take quantum theory at face value, then in a myriad other Universes, I did not make that decision, this blog is entitled ’sausages’, ‘Jesus’ or ‘ectoplasm’. 

Random choices have consequences (so do planned choices, but don’t interrupt my flow now). Where was I…?

Random choices have consequences, sometimes foreseen, sometimes unforeseen. That sounded a lot more profound in my head than it now looks on the screen, but not being one to edit, I’m going to blithely plough on.

So…

 

You might have guessed several things from the paltry nature of this post so far:

1.  I have not encountered a single IF today
2. I have not done anything particularly interesting
3. I do not even (and this is rare) have some mindlessly idiosyncratic of pointless idea to share
4. I have a general lack of motivation
5. I generally wish to avoid revision
6.  I haven’t yet seen fit to finish this list, even though it is clearly already pretty exhaustive
7. I could go on with another number
8. I’m now wondering if I could reach ten, with something meaningful though
9. I could tell you that today is International Chewing Gum day. Fact.
10. As you can see, I gave up on thinking about something meaningful to fill up this list.
11. Golly, 11), I made it! YEY!

That woop of joy suggests just how much emotional investment I have made in this post for today (not much to be honest). It is interesting how wierd (and egocentric) it feels to write nine lines all beginning with the word ‘I’ (or the perpendicular pronoun, if you prefer to call it that). As Dr Who once said, ‘three ‘I’s in one breath, makes you sound a rather egotistical young lady…’

Byee! 

Gym, Palpitations, Question Time

Its a weird thing when the human body stops working, even for a bit. Whether its paralysis, blacking out or just that faintly uncomfortable dampness which suggests you’ve peed yourself (this joke prop. Peep Show), it is always somewhat disconcerting.

Whether it was the elation of getting a ticket for Question Time, the sheer body shock of attending the gym for the first time since Labour was ahead in the polls or the steroid inhaler I’m using, I don’t know. What I do know is me groaning over the bin outside the gym and twitching slightly probably wasn’t the best advertisement for the health benefits of said institution.

Vision is over-rated, or so the deaf say. I can report though that I have personally dramatically under-rated after experiencing piercing white lights, a burning sensation and things going blurry. The same goes for absence of nausea, absence of chest pain, absence of headache etc. Fully recovered, I feel perversely good for having an (albeit brief) encounter with illness, lack of health et al.

In light of this, I’m going to make myself a pizza (that was actually what NHS Direct advised). Looking forward to Question Time in the Armadillo (that sounds like a bestiality enquiry, but we won’t go there…)

Byee!

:-s

Relativism

It sounds ideal in a way to say Foucault got it right and managed to sweep away the two thousand year history of glorious and not-so-glorious attempts at envisaging some form of universal morality. One can now stand up and proudly be culturally and temporally contingent and conscious of it. In history (my particular personal pastime), Foucaultian analysis emphasises the centrality of language/discourse in the construction of contingent meanings, thus banishing the nasty metanarratives of unicausality and universalism forever. Huzzah (et al)! For moral philosophy, we can proudly stand tall and, with swellings of pride, declare

EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE!

Hold on a minute. Since reading a bit of Habermas, it surprises and shames me somewhat to observe the fundamental philosophical problem with that declaration. Secondly, with said small amount of knowledge of Habermas, like a leopard that changes its stripes, I don’t think I’m a relativist anymore.

Although that is possibly just because PERFORMATIVE CONTRADICTION is quite a cool phrase, philosophically speaking anyway. The obvious problem (as any fule know) with everything being relative is obviously that the statement everything is relative must be a part of everything and therefore must be relative. If everything is relative, declaring that everything is relative contradicts the content of the statement that everything is relative (since ‘everything is relative’ is a universal statement, not a relative one).

This puts post-modernism through the blender a bit since it constantly asserts (with overtones of the old Nietzschian Dionyssian stuff) the impossibility and undesirability of universalism. This is most apparent in Foucault’s history of the prison system where some have argued that his analysis rests on a cleverly cloaked essentialism of an age – the pre-modern as barbaric, and the modern as rational, controlling and unfree. The implied moral prescriptions here are problematic in the light of Habermas’ critical theory – Foucault’s moral philosophy (if such a thing is relativistically possible) rests on ethical and ontological relativism.

If one wants a moral philosophy of any sort and to engage in a debate, as Habermas points out, surely one must presume that both interlocuters believe absolutely in their own positions. This is where relativism falls down – if morality is relative, contingent and dependent on a thinly disguised its-just-what-we-do-around-here-at-this-point-in-time (or, to put it another way, shorter and with less hyphens, ‘contingency’) how can one engage in moral discourse?

