Homophobic Government adviser sacked – a victory for liberal thought. Just don’t expect any credit!

7 02 2011

When the then Labour government sacked a member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), Professor David Nutt, for daring to speak out against unscientific policy making on drugs, the then Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, was rightly condemned as illiberal (who’d have thought?) and accused of deciding drugs policy on the basis of politics, rather than proper scientific advice.

So when the current government appointed Dr Hans Christian-Raabe (pictured – Source: The Telegraph) to the ACMD, eyebrows were raised once again – but this time, not because of his advice, but because of his appalling and homophobic views on the link between homosexuality and paedophilia.

Hans-Christian Raabe

“It was typical of the Tories”, the trolls of the left said.  “The ConDems are showing their true colours!” others shouted.

Well, today, it has been announced that he has been sacked.  Good. It’s a victory for liberal thought and proper policy making in the UK – a welcome change from the practices of the past government.

Whatever your views of the coalition, this move is one that has to be welcomed.

I just don’t expect any credit from those who criticised his initial appointment. Politics is like that.





If half of young Americans can’t even find New York, what hope for finding Egypt on a map?

31 01 2011

When I posted this map – a screen grab from Fox News – a few days ago on Twitter, I had no idea it was going to go viral.

Just two days later, it has had over 170,000 views, my Twitter inbox has gone ballistic and I’ve been inundated with crazy, right-wing rhetoric from those in the US defending Fox and calling me a “liberal” (well,duh!) and suggesting that I had faked it -of course, Fox News can do no wrong in their eyes! But I’m afraid to say it’s genuine.

As for the suggestion of “liberal bias” – I would not hesitate to ridicule the BBC were they to make such an elementary mistake, too. In fact, the BBC should know a LOT better than Fox, so in a way the crime would be worse should they do it.

Many actually misread my post and thought I had said “most Americans can’t find their own country on a map” and insisted they could find it. Well, I actually said “a lot of Americans” – not “most” – and I stand by that characterisation. (Please, if you’re American and CAN find the US, good for you. But I don’t want an email about it. Just accept you’re cleverer than many in your country and feel happy!)

It seems that I have caused a bit of an international incident!

To the intelligent, thinking Americans: I unreservedly apologise. But I do feel sorry for you – after all, study after study does actually show that your fellow countrymen actually are NOT aware of the rest of the world, and your country’s place in it.

A study by National Geographic of young Americans found that half – that’s right – could not even find New York on a map. Other notable data reveals:

  • 74% think English is spoken by the largest number of people in the world (it’s Mandarin)
  • Only 37% of young Americans can find Iraq on a map—though U.S. troops have been there since 2003.
  • 6 in 10 young Americans don’t speak a foreign language fluently.
  • 20% of young Americans think Sudan is in Asia. (It’s the largest country in Africa.)
  • 48% of young Americans believe the majority population in India is Muslim. (It’s Hindu—by a landslide.)

But it’s not just the youngsters who appear to be so unaware – the US government’s OWN statistics show that just 37% of the population as a whole currently hold a passport. (Add up the last ten years stats for “passports issued” HERE.). That means that just under two-thirds – a whopping majority – cannot even visit Canada (unless they have certain WHTI other documents instead: but a passport of required for air travel) and Mexico, two countries with a land border with the continental United States. This compares with around 80% of the UK population and similar rates in Europe. Sure, Europe is a smaller place and the countries close, so travel is easy, some say. The US is a huge country and it’s expensive to go elsewhere. Well, that doesn’t seem to bother Australians – probably one of the most isolated countries in the world – where close to 70% have passports. That’s almost twice as many as Americans.

But back to the Fox map – I copped a lot of criticism on Twitter by those defending Fox who said that this graphic was from 2009 and therefore had nothing to do with Egypt. Huh? Firstly, I never said the graphic was current – I merely posted it to demonstrate the ideas I’ve developed above, and I”m sure that the error went unnoticed by the vast majority of Fox viewers.

But irrespective of when the graphic was actually broadcast, no matter how the Fox apologists try to spin it – it doesn’t make it correct!





The AV debate: why Tory doubters should learn from history (again!)

21 08 2010

I received this comment from a reader about my last post comparing the situation under AV and “optional-AV” in Australia (click HERE to read it).

I think the comment raises quite an interesting point, so I thought I would make a post out of it, rather than just reply to the comment:

Thanks Brent, very useful insight into the Australian system.

Just to go slightly off on some tangents…

Obviously, it’s difficult to say with any certainty how AV could translate in to UK seats but, for example, we could have a situation whereby the LibDems “win” seats on the primary vote (i.e. 40%), only to be leap-frogged by Labour or the Tories on second preferences. Why should that be instrinctly any more “fair” than FPTP?

Surely AV actually militates against minor parties gaining representation in the Australian parliament? There are only two (inc. the Lib/Nats as one block) parties represented there plus a handful of independents. There may be many arguments for AV – option preferences or not- but surely greater proportionality is not one of them.

