I read a lot of material on the web, and sometimes, it gets me so riled up that I need to comment, and I often do that here on Viewpoint.
But just sometimes, I read something that I think is so well written, or so accurate, that I should probably point some of you in their direction.
In this case, I am directing you to the blog of radio talent coach and advertising expert, Dan O'Day, and a post of his about 25 traits of a good radio programme director.
I think every body who does a radio show should read this, and incorporate the attitudes in his post into their own work.
Saturday, 22 June 2013
Friday, 21 June 2013
2Day FM - Challenging the regulator never works.
2Day FM have been very foolish.
Recently, the Australian media regulator, the ACMA, announced that it was going to conduct a formal investigation into the prank phone call to a London hospital that ended up causing a nurse at that hospital to commit suicide.
Upon the release of preliminary fiundings, 2Day FM filed suit with Australia's Federal Court system to block any further progress in the investigation, and to prevent the ACMA finding them guilty of breaching their licence.
Basically, this is a clear admission of guilt.
2Day FM have basically admitted that they are guilty of the offences that the ACMA is investigating them for. And they know, full well, that they could lose their licence. So, they have decided to take on the regulator. Huge mistake.
In all the years I've followed the media and covered it, every media company that has taken on the regulator, in any country, has lost. Courts have never overturned a regulator's decision, nor have they basically prevented a regulator from doing it's job. Trying to accuse the regulator of overstepping boundaries, is ridiculous. Trying to say that the regulator does not have the power to say that it breached the terms of it's licence, is incredibly ridiculous.
These are the death throes of a station that did not respect the rules, had no sense of where boundaries were, in fact, a station that had no sense at all.
Once the Australain Federal Court does the right thing and throws this ludicrously silly challenge out of court, then 2Day FM might as well take themselves off the air, because it will be a case of licence revoked, pretty soon.
Goodbye 2Day FM. Your shameful behaviour in this whole sorry saga, will mean that you will not be missed.
Recently, the Australian media regulator, the ACMA, announced that it was going to conduct a formal investigation into the prank phone call to a London hospital that ended up causing a nurse at that hospital to commit suicide.
Upon the release of preliminary fiundings, 2Day FM filed suit with Australia's Federal Court system to block any further progress in the investigation, and to prevent the ACMA finding them guilty of breaching their licence.
Basically, this is a clear admission of guilt.
2Day FM have basically admitted that they are guilty of the offences that the ACMA is investigating them for. And they know, full well, that they could lose their licence. So, they have decided to take on the regulator. Huge mistake.
In all the years I've followed the media and covered it, every media company that has taken on the regulator, in any country, has lost. Courts have never overturned a regulator's decision, nor have they basically prevented a regulator from doing it's job. Trying to accuse the regulator of overstepping boundaries, is ridiculous. Trying to say that the regulator does not have the power to say that it breached the terms of it's licence, is incredibly ridiculous.
These are the death throes of a station that did not respect the rules, had no sense of where boundaries were, in fact, a station that had no sense at all.
Once the Australain Federal Court does the right thing and throws this ludicrously silly challenge out of court, then 2Day FM might as well take themselves off the air, because it will be a case of licence revoked, pretty soon.
Goodbye 2Day FM. Your shameful behaviour in this whole sorry saga, will mean that you will not be missed.
Friday, 14 June 2013
Far Right UK Parties - Worth worrying about?
I was busy minding my own business reading round the various internet sites, and I happened to be reading Daily Kos, when I came across this diary about Far Right extremist politics in this country. Now I have discovered that this diary is an American's viewpoint on our Far Right politics, and it makes some sense, and is mostly pretty accurate, but for the authoratative viewpoint on UK Far Right politics, you have to ask someone who actually lives in the UK and writes about the political scene, amongst other things, and round here, well, that would be me.
It was a fascinating piece of writing, but the one thing that shines out from it to my eyes, is the fact that because the Republican Party in the US has veered to the extreme right in more recent years, there's always a lot more fear about right-wing extremism in the US than there is in the UK. In some ways, it reminds me of the fear over Commmunism that we saw in the US back in the 1950s, with the McCarthy witchhunts. The EDL, BNP and the National Front along with UKIP are the current incarnations of far-right wing politics in this country, a history that pre-dates the Second World War.
In fact, we go all the way back to 1902, and to an organisation called the British Brothers League. The league was formed as a response to waves of immigration from Eastern Europe which had been going on since 1880. It's weird, a lot of the debate on immigration now is over immigration from, once again, Eastern Europe. History does have a way of repeating itself.
Initially, the League was only interested in keeping "Destitute Foreigners" out of England. Later on, that slowly changed to the more familair refrains of anti-semitism. Although the league claimed to have 45,000 members, no membership fees were ever taken. It was mainly a London based organisation, and although it disbanded in 1923, it left a legacy of far-right support that would be used by Oswald Mosley later on.
The next organisation to come out of the woodwork, was an organisation known as The Britons. Formed in 1919, by now we have the classic anti-semitic, anti-immigrant extreme right wing organisation. The organisation published extremist propoganda under the label of The Judaic Publishing Company, and later The Britons Publishing Society. The organisation was dormant during World War 2, though it continued to exist until the late 1940s.
1923 may have seen the disbanding of the British Brothers League, but another organisation was ready to take it's place. This one was known as British Fascisti, later on The British Fascists. Despite their name, their inital motivation was more fear of left wing politics, than actual fascism. There is historical evidence to back this. Back in 1922, the Conservative Party had won an election under Andrew Bonar Law, who was already an ill man at this time, having previously stood down as Conservative Party leader the previous year, despite the fact that David Lloyd George, a National Liberal, had been the Prime Minister until the 1922 election.
