Tory FAIL

I have hesitated a moment before this final “Big 3″ parties fail for two reasons. Firstly because it would be all too easy to trot out the usual series of problems with the Conservatives, something which would be unfair given the emphasis on contemporanaeity in the previous two posts. Secondly, there is the temptation to wait till after the EU parliamentary election results have been announced, or to foreshadow them in some way. However, as anyone with the time and patience can scroll through back issues of this blog or engage me in conversation to find out my views of the Tories over the langue duree, I am going to focus here primarily on their ostensible re-invention.

So, where do Cameron’s cuddly Conservatives stand on what is (miracles aside) the cusp of entering government? The Tories have never been the greenest party, this has not changed. The only green thing about them is their new logo which implies the environmental credentials absent from a party in the pocket of big business.

Their dedication to the free market (a position which they share with both other main parties) seems to remain undented despite the “unprecedented” economic circumstances. Indeed, Cameron’s criticism of the government, when not vapid rhetoric, seems to rest on the assumption that crass deregulation is a human right of bankers. And Cameron knows all about bankers. Whilst its unfair to paint a whole party with one brush, the attitude that us poor folks are jealous of the rich chaps with their big houses (that look a bit like Balmoral donchaknow) does persist in some parts of the party.

This is similarly latent in the leadership’s at best luke-warm attitude to social justice and human rights issues in general. In this respect the Tories have not out-grown or out-moded the “nasty party” label. Indeed, Cameron has suggested that, in the European Parliament at least, the Tories are closer “ideologically” to the loose conflagration of extreme right wing parties which cluster round a loose collection of ideologies ranging from skeptical Europhobia, homophobia, sexism, a variety of forms of racial supremacy to a fringe Latvian party which holds an annual celebration of Latvian collaboration with the Waffen-SS. Is this really the modern, forward looking, open image of Britain that we really wish to present to the world?

The Tories Europhobia places them at the rough centre of a more generalised British anxiety about the European Union (some of it misplaced, some of it justified). However, this loose far-right alliance is something very different. It suggests that the modern day new hug-a-hoodie Conservative is fundamentally uncertain as to whether bigotry in itself is unjustified.

Couple this with economic policies which implicitly sanction cutbacks of public services (something that “Call me Dave” Cameron has touted several times now) and Britain does not face a rosy future. After all, the implicit caveat of “public services” is not just the bowler-hatted (Brussels-bound) bureaucrat, its also teachers, nurses, firemen, and thats before we consider the various things that public money goes some way toward – cf. roads, railways, protection of the environment, electricity generation etc. Low taxes may appear like a good plan — we’d all like to think Nozick was right  a little bit — but in the end they will be taxing on the services which the worst off in society rely upon (Hurrah for Rawls!)

In short, Cameron has performed an image revolution and that is all.

Lib Dem FAIL

The Lib Dems have little reason to be chirpy. Not only do they continue to fail to deliver as the self-styled party of local government, finally it seems that the political mood is moving against them. Having lost their majorities in Cornwall, Devon and Somerset (the former being a new Unitary Authority, more on this later), the sickening yellow colour of the south-west looks like it might be, at long last, changing.

Although the Lib Dems are still the second largest party in Cornwall’s new Unitary Authority (UA), this is quite a fall given that they held sway over a large number of the district councils the UA has replaced and were the lone voice supporting the UA in the referendum several years ago. Tellingly, the referendum — which as is traditional in such matters in this country was non-binding — so the approximately 87% of Cornish people who voted against the Unitary Authority views’ counted for nothing.

So that’s what the Lib Dems mean when they claim to be the party of “local government” (if they do that at a local level, heaven forbid what they would be like if they got into government!) The Lib Dems have failed the people of Cornwall and have rightly lost control of the council. Their policy promises are vacuous, as their referendum on the UA showed.

If listening to the people is what the Lib Dems claim to be all about, they have singularly failed. There has been inaction on redevelopment of many towns (Hayle, my home town included) over the last 30 years, housing development has been entirely unsustainable and unsuited (with the interests of property developers trumping local interest — see the Lib Dems implausible claims to “sustainability” and look at the ludicrous new developments in many towns), major local developments are mired in council dawdling (cf. the various new councils, roads and shops which have been proposed over the years). This is not forgetting their singular failure to solve the perennial rural problems of seasonal unemployment (especially amongst the young), out-dated public transport (try getting anywhere by bus after about 9pm) and an infrastructure developed in a style which is often “surreal” (one Lib Dem candidate in Hayle made it his big manifesto promise to solve a huge traffic hump on a bend which his own party implemented on the old District council).