James

Firstly, thanks for reading James and thank you for the comment.  It is a much-discussed point that you raise. Read the rest of this entry »





In support of (optional) AV in the UK: the Australian Federal election 2010

20 08 2010

The debate in the UK  around the upcoming referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV) – or “preferential voting” as it is called in Australia – has focussed up until now on the differences between the current first-past-the-post system and the proposed new AV system, and what it could mean for various parties and the voting public. The Australian system of voting is being scrutinised more and more here in the UK to see how it works and the various outcomes in different situations.

At a recent Liberal Democrat get-together, I was discussing with other party members about the direction our “Yes” campaign will take when the referendum finally arrives.  An interesting discussion ensued about a major criticism of the AV system here is that, in forcing voters to make a second, third and possibly fourth or more preferences, it is inherently unfair to the voter if they do not want to do that.

What if they only want to vote for one candidate, and no one else?  Why should they be forced to do so? Is that not undemocratic?

I think it is.

It’s also politically very dangerous if you are supporting a “YES” vote for a new system of voting in a country that does not really understand AV in the first place.

Read the rest of this entry »





Voting reform: AV for the Commons and PR for the Lords? Two sides of the same coin

10 05 2010

Voting reform – our parliament has been here before. As far back as 1900, politicians in Westminster met to vote on a bill that would give a fair voting system to a new nation.  It ultimately led to the AV (alternative vote) system for the House of Representatives (equivalent of the Commons) and a full proportional representation system based on STV (single transferable vote) for the Senate (equivalent of the House of Lords). Perhaps all to aware that the Westminster system was fundamentally unfair, politicians of the day took the opportunity to start afresh with a bill that would be a complete break from the way Westminster parliaments had been chosen.

That bill was the Australian Constitution. Read the rest of this entry »





A warning from political history: why Clegg must heed it, or face electoral oblivion

10 05 2010

Once upon a time, there was a party with the name “Democrats” in their title.  They were the third largest party in essentially a two-party system, but they managed to hold the balance of power after a crucial election with almost 11% of the overall vote in 1996.  Part of their platform during the subsequent election campaign in 1998 was a very specific policy which, once elected, they partially dropped and sided with the winning Conservative party who were the government. In the ten years and three elections that followed this disastrous betrayal of their promise and it’s own members, their vote plummeted from almost 11% to just over 1%; this party was riven by internal feuding, leadership spills, and defection of high-profile members to the Labour party.  Electorally, this party was first overtaken by the Greens who became the third largest party and then, at the last election,  lost ALL its remaining elected members.

It has since been de-registered as an official political party in some areas for failure to show it has the requisite number of members, and is now effectively dead as a political force.

Read the rest of this post HERE (originally published Sunday May 9th 2010)





A warning from Democratic party history: why Clegg must heed it or face political oblivion

9 05 2010

Once upon a time, there was a party with the name “Democrats” in their title.  They were the third largest party in essentially a two-party system, but they managed to hold the balance of power after a crucial election with almost 11% of the overall vote in 1996.  Part of their platform during the subsequent election campaign in 1998 was a very specific policy which, once elected, they partially dropped and sided with the winning Conservative party who were the government. In the ten years and three elections that followed this disastrous betrayal of their promise and it’s own members, their vote plummeted from almost 11% to just over 1%; this party was riven by internal feuding, leadership spills, and defection of high-profile members to the Labour party.  Electorally, this party was first overtaken by the Greens who became the third largest party and then, at the last election,  lost ALL its remaining elected members.

It has since been de-registered as an official political party in some areas for failure to show it has the requisite number of members, and is now effectively dead as a political force. Read the rest of this entry »





Out for the count

9 05 2010

I attended my first ever election count on Thursday night.

We didn’t get the result we had hoped for; but the entire campaign and the election night count was a great experience.

Here’s some pics. (Click on any the pic below or HERE for more).





Brian Paddick campaigns with Bridget Fox for Islington LibDems

29 04 2010

We had the pleasure of former LibDem mayoral candidate Brian Paddick’s presence in Islington on Wednesday afternoon.  He came to help Bridget Fox and her team spread the LibDem message in Islington South and Finsbury.

As usual, I had the honour and pleasure of being “official” photographer for the afternoon. Click the pic below to see the full set:





New Labour’s Emily Thornberry “doesn’t see ID cards as a civil liberties issue”. Really? Please explain!

26 04 2010

In a recent interview with the Islignton Tribune, failed New Labour candidate for Islington South and Finsbury, Emily Thornberry, was quoted as saying:

“Where I do part company with [the LibDems and Jeremy Corbyn, Labour candidate for Islington North who voted against ID cards] is on CCTV and ID cards. What’s wrong with having an ID card? The question is: what’s on it? Do you have to carry it? How much is it? I don’t see how it’s a civil liberty issue. Having something that proves who you are, so what?”

She – like most of New Labour – just don’t get it, do they?

What’s wrong with an ID card?  Is she serious?  Or is she just treating people as idiots yet again (as Labour tends to do)? Read the rest of this entry »








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers