This page represents only my own views, and not those of any university or other body.
Posted Sunday 16th May 2010 at 4.42pm
Colly & Flower
Just been playing frisbee in the park. At one point I had to attempt to explain to a small French girl (probably about 2 years old) who tried to join in that the reason she wasn't very good at throwing the frisbee was because it was bigger than her arm. She didn't seem to care and kept trying anyway. Now about to head off to the pub to watch England in the Twenty20 World Cup final. BARMY ARMY!!!
Also, I realised last night (not sure what brought this thought on) that I know pretty much all the words to S Club 7's "Bring it all back". Naa naa na-na-na-na na naa naa na-na-na-na naa naa na-na-na na-na.
Posted Friday 14th May 2010 at 8.57pm
ConDemNation
Woooooooooo it's another politics post! They'll stop soon... I promise.
I said a while back that Johann Hari is great. Well I don't agree with much of his latest article.
The title ("This is not what the British people voted for") isn't far off right, but he doesn't offer any solutions to solving the problem of us not really voting for anything. His point is that only 39% of the vote was "right-wing" (i.e. Tory or UKIP). But he goes on to point out that "Lib Dem voters identified as 'left-wing' over 'right-wing' by a ratio of 4:1" - well, Lib Dems got 23% of the vote, and a fifth of that is roughly 5% - so the total right-wing vote was actually 44%, which he conveniently fails to notice. (I'll let him off ignoring the BNP - more people should.) OK, so 44% is still some distance off half, and if we had proportional representation this would make a rainbow coalition (Labour and Lib Dems with help from the Scots, Welsh and smaller parties like the Greens) plausible. But we don't - we have first past the post, and the "progressive majority" didn't get enough seats to stand a real chance of forming a government. Arguing that it would have been different if we had proportional representation is assumptuous (is that a word?) - perhaps if we had proportional representation, more Tories would have turned out in (what are currently) Tory safe constituencies.
Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to have seen a rainbow coalition, and I would love something much closer to proportional representation (precisely what form is up for debate - AV+ would be a nice start). But just saying "this isn't what we voted for" and walking off in a huff doesn't do anybody any good. It's closer to what we voted for than anything else is.
Personally I'll give them a chance. Tories + Lib Dems >>>>>>>> Tories. Especially Tories with a small majority, where the crazy climate change deniers, Europhobes and tax-haters have to be pandered to. The cabinet is a bit disappointing - George Osborne, for example, makes me feel sick every time I look at him. Having a representative for equality who has regularly voted against improvements in gay rights is another problem. But at least Osborne has a couple of Libbers to keep his wings clipped. And the one really positive thing is that we have Chris Huhne as Environment Secretary (or whatever it's called) - how much success he'll get winning the Tories round is unclear (I'm still not convinced many of them have admitted France exists yet, let alone global warming) but at least we can be sure he'll do his best.
Maybe it will end up being a "radical reforming Tory government with Lib Dem backing vocals" - I certainly don't fully trust the Tories not to renege on their promise of a referendum on AV which, by the way, EVERYONE SHOULD VOTE YES TO!!!!! But there's no point moaning about it before it happens (hypocrite! I hear you cry). Elections are for judging them on what we think they'll do, but the election has been and gone. They're here now - let's let them get on with the job and judge them on what they actually do.
Posted Tuesday 11th May 2010 at 11.36pm
Let's march
So. Gordo has resigned. Dave is PM. As I said to someone yesterday, "given that the choice was between Tory majority and no Tory majority, I will take this situation over the alternative!" And as someone else said to me today, "My mum only ever gave me one bit of political advice. It was when going to the polling station always remember to wear clean underwear, because you never know when the Tories will ... " (end of quote removed for reasons of public decency!)
Brown was - still is, I hope - a good politician. He wasn't out of his depth as PM, he was just in the wrong pool. He's clearly no good at the public stuff. But he cares! Watch the speech below - if you can't spare the full 10 minutes, just watch the last minute. He's so into it he forgets what words are and starts talking nonsense at several points. But when his neck clicks into place and he says "That's what we've all got to march for," it makes me smile.
As they say (I hope) across the pond, Stephen A. Douglas was a great debator, but Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator. I don't really mean to compare Gordo to Abe, but I hope we haven't put the wrong men in charge.