The Lib Dems like to blame all this on central government, happy in the knowledge that they will never be the party of central government. Yet if Lib Dems can do nothing in local government because of central government, it raises two questions: why do local authorities (or whatever type) exist? More importantly, is there any reason to vote the Lib Dems in?  The people of the south west have learnt the answer to this latter question slowly and painfully over the last ten or so years.

Labour FAIL

I feel like a Tory sometimes. There, I’ve said it. Before anyone requisitions a shredder to destroy my Labour Party membership card, give me ooh 500 or so words to explain why. The reason is simple. The media has suggested it (but owing to the fact that the telly journalists presume everyone watching has a minutely small attention span), they presume that events of 13 years ago can’t really compare to the Up To The Minute Drama of the unendingly tedious 24 hr news cycle. Basically, to return to the subject:

     We’re back in the chuffing 1990s.

Only the tables have thoroughly turned. We have traditional Labour voters disillusioned by the high sleaze and infighting of parliamentarians. We have a new, reinvigorated opposition which has successfully transformed its “nasty shit party” image into a potential future government, led by a potential future Prime Minister. Talking of PMs we have PM who makes John Major look both decisive and charismatic. We have a Cabinet of non-entities and the dregs of the last ten years of politics, including some that we had all mercifully hoped were long dead and gone (Mandelson). Furthermore, a reshuffle of the Cabinet throws up the same selection of uninteresting grey men who singularly fail to grab the public imagination and who are so riven by in-fighting that coherent government begins to look impossible. Add to that one of the worst economic crises in a decade!

Add to that the worst local election results for a party-in-government since Major’s final years and you can’t help my cynicism and vague sense of deja vu.

I  confidently predict that Labour will lose the next election. They will lose it not because the British people have gone off ideas of fairness, equality and social justice. They will lose it in part because in part, after three terms in government for any party, entropy and policy become co-terminous. They will lose it because the Tories have successfully seized the public imagination. They will lose it because the Tories have successfully appropriated the same agenda of fairness, equality, social justice and most importantly, good governance.

They have, in short, appropriated the image of a party of government. Something which isn’t at all unfamiliar to any Labour supporters around in 1997.

Back in 1995/6, this was a significant  concern in the dying days of Major’s Tory government. Similarly, no cohesive challenge on his leadership emerged during that torpid end-of-an-era year when an election could be called. The leadership of both parties seems to be in agreement that being let down slowly and gracefully is better than the inevitable absolute implosion (which, if the parallel proves true) will occur to both losing parties.

Just how bad Cameron’s Tories will be for the British people — and in some ways this isn’t the sort of question that anyone who is an active supporter of another political party can ever objectively answer — remains to be seen, especially as categories like “the British people” are so slippery. In my view, if this government wants  a chance of returning to government within a decade, they need to do only one thing: go to the country and seek a new mandate. Whether we win or not is not really the issue — this is the fair and just thing to do.

Good News?

I agree with David Cameron. There, I’ve said it. Now to add the significant list of caveats… Actually, sod it. Anyone wanting to know my views on teflon toff boy merely has to glance through the archives of this blog.

But in all seriousness, times have changed. This has become a hackneyed cliche pretty much overnight as a result of the massive economic downturn/recession/depression/cock-up. A telling demonstration of this came today as old Etonian stereotype Cameron announced (like a character in Yes Minister*) bonuses for his chums in the city were, well, y’know, really not on. Extraordinarily, he did not rule out the nationalisation of the indebted behemoth. He went further in saying that low-level bonuses for ordinary employees of Leviathan bank Lloyds TSB (or LTSBHBOSRBS + Gloucester) were to be encouraged. 

This is true on a number of levels, the most obvious being that it is unfair to punish an employee for the flagrant crimes of his or her employer. Secondly, such bonuses will go a small way to kick-starting the all-important consumer spending which (in the manner of four hundred men trying to hold onto one single straw) the Government assures us is the only way out of the recession.