Such a relativist position contradicts itself since, within the framework of critical theory (discourse) at least, it seems to me to be impossible to be a relativist. To do so robs one of the power to engage in the arguments one supports, and to reject those of your opposing interlocuters. Furthermore, the basic ontological contradiction of everything being relative leaves you in what is best termed a grey area of a moral vaccuum.

Of course, Habermas is not perfect. He himself robs the moral power of discourse through the lack of moral prescriptions in his advocacy of discourse (as opposed to ending the discussion or declaring a Hobbesian war). Yet I still feel profoundly shook up by discovering that I’m probably not a relativist (I’m not a critical theorist either, or a nihilist, or a particularly good philosophy student but those aren’t strictly relevant here). 

Relativism has a certain self-centred security about it, particularly if we apply it to big moral questions like international relations. It allows me to support democracy, wholeheartedly believe in it, and yet contradict myself in (originally) opposing the (effectively democratising) invasion of Iraq. It neatly sidesteps issues of power relations and soft versus hard power with what is probably the discourse equivalent of a lilly livered liberal shrug of the shoulders which screams (or rather wetly suggests) that ‘everything is relative man.’

So if I am a moral universalist, what does that mean? Even as a relativist, I contradicted myself and had beliefs, ideals and politics, yet I could safely hide behind that screen of reflexivity or ironism. If I support democracy, then without relativism, I can’t talk vaguely about cultural rights. In that case, do I no longer think cultural difference is important? Implicitly, yes. And yet I think a strong form of relativism (nice oxymoron really) which acknowledged cultural difference yet empowered one to engage in moral/political critiques of inhuman, degrading, anti-democratic practices is perhaps impossible.

But that means a moral universalism is effectively what I’m left with. A view which (while clearly evolving, adapting and responding to change) has its positions and sticks to them, which believes in moral absolutes. Is that a loss of intellectual flexibility of an increase of intellectual maturity? 

My head hurts.

Unproductiveness, the Value of

It is a routine observation that many things – from wealth to health to happiness – can be conveniently displayed on a standard x-y axis graph, with (hypothetically) -1 as the most negative, least desired score, and +1 as the most desired or positive value. The same is demonstrably true with productivity. For example, yesterday was probably a +.7 (to 1s.f.) day since I got through a series of useful revisionish tasks as well as attending the wonderfully fun media awards. Today, on the other hand, is decidedly in the negative score. In fact, I would probably hypothesise (without the relevant scientific data, you understand) that today scores the inverse of yesterday at approximately -.7429 (ish, to 4s.f, or 4d.p).

I have productively read one article for crime revision. I have productively sat in the garden and listened to music. I have productively eaten ice cream and prepared a barbeque. I have productively done sod all all day and yet I would suggest that an inverse productivity to happiness correlation exists. For example, last night’s festivities were enormous fun, yet arguably probably not very productive vis-a-vis the impending examinations (of doom). Similarly, the ice cream, barbeque, music and garden did little to contribute to my overall productivity and yet were vastly enjoyable. Thus, happiness (H) is inverse to productivity (P).

As the intelligent among you may be aware, such a statement is only valid in the short term. Thus, we need to introduce a third variable, on which both H and P are dependent. For simplicity’s sake, and because its the coolest letter to use in any sort of algebra, I will describe this phenomenon as ‘n’. ‘n’ is the period of time over which one wishes to measure overall happiness into the future. Thus, if n<1, h is inverse to p,  but 1>n, p correlates directly to h with an even distribution.

Thus, h / n is greater if p>1>, but over less amounts of time (say n = 2 days), h is inverse to p. Ironically, this selection of badly edited maths has decreased p further, thus affecting my overall h / n, yet leading to a temporary rise in h over a shorter n time period, since h is inversely proportional to p over 1<n (where one is an unspecified measure of time).
I would expand this further, but I may be in danger of failing my degree if I do!

Byee!

H:-) / n = p et al

This is England

OK, I was stuck for a post title and I’m actually in Wales. The song just happened to be on my iPod (‘This is England’ by the Clash, incidentally). Since I’m feeling lazy I could just paste the lyrics below, because they’re really quite genius in my opinion. But no, I’m going to be a good blogger and actually write something. First off (see post from last month), have I learnt any IFs recently? Not really, although apparently everyone thinks my new (no, I can’t work it, no, I didn’t know it could do that…) camera is very cool (its a Fuji Finepix SLR digital, thats as far as my technical knowledge goes I’m afraid). Secondly, I’ve had a very productive morning combining the joys of Facebook with printing out, annotating and folderising my revision.

Yet another minorly OCD trait there, incidentally (and don’t laugh, too loudly). My concentration is distracted if my revision notes are not:

1. Organised by topic (obvious, but it really winds me up if they’re mixed up… Don’t get me started on notes which are relevant to two topics, that is a photocopying and annotation nightmare)
2. Printed in bold, with underline for important words
3. Arranged in a complex series of different bullet points (and these follow the same pattern throughout the document, for example, solid black dot, white dot, arrow, asterisk, dependent on the importance of the point).
4. Stored with each topic in a discreet folder (stapled to any reading lists ON THE OUTSIDE)
5. Golly, I’ve reached 5. That’s quite impressively sad.
6. Any series of points is contained on one page and the page break neatly correlates with a break in the notes, (for example, the end of a point

I probably could continue, but I won’t. You get the gist anyway. Other revision tactics include:

1. Best concentration when (i.e. I think I won’t work if I’m not) listening to a limited selection of music (mainly Beatles, for some reason)
2. Highlighters lined up in sequence, with the clip of the lid uppermost and the brand name, not the barcode side visible, cap first on the edge of my desk
3. Desk completely bare at the start and finish of every day (as if perhaps my notes might vanish if I don’t tidy them away every night)
4. Any timetable, schedule plans bluetacked to my wall (of decreasing importance from just above eye-level downwards)
5. Important timetables/documents copied and stuck in three places (at least) on my door, or beside it, directly in front of my bed when I wake up, above my desk.
6. Again, I’ve reached six without really trying, that is depressing…
7. I also have a highlighter pen specifically for crossing things off to-do lists and deadlines lists.
8. Oh, and I’ve recently got into the habit of obsessively straightening and tidying the various cables from my TV, laptop, printer, EHD, fairy lights. Although that might be a procrastination tool

Bizarrely, after completing all these little tasks (and a million others which it would be just a tad too anal to list), I still seem to lead a fairly messy life. Perhaps the universe is trying to tell me something…

Incidentally, it has occured to me that listing ones own anal and obsessive features (anally and obsessively) on a blog is pretty much the most anal and obsessive sort of list possible. But whether that is ironic or apt, I’m not entirely sure.

Perhaps I’ll settle on the middle ground that ‘its all a bit pointless really’.

Atheism, Religion, Dawkins

I would dearly like to respect Professor Richard Dawkins. As a fellow atheist at least. Yet why, why is it, whenever I hear him on the radio or read anything by him, I feel the perverse urge to go sign up with the nearest recruiting religious sect? Its lucky his appearance on the Today programme this morning didn’t coincide with the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses on my doorstep, otherwise I might have done something which I would now regret.

For those of you who thought you might be spared my unnecessary and pointless attack on Prof. Dawkins, skip a couple of paragraphs (probably only one, to be honest, I may forget to paginate, let alone punctuation once I’m in full flow). Dawkins was on the Today programme to provide his usual uber-mcAtheist attack on religion after Cardinal O’Connor (chief Catholic of Britain) had suggested that Britain should not become a ‘God-Free’ zone. My main objection to Dawkin’s particular brand of ethical/scientific universalism in this instance is not, however, my usual array of hippie subjectivism.

Dawkins began by attacking the interviewing style of John Humphries and the Today team, for being ‘too soft’ on clergymen, suggesting that all an interviewee had to do to get an easy time was say ‘I’m a clergyman’. This was firstly not entirely (i.e. not at all) relevant to the issue of faith in Britain which had originally been raised in O’Connor’s speech. However, Dawkins persisted in devoting the rest of his interview to this subject. Humphries’ defence that when discussing religion, a matter of faith could not be interrogated to the same extent as, say, a politicians view on the economy, was rebuked by an increasingly outraged Dawkins.

Firstly, I learnt nothing about the good Proffessor’s view on religion in Britain. Secondly, his bull-in-a-china-shop tabloid selling approach to matters of conscience arguably does more to damage the positive aspects of atheism. Thirdly, and ironically, since he avoided answering the question on faith in Britain, are we to presume that he considers himself such a ‘clergyman’ at the grand church of atheism. High priest maybe, or master of ceremonies?

I feel this links into a deeper point about Dawkins’ atheism. In attacking all religion as unjustifiable superstition, he implicitly posits scientific, rational atheism as a similar creed to religious belief and observation. His view that religious belief is a form of deviant or delusionary behaviour (though apparently necessarily biological in origin) smacks to me of the sort of arguments used by all sorts of religious fundamentalists. I believe that more radical adherents to the Christian Gospels, the Koran or the Torah all suggest that theirs is the one and only and true truth. Why should we consider Dawkins’ evolutionary ’science’ as any more of a story. Certainly, it is couched in modern terms of objectivism and science which sit uncomfortably alongside the narratives of faith, trial and belief which abound in more traditional religious texts, but equally, in its radical unthinking rejection of alternative accounts of belief, there is arguably certainly a parallel. 

