Gaffa's Blog

Courage & Cowards

2007-12-30T19:30:00.000Z

With the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on Thursday it got me thinking why did she ever want to go back to Pakistan and attempt to regain power? If it was a choice between living out her years in comfort in New York City or going back to her home country which is so politically unstable and clearly where she had many enemies which wanted her dead then why go for the insane option? Naturally it was the desire to have power and possibly help her people. She led the country twice as Prime Minister and to use a cliché – broke the mould by being the first woman to lead the country. Yet her record seems besmirched by allegations of corruption and to be kicked out twice over this is beyond careless. Nevertheless it’s hard not to admire her bravery and determination in going back there and risking her life.

However I take issue with Simon Hoggart who wrote in his column on Saturday in The Guardian criticised world leaders for calling the assassination ‘cowardly’ as he feels that although it might be evil to shoot someone and blow yourself up - is not cowardly. Perhaps for the presumably brainwashed individual who did the act it is not cowardly – but if it was organised by an organisation such as Al-Qaeda or members of the Pakistan military then such as act is cowardly because it is a blatant attempt by those wishing to prevent democracy to derail it by using violent methods. If you fight in the shadows and only send your minions against those individuals brave enough to face the world seeking a democrat mandate then it is done by those who completely lack the courage that Bhutto had.

Resignation over Ming's U-Turn on EU Treaty Referendum

2007-09-15T14:13:00.000Z

Due to Ming's U-Turn on EU Treaty Referendum I have today handed in my resignation from the Liberal Democrats as a member and as chair of the local party. Below is my resignation letter that I have sent to the local membership secretary:

Letter of Resignation

I am resigning from my position as chair of the local Warwick and Leamington Liberal Democrats and as a member of the Liberal Democrats as of today.

I can no longer support or campaign for a party which is losing its way under its current party leader, Ming Campbell. Whilst over the years I have met friends and colleagues who do care about national and local issues similar to my own, I feel the current leadership is muddled and misguided.

The last straw was the recent announcement by Ming that the Liberal Democrats will no longer support calls for a referendum on the European Treaty. I was only three when this country voted for entry in the EEC and I believe in the last thirty years the British people have not had a direct say with each set of moves towards further political integration.

I was pleased when the Labour Party promised a referendum on this issue because it would have created a genuine open debate and given people information to make their own mind up. However because the French and the Dutch voted against the Constitution it has been slimmed down somewhat and repackaged as a Treaty.

This has given Gordon Brown the opportunity to break the promise given by the Labour Party and say there is no need for a referendum. And I believe Ming is also wrong and insincere when he says the Treaty is substantially different from the constitution and there is no need for a referendum. This is an old-fashioned con-trick. Is it any wonder why people are so cynical about politicians when they break their promises?

Unfortunately, it seems those who are pro-Europe are basically frightened of a referendum because they fear they will lose. To me, this is cowardice and weakens our democracy. Our representative parliamentary system continually lets us down on this issue because all the major parties have denied the British people a real say in Europe for the last thirty years.

Now that Ming is calling for a referendum on our membership which is just a foolish smokescreen which will backfire. If people wish this country to leave the EU then they can vote UKIP. The Tories play the Eurosceptic card but it was they - under Heath, Thatcher and Major - who led us into Europe, signed the Single European Act and Maastricht without any referendums.

I believe what people want is a vote on this Treaty. I fail to see why, over the years, countries like France, Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark can hold referendums whilst the British are continually denied. If I was given a vote then I would probably vote for the treaty – however I feel totally disenfranchised that I am not given such an opportunity.

I remember seeing Ming talk in Stratford-upon-Avon in late 2005 about values in a modern age of spin. I fail to see values when he breaks his word on such a key issue.

Boris opens his mouth again

2007-01-06T18:19:00.000Z

Recently Boris Johnson has blamed videogames on poor literacy.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=22031

Firstly where does he get his evidence? It seems probably that he is basing this simply on that he sees some children who like to play, and get absorbed, by videogames. And he sees that literacy rates are falling and he makes a massive assumption based on his own prejudices and ignorance of videogames. Still, what more can we expect from a 'Conservative'.

Simply because the UK has the highest console ownership per household in the UK does not mean that this is a credible link to falling literacy rates. I would expect the UK to have the highest proportion of tea-drinkers in the EU - but I wouldn't blame this on the price of fish. There has always been a reaction to new technology and social trends - radio, film, TV, rock music, the internet etc which have in their time been whipping boys for the social issues of society. In my experience, those who don’t grow up with the particular thing they are complaining against, normally hold these reactionary views.

Kids, along with their parents, have many distractions these days. Should parents remove televisions, computers, CD players, DVD players, ipods, and mobile phones along with videogame consoles? Maybe their rooms should be Spartan and only have selected approved classics neatly placed for them to read? I grew up with videogames and I also enjoyed reading books as kid. It is possible to do both. No doubt reading does encourage literacy along with imagination. Apparently some academics in the late 19th and early 20th century hoped reading of literacy would encourage the masses to have 'sensibility' and intelligence to replace the falling belief in religion. Fat chance there as can be demonstrated by the World Wars, which was started by nations with high literacy rates.

At the end of the day we should know that something maybe purely educational and something maybe purely entertaining but most things are somewhere along the middle. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying a hobby, which is mainly entertaining if it doesn't harm others. Unlike television and books, videogames are primarily a two-way interactive experience, which can be valuable in itself. Videogames, on the whole, are imaginative in that they take players to other worlds and situations where the choices they make count. This can include solving puzzles, dexterity and so forth.

To improve literacy we should look instead at our schools and at parenting. In my experience at a comprehensive school in the 80s, literacy wasn't pushed particularly and wasn't made interesting enough. Politicians continually spout about the importance of the three Rs but why do they continually fail to ensure that this is put in place? I would say Thatcher, Major and Blair have done more to damage literacy rates in their failed policies than Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have ever done. Over the last thirty years there seems to preference for empathy, group learning and coursework teaching methods instead of traditional competitive methods such as learning by rote, book reading and exams. Secondly parents do need to read to their kids when they are young and help them with their homework and regulate their kids recreational and homework time. So yes, that does mean 'regulating' playing videogames (especially if their kid are playing for 8 hours a day!) but that includes the other modern distractions I have mentioned.

To say the answer to improve literacy rates is to pull out the Nintendo is simply knee-jerk and ill conceived.

Goodbye Charles

2006-01-07T16:53:00.000Z

Welcome to Bush Country

2005-10-30T12:30:00.000Z

According to political pundits, Bush has suffered his worst week as President. Judging by his last five years this has to be something of an achievement for the incompetent incumbent.

