The ‘gay candidate’ for Mayor of London, Brian Paddick (in case you don’t know who he is, he is the Lib Dem candidate), has released a new advertisement…

Some people are not swayed by this type of bandwagon jumping, get over it?

Now, I [...]]]> I almost spat my teeth out. Thankfully they aren’t false.

The ‘gay candidate’ for Mayor of London, Brian Paddick (in case you don’t know who he is, he is the Lib Dem candidate), has released a new advertisement…

Some people are not swayed by this type of bandwagon jumping, get over it?

Now, I know he’s openly gay, I know he’s an ex-copper. I know it’s tongue in cheek, and I’ve just found out that Siobhan Benita, the independent candidate for Mayor of London has pulled off a similar trick.

Now, a Stonewall campaign with a serious message has been politicised, I am completely turned off by these two formerly credible candidates. Paddick is gay. I am gay. I don’t want a statement about gay equality being equated to a politics. For that reason Siobhan Benita has lost my first preference vote, and Brian Paddick my second preference vote.

Siobhan, in the BBC news piece, says she thinks people are turned off by politics. On the contrary, some people do care an awful lot. Especially when you mix politics with equality campaigns for your own gain.

I am not a Tory, but at this rate I may vote Boris (I have NEVER voted that way in my life). Get over it.

“It is very hard to know what the dispute is about. It is said to be about Health and Safety but actaully all Unite’s material [...]]]> To be a good politician, you have to be able to spin well. Frances Maude deserves a medal for the bull he’s just been spouting on the BBC news channel.

“It is very hard to know what the dispute is about. It is said to be about Health and Safety but actaully all Unite’s material suggests it’s about much more than that.”

Frances Maude, 10:57

Earlier in his interview, he stated the dispute was purely about pay.

“Tanker drivers work in an increasingly fragmented and pressurised industry where corners are being cut on safety and training in a bid to squeeze profits and win contracts. Drivers face growing job insecurity as a result of the contract ‘merry-go-round’ and a ‘beat the clock’ culture has flourished with drivers forced to meet ever shorter delivery deadlines.”

“This is not about pay – this is about ensuring that high safety and training standards are maintained, so that our communities are safe. It is about a simple measure, the creation of an industry-wide bargaining forum. It is about bringing fairness and stability back to an essential national industry.”

Unite Website – 11:00

Unfortunately, the European Liberal Democrats decided to vote along with Centre-Right parties in Europe, against the [...]]]> Glenis Willmott MEP, leader of the Labour group in Europe, tabled a proposal calling for an amendment to Europe’s workplace safety directive “to prevent the victimisation, dismissal or the refusal of employment or ‘blacklisting’ of workers or their representatives.”

Unfortunately, the European Liberal Democrats decided to vote along with Centre-Right parties in Europe, against the proposal.

You may remember not so long ago that a vile charicature of a human ran a company which made sure that construction industry employers knew who in their workforce was a union safety representative, so those people could be refused work.

By voting against the proposal, the Liberal Democrats have left those rogue employers free to dismiss, blacklist or victimse their workers who raise concerns about safety.

Brian Higgins, a blacklisted bricklayer and a member of the June Blacklist Support Group delegation, described the actions of the LibDem MEPs as “a kick in the teeth for honest workers prepared to take a stand to protect the lives of their workmates. But we will keep on campaigning against the evil scourge of blacklisting by big business until we finally get some justice.”

Liberal Democrats - Yellow Conservatives.

An odd day to read the news, Nick Clegg says people should not “write off” the Lib Dems, despite them slumping to sixth place in the Barnsley Central by-election.

“”In truth it was a no contest for any non-Labour candidate,” [...]]]> Yes, it’s time to look at the news from today…

Clegg defiant against the voters

An odd day to read the news, Nick Clegg says people should not “write off” the Lib Dems, despite them slumping to sixth place in the Barnsley Central by-election.

“”In truth it was a no contest for any non-Labour candidate,” … “It was a very safe Labour seat. Labour got a huge majority on an abysmally-low turnout and everybody else was left to pick up the pieces.”

So, if we take that literally, Nick Clegg doesn’t pay attention to what the polls say unless it suits him. I’d rather expect that, as a champion of a new way of politics, he’d take a more measured view of what the people think.

Smith upsets Letts by talking about pornography.

