Hurray for debates... oh wait, no BOOOO!

The first UK election TV debate ever! How exciting! 10 millions people tuned in, making the first one, the most watched program for the whole channel that night. How exciting, what a way to inspire interest into the election!

Then, Nick Clegg won. I think I was quite interested to see what happened in the debate. But after seeing what happened, I think that they are a bad idea... yes I know, that is because I'm massively bias. That is true, I'll be up front and say that I'm a Tory (despite being of a throughly working class background).

The reason why I don't like the debates (after seeing one) is because of my old simple complaint. Nick Clegg won, no, that isn't the complaint. Why did he win? He won the first debate because no one knew or cared about him. He was a nobody and so when he said something no one really criticised it, because they didn't know enough about him to know all the really stupid things that his manifesto contains. Is that his fault, not at all. But is that a good reason for someone to succeed, not really.

Let me put it this way, the policies that he made were the same ones that existed before when no one would bother voting for him. What changed was that he looked good in the debate. No new policy, no change in substance, just he looked good, he looked new.

As a result apparently he has garnered quite a following amount floating voters. He has even got lots of new people to sign up to vote. Great! most people are thinking, he has increased interest in politics.

But why is that great? The people who are voting for him couldn't care enough to be bothered to look at his policies before and yet they now want to vote. He has gathered to himself, those who can't be bothered to put any effort into voting, the 'he looks quite good' vote.

In short this debate has made politics less about policy and more about personality. This is shallow and pointless. Why not just skip out the debate and decide purely on which tie the leaders choose. Make it even more asinine?

I understand why people don't bother voting, the complexities of the economy are so difficult to grasp not even those who are trained in it get it right (inter alia the recession!) so what chance does Joe Bloggs have who doesn't know how the stock exchange works, has no idea what the IMF does and can't manage his own credit card bills let alone understand our countries credit?

I'm not being harsh, I'm not saying people are stupid, it is just a perfectly valid observation. So why do you want such people to then decide who is best to help the economy recover? Everyone is going to say they know best and everyone is going to say the other party will ruin it. How is the public going to decide? Most of them, on personality and class. The Tories are going to look out for toffs, Labour are going to look out for single mothers and Liberals.... no one knows... or should I say knew. Which is why they were failing so badly. They had failed to ally themselves to a class of the population.

Now they have the young and hip vote... anyone who doesn't really care but has decided they don't like the parties in at the moment because they are too 'mainstream'.

So that is what our countries future is going to be decided on... who has a reputation for being nice to their 'class' and who is seen as a bit alternative, a little bit edgey... suffice to say it 'does my head in'.

Independence for Scotland and Wales... just means Dependence on Germany and England.

I'm not English. Not even slightly, I don't have a drop of English blood in me. No matter which line of decent you follow I'm Celtic through and through, which is why it should be all the more notable when I say: devolution for Wales and Scotland is the most stupid idea around and people who adhere to such ideas probably try to go to toilet through their elbow.

I was listening to Radio 4 today while driving through the countryside, windows down and the sun shining like a bucolic dream listening to people ask questions of the two national parties of Scotland and Wales.

People were asking their usual questions like whether council tax could be frozen etc when someone mentioned how pointless 'independence' for Wales and Scotland is when the power of the UK is increasingly being vested in the EU.

HURAH, someone hits the nail on the head. Don't get me wrong I find is all very amusing that Scotland wants independence now that it has realised that it has a couple of million barrels of oil of its coast but what are they going to achieve if they just become a smaller nameless state in the EU.

Lets be frank, the EU cares about the UK because it is in essence a third of its money. Germany, France and the UK power Europe and the rest of Europe tags along because they get something out of it... usually money in the form of billions of Euros of subsides.

However can you really imagine the EU giving a flying' about Scotland? A country where Whiskey makes up 20% of its exports alone. Don't get me wrong I'm sure Scotland is important I'm sure Wales is important (even if it was left out of an EU map once) but they are more important as a United Kingdom, even in the EU.

Outside of the EU they are meaningless. Are we doing to have Scottish embassys across the world? Do you think Wales would make it into the G8? Do you think Scotland is going to fund its own MI6, MI5 and GCHQ? International influence would become practically 0.

As for influence through the EU, how much less influence do you think Scotland would have in the EU... a whole continent as opposed to the UK which is an island. That is like thinking that you can go into a bigger busier room speak at the same level and more people will be able to hear you. It is rubbish, your voice just gets drowned out. Ironically it wouldn't surprise me if Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland had more influence in the EU through bring part of the UK than they did individually. In other words the sum is greater than its parts.

But what is this desire for independence really about? For Scotland they want to spend their own money on themselves, they have realised they have enough oil to go out for a binge drink and they want to get drunk. They don't want to have to hand the cash over to London who will spent it on defending the country or diplomatic relations, or other things that don't seem to have an immediate pay off, but from which we all benefit.

But lets face it, I know my people. The Celts are a hard bunch, you pick any war that Britain has been involved in and it will always be the Welsh, Irish and Scottish who have done the fighting and won. The English, just point us in the direction of whoever they want us to beat. However the Celts have never excelled at ruling themselves.

The problem is if Scotland does get independence they are just going to cock it all up. They will end up like Ireland, they have independence and they have nearly bankrupted themselves and now they are selling their independence to the EU to be bailed out. So what is the point?

Independence from the UK is just dependence of Germany, only real difference is that in becoming so you lose any influence you had. To put it another way, I can name every country in the UK, I can't name every state in the US, and of the 48 I can I know only about 5 of them matter.

Does the government believe in 'climate change'?

Recently a court case in the UK decided that London Heathrow Airport could not have another runway built because it clashed with the governments papers/commitments on climate change.

Now I'm going to ignore what mot lawyers would be interested in (how can a court make such decisions on government policy) and focus on the concepts behind climate change in the first place.

Instead I'm going to focus on why the government that is so committed to leading the way in carbon emission reduction seems so happy to build new runways, even when they are in some of the most stupid places you could image.

You see climate change seems to be to a topic that divides people down the middle, purely because those who do believe in it are so fervently passionate about it that it often affects their whole lives, it is, in a manner of speaking, their religion.

It effects everything from where they go on holiday, to the brand of tea they drink. A Muslim won't buy pork, a Christian may prefer fair trade, a climate an environmentalist may buy food that has been transported the shortest distance (no Australian wine or New Zealand kiwi fruit for you!)

Then you have the issue of whether it is actually happening. The average global temperature hasn't changed for the last ten years. Considering China has become a major economic player (and pollutant producer) in that time such a result is very odd indeed. Even at this moment everyone reading this is likely to be surprised, check it out since you inevitably won't believe me.

However, my problem is not with whether or not climate change is happening or not, but rather the two faced hypocrisy of those running the government. The government wants YOU to believe in climate change because then you cannot complain each time it hikes up petrol duty, each time it refuses to build a car park (thus making you drive around for 15 minutes trying to find a space) and it gets money for ticketing your car. Each time it raises road tax. Climate change is in effect a source of free money to the government. A licence to tax at will and to do so with the moral high ground, all the while being driven around the Westminster area in a nice Jaguar paid for by the public.

But what about the behaviour of the government itself? The government wants to expand Heathrow so that it has 3 runways. It wants to do this because it will make the airport more effect, it will increase the number of flights that are possible, it will create jobs and revenue. Revenue of course being the magic word.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that is bad. Our economy needs money. Without competition the jobs just go else where. All the other European Capitols have many more runways, usually 5 or more. But the point is how can you on the one hand tax anything that produces a mg of Carbon Dioxide and then on the other accept that Carbon Dioxide is just a part of life and economy. Either you accept that it is required if we're not to live in the dark ages (literally dark in this case) or you don't.

So I went looking for more evidence that the government really believes that climate change is real. I thought about the Thames barrier. "Wait a minute! They wouldn't have built that if there was no real threat of climate change!" I thought to myself. But alas no, having looked into it the barrier is actually there to protect London against seasonal changes in tides. It was conceived in a time when the worry of climate change was largely nothing more than a glint in the environmentalists eye. So that isn't it either.

So I'm throwing it out there, can anyone think of real evidence that the government cares about carbon emissions?

Sure they like you buying low emission technology, but that is probably because such techology is made in developed Western nations where we're concerned about that sort of thing.

I was talking to a plumber about boilers once (fascinating conversation, I wish you were there) he said that the more advanced boilers use less gas, but because they are more complicated there is more to go wrong and so you end up just spending the money you saved on replacement parts, and lets not forget where those replacement parts are made; a factory.

Not just any factory either, quite possibly one on the other side of the earth. So that fuel efficient boiler you own has parts made from steel in India, shipped to Japan where it is processed (again using energy) then shipped around the world again to you. How much carbon did you say you were saving?

Don't get me wrong I don't want to get all 'Clarkson' on you, I'm not trying to convince not to believe in climate change, all I'm asking is, genuinely; does the government?

Let the BBC live?

There is a general discussion going on these days about whether or not the BBC should be funded by what is essentially a tax. Anyone who has a device capable of receiving television in the UK is automatically required to pay a 'TV licence' that goes straight to the BBC.

Now I am a free marketeer, so my instinct is that this is wrong. TV should be chosen by the people and they can pay for what they want... or even better they don't have to pay at all because there are breaks for adverts to be shown and this allows the TV companies to pay for themselves. This works in most countries including the US from where we import many fine programs (the ubiquitous 'friends', 'Scrubs' the amusing comedy 'Big bang theory'etc). So instinctively I'm inclined to look at the insane amount of money that Jonathan Ross gets from doing what I essentially do everyday (be social, out going and ask people what they have been up to/working on) and I think what a load of rubbish, make them work for a living live everyone else, but I can't quite do it!

So why does my ever present free marketing spirit become more reticent when I consider the BBC? Quite simple: TV is garbage! I mean really now, I haven't watched a program on ITV for as long as I remember, the only programs I watch on Channel four have been imported from the USA. There is literally nothing on commerical TV produced in the UK that I have, or want, to watch.

The problem with commercial TV is that it is dependent on ratings so what we get is 'lowest common denominator' programs, that is programs that are so simple that everyone can watch them without requiring the slightest use of the neglected organ in your skull. This means that UK TV is just filled with mindless 'reality TV' shows that have the same draw on me as a request to massage the feet of someone with a fungal infection. It is just nasty.

I was talking to an 'intellectual' from Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago and he was saying how everyone listens to the BBC in Saudi, people have a huge respect for it internationally and this is in places that aren't exactly 'West friendly'. Looking at my own experience, I can see why. BBC iPlayer is on my favourites list on my internet browser... I don't think I've even checked if ITV have an online content provider. That says it all.

This is before we get onto issues like iPlayer, Radio 4 and Radio 1 which while Radio 1 plays music largely available on other stations I just can't imagine a commercial radio station producing the sort of thing found on Radio 4.

Lets put it another way when I'm driving home at 1 in the morning and the only thing available of the other stations is 'nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish' I am really, really glad that the BBC radio 4 exists and it isn't paid for by the hard core dance lobby.

With the money that BBC has in excess (through a moderate tax on everyone) excellent programs are produced and technological progress can be made (iPlayer) in which it would otherwise be too expensive to invest. My favourite programs ever made in the UK are Blackadder and Yes, Minister, both produced by the BBC (albeit years ago). All the while British culture is exported through BBC worldwide which is good for the nation too.

Finally the issue of it being a tax, yes it is a tax, lets be honest, calling it a licence doesn't really make it less of tax. But it is a tax for which the money paid goes directly to the product. It is not like other taxes where the money is taken off you then funneled into a big sack where the government then gives it to whoever they fancy, you know exactly where the money is going to go. This is good, because the BBC knows that if it ever stops producing quality and starts producing rubbish it is going to get kicked out into the cold faster than you can say 'Rupert Murdoch'. As a result (unlike with most government) they have the hot breath of redundancy just close enough so that they have to work hard and yield results otherwise they'll get their P45.

The more I think about it the greater it would be if all tax was like that. How much quicker the DVLA might answer the phone if they knew that if they didn't they may end up in the dole queue? How many retarded government schemes would be dropped if there was a direct specific tax to fund them, I would love to hear the conversation to even explain it:

"well sir, we're going to take money out of your earnings so that we can pay for youths caught joy riding to have driving lessons, so that they can joy ride safely" (this actually happened)

Many useless taxes wouldn't even be started because they are so pointless no one would go for it and those that didn't work after a few years would quickly get binned.