It could be countered that the grounds of proof of religion and science are at odds with each other. This is arguable, however, only to the extent that one privileges one discourse over another. The grounds of proof are different, but since their teleology – universal proof of given laws and norms – is the same, arguably the parallel still stands. Furthermore, Dawkins’ unwillingness to even take a position on the issue of faith in Britain (on this occasion at least) suggests that he is more than aware of the act of faith at the heart of his apparently so rational, objective and scientific atheism.

Anyone please feel free to comment on the half-baked couple of hundred words above,

Byyeeeee! 

Crime and Punishment

Good evening and welcome to the news on Planet Hector:

• Bong! Crime revision notes completed!
• Bong! Crime revision itself not started!
• Bong! Hector’s Economy in turmoil!
• Bong! Trading standards object to the quality of pasty Hector ate this morning!
• Bong! In other news, it is raining and commentators are already saying that the summer is over.
• Bong! Transport delays predicted for tomorrow (as Hector is travelling)!
• Bong! Barbeque ‘looking less likely’, claim officials.

And that was the headlines, in other news…

Hec

Inspiration, lack of

Energy, drive, fire, excitement, inspiration, electification…

These are all lacking at the moment. On the other hand, I feel the pressing need to rant about a next door neighbour who seems to think that 7:30 am is a perfectly respectable time to start up his chainsaw and make godawful DIY noises. It seems I am the only one who is affected though since the road is full of old people and I was most surprised to find when I crawled downstairs after said disturbance (on a SUNDAY MORNING of all times, is nothing sacred?!) to find that everyone – and yes, literally everyone – was either already up and out or doing things. It made me wonder if old people – and the people round here are old, imagine a donkey-cart load of old and add another few lumps of old and that’s still not even close sort of old – are basically giant larks, and have to get up with the daylight? Further research might be necessary on that one…

Inspiration is needed because I’ve singularly failed over the last week or so to regularly use this blog, meaning its basically just sat around on the internet taking up bandwidths (and don’t tell me I don’t know my technical stuff, that’s what internets does – takes up bandwidths, innit?)* However, being sprawled in a prone position on the remnants of a sofabed probably isn’t the best position from which to inspire, or respire for that matter…

That’s better. Now on with revision or buy an icecream…

Inspiration can wait till later I think.

Byee!

 

*And no comments about the quality of my English either.

After a pause…

Apologies for not writing for a few days (like anyone actually cares about, or more pertinently, reads this). It is basically just another broken rule to stick on top of the massive mountain of already broken rules which I have personally broken. Having said that, I have three (count them) good excuses for failing to make posts for the last five days. 

1) It was my birthday on Wednesday, and the eve of the local elections so I was out labour-ificating all day.

2) I’ve had a cold since Wednesday and am now on antibiotics and steriods, nice.

3) The result of said local elections has put me into (either) apoplectic rage at the stupidity of these people who call themselves voters or a numb sense of depression.

It would probably be pointless for me to continue this post without discussing political stuff. As a Labour supporter, it distresses me hugely to admit that our Great Helmsman (note: this term is employed ironically, cf. Private Eye) seems to have a two-button keyboard, one button marked ‘dither’ and the other ‘panic’, admitting today that he is more concerned with the detail of problems than the ‘bigger picture’. I sincerely hope that, as promised, he will listen, he will learn, and he will lead (wisely). More importantly though, I would love it for Gord to just lead – to be decisive, to be in charge and not just appear in charge and to be a Prime Minister. More importantly, the media is full of stories of party splits, divisions, factions – with even (presumably) Labour-ish Facebook groups (admittedly small) dedicated to opposing Gordon’s leadership. We need to be a united party if we are to be a successful party. Britain needs a New Labour government at the next General Elections and not a self-congratulatory look-what-we’ve-done decade celebration as the nation’s finances go belly up. So please Gordon, don’t micro-manage, don’t alienate core voters, and for God’s sake Gord, just lead! (had to try and get that God-Gord line in, didn’t I?! :-s)

As for the internal left-right split, I want Labour to stand for the Labour values that have kept us at the cutting edge of social reform for the last fifteen years. There we go, rant over.

Byeee!

PS. I might try and rebrand the blog soon and introduce more political stuff since it seems to be building up in my head and life.

PPS. Any spelling mistakes are caused by the grotty PC I’m using since my new Mac is too cool to have a USB modem grr!