However, not only does Cameron’s observation demonstrate the political sea-change which the current deprecession it also makes a pertinent (if cheap) political point that the current “Labour” government continued the Thatcherite financial deregulation which got us into this mess. Admitting the mistake of this policy can only be a vote-winner. Banks owned by the public should be run in the public interest. 

The time for light touch regulation is over.

 

* Maybe a spin-off entitled “Yes Leader of the Opposition”
^ Why use one term when you can use them all?

Internships or Internment?

This government has all too often been in the pocket of big business at the expense of supporting working people and the proposed internship programme strikes me as a further nail in the coffin of the social credentials of New Labour. 

The government has taken the obvious position in defence of many policies of “we can’t just do nothing,” but in this case it seems to be a case of “we can’t just be seen to be doing nothing, we must do something because otherwise we won’t be seen to be doing something, we’ll be seen to be doing nothing” (to paraphrase Yes Minister). Its also a wonderful example of Politicians’ Logic – “Something Must Be Done — This is Something, therefore We Must Do It.” Perhaps given the pisspoor state of Her Majesty’s Opposition when it comes to such a thing as policy, none of this is surprising.

The proposed Internship scheme will allegedly help graduates in the uncertain period after completing their degrees, as well as preparing the relevant skills base for the fabled (and long-distant) “up turn.” However, I fail to see how short term contracts at low wages picking up basic skills benefits anyone other than employers. Lammy (on Radio 4’s iPM) claimed that ’some skills were better then no skills – presumably the same logic applies to pay.

Current experience of graduates in a range of subjects – as some readers will be aware – does not differ greatly from the consequence of this proposal. I.E. Short term, low-paid unreliable work. Its called temping or seasonal work. And as far as I can see, as one of the most poorly regulated sectors, frequently in the press for the exploitation or poor treatment of worker of all skill levels, its the one sector which – in a period of unprecedented wider economic uncertainty – this Government should not be encouraging.

Of course, it serves to demonstrate just how important big business is to the government. The large employers’ benefits are manifold – low paid, high skilled workers on short-term contracts. No wonder CEOs are welcoming the scheme…

 

The thing that baffles me is why graduates are.*

 

* According to a BBC poll anyway.

Triumph? I think so.

The global financial situation – to attempt a long and somewhat confused metaphor – has been almost as sticky as a sticky stick stuck in sticky stuff underneath a sticky tree which is seeping sticky sap in a sticky forest somewhere in stickland, stickania. 

It is times like this where a part of me – that bitter, irreverent, irritating bit – misses Her Majesty’s Opposition. Government action has at times appeared to oscillate at random between dithering and panicking, egged on by occasional leaking. However – and I know someone who knows precisely nothing about stock markets or international finance, should probably not make such a claim after a single day of growth on the FTSE – it does look like Mr Broon has gone and done it.

The age of laissez-faire Thatcherite mis- (or should that be un-) management of this country’s Financial Services is at an end – the government has restricted CEOs bonuses and fat-cat payouts with the aim of encouraging a new culture of responsibility based on long-term gains to benefit both consumer and bankers. This is surely good for renewed confidence. With much of Northern Europe echoing Brown and Darling’s move, this is surely proof of this Labour government’s unprecedented economic record. After eleven years in power, this government is still full of new ideas and working to help ordinary people through a period of unprecedented economic crisis.

And where, pray, are Cameron’s “New” Conservatives in this? Oh yeh, supporting the government. And you get the feeling when you hear Cameron’s weak-willed warning to Brown to not glorify the rescue package that the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition is feeling somewhat jaded after a rather lacklustre conference performance, a party which is divided in both Houses of Parliament (on the issue of 28-day detention) and has singularly failed to prove itself as a government in waiting at any point during this current crisis. Not only that, the Tories have failed to even score any significant political points.

Bring on the Fourth Term!

Why Capitalism and Freedom are Incompatible

I know you’re all (i.e. the fictional populous of the inside of my cranium) whingeing about the lack of posts recently, so I thought I’d use all three of my little grey cells, hit you with a big fat headline and then (as is traditional) get bogged down in the mind-numbing tedium of the detail before admitting, on balance, when all is said and done, there are arguments on both sides.