Bush had to withdraw his crony Miers from being appointed to the Supreme Court even though she had no experience at being a judge. Apparently senators found her answers to written questions were "incomplete to insulting". If Bush wanted to promote his trusted allies and to reward those who helped him rather than promote on ability and experience then why didn’t he go the whole hog and try to get his mummy, Barbara, onto the Supreme Court? I mean it’s not that America is short of any lawyers to choose from. Meanwhile the Republicans are fighting like cats in a bag over this failure to get her selected.

Then vice-president Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby was charged with perjury by the 2 year inquiry into the unveiling of a CIA agent to the media. ‘Plamegate’ is about whether the Whitehouse purposefully exposed the identity of an anti-Iraq war Senator’s wife, Valerie Plame as a CIA due to spite. So far Bush’s brain, Karl Rove isn’t off the hook either. Maybe this will go right back up to Cheney and Bush. Certainly the buck seems to stop anywhere but Bush. Maybe he can blame Saddam on his brain leaking or perhaps he will ‘liberate’ another country to distract us.

Last week also saw the number of US troops killed hit the 2000 mark. So far Bush or Blair haven’t come up with a feasible exit strategy from their desert crusade. In fact Blair looks like he now wants a fight with Iran, who have ‘shockingly’ made anti-Israel remarks. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map. Great - now we have two nuts rattling sabres in the Middle East. However Iran has been making anti-Israel remarks since the Revolution so this shouldn’t come as a big surprise. According to the rabid right-wingers – by ‘liberating’ Iraq this was supposed to set off peace and democracy throughout the region. Hmmm – looks like Bush’s big game of Risk for beginners will have to continue.

It has been noted that those Presidents who manage to get re-elected for a second term often get themselves mired in scandal or simply lose steam in the troubled 2nd term. Clinton had Monicagate, Reagan had Contragate and Nixon had the original gate – Watergate. So in politics it seems few leaders come out with a record unscathed. If you failed to get re-elected you are a failure like Carter and Bush’s daddy and if you do get re-elected then you are treated like a lame duck. President Blair is in his third term and seems to be suffering from pinning his hopes to closely to Bush’s agenda. Like Bush he will probably be remembered for the Iraq War and squandering opportunities back home.

Of course, if the US had a decent system of electing Presidents rather than relying on a 2-party system with an electoral college and the necessity to have millions of dollars to spend then it likely Bush wouldn’t be there in the first place. In 2000 more Americans voted for Gore than Bush but this doesn’t count – as the votes in smaller populated States have more proportional weight that those living in more populated States. Still we have a similar problem of electoral credibility in the UK. Blair won with 55% of the seats despite only 22% people voting Labour. Notice how Bush and Blair do nothing to change this and yet are so keen to impose democracy using guns on other countries?

Bush’s approval ratings have fallen to 39%. I wonder what it takes to disillusion the remaining 39%? If getting thousands of Americans killed in a needless war whilst cronyism, greed and self-interest reigns supreme back at base meets with approval by the die-hards then what more can George do to prove his talent for incompetence? I suppose if he was to beat his Dad’s lowest approval rating of 29% he will have to ask the faithful to read his lips whilst he increases taxes. Now that would be scandalous and unacceptable.

England Expects

2005-10-23T12:42:00.000Z

Last week was the 200th year anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar, which was celebrated with a flotilla of international ships including French and Spanish, a 1000 beacons were lit around Britain and a parade amongst various other ceremonies. All this is, I believe, is tremendous in that it brings history alive and commemorates an important event, which if things had gone the other way could have meant an invasion of Britain.

I often see that some people within Britain or outside believe that as a country we dwell too much on the past. Personally I don’t think this is the case at all. It’s true that some people, particularly politicians, might have a slightly misplaced and arrogant pride in British history and have a tendency to cling to this whilst being suspicion of change. Yet I find most Britons know very little about the history of their country beyond a few sketchy outlines. Also it is perfectly possible to have pride, good knowledge and be able to celebrate the past as well as embracing modernity.

Why is history important? Although few, if any, events are identical, history can give us warnings from the past. If we do not learn from our mistakes then we are doomed to repeat them. Also history can be fascinating. It tells us how we got to where we are now. It can give us a perspective on current issues. For example – most of us are related to people who came across through waves of invasion and immigration. It should also give us a sense of shared identity. If you are born or if you move to a country then its history is part of its rich culture.

I realise that schools are often criticised for various ills of society but I am concerned about the way some subjects including history seem to be taught today. In my secondary school, despite having a good teacher, my history lessons from the age of 11 to 16 seems somewhat patchy to say the least. I left school 17 years ago but I fear things have become worse. Now I love history as it’s full of great stories but like any subject it can be taught in a leaden way depending on what topics are picked, the methods of teaching and the teacher itself. Unfortunately the curriculum picks dull areas of history.

For instance I would say the highlights of English history could be William the Conqueror (Battle of Hastings), Richard I (The Crusades), John I (Magna Carta), Edward III (Hundred Years War), Richard III (Battle of Bosworth Field), Henry V (Battle of Agincourt), Henry VIII (Battle of Flodden), Elizabeth I (Defeat of the Spanish Armada), Charles I (Civil War) , George III (War of American Independence & Napoleonic Wars) Victoria I (Crimean War) as well as World War I and World War II. Now this is mainly Kings and Queens, battles and wars from 1066 onwards. However these are the leaders and events which have dramatic shifted the history of this country.

Some of the above is covered by history in schools but I’m also sure that a lot of this isn’t. With so little time – how can the curriculum possibly cope by squeezing so much history into 3-5 years? Well the problem is that it seems to have plenty of room for subjects like the feudal system, social reform, the Corn Laws, education improvements, public health, industrial revolution etc. Now this might seem outrageously dismissive – but that stuff might be worthy but it’s BORING! It’s hard enough to get kids to read books let alone history books but going on about the Corn Laws will never compete with the Battle of Trafalgar and Waterloo.

I remember in the first year we were doing dinosaurs. I meant dinosaurs are interesting (especially for kids) but wouldn’t that be better served if it was taught in science (another fascinated subject ruined by dull teaching). The waves of invasions by the Romans, Vikings, and Saxons etc can be rattled through as a primer to 1066. I believe English kids should have good basic knowledge of 1066 to 1945 within their first three years at Secondary school and those who choose to continue with History should be able to go more in depth in certain areas. Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland kids could have the same but with more emphasis on their history.