Labour, a relatively new political force at the time, having been formed in 1900, were now starting to have an electoral impact. They'd won 142 seats in that election, up from the meagre 57 seats they'd won in the 1918 election. Labour, under Ramsay MacDpnald, had become the official opposition for the first time in their history, overtaking The Liberal Party under Herbert Henry Asquith, a different Liberal party to the National Liberal Party, who had splintered from The Liberal Party, who had been in coalition with the Conservatives. Some on the right wing say the growth of Labour as a threat, hence why British Fascisti was created.
Strangely enough as well, The British Fascisti were heavily influenced by the Boy Scout movement, as many of the initial members of the British Fascisti had been Boy Scouts in their childhood, and wanted to "...uphold the same lofty ideas of brotherhood, service and duty...". It seems an unlikely mixture for creating what would be a breeding ground for one of the most famous fascists outside of Oswald Mosley. The man who later became Lord Haw Haw, William Joyce, was a member of the British Fascisti, after having been attacked, he claimed, by a Jewish communist whilst stewarding a Conservative Party meeting in 1924. He would later leave The British Fascists to join Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists in 1932.
The British Fascists were declared bankrupt in 1934. By this time, The BUF had established itself and was the major force of fascism in the UK. However, on the political scale, they were miniscule compared to the mainstream parties of the time, Conservatives, Labour, Liberals and National Liberals. Even amongst the extreme right, the BUF might have been the most well known, but there were other organisations espousing various ideas of fascism, and fighting between rival groups, was not uncommon. The Imperial Fascist League, which had formed in 1929, had a rivalry with the BUF. Although the British Fascists, the BUF and the IFL had discussed mergers, they could never agree to work together, and merge their limited memberships.
Ultimately, this early history of Fascism in the UK is as instructive as it is interesting. There is an almost tribal mentality to these organisations. Some people did move between organisations but generally, most stayed loyal, almost to a fault, with the organisation they joined. The same is also true today. The BNP, the EDL and the National Front may be the extreme right parties and organisations that most are familiar with, but there are and have been a number of minor far right parties and organisations, including The British Freedom Party, Britain First, The British Democratic Party, British People's Party, The Christian Council of Britain, England First Party, the White Nationalist Party, the Nationalist Alliance, and many other organisations, some of which have been and are organisations that splintered off from the BNP.
Whilst the BNP and the National Front have been the most successful in terms of electoral success, both are so far behind the mainstream parties, that their successes are rather limited really, in the grand scheme of things. So, is there anything to worry about in regards to the EDL, the BNP and the National Front? It's very unlikely that there is anything to worry about. Most of these organisations do not garner much in the way of support outside of their base, and they are so far away from where the majority of the British public politically reside, the political centre, where ultimately elections are won, that the likelyhood of any group getting the necessary votes to get more than token representation in anything beyond local council level, is so small as to render it almost impossible.
This is down to the way our electoral system works. First Past The Post is a simple, most votes wins system. One person, one vote, just a single cross on a piece of paper, and the candidate that gets the most votes wins. No requirement to get more than 50% of the votes cast in a single constituency, and no complex ranking of candidates by order of preference. Smaller parties like UKIP, The Greens, even the Liberal Democrats at one stage, complained that the system kept smaller parties out. And whilst the system does keep some minor parties out, the flipside of that, is that it also tends to keep the BNP and National Front out as well, because to win in any constituency, you need a large concentration of support for your party within that constituency. One of the reasons the Greens rarely win seats, is because their support is thinly spread across the country, where as pockets of BNP support have sprung up in certain areas, and that's why the BNP has won some council seats in the past, although in the last local elections in May, the BNP lost all the seats they were defending.
And Fox News lending support to the EDL isn't as big a deal in this country as it might seem. Fox News reaches over 3 million people each week in the USA, around about 1% of the population overall, and is the most watched cable news channel in the US. Fox News Channel is also shown in the UK. However, they reach no more than 200,000 people each week in the UK, far less than 1% of the 60 million people that live in the UK. In terms of people watching news channels in the UK, BBC News leads the way with over 9 million watching each week, Sky News comes next with over 5 million watching each week, and editorially, although owned by the same company that owns Fox News, Sky News is far less right wing that Fox News, mainly due to neutrality regulations that are in place for all broadasters broadcasting from the UK. Outside of the two main news channels in the UK, Fox News is watched by less people than watch Al Jazeera, or Russia Today, or even EuroNews. Fox News active support of the EDL is actually causing viewers of Fox News in the UK to change channels.
There is one other reason why it is unlikely that we will see Fascism rise up, and it comes from history and the UK's response to the force that wasthe countries known as "The Communist States".
Communism really first came to prominience in the 19th century with the publication of The Communist Manifesto in 1848, a document written by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels. Their "communism" was a form of socialism that sought to end capitalism, and the systems that they believed were exploting workers. It was this basic idea that brought down the Czars in Russia in 1917, and formed the basis for the Communist state that was The Soviet Union until the 1990s.
Communist Parties began forming all over the world. 1920 saw the formation of the British version of the Communist Party. The US response was best categorised by what happened in the 1950s, and the phenomenon that was McCarthyism. Joseph McCarthy was a Wisconsin Republican Senator, who led a Senate commitee into the infiltration of American Communist Party agents into the Government. His over-zealous interrogations of suspects, and demagogue-like attitude, led to him making wild, unsubstatiated accusations against people who were not guilty of any such misdemeanours. Such McCarthyism is still used today by the Republican Party to call people unpatriotic, or question the morality of an opponent in a political debate.
But in Britian, instead of being scared by '...reds under the bed...', the British establishment gave it little credence or indeed thought it much of a threat, despite the fact that in 1945, 2 Communist Party candiates had been elected as MPs. Both lost their seats in 1950, and the party began a slow, gradual decline eventually dissolving in 1991, just after the collapse of the Soviet Union. A splinter group left the main party in 1988, and formed a new Communist Party which still exists today in the UK, however, the membership has never gotten to the 1000 mark.
