Life from a Diagonal that might not be.

Wie Sind Ein Volk!

2009-11-09T10:45:11Z

20 years ago, today, a great event in history transpired. Events like this are few - the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and 9/11 - and when they come, they send shock waves around the world that echo on for generations. This event, of course, was the fall of the Berlin Wall.

With it, the Cold War began to thaw, permanently. A year of great change is wrapped up in this one event, this great punctuation mark in history, whose impact is still with us today. Before then, our lives were governed by a permanent fear that, at any time, we could wipe out the entire planet several times over in a nuclear armageddon.

Today, therefore, should be a happy day. We should take this day to remember how emancipated the end of the Cold War made all of us - not just those living behind the Iron Curtain, but all of us in the world. And to remember that things that seem permanent can collapse without warning, virtually overnight.

The Dreams Of A Bibliophile

2009-11-08T21:10:10Z

This weekend, I had a superb time. A trip had long been in the planning to celebrate starpaw 's recent 4- I mean, 21st, birthday. It was decided to have a weekend retreat at lsfiox's expansive and gorgeous home in the Yorkshire Wolds for the occasion, but the host himself would be in work for most of Saturday. Still, eager for action and always up for a chance to broaden our horizons, we - RiffRaff, iffriel and Star Paw - set off for York early on the Saturday, to indulge in a little retail therapy.

Many people think of this as shopping for clothes, or maybe furnishings for their home, or even plants. A rare few might consider the exotic sights and smells of food markets to be therapeutic, but none of these even remotely tickle my fancy. For me, there is only one type of shopping worth indulging oneself in fully - book shopping.

Hull is, sadly, not blessed with many great bookshops. We have the obligatory Waterstones in the city centre, and another on campus, and a couple of WHSmith's (though the latter are getting weaker and weaker when it comes to books, I believe) as well as a cluster of charity shops with a few shelves for some tatty paperbacks. This is enough for a little while, but, like any bibliophile, it soon becomes restrictive.

York, on the other hand, has a vast array of little bookshops, it seems, all of them wonderful places. There are at least 3 Oxfams, 1 of which is totally dedicated to books, to begin with. That is not to mention the Waterstones, Borders, WHSmith and the many other little charity shops that have a variety of literary treats on offer. But the crown jewels are the independent book shops. These are treasure troves of the like to make even the most ardent bibliophile feel sated, lined with everything from shiny new hard and paperbacks to ancient, dusty tomes.

Thus, with such a rich variety before us, we went on our way, from shop to shop, looking for bargains, treats and little things that jump out at you from the shelves. There were some treats on the way, things I never expected to find or just simply were such delights as to almost defy belief.

*There was a huge Welsh language family bible in the Oxfam bookshop on Micklegate. This enormous book, with big brass clasps to hold it shut, was beautifully illustrated and printed out in beautifully crisp text. The fact it was in Welsh seem to make it all the more special. A shame I didn't have the countless thousands it must surely have cost!

*In the same shop, I found a copy of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. A tiny little thing, holding in your hand it can seem almost innocuous. Yet, when one remembers the Red Guards waving these in the fervent heat of the intellectual slaughter of the Cultural Revolution, it takes on a strangely vicious edge.

*The new series of old classics, reprinted in paperback on recycled paper and in lovely green covers, from Penguin. These cover authors from Chaucer to Wodehouse, Kipling to Austen, and look to be an excellent way to get people reading once more - they're only £2-£4 a copy!

*The Byzantine and higgle-piggledy maze of the Minster Gate Book Shop. I'll come back to that.

*The pleasant find - to me, anyway - in the Travelling Man in York, that the comic book industry is still going strong. Shelves groaning under the weight of comics, and plenty of indie comics as well, always good to see the market at work. Though it was disconcerting to see just how many different concepts can be made into board games, at the same time.

*The fact that all of these bookshops were pleasantly busy, and people were buying. This reassures me as to the strength of the publishing industry in these troubled times.

The Minster Gate Book Shop, though, was probably my favourite place. After leaving my bag with a lovely lady on the till, I was free to wander over 5 floors of a tiny Georgian town house, all of them lined with shelf after shelf of books, of every age, size, colour and subject. If I had the money and shelf space, then I could have happily walked out of there with sackfuls of books, and then hired a mule and come back for more.

Sadly, though, I am on a budget and I have limited shelf space. Still, I dug through books on shelves, on piles, laid with their spines up at the base of the shelves and on tables to find something worth bringing back. Finally, I found a little treat, just for me.

It's a 1937 book, consisting of all 85 of the Federalist Papers together, as well as the Articles of Confederation, the Summons to the Convention that drafted the US Constitution, the US Constitution itself, the first 21 Amendments and the Declaration of Independence. A little treasure trove of US and enlightenment thinking, in one little volume, and for one very little price - £4. Thusly sated, I bought it up in a twinkling and came away with a big grin and a book I'm sure I'll come to use often.

All in all, then, it was a great day of book shopping, and something I'd very much like to repeat in future - though with lighter bags at the start and more cash in my wallet. The company, though, was magnificent - it's always good to go into book shops with people who enjoy them as much as you do.

Yours;

Aremay Stettinius

Blog Entry (6)

2009-10-23T12:46:08Z

Today, on the BNP row. And how we all share the blame.

Click Me!

Comments on the blog, please!