The familiar argument for this comes from Nozick – that if we are taxed, we are not free since we must work surplus labour in order to pay our taxes. I disagree with this idea – however, from a strict act utilitarian point of view, is it not equally valid to argue that work itself is an inhibition to freedom? Clearly, the advantages of all sorts of productive labour are clear both economically, socially, psychologically and educationally.

But, is it not equally valid that work is an imposition on (and here I throw my nice post-structuralist anti-essentialist baby, kicking and screaming, out with the bathwater) on some essentially hippie, loved up and absolutely free (bordering on anarchistic) human essence?

I’ll leave the readers to decide that one, mostly because its one of those arguments which I have a feeling I have probably got completely wrong.

On the other hand, freedom – and in particular freedom of expression – arguably occupies a somewhat fraught relationship with modern globalised capitalism. This is clearly demonstrated in the – and I never thought I’d use this word about my blog – scandal surrounding earlier posts about customer service training. I find it an intolerable intrusion on my freedom of expression that my personal opinion – as an employee engaged in a merely financial relationship with a large company – is negated and unpublishable should it go against the brand image of that company.

Personally, I find this utterly unacceptable. There is no reason that someone giving me money in return for my labour, however powerful, should have any hold over my personal opinions or my freedom to express them so long as they don’t contradict the laws of the land, are not provably false or explicitly libel an individual or institution.

I invite anyone sufficiently better informed on the law – or best practice – to reply to any of the above.

Byeee!

Its Been A While…

Yet again, there have been many things all of which are worthy of blogspace. First off, I am (technically) now no longer a student – until September 24th anyway – and more scarily, my NUS has expired (although no-one in Cornwall understands NUS anyway so I’m not really missing it). Secondly, I’m back at the shop of dooooom, earning money and being a productive member of society. Thirdly, there’s only ten days to go until my exam results are out…

The 42-day detention debate deserves some blog attention, but I’m loathe to attempt a serious post at the moment since I am having to write this in Notepad and paste it into explorer on a Windows Me computer which is nearly ten years old and crashes. Its like a conversation with my Gran, this machine. I keep expecting it to conk out or yell ‘what did you say? Speak up, don’t mumble’ etc etc.

As to 42 day detention – and now I’m forced to be short, direct and to the point, three things which don’t come naturally – my main concern is not the egocentric publicity stunt of David Davis but the big Brown fudge that the Government has accomplished. Beyond the initial reaction last week, our Dear Leader has done little to defend the constitutional position, or to assert the patent absurdity of Davis’ position. By-elections exist to choose local constituency MPs, not to resolve complicated legal issues.

If he wanted to genuinely influence the progress of the Bill or derail it, there are so many more logical things he could’ve done. First off, press for Tory policy (as Shadow Home Secretary, no less) to aim at parliamentary reform to prevent whatever scandal he is so aggreived by – from what I can fathom, this amounts to the Labour party legislating on a manifesto commitment mixed with a good dose of sang froid that things didn’t go his way.

Alternatively, he could get other Dave (‘Call Me Dave’ Cameron) to kick him upstairs and move from the proverbial animals to the vegetables and as a meber of the House of Lords involve himself in the legal scrutiny of the Bill. Of course, that might seem a bit radical – to become a single-issue Lord as it were – but the point still holds that the Terror Bill has a massive amount of parliamentary procedure to go before it becomes law. After all, a layman could be forgiven for thinking either that the Lords was a Tory/Opposition free zone, or more significantly, that David Davis has no confidence in his party colleagues in the Upper House.

His decision – as I said before – is childish and egocentric. Furthermore, it sets a bizarre precedent. It suggests that his constituents (and by implication, any local constituency) is a valid location to decide national security policy, or (equally) any issue which the incumbent feels passionately about. This is a bizarre and ludicrous idea for all the obvious reasons. The entire point of the bicameral system of the UK is to allow for high level and highly qualified legal deliberation in the House of Lords. In forcing a by-election on this issue, David Davis has in my view done more to harm democracy in the UK than 42 day detention ever would.
He has ridden rough-shod over parliamentary procedure and democratic principle in asserting (superciliously and egocentrically) that he is to be the arbiter of the forum in which the 42-day debate should be discussed – and choosing one which is entirely inappropriate. The election of an MP should be based on the suitability of the candidate and their party team to represent local people.