So, when it comes down to the likes of the British National Party, the English Defence League and the National Front, they are small parts of a small movement, that is significantly splintered between over 15 different organisations already. These various splinters are like individual tribes, struggling to work together for a common cause, because one tribe feels that another's slightly different viewpoint on something means they are less true to the cause or less pure.
Two quotes for me sum up my feelings on this, and I have added particular emphasis to the parts that speak most on this subject.. First comes from the Inaugural Address of President Franklin D Roosevelt in 1933...
"...This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance..."
...and the second comes from Edward R Murrow from his See It Now programme in 1954, talking about McCarthyism...
"...We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men..."
(Cross posted on my Daily Kos diary)
It was a fascinating piece of writing, but the one thing that shines out from it to my eyes, is the fact that because the Republican Party in the US has veered to the extreme right in more recent years, there's always a lot more fear about right-wing extremism in the US than there is in the UK. In some ways, it reminds me of the fear over Commmunism that we saw in the US back in the 1950s, with the McCarthy witchhunts. The EDL, BNP and the National Front along with UKIP are the current incarnations of far-right wing politics in this country, a history that pre-dates the Second World War.
In fact, we go all the way back to 1902, and to an organisation called the British Brothers League. The league was formed as a response to waves of immigration from Eastern Europe which had been going on since 1880. It's weird, a lot of the debate on immigration now is over immigration from, once again, Eastern Europe. History does have a way of repeating itself.
Initially, the League was only interested in keeping "Destitute Foreigners" out of England. Later on, that slowly changed to the more familair refrains of anti-semitism. Although the league claimed to have 45,000 members, no membership fees were ever taken. It was mainly a London based organisation, and although it disbanded in 1923, it left a legacy of far-right support that would be used by Oswald Mosley later on.
The next organisation to come out of the woodwork, was an organisation known as The Britons. Formed in 1919, by now we have the classic anti-semitic, anti-immigrant extreme right wing organisation. The organisation published extremist propoganda under the label of The Judaic Publishing Company, and later The Britons Publishing Society. The organisation was dormant during World War 2, though it continued to exist until the late 1940s.
1923 may have seen the disbanding of the British Brothers League, but another organisation was ready to take it's place. This one was known as British Fascisti, later on The British Fascists. Despite their name, their inital motivation was more fear of left wing politics, than actual fascism. There is historical evidence to back this. Back in 1922, the Conservative Party had won an election under Andrew Bonar Law, who was already an ill man at this time, having previously stood down as Conservative Party leader the previous year, despite the fact that David Lloyd George, a National Liberal, had been the Prime Minister until the 1922 election.
Labour, a relatively new political force at the time, having been formed in 1900, were now starting to have an electoral impact. They'd won 142 seats in that election, up from the meagre 57 seats they'd won in the 1918 election. Labour, under Ramsay MacDpnald, had become the official opposition for the first time in their history, overtaking The Liberal Party under Herbert Henry Asquith, a different Liberal party to the National Liberal Party, who had splintered from The Liberal Party, who had been in coalition with the Conservatives. Some on the right wing say the growth of Labour as a threat, hence why British Fascisti was created.
Strangely enough as well, The British Fascisti were heavily influenced by the Boy Scout movement, as many of the initial members of the British Fascisti had been Boy Scouts in their childhood, and wanted to "...uphold the same lofty ideas of brotherhood, service and duty...". It seems an unlikely mixture for creating what would be a breeding ground for one of the most famous fascists outside of Oswald Mosley. The man who later became Lord Haw Haw, William Joyce, was a member of the British Fascisti, after having been attacked, he claimed, by a Jewish communist whilst stewarding a Conservative Party meeting in 1924. He would later leave The British Fascists to join Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists in 1932.
The British Fascists were declared bankrupt in 1934. By this time, The BUF had established itself and was the major force of fascism in the UK. However, on the political scale, they were miniscule compared to the mainstream parties of the time, Conservatives, Labour, Liberals and National Liberals. Even amongst the extreme right, the BUF might have been the most well known, but there were other organisations espousing various ideas of fascism, and fighting between rival groups, was not uncommon. The Imperial Fascist League, which had formed in 1929, had a rivalry with the BUF. Although the British Fascists, the BUF and the IFL had discussed mergers, they could never agree to work together, and merge their limited memberships.
Ultimately, this early history of Fascism in the UK is as instructive as it is interesting. There is an almost tribal mentality to these organisations. Some people did move between organisations but generally, most stayed loyal, almost to a fault, with the organisation they joined. The same is also true today. The BNP, the EDL and the National Front may be the extreme right parties and organisations that most are familiar with, but there are and have been a number of minor far right parties and organisations, including The British Freedom Party, Britain First, The British Democratic Party, British People's Party, The Christian Council of Britain, England First Party, the White Nationalist Party, the Nationalist Alliance, and many other organisations, some of which have been and are organisations that splintered off from the BNP.
Whilst the BNP and the National Front have been the most successful in terms of electoral success, both are so far behind the mainstream parties, that their successes are rather limited really, in the grand scheme of things. So, is there anything to worry about in regards to the EDL, the BNP and the National Front? It's very unlikely that there is anything to worry about. Most of these organisations do not garner much in the way of support outside of their base, and they are so far away from where the majority of the British public politically reside, the political centre, where ultimately elections are won, that the likelyhood of any group getting the necessary votes to get more than token representation in anything beyond local council level, is so small as to render it almost impossible.
This is down to the way our electoral system works. First Past The Post is a simple, most votes wins system. One person, one vote, just a single cross on a piece of paper, and the candidate that gets the most votes wins. No requirement to get more than 50% of the votes cast in a single constituency, and no complex ranking of candidates by order of preference. Smaller parties like UKIP, The Greens, even the Liberal Democrats at one stage, complained that the system kept smaller parties out. And whilst the system does keep some minor parties out, the flipside of that, is that it also tends to keep the BNP and National Front out as well, because to win in any constituency, you need a large concentration of support for your party within that constituency. One of the reasons the Greens rarely win seats, is because their support is thinly spread across the country, where as pockets of BNP support have sprung up in certain areas, and that's why the BNP has won some council seats in the past, although in the last local elections in May, the BNP lost all the seats they were defending.
