Apology for my lack of posting.

There is really no excuse, I should really update more often. And I will make it my new years resolution to do so, I promise.

I have a Tumblr account now, and post a lot of stuff there, so do come and pay me a visit!

It's been quite an eventful year in British politics. The Liberal Democrats got a taste of popularity, unfortunately is was short lived. Although I am not really fussed about the tuition fees being raised, Nick Clegg has made a fatal mistake that has probably cost him and his party any chances they had of ever getting into power.

Yet I still love their policies more than those of any other party. Unfortunately should I decide to vote for them in the next election there will be a massive stigma attached, as with the rest of them. If you vote Tory you're a milk snatcher, if you vote Labour you're a warmonger, and now if you vote Lib Dem you hate students. Still that's British politics for you. America, I have noticed, does not have that problem, at least not to the extent that we do here. When a Republican candidate runs for election, they are not automatically compared to Bush or Nixon because they happen to represent the same party. (At least that's the impression I get.) At least they judge each candidate individually. That's definitely one aspect of American politics that makes it favourable to British politics. So, yeah, gotta give 'em credit for that I suppose. ;)
Hope everyone has had a good Christmas, and have a great New Year! :)

Hung parliaments and world cup hysteria.

Oh dear, it has been a while since I graced Blogspot with my presence. I have had an avalanche of assignments and exams, but I am pleased to say that I am now free for the summer! Also I am no longer a fresher at Brunel University - unbelievable how fast the time has gone. Since my last visit we have had an election, which is like a Politics student's equivalent of the world cup. I'm pretty sure I must have driven my parents insane as it was all I could talk about. As far as the results went, in all honesty, as a Liberal Democrat voter, it was the best outcome we could have hoped for, but I digress, this blog is not about the election. As much as I have to say about it, I will surely bore you and it is kind of old news now. Just wanted to give it a brief mention ;)

What I am here to talk about is still political in some respects, although it is more just another angry rant about an "issue" that has really got me going. I use quotations for the word "issue" because the truth is it's not really an issue at all. It is merely a combination of hysteria and bigotry that has created this so called issue that isn't actually there. Allow me to explain.
The world cup is approaching, and as always, people are suddenly remembering that England isn't such a bad place after all and that they actually quite like this country and so they get out the England shirts and flags and we all cheer for England until they get knocked out in the quarter finals, and everyone goes back to complaining about what a cold, grey place England is.
So everyone is happy, digging out the St George memorabilia from the attic or the shed or wherever it is they so grievously tossed it three years previously when England failed to qualify for Euro 2008. Everybody has Baddiel and Skinner or Fat Les on repeat, and even the big companies are cashing in on the event. World Cup fever is here once again.
But this time the Sun, that Holy Grail that only speaketh the truth, has made a scandalous discovery. Police want to BAN England shirts from pubs! Oh noes! :O
The offending article can be found here.
Only it's actually not as bad as is first assumed. They only recommend a ban of the shirts during the World Cup for the simple reason that there may be clashes involving drunken football hooligans. I have read the article three times and have not seen the words "Immigrants", "minorities" or "political correctness" mentioned once.
So we should accept that for once, the blame doesn't lie with immigration and that maybe the police have a point somewhat, right?
Wrong.
I came across a lovely little group on facebook. Did these people bother to read the article? Probably not. One outraged patriot says:

"how would they like it if we went and lived over there during the world cup what weve been waiting so long for and full off hope and we forced them to take off there turbans, they dont remove vales and turbans whilst there over here so why should we remove our shirts in our own country?? they shud be greatefull there here nevermind trying to take over the country. WERE ENGLAND !!! ALWAYS WILL BE, NOT PAKISTAN :D"

Do policemen wear turbans? I do not see what Pakistan has to do with policemen wanting to ban football shirts from pubs. Do they do that in Pakistan too?

"come on england im going to wear an england shirt with bnp no 10 on it im english and proud .."

Yes, because the BNP supports everything about the England football team. Wasn't it them who supported Denmark in 2002 because England wasn't "white" enough?. And didn't two senior members of the party claim that Ashley Cole wasn't English and therefore had no right to play for England, despite him being born in London?
So, if it wasn't enough that they were taking all our benefits and jobs, now those nasty immigrants want to steal our world cup too! Never mind the fact that the Sun never even mentioned immigrants in the first place. So once again the Sun’s readers fail to illuminate the issues concerned and demonstrates its inability to differentiate between fact and myth, and the proud patriots who speak for the entire population have made us look like a nation of gullible xenophobic fools.

You know, English pride, and all that.

REAL Feminists.

It saddens me that people simply do not know the true meaning of the word “feminist”. When I say I am a feminist, immediately I am accused of hating men, and pursuing a world dominated by women. No, that’s radical feminism, and only a minority of so called feminists fit that category. (Although frankly I don’t think anybody with this point of view has the nerve to call themselves a feminist, it’s not what it’s about, and it gives the rest of us a bad name.)
Ok so feminism is the idea that women are equal to men. This definition itself gets criticism, namely from conservatives, because “men and women are different, therefore they cannot be equal!” to be perfectly honest I fail to see the logic in this. Perhaps you have forgotten that “equal” and “different” are two completely different words with different definitions? We are all different, no two people are the same, but we can still have equality. It’s a pretty simple concept, and I am quite surprised so many people use that argument when it is hardly rocket science to allow diversity and equality to coexist. But I’ll explain what true feminists mean when they campaign for “equality”.
First, let’s take employment into consideration. Suppose we have two people, their gender is irrelevant, but one is qualified to be a plumber and the other has a degree in primary teaching. Both are unemployed. Let’s say there were to be a shortage of teachers, and both people applied for a teaching position in a primary school, obviously, the person who has the degree in primary teaching will get the job. They are both different but in the eyes of the employer, they are not equal, because the graduate has the appropriate qualifications to be a teacher, while the plumber does not. If they both went for a job as a plumber, then the plumber would have the advantage. HOWEVER, both the plumber and the teacher are allowed to vote, are allowed to get married, and enjoy the basic human rights that the law offers, because although they are different, their salaries are different, but they are both equal in the eyes of the law, just not when it comes to applying for a teaching position.
Ok, now let’s say we have two people, a man and a woman. Both are doctors, both studied medicine at the same medical school, both have the same number of years experience, both specialise in the same area, with the same ability both work in the same hospital. Therefore, both should receive equal pay. A feminist is someone who would look at this scenario and would agree that it would be discriminatory and unfair for the hospital to pay the male doctor more.
Their careers become irrelevant when it comes to other basic human rights, such as the right to vote. It doesn't matter whether a woman is a doctor or a housewife, she should still be allowed to participate in democracy, and she should be allowed to have all the opportunities that men have and so on. She and other women are all equal in the eyes of the law. Her gender should not get in the way of her human rights or her career prospects. That is what I believe, and so I am a feminist, as are those who believe the same. I do not hold the opinion that women should have more privileges than men, which is not feminism.
While we’re still on the subject, I do not believe that men are “objectifying” women, the media is responsible for that, and the media consists of both men and women. I also understand that men are naturally aroused by the female form, and as long as they don’t actually treat all women like objects, which the majority don’t, then I have no problem with lad’s mags like FHM, since they are merely the male equivalent of their female counterparts. Generally speaking, men tend to be interested in similar things, the same with women. I don’t necessarily think that is down to gender stereotypes, it’s down to our hormones and our brains, which is where it starts to get a lot more complicated, but that’s the basic idea.
I also disagree with encouraging girls to stay at home (which, thankfully, has been greatly reduced in the last century). However if I was a mother, I wouldn’t force my daughter to apply to university and get a career that pays lots either, I’d let her decide for herself what she wanted to do, and if that includes finding a husband and staying at home being a mother, then so be it.
So this has hopefully not just explained what I believe and the true meaning of the word "feminist", but also why feminism is important, and people should be a lot less sceptical about it. Do not be afraid to call yourself a feminist, because chances are that those who criticise it are unaware of the true meaning, or not worth your concern.

