Gorgeous George and Gender

In the aftermath of the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary elections there are things to be grateful for and things to analyse and question.

I for one am grateful that the good people of Glasgow saw fit not to elect George Galloway to Holyrood.

Galloway is a marmite politician it’s almost impossible to be indifferent to him – you either love him or hate him. Galloway was a master rhetorician and remains an impressive and passionate public speaker. However he has also, in my opinion, become a shadow of his former self – a parody of the passionate crusader he once was.

There is also Galloways questionable support of certain Arabic regimes - I wonder what he makes of the Arab spring?

If anyone doubts Galloways status as an amazing orator they should watch his performance against the US Senate. Where he effectively showed them what it was to be a politician.

However despite barnstorming political performances like this Galloway is unfortunately better known and ridiculed for the likes of this:

The reason to celebrate the non-election of Galloway is simple. He is no longer a politician and has become more of a media circus. His presence in the parliament would have been an unwelcome combative influence and denigrated the institution. The Scottish people were right not to elect George despite a history of good political performances such as this:

Galloway is correct to take Paxman to task on this issue and it relates to one of the issues arising from this years Scottish election.

That of the ratio of male to female MSPS.

I would say that it is incorrect to look at the election results in debating this issue. As then all you are doing is debating the electorates decision in not electing women. You are basically doing nothing to criticise the parties involved in how they selected or promoted their candidates rather you are describing and bemoaning the perceived role of women in our society.

If you want the parties to address the issue you have to confront how they select, who they select and where they select them.

If they have a bias towards selecting men in safe seats then they have a case to answer.

If they have a bias towards selecting men in general, through whatever means, they have a case to answer.

They most certainly do not have a case to answer based on the electorates decision. The only people they have to answer to in that regard are the people they now represent.

This is a complex issue and one that needs tackling but sensationalist spreading of misleading information and data will only harm the cause of equality not strengthen it.

In politics the argument that can be dismissed because it is based on false premises is no argument at all.

Well unless it reflects the prejudices and biases of the society in which it rises – and let’s face it any argument about women being unfairly represented rises in a male dominated patriarchal society still.

It is this society that we have to change – not our voting systems, nor I suspect the parliamentary selection processes of the parties. We risk losing more by “gaming” the system to force society into a shape it is not. Of course in some cases equality legislation can work – but I suspect only in the sense that they reduce the opportunities for discrimination and not where they err on the side of positive discrimination.

Positive discrimination reinforces prejudices and I would be cautious in implementing anything like that – particularly in an electoral system.

Women are already under-represented in politics, there is lots of research that suggests they are also treated differently and more unfairly in some cases than their male counterparts. Changing the system so it makes it harder to see if a female MSP or MP is selected and elected under their own merits as oppossed to just their gender is not the way forward.

In my opinion such an approach would only denigrate the standing of our female political representitives and set the cause of a more equal and fair society back rather than push it forward.

Of course this is a complex issue and I welcome debate and discussion. I also look forward to reading better informed and reasoned takes on the issue.

I also hope you will forgive me the conceit (and perhaps irony) of using a man as a means of introducing and framing this issue.

…and your election microscope

Have heard a number of things from people who aren’t going to vote SNP of late.

1. I don’t want to be seen as supporting independence

2. I don’t want to be associated with their more knuckle dragging supporters.

Both of these points made with a caveat along the lines of “I like their policies” or similar.

Well folks if you like their policies than vote for them – at least in Holyrood. On point 1. Yes your vote will go to a party that supports having a referendum on independance. That afterall is the official SNP line, even if the party was founded for independence and most of it’s members want independence all the party is committed to is having a referendum for the public to decide. Indeed far from being a single issue party the SNP have, I belive, shown themselves to be a competent and successful (in the main – there are a few things I take exception to) party of Government and Big Eck (strangely) has become quite the statesman. Their centre left policies play well to most Scots and their confidence and supply agreements with the Tories mean they please those on the right who want more bobbies on the beat and the like. As a minority government (which under the Scottish electoral system is all they will likely be) the SNP have performed really quite well over the last few years with only minor hiccups.

But all I want to say is: A VOTE FOR THE SNP IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY A VOTE FOR INDEPENDENCE.