Critics of this believe it’s just about learning dates by rote. Yet not knowing dates is like trying to find somewhere but never using a map or compass. History is about who, what, when, where and why. Critics would complain it’s too aggressive or nationalistic – but it’s about telling real events and making it interesting and these include the ups and downs along the way. This should include more shameful chapters like slavery. It’s amazing how popular kids books like Horrible Histories and TV programs like Simon Schama’s History of Britain is more interesting than things being taught in school. Again critics would complain that it’s too English or British-centric – and yet the history of Britain is often about our struggles with other countries.

One of the most recent near catastrophic events still in living memory is World War II. However, to my knowledge, the unfolding events of this war aren’t being taught in schools today. I remember we were taught about the events leading up to the war but not the war itself. Finally there is too much emphasis put on empathy – it is all very good and well if kids are imaging what it is like being in a World War I trench – but if they don’t know who’s fighting whom, when, where and why – it’s all seems very disjointed and pointless.

Unfortunately I fear that most people of my age and younger have been turned off history at an early age because they were given DULL history topics to begin with which has been quickly forgotten and yet they don’t know about the supposedly famous events in British history. England should expect better…

Thatcher hits the 80s

2005-10-15T19:12:00.000Z

On my 7th birthday in 1979, Margaret Thatcher came to power in the UK and managed to win three successive elections and stay in the top seat for over 11 and half years. By this time I was an 18 year old in art college watching her downfall. So you could say I am one of Thatcher’s kids as I grew up in that decade. This week was her 80th birthday and opportunity to look back at her legacy since she was kicked out of power 15 years ago.

The first thing that surprises me is how politicians can be ruthless and yet still expect loyalty. Thatcher wasn’t voted out of office but resigned under pressure form her own MPs as they felt she had gone too long and was so unpopular that she would lose them the next election. Thatcher understandably felt betrayed when her own ministers, like Ken Clarke, were telling her it was best to go. Apparently she later regretted speaking to them individually as that gave them opportunity to say how they genuinely felt. Maybe if she spoke to them as a group, none of the frightened tribe would dare confront their fearsome leader who was under attack from Michael Heseltine’s challenge.

Yet Thatcher herself managed to become leader by dethroning Edward Heath. It was he who promoted her into his cabinet and when he later lost the election in 1974 – she believed he was no longer fit to be the Tory leader and successfully managed to depose him. Not much loyalty there. Heath was so upset that he went into a famous permanent sulk and decided to stay in the commons probably just to irritate Mrs. T. This invokes parallels with Iain Duncan Smith when he later became leader and demanded loyalty and yet it was he who was a Maastricht rebel who caused so much trouble under John Major. Short memories these politicians seem to have. Thatcher’s fall is often attributed to two things – her increasing hostility to the European Union and her insistence on introducing the infamous poll tax.

It is interesting to see how the Tories have so much in-fighting over Europe, are so Eurosceptic and yet have done the most to bring us closer to Europe. Whilst Thatcher famously won the UK an EU rebate (as we didn’t get so much agriculture subsidies) and she did forge a closer relationship with the US – it was her who signed the Single European Act in 1987. This helped bring about closer political European integration. In 1990 Thatcher also, albeit reluctantly, joined the ERM – the exchange rat mechanism. Later she would say she was ‘duped’ into signing the treaty and joining the ERM. It doesn’t fill you with confidence when a leader has to claim this. Shouldn’t she take responsibility for her own actions?

Therefore it’s typical to hear a politician claim one thing and yet do another. The British people were never consulted over this treaty nor any others which signed by Thatcher and later Major.
The hated Poll tax was generally bitterly resented especially in Scotland where it was introduced a year before. This effectively taxed the poor more and the rich less than the previous tax. It didn’t work when John Gaunt under Richard II introduced a Poll Tax in 1380 and it didn’t work in 1990. When Thatcher was disposed, the Poll Tax was quickly scrapped and replaced.

Thatcher’s key legacy, in her favour, would be taking on the trade unions, privatizing many public industries and winning the Falklands war. It does seem, in my opinion, that the trade unions in the 70s did have too much power and were able to grind the country to a halt over any issue they choose. It seemed that they didn’t want the right workforce to match the work needed. If there were too many people doing one person’s job – then so what? If Britain was no longer competitive then this wasn’t their problem. The balance between management and trade unionism had tipped too far in favour of the trade unions. Thatcher tipped it in the opposite direction by bringing new trade union laws.

Ironically though, Thatcher’s reign, was to be the ruin of the Tory Party. Although Major managed to squeak through on a narrow victory in 1992 – mainly for not being Mrs.Thatcher or a red-haired Welsh wind-bag – the Tories would lose in 1997. During it’s 18 years in the wilderness the Labour Party slowly and painfully modernized which reached it’s zenith under Blair who ditched the party’s Clause IV – ditching it’s commitment to nationalizing industry. Yet Thatcher never groomed a successor. Maybe she thought she would go on forever. When the axe fell – Major happened to be the right person in the right place. If Thatcher’s fall had been a year earlier or a year later it could well have been someone else.

However it makes me wonder if Thatcher hadn’t succeeded in winning in 1979 – what would Britain be like today?

The Tory Leadership hots up

2005-10-09T16:21:00.000Z

Seems like the usually dreary Tory Party conference was enthused with an interesting sideshow in UK politics last week. The reduced faithful was entertained by five wannabe leaders showing their wares as to who is best to lead the party into another defeat at the next election. I almost expected Simon Cowell to be there with a B-list celebrity panel to help the viewers decide which numbers to text into to choose their favourite Tory. Judging by the results is seemed there is going to a swift exodus leaving David Davis’s camp over to new kid in town Cameron.

Despite his spin doctors trying to lower expectation and saying that Davis was not a natural speaker, he managed to succeed all expectation and delivered a particularly leaden speech. The only live wire is Ken Clarke but as discussed – the party will ensure that he doesn’t get elected. I would imagine that Rifkind’s supporters may go to Clarke and Fox’s supporters may split between Davis and Cameron. This will probably squeeze Ken out leaving a choice between the dull and the inexperienced.

Now that the Tories feel they have found their Tory version of Blair – fresh-faced modernizer saying nothing of any substance – it will be interesting to see how fast Davis’s campaign sinks. Davis seems to think that being a Tory from a council house with a single mother gives him an interesting angle. Does it really matter? What single mothers from council houses along with everyone else want to know is what his policies are. Problem is that it’s hard to concentrate when listening to him drone on. A tad unfair perhaps but can you imagine an election with Brown vs Davis? It would be like watching two walls with fresh paint – wondering which shade of grey will dry fastest. Come back John Major – all is forgiven!