Also: I wish Forest would learn not to self-destruct in play-off semi-finals.
Posted Friday 7th May 2010 at 9.52pm
The aftermath
I actually stayed up till 5.15am - and got up again at 6.30am to check how it was going.
It couldn't really be more hung. I just wrote an email to a friend with some predictions. Here it is.
Ha ha... well, I wouldn't hold your breath. My guess is it'll be Monday at the earliest before we know for definite what's going on.
My prediction is: LD & Con to fail to reach an agreement; LD & Labour to fail to reach an agreement; Brown to resign on Monday; Cameron to run a minority government with the help of the Northern Irish parties, and sweeten up his econoic policies to get a few stray LD MPs on his side (and maybe even some disenchanted Labour ones); Harman/Johnson/D Miliband to run for Labour leadership; Miliband to win; another election in the autumn (or next May at the latest, but I can't see Dave risking leaving it that long - once his economic policies kick in he's going to be one unpopular fellow).
I just hope we manage to get proper voting reform somewhere along the way, but I can't see it unless Clegg swallows his pride and makes a coalition with Labour, trading short-to-medium-term popularity for the chance to be a Lib Dem hero in years to come as the man who finally got proportional representation!
Posted Thursday 6th May 2010 at 9.15pm
Election night
What happened to the pictures of prospective prime ministers playing football or tennis with inner-city kids this campaign? I haven't even seen many baby-kissing photos. To be fair, I guess you'd have to be pretty weird to let Brown or Cameron near your baby.
I have nothing to do until 11pm (French time) when the BBC's election coverage starts, and the word is that we'll have a slight Tory majority. I plan on staying up till maybe 3am, by which time I'll have more of an idea whether or not that rumour is true.
I feel fairly resigned now. The Tories are back. They're going to be running my country. And it is my country - despite my post a few months ago, I am proud of Britain. There are a million little things that I love about it.
The Mirror ran a front page today featuring the now-famous picture of David Cameron in the Bullingdon Club at Oxford University. I've just been reading a column by some guy who says he hates Tories. I was hoping for something funny but actually he mostly lists reasons why he doesn't hate Tories. He doesn't hate the Tories because Cameron went to Eton. Apparently Cameron didn't have a choice. Does this guy really know that much about Dave?
Watch out, there's a "this is what happened to me" story on the way.
I remember when I was 10 or 11, my parents were trying to decide what school I should go to. In Nottingham, there's one big private school, called the High School. You have to pass an exam to get in, and around that time (if I remember correctly) they charged about £1000 per term. My parents, I think, would have liked me to go there. They thought about entering me for the entrance exam, and hoping that I would get some kind of scholarship for doing really well in it. But they were worried, partly because if I went - even if I did get a scholarship - then they would be honour-bound to send my brother and sister there too. Of course, they could also get scholarships, but what if they didn't? My parents would be stuck paying £6000+ a year, and they didn't think they could afford that. So they asked me what I thought about it.
As far as I remember, I said I didn't mind either way. Actually I used to say I didn't mind about most things (and I still do). But I remember actually not minding. I'd been to an open day at the High School and it was kids with bunsen burners and lab coats burning magnesium and looking cool. Like most other secondary school open days I guess.
Anyway I went to Arnold Hill instead. It was tough, but I guess that's what secondary school is like, especially for a lanky ginger-haired kid with braces on his teeth who's good at maths. I've met lots of people from private schools since, and many of them are good friends of mine. But things like seeing Cameron up there make me wonder - does it really make that much difference? If I'd been to the High School, would I have mixed with different people at Cambridge? Would I be an investment banker now, in a plush flat in London? Or would I be a better mathematician? Would I be voting Tory?
I just wrote "I doubt that last one very much!" - and then deleted it. My parents have always voted Labour. I remember once, when I was a kid, asking them why, and them telling me it was because we were working class. At the time I didn't really know what working class was (or rather, I didn't know that any other way existed - except maybe that the Queen was different), but I accepted that as a reason. I remember being happy waking up on that morning in May 1997 - me and my brother and sister were staying at my old childminder's house, and she'd made pancakes for breakfast, and there was that guy on the TV with the big pendulum thing and there was a lot of red. I remember thinking that was good.