And Fox News lending support to the EDL isn't as big a deal in this country as it might seem. Fox News reaches over 3 million people each week in the USA, around about 1% of the population overall, and is the most watched cable news channel in the US. Fox News Channel is also shown in the UK. However, they reach no more than 200,000 people each week in the UK, far less than 1% of the 60 million people that live in the UK. In terms of people watching news channels in the UK, BBC News leads the way with over 9 million watching each week, Sky News comes next with over 5 million watching each week, and editorially, although owned by the same company that owns Fox News, Sky News is far less right wing that Fox News, mainly due to neutrality regulations that are in place for all broadasters broadcasting from the UK. Outside of the two main news channels in the UK, Fox News is watched by less people than watch Al Jazeera, or Russia Today, or even EuroNews. Fox News active support of the EDL is actually causing viewers of Fox News in the UK to change channels.
There is one other reason why it is unlikely that we will see Fascism rise up, and it comes from history and the UK's response to the force that wasthe countries known as "The Communist States".
Communism really first came to prominience in the 19th century with the publication of The Communist Manifesto in 1848, a document written by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels. Their "communism" was a form of socialism that sought to end capitalism, and the systems that they believed were exploting workers. It was this basic idea that brought down the Czars in Russia in 1917, and formed the basis for the Communist state that was The Soviet Union until the 1990s.
Communist Parties began forming all over the world. 1920 saw the formation of the British version of the Communist Party. The US response was best categorised by what happened in the 1950s, and the phenomenon that was McCarthyism. Joseph McCarthy was a Wisconsin Republican Senator, who led a Senate commitee into the infiltration of American Communist Party agents into the Government. His over-zealous interrogations of suspects, and demagogue-like attitude, led to him making wild, unsubstatiated accusations against people who were not guilty of any such misdemeanours. Such McCarthyism is still used today by the Republican Party to call people unpatriotic, or question the morality of an opponent in a political debate.
But in Britian, instead of being scared by '...reds under the bed...', the British establishment gave it little credence or indeed thought it much of a threat, despite the fact that in 1945, 2 Communist Party candiates had been elected as MPs. Both lost their seats in 1950, and the party began a slow, gradual decline eventually dissolving in 1991, just after the collapse of the Soviet Union. A splinter group left the main party in 1988, and formed a new Communist Party which still exists today in the UK, however, the membership has never gotten to the 1000 mark.
So, when it comes down to the likes of the British National Party, the English Defence League and the National Front, they are small parts of a small movement, that is significantly splintered between over 15 different organisations already. These various splinters are like individual tribes, struggling to work together for a common cause, because one tribe feels that another's slightly different viewpoint on something means they are less true to the cause or less pure.
Two quotes for me sum up my feelings on this, and I have added particular emphasis to the parts that speak most on this subject.. First comes from the Inaugural Address of President Franklin D Roosevelt in 1933...
"...This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance..."
...and the second comes from Edward R Murrow from his See It Now programme in 1954, talking about McCarthyism...
"...We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men..."
(Cross posted on my Daily Kos diary)
Wednesday, 12 June 2013
Russia goes backwards on LGBT
Russia Today are reporting that the the lower house of the Russian Parliament, The Duma, has voted for a ban on promoting non-traditional sexual relations to minors. Now whilst this might sound sensible, it is one of those ideas that in practice causes a lot more problems than it solves.
The situation in Russia regarding LGBT relations has been pretty stable since 2003. The age of consent is 16, for both heterosexual and LGBT relationships, homosexual sex is legal, as is the right to change your gender, but there is still a long way to go.
There are no anti-discrimination laws in place for the Russian LGBT community, and this new law seeks to take the issue further back into the dark ages. People start to express their sexuality as early as their early teens, and they will want to find out information. Blocking access to that information will not promote heterosexuality, but will make LGBT relationships, and other non-traditional sexual relations more interesting. It's classic reverse psychology, tell somebody they can't do something and they want to do it all the more.
Some ideas sound eminently sensible. However, most of those ideas end up causing more problems, especially when those measures are directly against a person's sexuality, and also, trying to place societal controls on something that Mother Nature decides. It comes across as being a fool's errand to try and place societal controls, such as laws, on things that are not decided by societies, but by nature.
What's worse is that the public backs this ban. 88% back it, and 42% think homosexuality should be made a criminal offence. This is a backward step for Russia, and it will come back and bite them, when they least expect it.
The situation in Russia regarding LGBT relations has been pretty stable since 2003. The age of consent is 16, for both heterosexual and LGBT relationships, homosexual sex is legal, as is the right to change your gender, but there is still a long way to go.
There are no anti-discrimination laws in place for the Russian LGBT community, and this new law seeks to take the issue further back into the dark ages. People start to express their sexuality as early as their early teens, and they will want to find out information. Blocking access to that information will not promote heterosexuality, but will make LGBT relationships, and other non-traditional sexual relations more interesting. It's classic reverse psychology, tell somebody they can't do something and they want to do it all the more.
Some ideas sound eminently sensible. However, most of those ideas end up causing more problems, especially when those measures are directly against a person's sexuality, and also, trying to place societal controls on something that Mother Nature decides. It comes across as being a fool's errand to try and place societal controls, such as laws, on things that are not decided by societies, but by nature.
What's worse is that the public backs this ban. 88% back it, and 42% think homosexuality should be made a criminal offence. This is a backward step for Russia, and it will come back and bite them, when they least expect it.
Thursday, 6 June 2013
Abolish the Seanad? No thank you.
In terms of politics threatening to get out of control, this is one situation where that could easily happen. Enda Kenny, The Taoiseach, announced that he was bringing forward a bill to abolish the Seanad Eireann, the upper chamber of the Irish Parliament, the Oirechtas.