Social Democracy.

Despite getting a lot of negative media attention of late, the welfare state is a vital institution which benefits us all, whether you are rich or poor.
First of all, let’s establish where our taxes go. They go to our National Health Service, they go abroad, they go into our education and a lot more. They are also shared amongst our citizens, in the form of benefits. This sometimes causes controversy, the main issue being that people claim benefits when they don’t really need it. A common example is claiming unemployment benefits and then making little or no effort to find work. Benefit fraud is a crime and should be dealt with severely. Anybody found to be taking advantage of welfare should have their benefits stopped.
Despite the extra media attention, however, these people still remain a minority. There are plenty of honest people on benefits who genuinely need the extra money. I see myself as a good example. My parents are in debt and I am due to start University in September. I do not wish to cause them extra stress by having them pay for it, but I am also finding it increasingly difficult to get a job in the current economic climate. For that reason, I receive Job Seekers Allowance and have applied for a student loan, both of which are provided by you, the tax payer, via the government. Not too long ago, university was only available to the very rich. Now everyone has the opportunity to realise their true potential.
Then of course there is the single mother, who wants to work to provide for her children so that they can get a good start in life. You, the tax payer, can provide round the clock childcare. Your money also goes to early learning programmes such as sure start. It has been statistically proven that children who learn from an early age perform better academically in later life, are likely to go into higher education and have a good career, and less likely to turn to crime than those who do not receive pre-schooling.
A common argument against social democracy is that people will be dependent on the welfare state, but this is not what it’s there for. Those who completely rely on benefits should have them taken off them. I will not be claiming benefits for the rest of my life. When I graduate from university, I will hopefully have a career with a good salary. The single mother will not need your money forever. Once her children are old enough, they will no longer need a babysitter. Many primary and secondary schools have started to run after school clubs for children with working parents. This of course would not be possible without your money.
Another argument is the ever popular “it’s our money, we earned it, if they don’t want to earn as much as us then that’s their problem etc.” It is your money, but did you know that 54% of people below the poverty line do work? They are providing for the nation but are receiving little in return. This is why the minimum wage needs to be raised to a decent amount which people can live on. That and income support are once again provided by you, the tax payer, and it won’t be permanent because the idea is to break the cycle: Poor parents raising poor children, who will grow up to be poor parents.
An ideal Britain is a Britain that is poverty free. And it is perfectly possible. Norway successfully accomplished the abolition of poverty in 2003.It has the second highest GDP per-capita and the third highest GDP (PPP) per capita in the world. It maintained first place in the world in the UNDP Human Development index for six consecutive years (2001-2006) and despite being beaten by Iceland in 2007, it still remains in second place. Following the ongoing financial crisis, its currency has been deemed one of the most solid currencies in the world. It maintains a Scandinavian welfare model with universal healthcare, free higher education and comprehensive social security system, and, in 2007 was rated most peaceful country in the world by Global Peace Index.
If we ended poverty in the UK, everyone will benefit. Statistics prove that the majority of crime in this country is committed by people living below or on the poverty line. Better education will ensure that more of tomorrow’s workers are highly qualified, which means more doctors, more lawyers, more teachers and more jobs overall. Jobs that require low qualified workers will pay a decent wage. Overall, people will be healthier and crime will reduce dramatically, which means that we will not need to spend as much money on the NHS or on our prisons.
But none of this will be achieved without social democracy. The welfare state, the NHS and state education are all what make our country a social democracy, and without these institutions, we would be much worse off. Although we are constantly hearing negative things about the NHS, the problem is not the NHS itself, but the way it is handled. If the government sorted out the problem instead of throwing money at it (by providing more doctors, more beds and cleaner hospitals) then I have no doubt that it could be a world class system.
This won’t happen overnight. But it can happen. And if it doesn’t happen then we will remain in this situation where our money is being abused. The government needs to stop spending our taxes on things like a third runway and expenses that are not needed, and instead spend it on improved state education, childcare and higher wages for workers to provide for their family. If that can be achieved then I see a future where people will no longer have to claim benefits and our taxes are used for better things. It is not solely socialism or capitalism, it is Social Democracy: A combination of the two. If we bring these two ideologies together, it can work for all of us.