So there you have it, want to solve the tax problems? Get yourself a 'tax licence'.

Sarkozy, you've summed it all up!

I type this in the hope that in doing so my blood pressure will lower itself and my heart rate will return to normal. I've just spent I don't know how long rumaging though the various EU/EC/EEC treaties looking up various phrases here and there... yes, I know, very exciting.

I am trying to calm myself down because just thinking about how moronic the Treaty of Lisbon is makes me what to eat my keyboard.

The French President, Nicholas Sarkozy, proposed to remove from the Treaty of Lisbon the aim of "an internal market where competition is free and undistorted" . In previous treaties the wording was that the Community would seek "a system ensuring that competition and the internal market is not distorted". But the point was the same. Nick', however wanted this removed, and this alone perfectly explains why uniting Europe is like a communist and an avid economic liberal to agree on how to run a country, because in essence that is exactly what it is.

Apparently Nick wanted to alay the fears of his country men that the EU was becoming too "Anglo-Saxon". What, pray tell, does this mean? Too Anglo-Saxon, does that mean the EU is working more efficiently?

There is a world of difference between how the UK works and how the EU works.

In the UK competition is good, it means honest fair and hard working people do better than those who are lazy and/or incompetent. While the concept isn't perfect, it is generally the model we follow. In France competition is bad, which is why they are so quick to be protectionist. Despite this protectionism their real GDP growth is consistently lower than the UK. Even in the EU what they are concerned with is protectionism, think of Champagne, it is a noun really, it means a sparkling wine. But in the EU thats to Protected Designation of Origin Champagne means a wine from the Champagne region, everything else is 'sparkling white'.

And though I hate to come across as xenophobic (I'm sorry but if people are going to be pro-Europe then I have to put them straight) I can go on:

Spain had an unemployment level of 10% even before the credit crunch started;

Iceland is now completely bankrupt (unfortunately);

Greece, Portugal, Spain (and now apparently) Italy are also going down the pan and want a bail out from the EU

The only countries that actually contribute to the EU are Germany and the UK, the UK is obviously Anglo-Saxon... and where did the Angles and the Saxons come from? Oh yes, Germany... no wonder the EU is 'becoming more Anglo-Saxon' that is the style that actually works.

Out of all of Europe the UK has the longest working hours, coming behind the US on the global stage of course (another 'Anglo-Saxon' style country?).

Now, which way is the better way of life? That is another question. If I lived in Italy, if I had a villa, a pool, a small vineyard and panoramic views down the sweeping mountain side, I probably wouldn't care so much for economics myself, I probably wouldn't be too fussed about the stock exchange either and that is fine. I understand that completely. What I don't understand is why people think that people who work in completely different ways are going to be able to work together in a Union based on a common economic policy.

Waiiiiit a minute, say what?!

In the UK we have a teenage pregnancy problem. It is easily the worst in the whole of Europe.

We have this amazing policy in the UK which is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy is to make sure everyone in the UK knows how to have sex. Now to me sounds like the least logical argument ever to stalk the corridors of power.

To me that is the same as; teach everyone to hotwire and car crime will go down. Or teach everyone how to shoot and gun crime will go down. Not only does it not make sense it is obviously going to make things worse and anyone could see that... anyone.

Up until now however I have always been under the illusion however that in the US, where as the behest of the religious Christian majority they teach abstinence, the situation was just as woeful. There I was lead to believe, just as here the clinics are filled with young mothers who are on their 13th unexpected pregnancy and their abstinence policy is ineffective.

But lone behold this is lies. While the pregnancy rate isn't great over in the US it has been consistently coming down since its peak in 1988

[Ventura SJ, Matthews MS and Curtin SC, Declines in teenage birth rates, 1991-1998: update of national and state trends, National Vital Statistics Reports, 1999, Vol. 47, No. 26; The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Sex and America's Teenagers, New York: AGI, 1994; and Maynard RA, Kids Having Kids,Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1997.]

Teen births, pregnancies and abortions are all constantly and almost unceasingly decreasing in the US under the policy of teaching ABCs (Abstinence, 'be' faithful, contraception, in that order).