Unlike here in the UK, where the upper house, The House of Lords, is an unelected body, appointed by the Prime Minister via the system of honours bestowed by The Queen, The Seanad Eireann is made up of 60 members. 11 of these are directly appointed by the Taoiseach. 3 are elected by graduates of the University of Dublin, 3 are elected by graduates of the National University of Ireland, and the remaining 43 are elected from 5 special panels called Vocational Panels, made up of TDs, Senators and councillors.
Yeah, it's a little complicated, and that's one of the aspects of the Seanad Eireann that needs reform. The Seanad should be directly elected, just like the US Senate is. Further more, let's keep it simple. Two Senators elected from each county in the Republic of Ireland, 26 counties, 52 Senators in all.
That's just one aspect of the Seanad that needs reform, there are many others too. Nobody thinks the Seanad can survive as it currently is. But I believe Enda Kenny is wrong to call for the abolition of the second chamber. In parliamentary democracies, the upper chamber is always the modifier, the body that curbs the excesses of the lower house. With no upper house, there is no body to oversee the lower house and curb it's excesses. That is why that abolishing the Seanad is wrong, no matter what additional measures you might put in. The upper chamber must be there to give legislation a more considered opinion, than the lower house can. That's what it should be doing, and that is why I would recommend everybody in Ireland to vote against any move to abolish the upper chamber.
Unlike here in the UK, where the upper house, The House of Lords, is an unelected body, appointed by the Prime Minister via the system of honours bestowed by The Queen, The Seanad Eireann is made up of 60 members. 11 of these are directly appointed by the Taoiseach. 3 are elected by graduates of the University of Dublin, 3 are elected by graduates of the National University of Ireland, and the remaining 43 are elected from 5 special panels called Vocational Panels, made up of TDs, Senators and councillors.
Yeah, it's a little complicated, and that's one of the aspects of the Seanad Eireann that needs reform. The Seanad should be directly elected, just like the US Senate is. Further more, let's keep it simple. Two Senators elected from each county in the Republic of Ireland, 26 counties, 52 Senators in all.
That's just one aspect of the Seanad that needs reform, there are many others too. Nobody thinks the Seanad can survive as it currently is. But I believe Enda Kenny is wrong to call for the abolition of the second chamber. In parliamentary democracies, the upper chamber is always the modifier, the body that curbs the excesses of the lower house. With no upper house, there is no body to oversee the lower house and curb it's excesses. That is why that abolishing the Seanad is wrong, no matter what additional measures you might put in. The upper chamber must be there to give legislation a more considered opinion, than the lower house can. That's what it should be doing, and that is why I would recommend everybody in Ireland to vote against any move to abolish the upper chamber.
Sunday, 2 June 2013
Making Sense: Protests in Turkey and Comparisons to Arab Spring
For about the past week, there have been protests going on in Instanbul, not Constantinople. Originally, these protests began over plan to redevelop a park. Gezi Park to be precise. But it has turned into something quite different.
Basically, the protestors right now are worried, worried for their freedoms, worried that secular Turkey, which is constituitionally secular, might be changed to an Islamist state in a new constitution. It wouldn't be the first time that Turkey has had a new constitution. The first one was back in 1873, then 1921, 1924, 1961, and finally, 1982, which is the current constitution of Turkey, which enshirnes into law, the fact that Tirkey is a secular and democratic republic which derives it's power from the people.
The constitution was the subject of a referendum in 2010, after Parliament failed to give constitutional amendments the necessary two thirds majority, although they did vote in favour. The amendments were passed by the referendum. Some people in Turkey have started to feel that Turkey's three time Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, of the conservative AKP party, may be moving towards turning Turkey into an Islamic state, and an authoritarian one, despite his denials.
That's what is really driving the current wave of protests in Istanbul, Ankara and other Turkish cities right now. There have been calls for the Prime Minister to resign, which he has dismissed, but it is clear that the Prime Minister and the AKP has lost the confidence of at least some of the people.
Some have compared this to the Arab Spring uprisings that happened back in 2011. Whilst those comparisons are understamdable, I believe those comparisons are a little bit far fetched to be honest. Those were protests in Islamic countries with autocratic governments. As I stated earlier, Turkey is democratic, and secular. It is so polar opposite, that the simialrities are literally only superficial ones. Protestors taking over a local square and promising to stay there until their demands are met. Sounds more like the Occupy movement.
Undoubtedly though, this is a local problem within Turkey, and the AKP and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have got to listen to their own people. Otherwise, they will be regarded as elitist and out of touch with the electorate that gave them their mandate, and that is a situation that few politicians ever recover from.
Basically, the protestors right now are worried, worried for their freedoms, worried that secular Turkey, which is constituitionally secular, might be changed to an Islamist state in a new constitution. It wouldn't be the first time that Turkey has had a new constitution. The first one was back in 1873, then 1921, 1924, 1961, and finally, 1982, which is the current constitution of Turkey, which enshirnes into law, the fact that Tirkey is a secular and democratic republic which derives it's power from the people.
The constitution was the subject of a referendum in 2010, after Parliament failed to give constitutional amendments the necessary two thirds majority, although they did vote in favour. The amendments were passed by the referendum. Some people in Turkey have started to feel that Turkey's three time Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, of the conservative AKP party, may be moving towards turning Turkey into an Islamic state, and an authoritarian one, despite his denials.
That's what is really driving the current wave of protests in Istanbul, Ankara and other Turkish cities right now. There have been calls for the Prime Minister to resign, which he has dismissed, but it is clear that the Prime Minister and the AKP has lost the confidence of at least some of the people.
Some have compared this to the Arab Spring uprisings that happened back in 2011. Whilst those comparisons are understamdable, I believe those comparisons are a little bit far fetched to be honest. Those were protests in Islamic countries with autocratic governments. As I stated earlier, Turkey is democratic, and secular. It is so polar opposite, that the simialrities are literally only superficial ones. Protestors taking over a local square and promising to stay there until their demands are met. Sounds more like the Occupy movement.