Jackie Smith’s programme about pornography on BBC Radio 5 Live was a hoot. Though I am still left wondering whether her comment that all those shelves of women being objectified and degrading themselves equally means that gay porn is men degrading and objectifying themselves? Barely a smattering of complaints, according to Ofcom, so it went down well, with the listeners at least, but not with Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail. You know the old adage, if you don’t like it don’t watch it? Well, that applies to listening too. Poor old (well, nearly 50) Letts mustn’t have enjoyed listening to “Porn Again”, judging by his reaction in the paper:

“Little Miss Brassy barged her way on to the publicly-funded airwaves last night to present a breathy, oh-so-daring radio programme about pornography.”

“The point of the exercise, purportedly, was to report and inform. Pull the other one. The aim here was titillation and self-promotion.”

“Did the title of the show, ‘Porn Again’, not say it all? A jokey pun, and quest for a second chance. Miss Smith yearns to turn herself into a media celebrity. The BBC wanted to pull in the viewers by having a former Home Secretary say ‘t*ts’ on air.”

Let’s get this right, Letts points out that the programme title should have said it all. I’m struggling to understand how the man who wrote “Bog Standard Britain”, a book about how critical correctness has “crushed the individualism from our nation of once indignant eccentrics” has the gall to whinge when a programme tailored exactly to those eccentrics surfaces.

That same Quentin Letts who wants to flatten town centres, and replace them with houses, because the town centre is ‘dead’.

That same Quentin Letts who is frequently welcomed onto the airwaves of the BBC (particularly Radio Four), to come up with pious shite such as this gem:

“I was just thinking about the Olympics. My feeling about the Olympic Games is that it should be about games, it should be about sport, it should be about men running the 100 yards or the 100 metres and it should be about enormous Russian women putting the shot and it shouldn’t be – at least we think they’re women – and it shouldn’t be – it shouldn’t be about the arts. And it horrifies me when this whole thought of the cultural olympiad gives me a bit of a shiver.”

I’m sure those Russian women putting the shot would love to give you a shiver.

[Any Q’s 25^th January 2008 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions_transcripts_20080125.shtml]

More Porn!

Staying with Pornography, since it’s topical, an article from the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362646/Northwest-University-investigate-sex-toy-demonstration-Faith-Kroll.html

It would appear that Northwest University in Chicago has been getting a lot of attention over a sex-display after class, the President of the school is upset, and the right-wing media are setting themselves up to wet themselves over it, but secretly wish they were there, no doubt.

Before we get to the details, the article tells us that the University is one of the top ones, and it charges about 40,000 US Dollars per year to learn. There was a video shown in a “Human Sexuality” class, and the students felt it was not realistic. Thankfully, the guest lecturer, said he could organise a couple to demonstrate a sex toy, and the female orgasm. Attendance was optional, strong warnings on the explicit nature given, and a handful of students left, leaving around 100 behind to watch and behold.

There was a video clip going around the internet a few years ago, where power-tool style sex toys were being used by a woman, and in this case, that’s what was chosen as the tool to display sex toys and the female orgasm.

The president of the University says it was poor judgement. Unfortunately, for many women and quite a lot of men, the education on the female orgasm was worth more than the lesson itself.

Naked Women!

Speaking of Pornography, the newspaper really doesn’t know which side of the fence to sit on, as it displays “Olympic Water Babes” naked, underwater. Their snapper used a Nikon D300, apparently, though I rather expect that any men reading are more interested in the names and ages of the athletes – thankfully the Mail has given a handy key to that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1362768/Meet-Britains-Olympic-water-babes-whove-shed-inhibitions-costumes.html

And Finally…

Tensions were growing today after the Sun reported from a soldier that the MoD paid £22.51 for a light bulb worth 65p.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/3445710/Ministry-of-Defence-pay-22-for-65p-lightbulb.html

Unfortunately the invoice printed in the paper does not display whether the invoice is for £22.51 or 22.51p. Big difference. Not sure why we only get such a small snippet to make it quite so impossible to give the story legitimacy, either.

Liam Fox was uppity though, lambasting Labour for waste. Yes, 11 months after the general election, Cameron, Duncan-Smith, Hague, Clegg and Fox still can’t quite get their head around the fact that they should have had more of an impact by now. That said, I am worried why the Government are rushing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, without investigating other efficiencies they can make – such as reducing the cost of the bloody lightbulbs!