Meanwhile in the UK, the country of 'enlightenment' we have a report stating:

"The Government-backed scheme tried to persuade teenage girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex ...

research funded by the Department of Health shows that young women who attended the programme, at a cost of £2,500 each, were 'significantly' more likely to become pregnant than those on other youth programmes who were not given contraception and sex advice."

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198228/6m-drive-cut-teen-pregnancies-sees-DOUBLE.html#ixzz0ftV1BuCZ]

Well, I didn't see that coming! (on a minor note, £2,500pp, who was giving the seminar, Richard Branson!) Strangely this program originated in New York, it is just a pity they didn't try importing the ABC program instead.

Still you can understand really, just because something is tried and tested, just because it works well and would cost about £2,499pp less to implement than the other scheme that doesn't mean that is should be trialled in the UK does it!

The [in]equality bill.

The Times headline reads: "Churches win fight over discrimination". Harriet Harman has backed down and said she will not try and push the 'Equality bill' through Parliament again.

Well this is interesting, why would an 'equality bill' be prevented from becoming law? It has the word 'equality' in it and everyone likes that, right?

Essentially what was being pushed through was actually an amendment, it is a piece of law to force Churches to employ people that it deems inappropriate. Harriet Harman said that 'exceptions would be made' for ministers and priests, but essentially the other positions would of course have to be open to anyone, positions such as youth workers or the church accountant.

Now while I don't know of any church that could let alone would ensure that its accountant is Christian (unless it has an accountant amoungst its members) I am at a complete loss as to how a youth worker is different from a minister. Surely if they are leading in any real role it is essential they behave in a certain manner, just like the minister. Maybe I'm making a mistake and youth workers aren't actually roles models for the youth they lead? I don't think so though.

Does it make any difference if you have a youth worker or a minister telling you not to drink too much and then going out and getting drunk every Friday night down the local for everyone to see? I think not.

While Harriet Harman's attempts maybe considered admirable when considered in the light of 'equality' and fighting in the name of fairness, in the practical light of day the concept is hideously flawed.

Allow me to give an example of what I mean, would you think that it was unfair to give the post of head of the National Black Police Association to a black person? No, of course not, it is logical. In fact you would consider it rather remarkable if they chose a white person.

What about Stonewall hiring a person to work with 'youth' who while professionally would support the cause made it known publicly that they hated homosexuals? No, that would be ridiculous.

Would you let someone who spends most of their time intoxicated run a campaign for the government about sensible drinking, or even a temperance campaign? Not if you're sane.

The fact underlying all these points is that adhering to certain beliefs or behaviour is sometimes necessary for someone to be able to do a job, especially that of youth work, not even that of a youth worker.

The fact is if they don't adhere to that belief or behaviour they just won't be able to do the job in the same fashion as someone who does. Pretending otherwise it a logical fallacy for those who only like discrimination their way.

I know this sound unnecessarily harsh on Ms Harman and those of her ilk, but lets be honest it is true. I don't complain that I wouldn't be elected head of the Association of Libertarian Feminists because I know if they did elect me it wouldn't make sense. The same applies to churches.

Some see the equality bill as applying solely to homosexuals. But it doesn't, it applies to adulterers, alcoholics, the violent, and a host of requirements that are noted specifically in the Bible. Some of these things aren't illegal, but they would still need to be filtered out for someone to work in a church (you would hope).

I don't know why out of all the organisations mentioned in this article Harriet Harman feels the need to pick on churches specifically, but it appears that she isn't going to take it further, so on that well done to her. Maybe in future if people are going to force illogical equality upon us they would do it 'equally' and then maybe they will see what a baseless move it would be!

N.B.

Speaking of discrimination, isn't that would interviews are about? You have a number of candidates and you have to discriminate between them. I will will be discriminated against because I didn't go to Oxford for my undergraduate and others will be discriminated against because they don't have degrees. Isn't that the point? When it comes to working in a phone shop I would hope they would discriminate against people who don't have an interest in phones and in boxing I would imagine they discriminate against people who aren't violent. What about discrimination against the lazy, the stupid etc. Does a gym have to consider a trainer who is fat, smokes 50 a day and has an unhealthy lifestyle, or can you discriminate against them based on that lifestyle choice? Where is the line drawn?