Undoubtedly though, this is a local problem within Turkey, and the AKP and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have got to listen to their own people. Otherwise, they will be regarded as elitist and out of touch with the electorate that gave them their mandate, and that is a situation that few politicians ever recover from.
Saturday, 25 May 2013
Cornwall Independent councillor out-crazies the Tea Party.
I never thought that I'd see the day when a UK politician presented something crazier than the Tea Party Republicans do. I even less expected to find that crazy UK politician within my own home county of Cornwall. None the less, this year, it happened. What's even crazier is that he resigned, re-stood for election, and got re-elected. What's worse is that this politician is not a Conservative, not a member of UKIP or the ultra crazy BNP.
Oh no, this was an Independent councillor, unaffiliated with any major political party in the UK. Sit back, relax, and listen to a cautionary tale from the other side of the big pond, about a Cornwall councillor, disabled children, and council spending.
First, we must add in some relevant context to this tale. The UK Government is currently a coalition between the Conservatives, the UK equivalent of the Republicans, and The Liberal Democrats, a centre-left party not dissimiliar to the Democrats. That's enough to make you think that coalition would never work, but surprisingly, more than halfway through the five year term, it's holding together. Some activists in the UK have refered to it as a Con-Dem administration.
However in Cornwall Council, these two parties have been on opposite sides of the chamber since 2009. Conservatives once again were in coalition running the council, but this time, with a large group of independent councillors who held more seats than the Liberal Democrats. Cornwall is one of the few counties in the UK where Independent, unaffiliated councillors form a major political force, and will often work together, almost like a political party. The Liberal Democrats had been in charge of the previous county council from 2005 to 2009, but had been voted out of office for creating the current Unitary council, which combined the previous county council and 6 smaller district councils into one body. So, after the 2009 local election, they were the opposition to the Conservative/Independent coalition, along with 3 Green Party councillors.
Our story involves one of the Independent councillors, from a ward called Wadebridge East. His name is Collin Brewer, and he was elected relatively comfortably in 2009. At the time of his election, nobody knew that he was going to become one of the most hated people in Cornish politics. The incident that was to cause him to become the most hated man in Cornish politics happened in 2011 during an event at County Hall in Truro, the administrative capital of Cornwall.
The event was a disability forum, and Mr Brewer was speaking to a member of the organisation Disability Cornwall. Mr Brewer claimed that "...disabled children cost the council too much money and should be put down."
Now, you'd think a comment that controversial would have been reported straight away. Nope, it wasn't reported to the public until February 2013, almost 2 years after the incident happened. Hey, I know the pace of life in Cornwall is a bit slower than in big cities, but not usually that slow!
However, the charity Disability Cornwall did complain to the council and the Standards Committee (yes, we actually have standards committees in UK politics, and they actually do hold people to acceptable standards.) reported its findings in February 2013. After that report, there were many calls for Mr Brewer to stand down as a councillior.
Collin Brewer put up a vigourous defence, claiming that he wasn't being serious, he was only trying to provoke a discussion on the issue of service costs provision, during a time when central government grants to councils was being cut back, and regulations prevented them from raising all the money that had been cut through local taxes like council tax and business rates.
Facebook was mobilised against him, a page that demanded his resignation garnered over 3600 likes. He was told he was no longer welcome as part of the Independent group on Cornwall Council.
But finally on 28th February 2013, Collin Brewer finally realised his position was untenable, and he finally resigned admitting he was wrong, and that he would probably be apologising for it for the rest of his life. He also said it was unlikely that he would stand in the local elections in May. Now you might think that this would be the end of the story and 99 times out of 100, it would be. But as Keith Olbermann once said about an unrelated story, "...this is the 100th time out of 100."
On the 5th of April, Collin Brewer announced that he would be restanding for the seat of Wadebirdge East that he had previously held, in the May local elections, once again, as an Independent. In 2009, he had been one of four candidates, but this time, he was up against 5 other candidates, one an Independent also, the other four represented four of the political parties in the UK. Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats and UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party). He stated that the decision was a response to local people who had asked him to stand again.
During the election campaign, the movement that had gotten him out of office, suddenly coalesced again, this time to persuade people not to elect him.
On my own Viewpoint blog, I highlighted the Wadebridge East ward as one of the stories to watch for that night. I didn't know if Collin Brewer was going to be re-elected, but I suspected it would be close. I thought it was too soon for him to have been forgiven for his comments, but I did wonder if he might have persuaded enough people that he hadn't meant what he said.
Come the following day, it was discovered he had won his seat back, by just 4 votes. 4 measley little votes gave him victory, a victory that he certainly hadn't deserved, nor should he have been allowed to earn. Disability Cornwall's chairman Steve Paget was "staggered" and "appalled" at the result. Almost immediately, the movement that had gotten him out once before, went into overdrive, in order to drive him out once again.
In the less than 3 weeks since his election victory, there have been a number of protests and tons of calls for him to resign once again. The leaders of all the political groups in the new council, Liberal Democrat, Independent, Conservative, Labour, Greens, even UKIP, have all called on him to stand down. The new leader of the Independent group, now in coalition with the Liberal Democrats on the new council, has taken the same decision, and said that Collin Brewer is not welcome as part of the Independent block. Collin Brewer is a councillor with no support at all in council.
But even that might not be enough to unseat him, now he feels he has a mandate for his views and an electorate behind him. He has gone one stage further now, in an interview with the Disability News Service, he linked the killing of disabled babies, to farmers killing deformed lambs, a situation that had occured recently due to a disease that was causing many lambs to be born with deformed limbs. Devon and Cornwall Police are investigating complaints about this interview, and more complaints are expected to be lodged with the police. Cornwall Council are also investigating.