The questioning, as you might expect, was slanted towards “why have the Liberals got [...]]]> I listened to Liberal Democrat Lynne Featherstone on Friday gone, as she told the TUC’s LGBT conference that she fully supported them. This talk was followed by a Q&A session, cut very short because she had more important things to do.

The questioning, as you might expect, was slanted towards “why have the Liberals got into bed with the Tories so readily?”. To be very honest, I have yet to hear a convincing answer. According to Featherstone, it’s our own fault because of the way we voted. How demeaning.

There was a lot of talk about the Tories’ past record on LGBT rights. Featherstone said we should not judge the ConDems on their past but on the way they are behaving now. At the same time, however, the ConDems are quick to blame a lot of things on Labour.

Featherstone, as Minister for Equalities, was largely dismissive of delegates concerns over the partnership. The Liberals and the Tories do have different viewpoints on equality issues, so there is no real surprise at the contention. There is surprise at the reaction of the committed Liberals, who on the face of it don’t seem to be able to comprehend that those of us with an interest in equalities can not understand why the Liberals got into bed with the regressive party on that aspect.

Bearing in mind that this opposition to the ConDem relationship is quite apparent, and anyone with half a brain cell would be able to guess that a room full of Trade Unionists from an LGBT background would be more than willing to voice this opposition, why was Featherstone quite so surprised by the grilling she got?

Had the ConDems done research, and rubbed their empty heads together, perhaps they would have figured it out, and briefed the MP so she could pretend at least to understand the views she was being given. It would have been much more helpful if, as an Equalities minister, she understood the views she was being given in the first place.

To quote the Mirror, it’s a Con Dem Nation now.

I sat down to watch Question Time last night, and nearly spat my teeth out when Dimbleby announced that Cameron’s Government would only send a representative if Alistair Campbell was not on the [...]]]> Well before the General Election, I gave some examples of how politicians were trying to fundamentally meddle with the BBC’s political independence.

I sat down to watch Question Time last night, and nearly spat my teeth out when Dimbleby announced that Cameron’s Government would only send a representative if Alistair Campbell was not on the panel. Oh how petulent and immature our new Government has turned out to be.

The inference is that the Con-Dem coalition are unwilling to speak about their policy and legislature without a front-bench Labour spokesperson present. I’m not quite sure why, as surely not having a senior elected Labour person would make their job easier.

The fact that the Tories couldn’t be arsed to field a shadow minister for every programme when Labour were in power sailed over their heads. When the tables are turned, apparently the Con-Dems don’t like it.

This also shows how the Tories and Lib Dems view the BBC as a tool they can push around at will. Back in September 2009, Jeremy Hunt was pretty open in his view that the BBC should have more openly Conservative newsreaders.

What is the point of having a Royal Charter to set out the independence of the BBC from political interference if the Cameron-Clegg Government are going to undermine that very independence within two days of the Queen’s speech to Parliament?

More to the point, if the Tories and Lib Dems feel that they are so powerful and lacking in hmility that they feel they can veto a guest on a political programme, what will their next objective be?

If you value the impartiality of the BBC, be very wary over the next five years.

Photography: Kings Cross Liberal Democrats

The photograph is also unique because:

He’s exacerbated, it’s been a long weekend for him. [...]]]> Home Secretary Alan Johnson certainly lost his cool when being interviewed on Sky yesterday.

Finger pointing and everything! I would assume that the Home Secretary thought he was being clever, and pointing at the interviewer in an ‘oh, I’ll teach you a lesson’ kind of way.

He’s exacerbated, it’s been a long weekend for him. He looks tired. He’s just sacked someone, and two more have resigned. Poor thing, feeling all trapped in the corner like that, he sure tried to come out fighting.

I’m definitely glad that Prof Nutt has said what he has, as now we know that the Government aren’t listening to its advisers, as well as the country. The UK Government recently conducted a paper pushing exercise to reclassify cannabis. The Home Secretary says he took the advice of the scientists, and mixed it with police and medical opinion. The medial opinion has since been disproven, the Police at the time were watering down their approach to cannabis, and the scientists were saying the drug isn’t all that harmful. The only people who were really making a noise about cannabis were the Tories, and Labour pandered to them.

Thing is, I’m not sure who I want to vote for now.