If they do plump for Cameron it shows that the party hasn’t learnt from the debacle of William Hague. Just because you are young it doesn’t mean the voters won’t see through paper-thin policies varnished with an inch of gloss. Why try to out-Blair Blair? They seem to like Cameron and yet they do not know what he stands for. As for Fox and Rifkind – these two are essentially lightweights. Fox have a chance of getting down to the final two – and he seems the only one to have a definite policy. Unfortunately that policy is to leave the European Union which despite the UK being eurosceptic isn’t really going to attract many voters except from a few disgruntled UKip voters returning to the fold. Finally Rifkind, despite being an ex-Foreign Minister and a one nation tory is about as inspiring as a withered asparagus.

If the Tories were really brave it would allow their party to choose which leader out of the five contenders. Unfortunately these were the same people who elected IDS. Overall I believe the only person who could give Brown a run for his money at the next election would be Clarke. This wouldn’t be good news for the Liberal Democrats – but yet it would make the next election more of a fight between the three main parties. Yet it seems the Tory party is hell-bent on losing the next election before it even begins. Good for Brown and Kennedy maybe but after 8 years of Blair and his adventures in war – this is surely bad for democracy.

Strangely enough watching the Tories over the last decade and their ever-changing leaders reminds me of all those actors who have played Doctor Who during the 80s and beyond. The Tories have had their Tom Baker in Margaret Thatcher but now they are going through a myriad of dull and uninspired replacements like Peter Davidson, Colin Baker, Sylvester McCoy, Paul McGann etc. Are they going to find their Christopher Eccleston to run for one season and get their audience interested in their out of date, wobbly set policies or are they just going to blow their budget on special effects and hope a talent less but pretty boy actor hoodwinks the audience to liking them? I used to like Doctor Who but l grew out of it. Let see if the British voter ever get 80s nostalgia for the Tories.

Blair and Brown squabbling over leadership

2005-10-02T15:21:00.000Z

The most memorable moment from Labour’s Party Conference will be the ‘PR disaster’ when the 82 year old delegate Walter Wolfgang was forced out the conference hall for heckling the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. The Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany had the temerity to say ‘nonsense’ when Jack was defending the Iraq War. Laughably they had to use bouncers to throw him and another guy who complained and then Walter was threatened wit prosecution under the Prevention of Terrorism Act when he attempted to go back in.
Is this the new Britain we are going to be faced under the so-called ‘War of Terror’? It seems Orwell was 21 years out when he wrote 1984. Criticism is not to be tolerated in Blair’s Britain. We have been given our enemy and our script – and we mustn’t go off message otherwise we become the terrorist. All Blair’s reassurances that politicians and the police will not abuse these new terror laws have already proven to be worthless.

Meanwhile the charisma-lite Chancellor, Gordon Brown was preening his lacklustre feathers and still desperate to take Tony’s job. Blair has already said that he will not seek re-election but has promised that he will serve a full-term. Although I’m sure he and Cherie will try to hang in there at no.10 for at least 2 years if there’s isn’t a coup but also I’m sure that even Blair will not keep this promise and will hand over the reins to Brown before his full term is up.

Blair has now become the lame-duck Prime Minister, similar to John Major who he replaced in 1997. Major was hobbling throughout his term not because he volunteered he would go at the next election but because his parliamentary support was so weak it just needed a slight push from the electorate to get rid of him. In 1997 that push turned into a landslide. Whereas despite Blair’s dictatorial leadership and blunders in Iraq, the official opposition under the Tories have been a shambles. Blair is a lame-duck because now he announced he is going – then it will be a continual tussle between him and Brown to exactly when this will be. Meanwhile Blair’s colleagues will slowly transfer their allegiance to Brown.

Blair could feasibly win a fourth election but he knows his own party is sick of him for turning his back on most of the values they hold dear. He was the Trojan horse that was to get Labour out of the wilderness but unfortunately the wooden PM didn’t keep to deal he allegedly struck at the Islington restaurant, Granita in 1994. No one seems to knows what was struck but one version has it that Blair agree to hand over the PM job after 1 term if Brown didn’t run against him in the leadership contest. Looks like Blair played Brown for a sucker and Brown has been in a sulk for many years.

These background deals of yesteryear and planned handovers shows how much contempt Blair and Brown have towards the electorate. Although we elect our MP locally which when totalled up around the country decides which party wins, the person who leads the country makes a massive difference. Undoubtedly Brown policies would be different to Blair if he ran the country and yet we have no say in the matter. If a party changes leaders and if that means a change in Prime Minister then it should go into a General Election. It is bad enough that the Prime Minister gets to choose when to hold the General Election within 5 years.

Brown has plenty to be proud about as Chancellor. Overall the economy over the last 8 years has performed pretty well compared to a lot his predecessors. Although at the moment it looks like the economy may be heading for some choppy water. Maybe this is why Gordon is so keen to bale out and land the PM job? There is nothing wrong with being ambitious but Brown takes it to levels where he seems to be activate undermining Blair. As much as some of us might dislike Blair’s policies – he was the one who ran again as PM and Labour’s manifesto can be seen as very Blairite. This is what the electorate voted for.

Unfortunately Labour has a poor record in keeping to it’s manifesto promises as it is. They said they would not introduce student tuition top-up fees and they would hold a referendum on Proportional Representation. Yet they lied on both. So with a change in leader – I’m sure Brown would quite happily pick and choose which manifesto promises suited him. Blair is primarily concerned about his legacy but he will chiefly be remember for reforming Labour to such an extent that he got them elected and for making a hash out of the Iraq War. There was something pathetic about the way it was Blair himself that had to remind his party that he was the only Labour leader to win three consecutive elections whilst all around him his colleagues are counting the days until his dictatorship falls.

Many ways to skin a cat

2005-10-02T14:00:00.000Z

I've just been banned by 'The Poosh' an English blogger. I suggest his pic with a Republican woman with a T-shirt which says 'I just neutered the cat. Now he's a Liberal' could have 'I just butchered the cat. Now he's liberated'. Looks like our neo-con friend doesn't have a sense of humour. He thinks I'm being offensive to those US and UK soldiers in Iraq. Well I think they are brave but they are following Bush and Blair's orders. Funny how the neo-cons don't find a war where apparently 100,000 or so Iraqi men, women and children have died or over 2000 Allied troops have died mainly because of non-existent 'WMDs' offensive. Nobody knows for sure with how many people from Iraq have dies as there isn't a body count for them. That's a lot of terrorists killed don't you think?

