Splitter!

David Miliband is a crybaby. Just because he doesn’t win the leadership election, he proceeds to throw all of his toys out of the pram and refuses to be a member of the shadow cabinet. Even though I don’t like David’s ‘New Labour’ politics and was very happy to see him lose to his brother, I still would have liked to see some party unity; David received almost half the votes and could have rallied everyone to a unified cause if he had wholeheartedly placed his support behind Ed. But no, David has put his own ego before ideological success; and because the party is having a change in direction, he’s throwing a hissy fit until he gets his own way. What a child!

Congratulations To Democracy

Finally, something good to report. Ed Miliband has become the new leader of the Labour Party. It would have been disastrous if his big brother David had won the election as all three leaders of the main parties would have been virtually identical. But now we have a distinctly different leader in Ed; someone who is principled rather than consumed by spin. It's unfortunate that it took the trade unions to get him the job - if it had been left to party members or MPs they would have handed it to David, the Tony Blair wannabe - but at least the right result was achieved in the end. And even though Ed would never admit to this himself, I hope he throws New Labour in the dustbin and goes back to a time before Blair changed the whole concept of what the Labour Party was meant to stand for, i.e. the working class. Incidentally, the voting system used in this election was the Alternative Vote, so let's hope people take that into consideration next year when we get to decide in a referendum on our general electoral system; AV is much fairer than Proportional Representation. But that issue can be discussed another time; for now, well done Ed!

Incredulity

On a recent gameshow, one hundred people were given one hundred seconds to name as many axis powers from World War II (that is, countries who the Allies fought against) as they could remember. More people remembered that we fought Italy than those who recalled Germany or Japan. How is that possible?!

Improper Finances

Okay, so I said that I probably wasn’t going to write this blog anymore, but sometimes the world just pisses me off so much that I simply have to put it out there!
George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has recently announced that four billion pounds will need to be cut back from the annual welfare bill. His reasoning behind this is that it will stop people from seeing living on benefits as a ‘lifestyle choice’, and of course it will help to reduce the overburdening national deficit. But there are some significant flaws in his reasoning. From a social perspective, people who are currently suffering long-term unemployment after having only just got out of the worst recession in a generation can hardly be condemned as choosing that lifestyle; redundancy is something which is inflicted, not asked for!
Yet even if your political ideology does condone Osborne’s applications of the deficit reduction, it cannot understand the hypocrisy of other overspending. One and a quarter billion pounds in contracts has just been awarded to the building of two new aircraft carriers. So apparently it’s okay to take pauper’s benefits away from them as long as we’ve still got the capability to bomb little foreigners out of existence! And let’s not forget that in just a few days from now the Pope will be visiting the UK at a cost to the general taxpayer of anything between eight and twelve million pounds. This is the same Pope who condemns contraception regardless of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and believes homosexuality is a mortal sin. As I am a liberal minded person, I’d rather not have to pay for him to visit my country. Hasn’t the Vatican got it’s own supply of finances? And what about Christian charity? Can’t churchgoers foot the bill to chat to their leader?
So, Mr Osborne, if you are going to take money from generally hard working people, then at least attempt to make it morally justifiable.

Probably...

This will probably be my last blog. My lifelong ambition of becoming a full-time freelance writer has singularly failed. I am about to lose my flat through dwindling finances, and my inspiration is giving way to depression. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suicidal or anything, but I just don't think that I will ever find my place in this world and can't be bothered to eloquently rant about it anymore. Therefore, for the final time I will leave you with a short diatribe.
As far as I'm concerned, this world is going to the dogs ... guaranteed. It started before I was even born; whether by institutionalised economic repression, corrupt capitalist greed, or the religious right to persecute, the damage has been done. And it's irreversible.
My hope for possible change has gone.

Simple Immorality

The Pope has condemned the UK's proposed Equality Bill for being in violation of natural law and for imposing "unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities", saying that these communities should fight the Bill with "missionary zeal"! He has stated his opinion so strongly because the Bill, in its current form, would take away some of the Church's liberties to deny employment rights for homosexuals. Even though priests and ministers will still be allowed these archaic homophobic rights, no other position of employment within the British Catholic Church will be. Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, has stated that the Pope's reasoned voice has been "formed by the treasures of the Christian heritage". So not only are these two highly influential religious voices failing to understand that there's no such thing as 'natural law' - a socially constructed concept with no basis in fact as there are plenty of examples of homosexuality in other animal species - but they are also blatantly proving that Catholicism (and probably Christianity by default!) is discriminatory, prejudiced and wholly incapable of producing a morality that is compatible with modern times.
Staunch Catholic Ann Widdecombe MP has also felt compelled to contribute, saying that this is a debate about religious freedom rather than homosexuality. But what about the freedom of homosexuals to not be repressed in a democratic society? At which point does it become okay for anyone, regardless of their religious viewpoints, to say that a person is not allowed to fill a position of employment based purely on their sexual orientation, which shouldn't even have to be disclosed in the first place?! By a simple application of logic, if anti-discrimination legislation is open to exemptions, then it is still allowing discrimination; and religious freedom cannot be labelled as free if it is repressing others who are trying to be free.
Even though the disappointing opinions were hardly surprising from the decadent pontiff, I hope that most UK politicians will not listen to the simple immorality that has been spouted. Sadly, Gordon Brown has said it would be inappropriate for him to comment ... Coward!

Capitalism Costs

The stock markets are taking a slump (again!), this time because Dubai has finally announced its high level of debt. Ah, Dubai; isn't that the one which set up Palm Island, a place where celebrities who are already extremely rich can stay with each other in order to feel even more financially superior and somehow morally rewarded for their lifetimes of greed? Yes, that's the one. And yet people are now seemingly surprised that this avarice has resulted in the accounts taking a turn for the red. How blinkered people can be sometimes. Unfortunately, I fully expect the perpetually wavering stockmarkets to make a full and swift recovery; but at least capitalist ways of obtaining false luxury have received another slap in the face.

Also relating to millionaires today, the Liberal Democrats have doubled the threshold at which people should pay annual mansion tax. It used to be their policy that anyone owning a house worth more than one million pounds would be subject to a 0.5% charge; only right and proper for those of us who believe in the redistribution of wealth. But now (for some reason wishing to give in to the excessively rich), the Lib Dems have said that (an albeit increased) mansion tax will only apply to properties over two million. At which point does any millionaire need to be felt at all sorry for? Nick Clegg says the increased rate will generate more income overall meaning that poorer taxpayers would have to pay less, but then why not implement that higher tax for more expensive properties without taking away the tax for houses between one and two million pounds? That would be the fairest outcome for less well off people. But then I'm not an economist, only a moralist.