But now I have my own views, and I like to think that my dad telling me that we voted Labour because we were working class has little to do with why I would have voted Labour in this election (had I actually received my vote). So it stands to reason that if I'd been schooled in a different environment, my views might well have been different by now. Who knows?
One of my old housemates in Bath recently changed his facebook status to "I wish the politicians would stop saying it's "fair" to tax rich people more. It's not fair in the slightest....it is necessary." This caught me a bit by surprise, as (although I know he prides himself on being right-wing) I had always assumed it was fair to tax rich people more. This update forced me to consider my views. But - and maybe it's just me trying to warp the world to fit around my views, rather than the other way round, but this is how I see it - I still think it is fair. I see the counterargument. There are a lot of people in crap jobs earning crap wages because they didn't try hard enough at school, or at college, or at uni. Why should they pay less tax than people in good jobs, who worked hard to get those jobs? Well, reason one is because there are also a lot of people in crap jobs earning crap wages who did try their best, and circumstance or illness or lack of ability left them where they are. How can we draw a line between these people and the skivers? And reason two is: don't we forgive the people who didn't try hard? Isn't it cruel - unfair - to keep punishing them for mistakes they made when they were kids? They'll never earn as much as the people who did try hard, and they know it. It can be hard to imagine that feeling - of knowing that you'll be sticking sachets of shampoo into leaflets for the next 45 years. Of knowing that you're going to freeze for the next three weeks because you can't afford the gas bill. Of knowing that you're not going to be able to give your kids Christmas presents. And knowing that it's all because you didn't try hard enough when you were 16.
That's why I think taxing the rich more is fair. There are punishments already built into being poor. And that's also why I think Labour has been, overall, a real force for good in our country in the last 13 years. Labour did some terrible things, most of all the messed-up wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it did some great things. The minimum wage, foreign aid, child tax credits, hospitals, gay rights, schools.
So, after what has been probably been my most rambling blog post ever, I think what I want to say is a big thank you to Labour for the good stuff, an "I hope you regret the bad stuff as much as you should" for the bad stuff, and an "I hope you guys aren't half as bad as I think you're going to be" for the Tories. Chin up Matt. They can't be that bad, can they?
Posted Sunday 2nd May 2010 at 1.46pm
Cool runnings
If you thought the Jamaican bobsleigh team was unlikely - what about this?
Posted Thursday 29th April 2010 at 6.41pm
What I want to see tonight
Politics again! Only a week to go and I'll probably be back to talking about cricket and stuff.
Tonight is the third live debate between the three "big party" leaders. Here are a few things I want to see happen.
1. Gordon Brown to come out straight from the off and hit us with "Come on, she was a bigot!"
2. Either Gordon or Nick (or, even better, both of them in unison) to say "What's that you say Dave, some company bosses don't want us to raise national insurance? What a shocker, I didn't see that coming! Got any more petitions? Are teenagers against our increase in alcohol duty? Lorry drivers against fuel duty? Do millionaires want us to abolish inheritance tax? Oh hang on..."
That seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable, simple response to Cameron's petition.
3. Everyone present to insist on calling Dave Chris, at least until Dave calls national insurance national insurance instead of "the jobs tax". Dave, I know you think it should be called "the jobs tax" but it's not; I think you should be called "chief Tory wanker" but I call you Dave because that's your name.
4. The audience to break free of their shackles. Applaud! Laugh! Boo if you really have to. If you get thrown out, who cares? At least you've gone down in a blaze of glory. I know they told you not to do it, but hey! Get with the programme! It's live! (And the people with the questions should be leading the revolution. The BBC can't really throw them out, or David Dimbleby will have to make up new questions on the spot. And nobody wants that.)
As a final treat, here is a spot the difference competition featuring one of the candidates I could vote for next week. Anyone able to spot 10 differences wins a prize. Entries on a postcard to the usual address: Gedling Conservative Association Office, 222 Carlton Hill, Carlton, Nottinghamshire NG4 1FY.
Posted Sunday 25th April 2010 at 11.22pm
Common people
I'm glad I posted when I did yesterday, otherwise you might have thought I was copying David Mitchell.