It is in fact a vote for perhaps the most competent government Scotland could currently have (in my admitadlty partisan opinion). Realistically the Libs and Tories are out of it, the greens are only fielding constituency candidates (so much for being the only real alternative…)  which leaves Ian Gray led Scottish Labour. Whose manifesto is pretty poor and who are consistantly just utter rubbish. To the extent I am becoming less of a tribal SNP voter and supporter and more of a tribal anti-scottish labour supporter. The b-team of British politics.

Most Lib Dems should probably be voting SNP is they want to see Lib Dem policies enacted in Scotland. Most people who are on the centre left should vote SNP to see centre left policies enacted in Scotland. Perversley and conversley if the SNP were elected as a confidence and supply minority government again there is even more chance of the occassional Tory policy being enacted in exchange for concessions in other areas!

I mean I know I am extremely partisan but seriously – why wouldn’t you vote SNP?

If your answer is INDEPENDENCE – get over it. What you are essentially against in the context of a Holyrood election is the people of Scotland being given the chance to decide on the issue once in a generation. If you think the majority is pro-independence you have a reason not to vote SNP – abeit a perverse one in a democracy…

On the second point: well idiots and knuckle draggers support every party and if you don’t vote for a party whose policies you agree with because someone you don’t like also supports them than you are an idiot. An idiot and a coward.

Good for democracy? Debatable…

So a lot of folk have been discussing the leaders debates of late. Most of the discussion has centred on the impact they are having on British politics and how much they are responsible for the unprecedented swing towards the Lib Dems and making the election seem a three horse race rather than simply a two horse race.

However the important questions, to my mind, are being ignored: are the debates a good thing for democracy? Will they lead to more engagment with politics? What effect will they have on the smaller parties?

Paying no attention to the order in which I wrote those down I will start with the question of engagement.

Are the debates engaging people with politics more? Well research (see the twenty-first floor blog for more info on this) suggests that debates in the past in the US and other countries are most watched by pundits and those who are already partisan. However there are strong arguments that this is perhaps not the case in the UK.

Certainly people are talking a lot about the debates: but are they talking any less than they would about an imminent general election? Who can say – we should have measured that at the last election for comparison.

But does water cooler chat equate with engagement? To my mind no. A lot more people may have listened to the rhetoric and spin that constituted the first two debates but how much do they know about the parties actual policies? How aware are they of their manifesto pledges beyond soundbites?

At a guess I’d say not much. In short I’d say the debates don’t engage people with politics they engage people with personality. They encourage style and over substance and spin over sense. Do we really want to measure a future leaders potential on how well they speak to an audience or can present an argument? None of this makes them right or anything more than charismatic and a good manipulator. Perhaps good to represent the country on the international stage but no substitute for actual policies and competency.

There is also the worrying side effect of the debate that it further marginalises the small parties who struggle to get media attention as it is (there is also the tacit and (to my nationalist tastes) insidious ignoring of potential constitutional change issues).

Changing the election from a two horse race is seen by some as a good thing – but is it really? I doubt they will expand the leaders debates to ever include the smaller parties: a move that could effectively cost them votes and ultimatly damage the amount of democratic choice we have in this country.

In short I think the debates will ultimatly damage and devalue democracy in Britain and lead to an (even) more media driven government and more disproportionate influence for the Daily Heil and the Murdoch press.

Their value isn’t debatable to my mind: they may well serve as the point at which historians look back at as when Britains political system irrevocably changed. Not for the better but for the worse.

Cheers

One-way politik: Scotlands schools in crisis?

You’d be forgiven for thinking so given todays headlines.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats called for education secretary Fiona Hyslop to quit after figures showed the total number of teachers fell by almost 1,000 in the space of a year.

The total number of teachers in pre-school, primary, secondary and special schools and in visiting specialist posts, was 53,584 – 975 fewer than in 2007.

The councils responsible for hiring the teachers have responded by saying that it would be madness to employ more teachers when confronted by falling school rolls.

Well?

The Human Microchipping Agenda

ETA: This is not a review, it was never intended to be taken as a review, words emboldened have been added where I felt perhaps it was possible such a mistake could be made. I never claimed the post was a review but apologise if anyone arrived at this conclusion erroneously.