Still Poosh reckons the main reason to war wasn’t WMDs but there were lots of ‘cogs’ involved. Yep – there’s the oil cog, revenging Daddy’s cog and let’s find a way to justify the massive military budget cog. Also it seems like Poosh has been aping right-wing American blogger expressions like Moonbat and 'tard'. Again you would think that calling someone a retard is offensive to those who are genuinely mentally handicapped. Most people you think would grow out of such silly little insults when they left the playground. Anyway check out his site – it makes the Daily Mail look like a pleasant reasonable read;)

http://www.thepoosh.com/2005/09/index.html

Liberalism in the 21st Century

2005-09-25T19:08:00.000Z

Last week the Liberal Democrats held their autumn party conference at Blackpool. I managed to take some time off and drive up to attend on the Wednesday and the Thursday. This was my first time at a national conference and overall it was an enjoyable experience. It was refreshing to be surrounded by people who are actually interested in current affairs and politics for a change.

Liberal and liberalism are now often derided words, especially among certain bloggers. Americans particularly confuse socialism with liberalism. However I’m more than happy to call myself a liberal. To me liberalism is to do with liberty, fairness for all and striving to have minimal restrictions on the individual within society if what that individual does doesn’t adversely affect those around them. Economic liberalism has always been to do with free trade and social liberalism to do with freedom.

Conversely, it seems to me, that socialism is to do with sharing out the wealth across society and for everyone to collectively control production which is a step away from communism where need is more important than want. This is all very well, in theory, but human nature means that if you reward need then this creates more need and there is no incentive on the individual to progress. It reduces society to the lowest denominator and creates a grey moribund society. The 20th century was a battle between two ideologies – capitalism and communism. Fortunately capitalist has won but it must not go unbridled.

Although there are a few communist countries left – they do seem to be on the wane. Can China really be described as communist – being that is has become the work factory of the world? Communism also appeared morally bankrupt as few countries allowed their people to vote and they put severe restrictions on their people to travel outside and within their borders. They also created monsters like Stalin and Mao who butchered millions. Finally they were often corrupted as officials helped themselves to many benefits within the system which is what communism was designed to prevent. It was doomed to fail.

After the cold war, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the break up of the Soviet Union – America has emerged the victor. However pure capitalism creates serious problems of its own. If all markets are completely open and everything revolves around money then this can result in a huge dividing gap between the rich and the poor. It is strange to a live in a world where many workers are laid off and single mums derided yet fat cats in certain companies can run them down to the ground ad well as lose money and yet walk away with huge financial pay-offs. Therefore capitalism needs to be compassionate and have sensible laws to regulate markets.

This means having minimum wages, progressive taxation and civil right protection. Lots of those on the right bemoan big government and yet if we look at the times under Reagan and Thatcher – the size of government has grown along with bureaucracy. The Liberal Democrats believe in devolving power to the regions – localism. People within the regions are more likely to know the needs of that region than an official in a central and distant bureaucracy. Labour has already done this partially with devolving limited power to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh parliament. However the regions of England are still pretty much controlled by London. Councils are limited and capped as to how much money they can spend.

I believe the 21st century will be a battle between authoritarian and libertarian values in western societies. The danger with the current fears – real and imagined - over terrorism will mean that many countries will try to roll back many civil liberties of individuals. This control by the state has to be resisted when and where it goes too far. It is understandable that we will have to live with more security around us but when the government can hold people almost indefinitely in jail without charge – this has to be challenged.

Social liberalism is also something that needs to continue. Since the 60s people have become more in control of their bodies and their choices in life. Although many will want to turn the clock back – I find it heartening that people, particularly women, can choose to leave unhappy marriages if they so wish. It is no longer a social stigma if couples or single women choose to have babies outside of marriage. Sex is no longer such a big taboo and sex education, for the most part, is taught in schools. Women are now more likely to have children and work which is important if we wish to see women get into the boardroom.

Naturally people will point out the downside - broken marriages, lots of single mothers, under-aged pregnancies and abortions, latch-key kids and generally a breakdown of the family. We cannot put the genie back in the bottle – this is what individual freedom is about and government should be careful not to over legislate in this area. Couples should have easier access to marriage guidance, relationships and responsibility need to play a bigger part in sex education, more nursery care needs to be provided etc. Individuals can have information, freedom of choices as well as being responsible citizens.

Liberalism is about being comfortable about the world and the people around it and yet wanting to improve life for everyone where possible. I sometimes feel the traditional left and right will try to scare people over being exploited, or controlled or swamped with immigrants etc. They often talk about taking drastic action and yet their words often don’t match up. The Liberal Democrats are pro-European Union – and that doesn’t mean it doesn’t believe there are many things that can be vastly improved within the Union but it is better to work alongside our European neighbours on issues which effects us all – rather than continually play the Eurosceptic card whilst signing treaty after treaty like the Tories did.

After this year’s election, the Liberal Democrats won 11 more seats taking its total to 62 – it’s highest number of seats since 1923. However it is still in third place within an essentially 2 party system. Over 22% of people voted Liberal Democrat and if that was translated directly into seats it would take their total to over 140 seats. Nevertheless the party still needs to attract more member and votes by continuing to look at its policies. The party most likely won votes because of it’s stance against the Iraq war and yet it could have been more emphatic against the war when hostility started. The party, also in my opinion, needs to be harder on crime and punishment and re-look into which tax will be most sensible for the country. Finally it needs to present itself as a modern party with clear, concise and attractive polices.

How come we haven't caught Bin Laden yet?

2005-09-18T18:10:00.000Z

It’s been over a week since the anniversary of 9/11 and it’s been four years since that tragic event which has led to the War on Terror. I remember the events of 9/11 and the shock that went around the world. The images that were show on TV looked more like a Hollywood disaster film than reality. It soon became apparent that it was the work of Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network of terrorists.

I have been to New York a few times before and since 9/11. It is my favourite city. Walking through Manhattan in-between the skyscrapers is simply amazing. My girlfriend and I were due to fly to New York on Friday 14th September but we decided to cancel as the planes had been grounded and flights were still disorganized. We went a year a later and traveled down the East Coast from New York to Florida. Nothing could beat New York in visual splendour and yet the New York skyline looked so much less without the Twin Towers. This seems strange at first, as before I had the impression that the Towers weren’t particularly liked but now they have gone – they are missed.