My take on the Monarchy.

I like to see myself as a liberal minded person but it seems people with similar views to me do not share my view on the Monarchy. Fair enough, it is a very archaic institution, as one facebook group describes, but whilst I am open to new things, I am not against a bit of tradition as long as it doesn't harm anybody. Yes I am aware that the monarchy was brutal to both its own people and other countries in the past, when they had power, but now, they do nothing. This is another argument people use against them, but consider the fact that they bring in a hell of a lot of tourism in this country.
Approximately £13 million of our taxes go into their pockets every year. Our taxes also go to funding museums, festivals and the BBC. All are things that we don't necessarily need, but they bring in a lot more than we give out. Getting rid of something just because we don't need it is not a good enough argument in my opinion. By that logic, we should give up most of our luxuries, the internet, music, holidays etc. But we don't, because although they put a dent in our wallets, they also make us happy. We don't necessarily need to spend so much time on our appearance, and it costs money to do so, but most of us (females in particular) like to do it anyway because it makes us attractive. That is how I see the Monarchy.
I do believe the Monarchy could do with reform. Their laws on Catholics, quite frankly, should never have been introduced in the first place, (but that's another story) but the queen herself has said the monarchy needs to bring their ideas up to date. She suggested that instead of public payments, they could have the £142 million a year in revenue generated by the Crown Estates which King George surrendered in 1760. The Royal Family also considered proposals to remove the monarch as temporal heads of the Church of England, and equal rights to women as heirs to the throne.
The Netherlands, Norway Sweden and Denmark, who are seen as some of the most progressive countries in Western Europe, all have a constitutional monarchy. When I think of these four nations, "backward" is not the first thing that comes to mind. So why should we be? The British Royal Family is, without a doubt, the most famous Monarchy in the world, and does more for us than most would have us to believe.

Back in Blighty!

I've spent the last two weeks travelling between Germany and The Netherlands with my family, so I haven't been able to post a blog for a while. Not that anyone is reading this...yet.
We went by ferry to Holland, drove to Heidelberg to pick up my sister who has been living there for 6 months, then to Cologne then Amsterdam. All three cities are quite beautiful, but The Anne Frank house in Amsterdam stood out the most of all the places we went to. It was the actual place in which she and her family lived from 1942 to 1944, complete with the secret annexe. Her actual diary was also there; open with other extracts in other areas of the room. We saw where they slept and ate, and although you couldn’t go up into the attic, they placed a mirror underneath it so you could see into it. There were also pencil marks on one of the walls marking their growth during the two years they were in hiding. It was quite moving, and things got very emotional when we read about the deportation. Of course I already knew about it, but it was presented in a way that was very touching. Once you entered the house you followed a route, and at the beginning of this route were the pictures of all the people in hiding, and their dates of birth. At the end, you saw the same pictures again, but this time telling you about the circumstances of their deaths. There was also a screen showing the liberation of the concentration camps.
After leaving Anne Frank house, we went to the Homonument, the only memorial in the world that remembers the thousands of homosexuals who perished in the holocaust. It’s basically a huge pink marble triangle on the floor, with a candle, flowers and rainbow flags. My sister took some pictures; I will post them when I can get my hands on her camera. I never actually knew that the pink star originated from the symbol that homosexuals had to wear in the holocaust. It’s great to learn new things.
We also travelled by boat a lot whilst in Amsterdam; they actually use boats as an alternative to buses. (But you can still get buses, along with trains and also trams.) And no, I didn’t try out any of the “coffee shops” in Amsterdam. Like I would ever do that with my parents. I did however get drunk after one long island ice tea in Germany. They are very liberal with their alcohol there. I had two in London and didn’t even get tipsy.
The toilets in Germany were strange; they had shelves inside the bowl, which apparently the Germans used to examine their bowel movements in the olden days. That was quite funny. We also misjudged the weather and didn’t take any sun cream, so now we all resemble lobsters.
I got home this morning; we had to get up excruciatingly early because we had an overnight cabin on the boat and had to get off before a specific time. I did have a good time, but am glad to be back in Blighty! Now to prepare for University. I’m nervous and excited at the same time. I also have to buy tickets for the fresher’s week events before they sell out. Wish they didn’t start selling them so early, I haven’t even made any friends to go with!