OK. Breathe in, here I go on the petrol crisis (the computer just crashed, conveniently). Living in the West of Cornwall (where they still eat their young etc), I have to confess to being slightly confused on two fronts by the idea that the country will be brought to a halt by two four day strikes by Shell workers (+ associated wildcat strikes). As usual, I have a fatuous and a serious comment.

Going for the comic first, one of the manifold joys of working in Essentials (there’s certain to be a post later in the season listing these), is the local Atlantic FM radio station. They have – over the last three days – been sending – by car – reporters to different petrol stations up and down Cornwall to see what the price is and what queues there are. On top of this, first local news (creeping over the border from Plymouth, armed with garlic and crucifixes to ward of the Cornishness), then the national news broadcasters have sent people into the region worst affected by the petrol strikes. The quick-witted among you will be expecting what’s coming next…

Is it not possible that the petrol shortage down here is being exacerbated by journalists reporting on the petrol crisis using petrol to fuel their investigations of the crisis?

Secondly, and mroe seriously, just what is it about a spokesman saying ‘don’t panic buy’ that makes the entire nation rush out and, err, panic buy? I heard the news when still in Cardiff but no part of my brain ever considered that this was an invite to dash down to the mounting queues to fill up my tank, even with a 217 mile journey ahead of me. Furthermore, I did not think when I left Bristol on the M5, I must top up now “because ‘ey don’t ‘ave petroleum down in corrrnwaaall” (imagine a ludicrous rural accent if you wish).

Other people – some of them sensible, others less so – however, have been flitting hither and thither across the county searching for a petrol station and getting worried because the station down the road has sold out. Possibly if people stopped panic buying, there wouldn’t be as much of a problem. Perhaps if people just used petrol for urgent journeys – and driving round to find a garage is not really urgent, that is panicking – there wouldn’t be any garages out of fuel.

Its not as if the petrol is even disconnected. The majority of non-Shell deliveries have continued, with some companies arranging extra deliveries to maintain supplies in their stations. Equally, its not as if – in the modern era of motorways and massive lorries – that it will be impossible for all but the most rural and remote petrol stations to be refuelled during the five day gap between Monday monring when the strikes ended and Friday when the second strike is due to start. This is particularly true in Cornwall where moving things by car is pretty much the only quick and efficient way to transport goods such as fuel in and out of the county.

This is not to ignore the many consumers who have been dreadfully affected. It is odd though, that to my knowledge, the farmers and fishermen – who, after all require fuel in order to grow/catch/raise foodstuffs – have had a much lower profile than the apparently poor motorist. Certainly, there are more motorists than fishermen, but they have other options – even down here in deepest Ruralland. For example, public transport of various forms. Though I guess a panic increase in rail use due to a petrol crisis wouldn’t be as newswoprthy for the ‘the end is nigh’ -mongers of the media. Igf you are a fisherman with a small commercial or private boat, without diesel there is very little way of maintainign your livelihood.

But of course, the Curse of Jeremy Clarkson means that it is the motorist who always suffers, the motorist whose livelihood is threatened, and of course, the motorist who flies into a big girly panic-buy when some of the fuel is stopped for a few days.

Forty-Two Days

Today was a momentous day for the media of Britain with the final fall of the story that has kept Britain’s news media going for nearly forty-two weeks has now fallen. ‘It was a long, hard slog but the story finally had to go’ said one distraught journalist, ‘the whips killed it in the end, they got the decision they wanted and it is with great regret that we see this story fall…’ Yep, that’s right. In theory, the government has won a vote in the House of Commons approving detention of terror suspects for 42 days.

Apparently, this is not a vote of conscience by those MPs who voted with the government. It is, in fact, ‘a very sad day indeed for the great tradition of liberty that this country has represented’, it is a victory of ‘the whip’s office’ and not the strength of the government’s argument. This strikes me as opportunism on the part of Her Majesties’ Opposition – which is what we expect and is entirely healthy in a democracy – but also on the part of the 37 Labour MPs who voted against the government.

David Davis – whom I quoted earlier, claiming it was a victory for Labour whips – evidently needs his head examining. I don’t wish to get involved in the moral ins and outs of 42 day detention – which I personally oppose – but I feel the shadow Home Secretary needs a lesson in political reality. It is a fact universally acknowledged that any party leadership who feels significantly strongly on an issue will use its centralised resources to influence/persuade/cajole MPs to vote a particular way.