I am glad that New York is rebuilding and will build another set of towers in defiance to the terrorists. Knock us down and we will get back up again. Whereas Washington represents American politics – New York seems to represent the world. No wonder the UN is based here. Although often hated by some American commentators, it seems appropriate that the world meets in New York to discuss its business. More important than the buildings is the memory of all those people who lost their lives on that day. By attacking the offices of everyday people, many from different nationalities, backgrounds and beliefs, the terrorists show their contempt for innocent lives.

The terrorists are cowards who strike at the most vulnerable in society. They do not care what your beliefs are as long as they make a statement and their evil deeds are televised to a horrified world. Bin Laden has vowed to kill Americans. For all the politics and history of America’s involvement in the Middle East he will blame every American. For some reason they believe that killing innocents will give them martyrdom and will help their fellow Muslims. Instead, within the last 4 years it has caused two wars within two Muslim countries and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Also it has heightened tension towards Muslims in western societies.

Instead of backfiring, this is probably what Bin Laden wants. In his religious extremism he wants a holy and very bloody war between the East and the West. A Jihad. After the events of 9/11, the US government showed great restraint in not immediately lashing out but decided take it’s time and investigate. Finally the US launched a military campaign against Afghanistan along with the help of coalition and anti-Taleban forces. This seems entirely reasonable and legitimate. Despite terrorist atrocities happening regularly all round the world – this was the first major attack on the mainland US. America had finally woken up.

9/11 was linked to Al-Qaeda who had established terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda was foolishly allowed in by their Islamic fundamentalists, the Taleban who also refuse to eject its ‘guests’ as they saw it. To kill the fleas, the US had to kill the mangy creature that festers on it which was no great loss. Toppling the Taleban who repressed the Afghans, particularly women, was an added bonus. Yet right from the start this campaign had a focus and that was to remove the Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and capture Bin Laden.

Unfortunately Bin Laden is still on the run presumably somewhere around Afghanistan and Pakistan border. Whilst Afghanistan is a very mountainous country which the British and the Russians have difficulty controlling in the past, the Americans and coalition forces had managed to occupy the capital, Kabul and other major Afghan cities. Outside these areas it seems the situation is more volatile. Since then it has gone quiet on the hunt for Bin Laden despite the bounty that is on his head.

Al Qaeda has since struck with cowardly bombings in Madrid, Bali and London with their trademark indiscriminate killings. Again their purpose seems unclear or at least muddled. They want America and Western forces to leave the Middle East and yet they don’t see that after each atrocity this makes the West’s resolve even firmer. During World War II Hitler thought his Luftwaffe could bomb Londoners and the British generally into submission but again this only made them stronger.

The good news is that the people of Afghanistan have now been allowed, for the first time in decades, to vote for their government. Besides the removal of the Taleban, this is another secondary benefit from the American led campaign. This was not the reason why the US went into the country in the first place. It is not the role of western powers to overthrow all non-democracies by use of force purely because they are not democratic. If the war is convincingly won then the victor can and usually does impose a new system of governing. After World War II, Germany and Japan became successful democracies after they were remodeled after defeat.

At the time, some people wanted to give the Taleban more time and doubted that Al Qaeda caused the 9/11 atrocity. The time had ran out for the Taleban, who were stalling for time and Bin Laden has willingly boasted about his involvement in 9/11. After the events of 9/11 there was tremendous sympathy and support for the US. Unfortunately after the Afghan campaign, President Bush decided to include other countries who were unconnected to Al-Qaeda in his War on Terror. As we know this has resulted in the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein, an old enemy of George Bush’s father, was ideologically opposed to and by Al-Queda.

It is the Iraq war which has done more to divide the Middle East and the Western allies. Unlike the Afghan war – I believe the Iraq War was not justified by the reasons that were given by Bush, Blair and their apologists. Now that Saddam is in prison I hope the focus returns back to the hunt for Bin Laden. For it is he who masterminded the atrocity of 9/11 and if we want justice for the victims on that day – then we need to put this truly evil man in jail.

George Bush should be ashamed of his lack of leadership over Katrina

2005-09-12T00:41:00.000Z

Even though it’s been 2 weeks, it still seems unbelievable seeing the devastation in the news reports from New Orleans and the Gulf coast caused by hurricane Katrina. However, understandably the shock has turned to anger. How can the richest and most powerful country find itself in such a situation where thousands of its citizens are stranded, thirsty and hungry in a flooded and lawless city many days after the hurricane has long since departed?

Being under sea level, this disaster was long expected so there should have been a decent evacuation plan which should have swung in place immediately Katrina was on her way. Whilst many of the residents of New Orleans did get out – there were still many thousands left behind and most of these were the most vulnerable – the sick, the old and the poor. Some of the first reports were concerned more on the looting and violence of those left in the city. I do not condone looting for non essential possessions but I can fully understand if people were in desperate need of food or medical supplies they would have needed to break into stores.

A few extremist Christian groups have even claimed that it was God who destroyed a wicked city. This is just unpleasant. I am agnostic but if anyone judges New Orleans in the name of religion which tells them in their holy book - not to judge or else they too will be judged, is in my view, plain nasty and ignorant. There are many communities across the world which has a mixture people living together who have different skin colours, sexual preferences and beliefs. When a natural disaster strikes it does not differentiate between these people.

In the case of Katrina, the wealthiest people did manage to get out because they had easier access to transportation. So unless these extremists are saying God was angry with the poor then these ridiculous claims do not add up. The fact there are so many, over a third, of people who are officially classed as poor within a city is an outrage. Most of these are black. And there are many cities in America and across rich western countries where there is a stark divide between those who have and those who have not. I find it amazing that countries like the US and UK can spend billions on a war in Iraq and their defence budgets but not look after the well being of its people.

I am not advocating socialism but for government to spend money to ensure everyone has a decent opportunity and access to education and a career. Somehow if a natural disaster struck a city like Boston, I doubt it would take 5 days for the government to react. Katrina could not have been avoided but the effects could have been much reduced. Instead she has exposed a lot of social division within America and disorganization within its own government. A lot of Americans were horrified and disgusted by the poor response of its own government to this disaster unfolding in front of them.

So who is to blame for the poor emergency response after Katrina? First the FEMA boss, Michael Brown has been relived of his duties. Brown was a lawyer from Oklahoma, who had little training or experience in this field but was a friend of the previous boss of FEMA, Joe Allbaugh when he was hired as deputy. Now that does sound like jobs for the boys. Apparently Brown underestimated the strength of the hurricane despite warnings and told his staff to wait two days before going to New Orleans to help those stranded who desperately needed water, food and medical supplies. How come Brown isn’t fired?