As far as my research goes, no Republican has ever dared to suggest such an idea. If you do know different, let me know and point me in the direction of where it was said, I'd be happy to be proved wrong.
So you see, political crazies are not limited to the extreme right wing, they can appear from almost anywhere, even those unaffiliated with any political party or movement. Remain alert everyone, and watch out, for you never know when a political crazy will suddenly rear it's ugly head.
(Cross posted on my Daily Kos diary.)
Oh no, this was an Independent councillor, unaffiliated with any major political party in the UK. Sit back, relax, and listen to a cautionary tale from the other side of the big pond, about a Cornwall councillor, disabled children, and council spending.
First, we must add in some relevant context to this tale. The UK Government is currently a coalition between the Conservatives, the UK equivalent of the Republicans, and The Liberal Democrats, a centre-left party not dissimiliar to the Democrats. That's enough to make you think that coalition would never work, but surprisingly, more than halfway through the five year term, it's holding together. Some activists in the UK have refered to it as a Con-Dem administration.
However in Cornwall Council, these two parties have been on opposite sides of the chamber since 2009. Conservatives once again were in coalition running the council, but this time, with a large group of independent councillors who held more seats than the Liberal Democrats. Cornwall is one of the few counties in the UK where Independent, unaffiliated councillors form a major political force, and will often work together, almost like a political party. The Liberal Democrats had been in charge of the previous county council from 2005 to 2009, but had been voted out of office for creating the current Unitary council, which combined the previous county council and 6 smaller district councils into one body. So, after the 2009 local election, they were the opposition to the Conservative/Independent coalition, along with 3 Green Party councillors.
Our story involves one of the Independent councillors, from a ward called Wadebridge East. His name is Collin Brewer, and he was elected relatively comfortably in 2009. At the time of his election, nobody knew that he was going to become one of the most hated people in Cornish politics. The incident that was to cause him to become the most hated man in Cornish politics happened in 2011 during an event at County Hall in Truro, the administrative capital of Cornwall.
The event was a disability forum, and Mr Brewer was speaking to a member of the organisation Disability Cornwall. Mr Brewer claimed that "...disabled children cost the council too much money and should be put down."
Now, you'd think a comment that controversial would have been reported straight away. Nope, it wasn't reported to the public until February 2013, almost 2 years after the incident happened. Hey, I know the pace of life in Cornwall is a bit slower than in big cities, but not usually that slow!
However, the charity Disability Cornwall did complain to the council and the Standards Committee (yes, we actually have standards committees in UK politics, and they actually do hold people to acceptable standards.) reported its findings in February 2013. After that report, there were many calls for Mr Brewer to stand down as a councillior.
Collin Brewer put up a vigourous defence, claiming that he wasn't being serious, he was only trying to provoke a discussion on the issue of service costs provision, during a time when central government grants to councils was being cut back, and regulations prevented them from raising all the money that had been cut through local taxes like council tax and business rates.
Facebook was mobilised against him, a page that demanded his resignation garnered over 3600 likes. He was told he was no longer welcome as part of the Independent group on Cornwall Council.
But finally on 28th February 2013, Collin Brewer finally realised his position was untenable, and he finally resigned admitting he was wrong, and that he would probably be apologising for it for the rest of his life. He also said it was unlikely that he would stand in the local elections in May. Now you might think that this would be the end of the story and 99 times out of 100, it would be. But as Keith Olbermann once said about an unrelated story, "...this is the 100th time out of 100."
On the 5th of April, Collin Brewer announced that he would be restanding for the seat of Wadebirdge East that he had previously held, in the May local elections, once again, as an Independent. In 2009, he had been one of four candidates, but this time, he was up against 5 other candidates, one an Independent also, the other four represented four of the political parties in the UK. Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats and UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party). He stated that the decision was a response to local people who had asked him to stand again.
During the election campaign, the movement that had gotten him out of office, suddenly coalesced again, this time to persuade people not to elect him.
On my own Viewpoint blog, I highlighted the Wadebridge East ward as one of the stories to watch for that night. I didn't know if Collin Brewer was going to be re-elected, but I suspected it would be close. I thought it was too soon for him to have been forgiven for his comments, but I did wonder if he might have persuaded enough people that he hadn't meant what he said.
Come the following day, it was discovered he had won his seat back, by just 4 votes. 4 measley little votes gave him victory, a victory that he certainly hadn't deserved, nor should he have been allowed to earn. Disability Cornwall's chairman Steve Paget was "staggered" and "appalled" at the result. Almost immediately, the movement that had gotten him out once before, went into overdrive, in order to drive him out once again.
In the less than 3 weeks since his election victory, there have been a number of protests and tons of calls for him to resign once again. The leaders of all the political groups in the new council, Liberal Democrat, Independent, Conservative, Labour, Greens, even UKIP, have all called on him to stand down. The new leader of the Independent group, now in coalition with the Liberal Democrats on the new council, has taken the same decision, and said that Collin Brewer is not welcome as part of the Independent block. Collin Brewer is a councillor with no support at all in council.
But even that might not be enough to unseat him, now he feels he has a mandate for his views and an electorate behind him. He has gone one stage further now, in an interview with the Disability News Service, he linked the killing of disabled babies, to farmers killing deformed lambs, a situation that had occured recently due to a disease that was causing many lambs to be born with deformed limbs. Devon and Cornwall Police are investigating complaints about this interview, and more complaints are expected to be lodged with the police. Cornwall Council are also investigating.
As far as my research goes, no Republican has ever dared to suggest such an idea. If you do know different, let me know and point me in the direction of where it was said, I'd be happy to be proved wrong.
So you see, political crazies are not limited to the extreme right wing, they can appear from almost anywhere, even those unaffiliated with any political party or movement. Remain alert everyone, and watch out, for you never know when a political crazy will suddenly rear it's ugly head.
(Cross posted on my Daily Kos diary.)