To say after losing a vote that ‘it was the whips what won it’ strikes me as a slightly facile observation in the circumstances. Is he suggesting that, when put in a similar position, a future Tory government would sit back, shrug their shoulders and decide that their own principles just aren’t important? This is a ludicrous position and strikes against the whole idea of the party system in this country. Furthermore, it strikes me as opportunism. Quite how this becomes a defeat for liberty – when the democratically elected government has successfully promulgated legislation and ensured that its policy has been passed – is rather confusing for me.

For once, the government has demonstrated some leadership and authority, leading the way on a controversial issue and not letting troublemakers dictate or confuse government policy. This is not – as failed leadership candidate John McDonnel put it – a hollow victory for the government.

Personally, I will admit to feeling uncomfortably ironist on the fact that the government has shown leadership on an issue which effectively ‘repeals Magna Carta’ (Tony Benn).

Change? Don’t Make Me Laugh…

The government – we are told – is old, tired and boring. What we need – the papers incessantly remind us – is a new, shiny, so-clean-they-squeak government led by David ‘call me Dave’ Cameron. Under ‘Dave’, there would be no corruption. Under Dave, there would be no more misery. Indeed, under Dave, it is alleged that sadness and general miserableness would be abolished ‘within the first hundred days’…

Unfortunately, I can’t help but be somewhat cynical about all these claims. I can’t help reading, hearing and watching a myriad political journalists give out the same (ironically) tired bunch of cliches as they observe that Mr Brown looks tired, or that Alistair Darling has eyebrows (and what eyebrows they are!) or that certain senior Labour members in the Scottish parliament perhaps should be strung up and shot. The news industry seems to have taken the golly-we-have-to-give-away-free-shit-to-get-readers to an extreme, I can practically hear the newstand men of the future declaring chirpliy; ‘READALLABOUTIT! Free bunch of cliches’ with every copy!’

Beyond the facile observations made above though, there are two frankly disturbing aspects at the bottom of the current predicament of the government as the media portrays it. And, as a good student, I’m going to employ both my skills as a historian and a politics student to diagnose them (you lucky, lucky bastards, dear reader!)

Historically, at the start of the Blair years – and writing that still looks weird; look at it, Blair, historical: how the hell did that happen?? – we were all told (infamously) ‘things can only get better!’ The Major government was tired, populated by a motley array of minor freak-show exhibits and the Tory party was more riven with internal disputes than the last meeting of EU Commissioners and Spanish fishermen.

Is that an echo I hear? No, thought not. The media has massive power to influence people’s opinions of the government. Would it not be good – just for once – to not hear about the next-best-thing on the menu, but the highlights currently on offer? Is there something behind all this though? Certainly, both the Tories in 1997 and the last year or so of Labour government seem to have got too worked up with the institutional agenda. With sleaze and cash-4-peerages, both have been rocked by major scandals…

But has anything really changed? In the last week two senior Tories – the Party Chair Caroline Spellman and their leader in the EU Parliament – are going to be investigated by the Parliamentary Standards commission for what are alleged to be serious breaches of expenses regulations. I think it is important that the people ask if they can really trust ‘new-best-thing’ Call-me-Dave Cameron and his cronies. I worry that taking him at face value could be exceedingly detrimental to the country. More importantly, it alarms me considerably that any government’s fate can be determined by a small, unelected bunch of hacks and newspaper editors. Because they’re obviously the best qualified people to comment on the qualities of Her Majesty’s government and opposition, aren’t they?

Facebook Protest?

This is becoming something of a trend in my posts (well, one other post on the topic, but whose counting? Oh, you are. Bugger.) My exceptional procrastination efforts have actually started to implode in on themselves, with the ultimate end of time-wasting being replaced by actual constructive, productive and inductive logic/work. And nowhere is this more clear than my Facebook activities.

I am well aware of the irony that emerges from complaining about unnecessary, unproductive and apathetic internet content in a blog. What interests me in this though is the qualitative aspect of debates, opinions and issues on the information superhighway of the interweb. For example, see http://hectorroddan.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/reformation-of-manners/ for a specific instance of this) is the post I make on a Facebook comments page or an online forum/chat room of the same quality as a written letter to someone in authority, a complaint delivered over the phone or a heated face-to-face exchange?