Yet George Bush claimed that this guy was doing ‘a heck of a job’. Now it is said that under America’s federal system that the President could not order in help because it is up to the state of Louisiana to request such help. So after Katrina struck, Bush continued to stay on holiday at his ranch only cutting that short and taking charge several days later. However in December 2004, George Bush drew up a National Response Plan which in the event of a catastrophic event, which is any natural or manmade incident, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, the government would immediate step in. However this didn’t happen.

Now George Bush has personally taken charge of the investigation to find out what went so terribly wrong in helping those after Katrina. This is like asking Osama Bin Laden to personally lead the investigation into the 9/11 tragedy. Chances are that the blame will be heaped on the local and state authorities rather than proportion any of the blame on his administration. President Truman famously has a plaque on his desk which said ‘The Buck Stops Here’. It seems Bush is busy trying to nail this responsibility onto anyone but himself.

Also it seems several years ago, federal money was taken away a plan to strength the levees which broke during the storm. If this had gone ahead it would not have been ready in time to prevent the levees breaking but it does show how the American government wasn’t taking the risk of flooding seriously at all. In fact I suspect during the last 20 years, under Republican and Democrat Presidents, America has been trying to reduce the size of its federal government. Strange isn’t - how those who fear big government are the first to complain when what’s left of that government fail to respond to national disasters?

The majority of the world’s scientists have accepted that the world climate is changing and that human activity has contributed significantly to this. George Bush has spent most of his presidency denying that global warming is happening and failed to sign the Kyoto agreement. Whilst Kyoto was a small step and didn’t include India or China – it would have been a significant moment when the world’s biggest polluter, the United States would have accepted that it needed to start to change its ways along with many other developed and developing countries around the globe.
Signing Kyoto would not have saved New Orleans but it shows that these events will probably become more likely when the water rises and we have more unpredictable weather. Also it shows that these natural disasters cannot simply be tackled on a purely local level, but on a national and international level. Therefore George Bush needs to rethink his glib comments and start putting into action a decent structure where government can quickly and effectively help its own people in times of emergency rather failing them

3rd time lucky for Ken Clarke?

2005-09-04T22:24:00.000Z

This week, Kenneth Clarke, MP and ex-chancellor threw his hat into the ring for the UK Conservative leadership race. This will be his third attempt over the last eight years. Somehow I don’t think the Tories will elect him because he is, at least to many, a Euro-loving politician on the left of the party. To me, this will be their loss. Over the last decade the Tory party has ripped itself to shreds, gone through four leaders and badly lost three elections. Nevertheless, it still insists on pandering to its increasingly aging membership instead of reaching out to the country as a whole.

This mirrors the plight Labour found itself in during the Eighties and early Nineties. After losing to Thatcher in 1979, the Labour moved foolishly further to the left under Michael Foot and was crushed in 1983. It took another two defeats until the modernization of Labour was completed and somewhat vindicated in 1997 when Tony Blair won a landslide and became Prime Minister. To reach this point, he had to ditch socialism and rebrand the party as New Labour. Unfortunately somewhere along this path they seemed to have stolen the Tories clothes and lost the soul of the party.

After 18 years of Government, the Tories had grown increasingly arrogant, detached and worse under John Major’s leadership, incompetent and visionless. I believe the rot started with Major. Sure, Thatcher was losing her way with her insistence of implementing the grossly unfair and hated poll-tax, as well as creating a more divided UK between the have and have-nots. Despite signing various treaties over her decade in power, her hatred for all things European was verging on paranoia. Her time was up. Unfortunately the guilt-ridden Tories couldn’t elect the knife-wielding Michael Heseltine who did the most to oust the sitting PM in challenging her leadership.

Instead they went for a middle of the road, fairly untested, uncharismatic John Major. A man chiefly who shall be remembered for Black Wednesday when interest rates went to over 12%, secretly bonking Edwina Currie despite the ‘Back to Basics’ campaign and setting up the traffic cone hotline. Somehow he managed to scrape a narrow win in 1992, mainly because the country felt that having a ‘grey lettuce’ in power was preferable to Neil Kinnock. Plus, many kept saying that John Major was a ‘nice man’ as if nice has ever been a perquisite for political leadership. Since then, the Tory party has consistently voted in complete non-starters.

The bald-headed, ex-Tory youth William Hague got voted in because the party believed he could reach out to the young. As if going to Notting Hill carnival wearing a baseball cap and banging on about saving the pound was going to attract any voters. He managed to win 1 seat back for the Tories in 2001. Wow – only another 180 more seats to win back over time. Then they put Iain Duncan Smith into the cockpit of the now disaster prone party. He was another dullard who didn’t even make it to an election. He was soon ditched for the more experienced Michael Howard – the infamous architect of the poll-tax.

Whilst Howard was a more effective operator – his brand of Conservatism is exactly why so many people won’t vote Tory. First he inherited an open goal missed opportunity from IDS over the Iraq War and yet he still supported that foolishly dangerous, unnecessary and illegal war. Then at the time of the election last year – he mainly concentrated on immigration sealing the impression that the Tory Party is the ‘Nasty Party’. So now the Tories have another broad choice of complete non-starters, rabid right-wingers, incompetents and dullards. Liam Fox, Malcolm Rifkind, David Davis and David Cameron are announced or likely candidates. Boring.

At least Howard is sensible enough to try and change the rules and take away the power away from the party activists. What do they know about modern Britain? I’m sure they would elect Thatcher again if they could – or worse still – cut the country adrift into the Atlantic, paddle away from funny speaking, bureaucratic Europe and join the US with George Bush as their head honcho. The fact that Clarke has tried yet again for the leadership, I’m sure is a complete anathema to them. A plain-speaking Tory who was against the Iraq war, who supports closer co-operation with our European partners and likes drinking beer obviously needs to be thrown into Tower of London.

A party that advocates wealth creation, keeping tax to a reasonable minimum and personality responsibility can’t be all bad. However it seems to me, a significant amount of people who support the right can be greedy, narrow-minded, unsympathetic, homophobic and racist which is out of step with modern Britain. Yes – immigration is an issue which should be discussed but if this is conducted in such a one-sided and exaggerated way that does not also include the benefits this country has had from immigration and takes precedent over other issues such as education, transport, health and environment which was hardly mentioned at the last election – then the Tories don’t deserve to be back in power.