Friday, 24 May 2013
Viewpoint Extra: Woolwich murder
As a follow up to my post, I am glad to see that at least one politician agrees with me about not allowing fear to win, and even quotes the Koran verse 32 chapter 5 in showing how Islam is not a violent religion...
"If anyone kills a human being it shall be as though he killed all mankind whereas if anyone saves a life it shall be as though he saved the whole of mankind."
The full story is here.
Thank you, Nick Clegg, for being a voice of sanity within the madness.
"If anyone kills a human being it shall be as though he killed all mankind whereas if anyone saves a life it shall be as though he saved the whole of mankind."
The full story is here.
Thank you, Nick Clegg, for being a voice of sanity within the madness.
Woolwich Murder and the problems of using the wrong word.
It's no secret that a lot of us have felt something in the wake of a soldier being murdered just outside of Woolwich Barracks in South London. The story has some unique oddities to it anyway. No criminal of any kind hangs around waiting for the Police to pick them up, and only the dumbest think that the police will kill them rather than capturing them. Also, not since the days of the Northern Ireland troubles have the armed forces been a regular target for murder in this country. So, this is an unusual case all told.
But the media, especially the press, and parts of social media have been bandying about the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" in relation to this murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, a member of the 2nd Batallion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.
It is far too easy to use the words terrorist and terrorism, in situations where we just don't know the full back story. The security services had picked up one of the suspects before, and one is believed to have converted to Islam. However, no killing done in anyones name, never mind the name of God, is justified. Calling it terrorism, or the perpetrators terrorists, is giving credence and credibility to their complaints, which is the last thing you need to do. In some cases, it might actually glorify their actions and their motives, and that is a definite no-no.
And just as bad, is several facebook postings that crop up all over the social network from pages and organisations with agendas of their own, shared by well meaning people who do not realise what these postings really mean. Some of these posts that get shared espouse racial hatrid, contain statements attributed to politicians that were in fact never made by those politicians, and do nothing to help solve the real problems of the world. In fact, some of these posts are borderline incitement to violence against other people. Be very careful what you share, some of these posts are close to or borderline illegal.
What happened was a murder. That is emotive enough. Calling it terrorism is too emotive, it provokes fear and anger, which is exactly what these people want. They want us to be afraid, they want us to be angry. It's irresponsible, especially for this Conservative government and the media, to do the radical's job for them. They should be more responsible and not use over-emotive words, that do the radical's bidding. For the Conservative government, that's their modus operandi, provoke fear, emotionalise everything, divide and conquer. For the media, it's all about sales, ratings, numbers. They think emotionalising the story will get better ratings, more sales.
The best thing to do, is actually to de-emotionalise and de-editorialise this story. It was a murder. The murder victim was a serving soldier, two men charged at police, they were arrested. Those are the pure undiluted facts. Calling it terrorism, or butchery as one columnist in the Telegraph did, is emotionalising and editorialising the story. Now a newspaper columnist can do that if they want. But if they feel like they should do things like that, then do it about a week or so afterwards, not in the relatively immediate aftermath, up to 72 hours after the event.
The English Defence League amongst others are not helping this whole situation by declaring war on extremist preachers of Islam. That will do nothing to decrease tensions.
In short, never call it terrorism. Never call them terrorists. You will give them what they want.
But the media, especially the press, and parts of social media have been bandying about the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" in relation to this murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, a member of the 2nd Batallion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.
It is far too easy to use the words terrorist and terrorism, in situations where we just don't know the full back story. The security services had picked up one of the suspects before, and one is believed to have converted to Islam. However, no killing done in anyones name, never mind the name of God, is justified. Calling it terrorism, or the perpetrators terrorists, is giving credence and credibility to their complaints, which is the last thing you need to do. In some cases, it might actually glorify their actions and their motives, and that is a definite no-no.
And just as bad, is several facebook postings that crop up all over the social network from pages and organisations with agendas of their own, shared by well meaning people who do not realise what these postings really mean. Some of these posts that get shared espouse racial hatrid, contain statements attributed to politicians that were in fact never made by those politicians, and do nothing to help solve the real problems of the world. In fact, some of these posts are borderline incitement to violence against other people. Be very careful what you share, some of these posts are close to or borderline illegal.
What happened was a murder. That is emotive enough. Calling it terrorism is too emotive, it provokes fear and anger, which is exactly what these people want. They want us to be afraid, they want us to be angry. It's irresponsible, especially for this Conservative government and the media, to do the radical's job for them. They should be more responsible and not use over-emotive words, that do the radical's bidding. For the Conservative government, that's their modus operandi, provoke fear, emotionalise everything, divide and conquer. For the media, it's all about sales, ratings, numbers. They think emotionalising the story will get better ratings, more sales.
The best thing to do, is actually to de-emotionalise and de-editorialise this story. It was a murder. The murder victim was a serving soldier, two men charged at police, they were arrested. Those are the pure undiluted facts. Calling it terrorism, or butchery as one columnist in the Telegraph did, is emotionalising and editorialising the story. Now a newspaper columnist can do that if they want. But if they feel like they should do things like that, then do it about a week or so afterwards, not in the relatively immediate aftermath, up to 72 hours after the event.
The English Defence League amongst others are not helping this whole situation by declaring war on extremist preachers of Islam. That will do nothing to decrease tensions.
In short, never call it terrorism. Never call them terrorists. You will give them what they want.
Saturday, 18 May 2013
Instant Karma
This story comes from Bogota, Columbia and is just more example of why crime doesn't pay. Fortunately, the victim got her phone back.
The would-be robber, suffered minor injuries in his run in with the bus. He's lucky he didn't suffer much worse injuries. His victim even helped him out from under the bus. He was detained by police. Something tells me he won't be committing any more crimes every again, after that incident.
The would-be robber, suffered minor injuries in his run in with the bus. He's lucky he didn't suffer much worse injuries. His victim even helped him out from under the bus. He was detained by police. Something tells me he won't be committing any more crimes every again, after that incident.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)