I personally think that internet discussions, almost regardless of topic, when conducted on public message boards or other fora do not neatly fit into any of the traditional categories of information exchange or dispute. For instance, to complain or raise a point of view on any issue on a Facebook page, profile or group requires much less effort than writing a letter to your MP, arranging a public meeting about an issue or setting up a real-life petition. Secondly, I cannot help wondering if there is a narcissistic element to many such posts. It is a case of “here be my views, querrel in thy boots all ye who readeth here” as opposed to stating a point of view to the public in general, or a specific audience.

Of course, many would doubtless argue that the internet has democratised and revolutionised communications, allowing a much wider section of society to present their own world views and engage in the key debates of the day. But I have a serious problem with this since internet communication is by its very accessibility, exceptionally diffuse and vague. It can only feed into official decision making in an off-hand way. Furthermore, the anonymity of the internet – and ’social networking’ sites in particular – seems to strip many debates of the usual decencies and politenesses, often reducing them do a slanging match between equally uninformed parties.

If such communication is routinely pointless, why has it become so popular? My own gut feeling would be that it is a form of communication which shares aspects of the public platform and big spectacle embodied in, for example, the US Presidential election debates which are about to get under way, and the intimacy and privacy of drunkenly setting the world to rights in a pub with your mates.

Thus, there are no entry qualifications to engage in internet debates. Beyond the ubiquitous profile mugshot and whatever information one chooses to disclose via profile pages etc, your views are effectively anonymous. Thus, there is nothing to stop the exaggeration of facts and, beyond the subjectivity of the individual reader, no real means of verifying the truth status of any claims made. More importantly, since there is no real target audience (since the comments page, discussion board or chat is likely to be available to anyone in possession of internet access), what you say has no official standing.

Is this reduction of major issues and debates to a radically intersubjective exchange of personal opinions necessarily negative? There are clearly two sides, but I have a feeling I would err on the side of caution. Firstly, it is ludicrous to suggest that the sort of exchanges which proliferate on the internet are some product of the technical revolution. I would suggest rather that their accessibility has been – to use that much cited word of our time – globalised. Furthermore, this process is not as value neutral as some may suggest. Theoretically, the internet has provided merely a way for distant peoples to exchange views and interact. Yet I would argue this process is value-sloped. The sort of everyday discussion of issues of the day (broadly defined) that was going on in the alehouses of the sixteenth century and in informal and semi-formal social groups ever since human beings have been around simply does not corealate simply with the slanging matches of the information superhighway.

First and foremost, the publication or posting of an opinion on the internet, I would argue, gives it a self-sanctioned quasi-officiality. It is a statement of opinion but in a very different way to one expressed over a pint in the local since it is published and publicly available. This can be seen to objectivise a discourse which in the pre-internet times would have been wholly or mostly private, localised and contained. In short, the act of declaring a statement in an internet post is very different from the lost temporal moment of an utterance in a debate or an official letter raising an issue to an individual or group apparently ‘in the know’ or in power.

Thus, such internet communication occupies an ambiguous position as discourse. This position, I would argue, can have an extremely detrimental effect on the quality of any debate or on perceptions of authority. Since an internet discussion board possesses an ambiguously objective status, it can be seen to be both a public and private expression of opinion. Thus, contributions can be seen to be regulated by the two vastly different modes of behavior appropriate to either public or private discourse. Furthermore, deciding between whether one’s post should be a reasoned, considered, polite and informed contribution to the debate or a sharp gut reaction is made entirely subjectively. Clearly, the equally subjective reader can discern between the two but this is perhaps not yet the heart of the issue.