Auf Wiedersehen!

World Government

A friend and I were talking about the hypothetical situation of a world government. The conversation started when I came across a video about Hiroshima on YouTube. Of course I am aware that the lack of moderators on the site makes YouTube a troll haven, and unsurprisingly came across the odd comment proclaiming that the Japanese deserved the atomic bomb attack. Now whether it was necessary for America to drop the bomb or not is not the issue, but to say that innocent people who were merely going about their daily business deserved to be either vaporised, receive third degree burns or radiation poisoning was going a tad too far, especially as many of the victims were children who had no say in what their government were doing. I will not deny that the Japanese Army were pretty brutal during the Second World War, but it is unfair to put the entire population of a country into the same category. I feel the same way about the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. A number of attacks on behalf of the Israeli army and government took place at the beginning of this year, and a worrying number of my friends joined online groups entitled “death to Israel” or similar. They had not bothered to do their research, because if they did, they would have known about the Israelis that were exiled from the country for their refusal to fight for a cause they did not believe in. (Israel has a compulsory military service.)
Anyway, it is for this reason I mentioned to my friend that I was opposed to the concept of countries (Think John Lennon’s “Imagine”). Because if religion was the main cause of rivalry and war in this world, countries came a firm second. Somebody once said that we were all people before somebody drew a line on a map and called it a country, and I couldn’t agree more. People hear a statistic about the British, and assume we are all the same. It’s upsetting that so many people will have formed an opinion about me before even knowing anything about me, purely based on the combination of earth, grass and concrete on which I was born. You would think that, in the 21st century, people would have matured a lot more than our bigoted ancestors, but many still hold the archaic belief that all stereotypes are true.
My friend then told me that I sounded like an anarchist, which is certainly true, but I am not an anarchist. You could say that I sympathise with the ideology, but I don’t think it could work, certainly not in this current situation. So I suggested a global government. An elected leader of the world. It sounds farfetched, heck you could even call it stupid, but it was a moment of fantasy which generated a conversation. The world will no longer be divided into countries, what used to be countries will be a collection of states, much like the United States, so each one would have its own laws, but there will be certain laws which every country has to follow. Certain things such as war and theocracy would be illegal. Each state would elect their own equivalent to an MP but on a global scale, so these “Members of Global Parliament” would deal with the issues in their constituency (formerly their country), and raise concerns within their constituency with the global government. The situation in North Korea will be dealt similarly to how the allies dealt with Germany after the war. It would be occupied until it can sort itself out, with their own elected assembly.
So obviously this concept is flawed. For one, how would elections go about? We’re talking about more than 6 billion people, so counting votes would be a nightmare. Also, although it is an elected government, you cannot really be pro-democracy and pro-global government. It would be like forcing everyone to get along, or else... as nothing else seems to work. So the whole idea is crazy. But it is something to think about nonetheless.
In reality of course, there will always be something that sets people against each other.
In reality, people need to grow up.
Sad, but true.