This is the third of my blogs about the upcoming AV3, the second being “Trevor Gunn: Vaccination the facts” and the first my introduction.

This talk appears to be based on fairly standard conspiracy theory nonsensein my opinion .

The presentation will showcase the global microchipping agenda tracing the first microchip back in time to the current ownership of the technology. Going back in history, parallels will be drawn to the Nazi regime to totally control the populace through information gathering and revealing the companies behind Hitler that still operate today. The all encompassing lecture will reveal how world governments with Google, Microsoft and other hidden companies will utilise Census Data, RFID, DNA and biometric harvesting, Satellites, Global databases and emerging technologies including biosensor microchips to usher in a new age movement of accepting ‘chipped’ individuals. Fuelled by the war on terror with the ultimate goal to bring in a world wide web of digitised ‘online’ individuals who serve a mainframe. The presentation will also demonstrate how the Transhumanism movement is the modern day eugenics, repackaged and rebranded for a new generation. The presentation will also showcase the marketing strategies Verichip is and will be using to microchip every person on the globe including the shady deals to get FDA approval.

Have they got truth for you? Um… probably not…

I suppose that this marks this the start of a small series of blogs about the mainstream view, or at the least the evidence supported view at the least, then again if I’m being honest it might just be an excuse to take a lighthearted look at what a bunch of conspiracy theorists and woo-sters think.

Specifically a group of woo-sters appearing at AV3: the alternative view “have they got truth for you!”, the speakers will be appearing over weekend of the 13th of November (spooky, at least for paraskevidekatriaphobics anyway)

Why does America fear the NHS?

On the 5th of July 1948 Anuerin Bevan established the National Health Service with the following message to medical practitioners:

On 5th July we start together, the new National Health Service. It has not had an altogether trouble-free gestation! There have been understandable anxieties, inevitable in so great and novel an undertaking. Nor will there be overnight any miraculous removal of our more serious shortages of nurses and others and of modern replanned buildings and equipment. But the sooner we start, the sooner we can try together to see to these things and to secure the improvements we all want . . . My job is to give you all the facilities, resources and help I can, and then to leave you alone as professional men and women to use your skill and judgement without hindrance. Let us try to develop that partnership from now.

Since then the National Health Service has treated Britons, regardless of age/creed/financial status,  from cradle to grave it is in my humble opinion one of the most important organisations and services we have in Britain. So why does the American right seem to despise it so?

“If you’re not with us your against us”

 

“If your not with us your against us” or variants of the false dilemma informal fallacy have been used throughout history to various ends. Whenever someone wants to imply that there is a limited number of options, commonly two, when in fact there are a slew of options, it can be found. Biblically Jesus is reported as saying

“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”

and on the De facto side of atheism Lenin (that’s Vladimir Ilyich Lenin not John Lennon before anyone starts singing I am the Walrus…)

“”It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side.”.

Do the Lib Dems just want PR because they would be the main beneficiaries?

I shamelessly pimped my last blog entry on a thread I started over on badscience and recieved this comment from MJRobbins of the layscientist:

“Nice piece, although I would have liked you to have challenged the Lib Dems a bit, if only for the fact that I suspect one of the real reasons they’re so keen on PR is that they’d be the biggest gainers from it (or is that actually another PR myth?)”

Note how I have shamelessly included the praise for my previous post in the quote. Such vanity aside it raises an interesting point – how much does the Lib dems position on PR hinge on ideology and how much on self interest?

What’s so good about proportional representation?

The recent expenses crisis appears to have reignited calls for electoral reform here in ye olde Blighty. Since their foundation the Liberal Democrats have been calling for Britain to adopt the single transferable vote system of proportional representation as opposed to the current first past the post system. In a bid to combat electoral apathy and increase voter turnout as well as combat corruption. At least this passage from the ‘better govt.’ section of the Lib Dem site:-

“We will modernise government so that it serves the interests of all people, not just the vested interests of politicians, corporations or rich donors. Liberal Democrats plan to reform government so there will be no more privileged patronage, no more dodgy dossiers, no more excessive secrecy.”