This ambiguity arguably has larger implications for the power-knowledge nexus (cf. Foucault) of such discourse. If we accept the basic premise that knowledge is subject to power relations and not some a priori to them, it must be agreed that internet debate and discussion can have a radical impact on the perception of power and its exercise. In enabling (to use the most value neutral term) wider access to debate on a given issue, the internet can be seen to impact on the subjective perception of those with power and influence over the issue by the interlocutors engaging in the ambiguous subjective-objective internet debate. This is perhaps a common sense observation (as much Foucaultian thought tends to be, when it is boiled down into non-jargon). Basically, by enabling a quasi-public yet unofficial discourse, the internet devalues the more meaningful and official channels of communication. Such a thing as a Facebook debate allows one to vent steam and/or give one’s reasoned opinion yet the creation of the post is implicitly the end-in-itself. It is an expression of a view, that is all. Thus, such a contribution lacks influence since it bypasses or fails to engage with the prime decision makers with influence over the given issue. Therefore the individual feels they have said their piece – to borrow some imagery from here and there – they feel purged and redeemed by contributing, yet their contribution is inherently meaningless unless the forum they contribute to has some official sanction (for a brilliant examples of such fora, see http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=35134540250&ref=ts, or http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42309175229&ref=ts).

Furthermore, as I pondered at the start of this article, contribution to non-official, private message boards, I would argue possess an inherently narcissistic element. Furthermore, the fact that anyone can contribute, but that contribution provides no meaningful goal or objective – such as a petition or letter might – the contribution and, implicitly, its content is rendered meaningless. Simply another bit of flotsam and jetsam floating out there in internet land, clogging up our bitrates.(see many topics on the ‘Pluto isn’t a planet anymore’ Facebook group – one of the most bizarre fora for engaging in moral/social/political/religious debates, http://www.facebook.com/board.php?uid=2207893888&f=2&start=30&hash=5392502bdfdf1843250d046fd643fa08).

Of course, the fact I have chosen this forum to express my dissatisfaction and objections, is perhaps a beautiful piece of irony, or blatant hypocrisy. Any suggestions?

All links are, to my knowledge, to public sites. No copyright infringement or offence intended.

“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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

RON is dead. Long live RON.

Elected unopposed is an unfortunate phrase in any context. It has overtones of Mugabe, elections in the former USSR and Tony Blair against Micheal Howard in 2005. That is, however, the only phrase apposite or appropriate for how I have somehow managed to secure seats on the execs of both Xpress radio and Labour, where first and foremost, I would like to congratulate everyone else who was elected yesterday.

Another Interesting Fact:

Or rather, dear reader, the first “Another Interesting Fact” of what may turn into an ongoing part of this Blog, dependent on two factors, one being the extent to which it is popular with you, dear reader. The second factor, however, is significantly more random, in a holistic sense at least. This factor is based on the number of “Interesting Facts” (or IFs) that I experience in any twenty-four hour period. Thus, there is an infinite potential for IFs to occur in the vicinity of this blog, yet if you wish to calculate the exact proportion or probability of IFs per calendar day, it would involve dividing the average rate of IFs by some external indicator. This, I would suggest, would best be understood as a quantitative scale measuring the proportions of interesting to uninteresting phenomenology which I encounter in any one twenty four hour period. Thus, this PI2uIP scale could objectively discern the potential for IFs (and uIFs, for that matter) in my life, for potentially any specified time period. Of course, we then come to the difficult stage of cross-referencing the real world PI2uIP scale onto some measure of other datasets which could conceivably form a part of this blog. We will call this, for ease and clarity, the EBD set (Extraenous Blog Data set). Furthermore, for our formula to produce accurate and quantifiable results it would be necessary to map on certain other real life factors. For instance, the probability of a blog actually being created. This could be a simple binary indication where 0 = no blog created and 1 = blog created (the BC indicator, for want of a better term). Thus, if

PI2uIP = 1:32.56 and IFs = 2, but BC = 0, then the number of IFs recorded in the BS (Blogspace) would = 0 since it is impossible to record an IF in the BS if BC = 0.

In contrast, if

BC = 0, but PI2uIP = 1:1, thus making the IF = 0.5, then the potential for the IF being present in the BS = 0.75, and thus it is entirely probably on a level graded scale of 0 to 1 that the IF will happen to be recorded in the BS.

Such a system, however, lacks a certain theoretical rigour and mathematical finesse. Thus, I would humbly propose the system is altered to include some means of recording the level of procrastination, distraction, cooking or other distractive phenomenon which form the causal nexus behind the BC score. For clarity, I label this theoretical construct n. Thus, a proportionally higher n value would reduce the BC score proportionally, thus meaning that if:

n = BC / IF

then IF = BC * n.

And there we have it:

BC = IF / n, where IF = 1 / P2IuIP * 100.

Byeee!