Yet, despite the glee many have of the pathetic weakness and out of touch mentality of the current state of the Tories, I believe any government, especially with Blair’s presidential style of spin-doctors, control-freakry, war-mongery and continual erosion of personal liberty, there needs to be a strong opposition. Over the last eight years – it has been Labour backbenches who have been the unofficial opposition. Unfortunately looking back at the last 15 years I cannot tell much difference from Major and Blair’s government except Blair has a better PR and televisual smile. Blair even nicked the Tories spending plans for his first 2 years to bury the ghosts that Labour couldn’t balance a budget.

In disgust of the two main parties I have long since transferred my vote to the Liberal Democrats. Now, whilst they have their flaws, they at least seem the most honest of the major parties. They are proud to be pro-European and socially liberal in their attitudes. Whilst I cannot see my vote ever going to the Tories or the alternative Tories (New Labour), I am interested in seeing that other parties do try and put their best people forward. Clarke is often derided as being divisive and that he would split the party from top to bottom but all indications is that he is popular to those who do not traditionally vote Tory.

Clarke has even cooled his love-affair with the Euro, admitting the UK would not join the european currency within 10 years. Unfortunately for them, it seems the Tories do not want to swallow their pride, elect a ‘leftie’ with Hush-puppies but are content to live in the past with their scrapbooks of Maggie’s victories cut out from yesteryear’s Daily Telegraph. But why vote for someone with experience and popularity when you have David Davis?

Videogames: Stealing the innocence of our children?

2005-08-29T22:05:00.000Z

For the last year I have been working on a computer game. A game which involves shooting people. Not robots, dinosaurs or even space aliens but ordinary people. Well - digitally created people but people all the same. White, black, hispanic, young, middle-aged, old, men, women, shoppers, workers and especially cops. Despite all the recent fuss over violence in videogames - I feel absolutely fine about this. So what is all the fuss about? And shouldn't I be ashamed of helping to create such violent imagery which will corrupt any poor kid who may stumble over this game when it hits the shops?

Well, recently in the US, Senator Hilary Clinton introduced legislation to help keep 'inappropriate' video games out of the hands of kids. In particular she was upset that the popular title, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained a now notorious cheat 'Hot Coffee' which unlocked a hidden mini-game which had the player's character having SEX with his girlfriend. “The disturbing material in Grand Theft Auto and other games like it is stealing the innocence of our children and it’s making the difficult job of being a parent even harder,” said Senator Clinton.

Shock - horror! A game which is labeled as Mature and is only for 17+ year olds has a hidden sex scene. What's the problem here? So the US and the UK can send soldiers that age to die in Iraq or wherever happens to be the latest country to liberate/invade for oil resources...ahem... I mean democracy but we must protect little Johnny from poorly depicted videogame sex. Now two perceived wrongs don't make a right - so videogame makers should engage in this debate and defend their artistic right to portray violence and sex.

However, this does seem to me, to be a typical political distraction to win votes and the usual moral backlash against a relatively new medium. You don't have to go back that far over this last century to see a pattern of moral panic. Books, films, rock music, video nasties, rap music etc. From Lady Chatterley's Lover to Judas Priest's records apparently having secret Satanic messages if played backwards - there have been a significant minority who want to blame society's ill on a particular medium. It would be laughable it wasn’t sadly true.

Now Hilary wants titles like GTA to change it's rating from a Mature, which is deemed appropriate for 17 years and over to Adults Only which is 18 years and over. She claims that Mature titles are easy for children young as 7 to obtain. The problem, I believe, is not the age rating but the age of the critics who are on the whole are likely to have grown up before videogame industry was born over 25 years ago. They simply don’t understand videogames and see them only being for kids.

The average game player is 30 years old so it follows there should be games aimed at them. Giving these games an Adult Only rating is a kiss of death because many stores like Walmart will not stock such apparent outcasts. This is the videogame equivalent of making many R-rated movies into a now defunct X-rated or the NC-17-rated movie. Imagine if you weren’t allowed to see the Godfather, Pulp Fiction, Psycho, Goodfellas, The Silence of the Lambs, Se7en, Lèon, A Clockwork Orange, or Schlinder’s List because they were effectively banned as they were deemed too violent and there was possibility kids might get their hands on them?

I believe it is the parent’s responsibility to ensure that their kids do not play Mature rated games, in the same way they have to ensure they don’t watch adult DVD’s or surf for porn on the internet. Sure it might be difficult but it’s not impossible. Even if some kids do get hold of GTA, which I do not endorse, then I do not think it will screw their minds and turn them into car-jacking pimps who kill for kicks. It’s like a kid finding a porn mag in his parent’s bedroom suddenly wanting to take their clothes off and become an international porn star. Let’s get this into perspective.

Again the real problem is distorted. Often there are reported stories of kids playing videogames 8 hours every day and this is causing aggression and even violent behaviour. Yet driving cars, playing sport, listening to music, eating food, watching TV can affect our mood – shall we ban them? I’m sure doing anything for many hours at a time is unhealthy – even stuffing your face with only celery and carrots by the crate load for 8 hours is probably excessive and not healthy. Surely what are parents doing letting their kids play games for so many hours at a time?

A year ago in the UK, the Daily Mail newspapers screamed ‘Death by Playstation’ on its’ front page and blamed a murder caused by a teenager on another kid on the game Manhunt. Only later did it emerge that the motive for the murder was robbery and it was the victim that owned the game and not the murderer. Unfortunately that fact wasn’t splashed on the front-page. We cannot live in a world where everything which might inspire a nutter to commit murder has to be banned. Nothing would be left – there would be no George Bush, no Celine Dion and no math teachers. Okay that might seem attractive - but you would have also have no music, art, science, religion or decent people either.

Otherwise if Hilary wants to start a McCarthey's style witch-hunt against videogames, in her road back to the Whitehouse, then shouldn’t she include other mediums which might be corrupting the poor kids out there? First she should ban kids reading Shakespeare in school as his plays contains plenty of sex and violence. Titus Andronicus has heads severed off, murdered children baked into a stew & served to their father, rape, vengeance, mayhem, and insanity. Also I dare I say there are various religious holy books which again have plenty of sex and violence which gets taught to poor unsuspecting kids. Imagine a world without crusades, jihads and shaven headed people dressed in orange chanting various stuff.

Finally Hilary would have to ban herself and all other politicians from the face of planet earth. It has been the poor decisions, committed by politicans, that have done more to seriously damage the health of the kids than videogames have done in the last 25 years. To use a cheap-shot - I would rather see a videogame character get jiggy with his girlfriend than see the Whitehouse get gridlocked for over a year because a silly intern blowjob and I would rather kill terrorists in a game than watch flag covered coffins flown in from Iraq on TV. To put be it mildly I suspect I can sleep easier at night than any Presidential wannabe.