Labour – vote for the party which has become so complacent it doesn’t feel a need to listen to its advisers, and then gives a holider-than-thou interview on Sky News.

Conservatives – David Cameron has got his party into bed with some easter European MEPs, ones who don’t agree with fundamental rights of others to live their lives how they wish. Cameron has also reneged on his promise to rejuvenate politics, he was going to show us how it should be done, but have you seen his mad Chimpanzee impresson on Prime Ministers Questions? Nothing about his style is rejuvenating politics.

Liberal Democrats – as I said previously, they gave partial control of a local council to the Conservatives. The Tories were third, Labour were second. The Liberals discounted a huge portion of votes to get into bed with the also-ran. Why would I bother.

There’s a plethora of others, of course, like the Green Party. I’d rather not vote if that’s my option. Why would I want to waste time watering down the politics between the top three parties.

Was Johsnon Wrong?

From reading the report from the huge inquest that followed the BSE scare, which found that Tory ministers did not take heed of scientific fears that the mad cow disease could spread to humans, paragraph 1300 of the report said:

1300 Everyone agreed that the Government had a problem with credibility. A number of Government Ministers told us that they had lost credibility with the public, so that it was necessary to get independent experts to lend credibility to public pronouncements about risk. Mrs Bottomley spoke of the need for the public to receive information free of ‘political overtones’. She told us that she did all that she could to promote the Chief Medical Officer as an independent expert who could be trusted by the nation.

Overall the inquiry found that “scientific investigation of risk should be open and transparent” and that “the advice and the reasoning of advisory committees should be made public”. This is a fundamental link between the people believing the political undertones of ministers.

Since we haven’t heard much from the Government to show that their own drugs advisory council were not giving the same information as the Government were projecting, I think it is safe to say that Alan Johnson failed in his remit, and Prof. Nutt was right to go public, shaming Mr Johnson and making him fight from his corner. Today, Mr Johnson has continued to fight his battle from his corner.

Alan Johnson has been vehemently saying over the last few days that a Government scientific advisor should toe the party line, and should not give his/her opinions. What’s the point of having experts, then? Lets just have a load of elected yet complacent politicians who think they know everything, devising policy on a whim.

In a few years time we’ll have another scandal similar to BSE.

Within the last few hours, Alan Johnson has ordered a review into the ACMD, the advisory council on the misuse of drugs. Alan Johnson needs to remember that the public are watching him. This isn’t an excuse for him to railroad scientific thought out of the drugs policymaking process. Anything less than a stronger, more robust version of the ACMD which reports openly will be a display of infantile behaviour.

Statments like this, which lack any source or corroborative information always make me wonder, so I checked out the election results.

Labour lost 17 seats in the 2006 [...]]]> I’ve been reading on the Camden Liberal Democrat’s website that they forged their partnership with the Conservatives of Camden because the voters ‘decisively rejected the Labour party’.

Statments like this, which lack any source or corroborative information always make me wonder, so I checked out the election results.

Labour lost 17 seats in the 2006 local elections, leaving them with 18 seats, marginally behind the liberals who scored 20. The Tories had 14 seats, the greens just two. The liberals chose to forge their alliance with the Tories in third place, claiming that together they would represent nearly 60% of Camden’s residents.

In terms of Councillors, of the 54 in Camden, they had 34. Vote percentage wise, together they scored 55% of the vote – nowhere near the ‘nearly’ 60% claimed.

Had the Liberals paired with Labour, they would have commanded the support of 38 Councillors, and enjoyed 57.8% poll success. Notice how a Lib Dem – Labour partnership would have been more beneficial in terms of representation of the people who voted in Camden. It may have only improved things by 2.8%, but in politics ever little percentage point is vital.

Don’t believe everything you’re told – especially by a Lib Dem – Tory pact of Councillors!

“Labour councillors suggested that [...]]]> The Liberal council has set its budget for the next year, which will apparently help those of us in the King’s Cros area during “Labour’s” recession. Quite how it belongs to them, since we’re in the midst of a global financial meltdown with roots in the USA is quite beyond me.

“Labour councillors suggested that we eat into the council’s reserves, money that we need to fall back on to fund ongoing investment in homes, care, and schools. Labour would risk work on new buildings being left half-finished.”

Except, besides the propaganda, I can’t actually find anywhere that tells me how the Liberals plan to spend as much money as they want to over the next six years without eating into the Council’s reserves.