Posted Saturday 24th April 2010 at 10.14pm
Dave Cameron is my hero
I got up early this morning to do some shopping before I headed to Versailles with some friends. The shorts and flip-flops came out for the first time this year: the sun was out, the sky was a magnificent blue, until you looked north towards the city and it faded into a kind of dull grey as it met the horizon; but still, the weather was fantastic, and it was one of those mornings when anything seems possible.
And I got to thinking, what with it being election season and all, about how anything really is possible on 6th May. The Tories could get in. Labour could get in. The Lib Dems could get in. OK, so two of these are very unlikely, but they're a hell of a lot more likely than they were two weeks ago, and we could certainly end up with a Lab-Lib coalition, or a Tory-Lib coalition, or just a plain old hung parliament.
Anyway, whichever of those things happens, the best thing about them is that we could actually get electoral reform. Everybody wants it, except the Tory party and some of the Labour party. We're using a stupid old system for no reason other than that it suits both parties whenever only two parties have even a slight chance of winning. Now that we suddenly have the Lib Dems carving out around the same proportion of the vote as the other two, the system just becomes bizarre. Labour could get the third-biggest share of the vote, but the most seats in Parliament by some distance. Even the Tories will have trouble explaining that one away. They'll try though no doubt, because getting rid of this system could mean that we never have to have a (lone, i.e. non-coalition) Tory government again. Ever.
The great irony of all this is that Dave Cameron made it all possible. Without the live TV debates, the Lib Dems would have been stuck on 20-ish per cent as usual, the Tories would probably have won, or maybe Labour could just about have forced a hung parliament, but without enough seats to really do anything but hang on till the inevitable quickfire next election. And without Cameron, the TV debates wouldn't have been possible. He thought he could smarm the TV audiences with his rosy cheeks and his shiny chin, and he went for it. He didn't need to! He was winning! The winning party never agrees to these things, because why would they? But he went for it. Gordon, of course, knew he was up against it in these things, but he had nothing to lose, so he went for it too. And then the Lib Dems snuck in, and Gordon and Dave didn't really like it, but they couldn't really do too much about it and anyway, it was only the Lib Dems.
So, let's hope we manage it. Let's hope we get reform. Let's hope we never have to put up with the Tories again. And if so, let's raise a glass to Dave and his shiny chin, because they made it possible. Dave - you might just be my hero.
Versailles, by the way, was fantastic. It's probably the prettiest man-made place I've ever seen. The gardens of the palace - and the Domaine de Marie-Antoinette - were just stunning. The weather helped, of course.
And in case you're wondering, I am still planning on voting Labour in the election. I think I wrote something about my reasons a while back. I feel like they ought to be punished in some way for some of what they've done, especially the Iraq war. But that's not what I'm here for - I'm here to vote for the party that I think would do the best job over the next five years, and that happens to be Labour.
Finally, Johann Hari is great.
Posted Wednesday 7th April 2010 at 9.35pm
Mango and green bean curry
Another recipe for my archives. This is by no means perfect, it could do with something extra - maybe some squash or something - but it was nice and I'd like to make it again. As usual, I didn't actually measure anything so the amounts are all approximate.
1 tsp turmeric
1 tsp mustard seeds
1/2 tsp chilli powder
1/2 tsp curry powder
1/2 tsp black pepper
1/2 tsp paprika
1/2 tsp garam masala
2 medium onions, finely chopped
1 large clove garlic, finely chopped
1 tablespoon plain flour
Tomatoes
1/2 green mango, cut into 1cm pieces
Some green beans
Some sultanas
Heat some oil in a saucepan, add the spices and fry for around a minute. Add the onions and garlic, stir and fry until the onions are cooked - add a splash of water or more fat if the spices start to stick or burn. Take off the heat, leave to cool for a minute, then add the flour. Stir it in well. Add the tomatoes (I usually use sieved tomatoes, and I guess I put in around two thirds of a mug's worth today). Put back on a reduced heat, stir everything together well, and then keep adding water a bit at a time and stirring for a while until it's the right consistency... maybe halfway between curry and soup. Then add the mango, beans and sultanas, cover and simmer for 20 minutes. If it's not thick enough at this stage remove the lid from the pan for a while. Makes about 2 portions.
| Older posts | Newer posts |