My Life According to Motion City Soundtrack

2009-10-21T20:53:04Z

Schwiped from londonwolf

Using only song names from ONE ARTIST, cleverly answer these questions. Pass it on to 15 people you like and include me. You can't use the band I used. Try not to repeat a song title. It's a lot harder than you think! Repost as "my life according to (band name)"

Pick your Artist:
Motion City Soundtrack

Are you a male or female:
Hangman

Describe yourself:
Broken Heart

How do you feel:
The Future Freaks Me Out

Describe where you currently live:
Indoor Living

If you could go anywhere, where would you go:
Where I Belong

Your favourite form of transportation:
Hello Helicopter

Your best friend is:
It Had To Be You

You and your best friends are:
Boombox Generation

What's the weather like:
Feel Like Rain

Favourite time of day:
Last Night

If your life was a TV show, what would it be called:
Everything is Alright

What is life to you:
Let's Get Fucked Up And Die (L. G. FUAD)

International Relations 101

2009-10-20T19:45:22Z

Stop flicking ink cartridges. I see you at the back, there. Looking at me all shifty-eyed.

A quick intro to what I study, for those who are curious. And yes, it is cross-posted from my FA

International Relations theory is my topic of choice. Well, I didn't choose it. We rolled up to a lecture in the warm glow of the May sunshine this year to be told Thou Shalt Do IR Theory next semester. Balls, we all thought. Arse. And then some more words along those lines.
I hate IR Theory, I'll admit that right off. When the group was asked at the start of the year who would have chosen to do this module freely, only about 10% put their hands up. A small gaggle of feebly raised hands that withered under the Agent Orange of our collective irate stares. Yes, you'd better put your hand down. No, we don't want to hear excuses.

But, as the term has begun, I've found myself beginning - tenaciously, to be sure - to enjoy this intellectual shackle. Sure, not everything I learn is particularly nice, the books are easily confusing and the lectures never, ever finish on time. But, that aside, this module is beginning to develop almost a sort of pleasure for me.

I know what you're thinking. Aremay, you kinky sonuvabitch, I didn't know you were into sadomasochism, least of all -intellectual- sadomasochism. Before you decide that I'd quite like you to kick me in the nuts while lecturing on the finer points of Betrand Russell's theory of power, let me assure you, it's not -that- kind of sadomasochism. Not that I have anything against that kind of sadomasochism. At all. Ever. Really, don't question me.

In any case, this enjoyment has begun to well in my breast, and I've found myself all overcome with flushes of IR theory. I've been chuntering my way through the annals of the realists and the institutionalists so far, and will soon move onto the fertile pastures offered up by the constructivists and even, dare I say, nibble the edges of green and feminism. Last time that happened, though, I turned puce with rage and uttered something like "No, everything wouldn't be better if women ran everything. How many of these authors voted for Thatcher? None, I tell you. None!" Then they locked me back in the cell and gave me some crayons to draw my feelings.

Like many theories, International Relations gets stick. Endlessly, we're told that the theorists are merely "ivory tower intellectuals" who don't know the first thing about the "real world" - which normally is inhabited by the accuser and their ilk, all of whom are engaged in real jobs, such as writing columns in the back of tabloid newspapers and occasionally bulking out guest lists at limp, grey dinner parties. We know who you are. And we also know - you're wrong.

E.H.Carr wrote that theory does not create practice, but practice creates theory. All these know-nothing intellectuals must surely know something about the practice (i.e. ,the 'real world'), therefore, to be able to write such massive tomes on the subject. The theories they write down are informed by - and then go on to inform - the major actors of the day. They try to give us an easy framework through which we can view the world, to try and explain why what is, is, and why it's not something else.

This means we have to create terms for things - anarchy, states, power, Hobbesian Fear, security, institutions and so on. I don't have space here, in this time, to give you all the full tale of what these terms mean, how they're used, how they've changed and what we can learn from them. But, I think, you'll appreciate a brief introduction. You -will- appreciate it. Won't you? Good.

Pens at the ready.

We must first be clear by what we mean by 'international relations'. This may seem like an easy question - surely, the relations between governments, between the UK and France and Togo and Bangladesh, are international relations? Well, they are a part of the story.

But IR covers more than that - it covers relations between governments and other bodies - commonly called Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) - in other states - so, say the relationship between the UK government and US oil companies, or Amnesty International and the Chinese government. It covers relations between actors who aren't part of the government in two states together - so the relationship between FIAT and Chrysler, say.

It also looks at the relationship between governments and international organisations - between Japan and the United Nations, or Liberia and the International Maritime Organisation. Or even between international organisations and NGOs - Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Council is a good example.

Briefly put, any interaction that crosses borders that is explicitly political comes under International Relations, and many others can be considered a part of it - such as economic, cultural, social and environmental interactions. The various bodies - NGOs, governments, international organisations and so on - are referred to as 'actors'. In IR, there are no bigger actors than the governments, or 'states' as we must properly call them.

A state is more than simply the 'government' - it reflects the wider scope of government in any country. It includes the courts, the legislature, the head of state, the bureaucracy and the military. It is -not- the same as a nation - a nation is a a vague idea, a group of people bound together by common culture or language or such bond. The United Kingdom is a state, the Welsh are a nation. States are specific, legal actors, and they all have one common characterist. In the words of Max Weber, they all hold a monopoly on the use of force over a set territory. Only the state can legally imprison you, or fine you, or otherwise 'destroy' (in the words of the Magna Carta) you. We recognise this authority, as citizens - if we break it, then we know we will be punished.

This helps explain why states are so important in IR. Running through all these many interactions we have a common theme - power. The use of it, the preservation of it, the gaining or loosing of it - power runs through it all. Before we say more about power, we must re-iterate - it is because states hold this monopoly on the use of legitimate force that they can be considered the foremost actors in IR. It is they who hold the lions' share of power, and so, because power runs through all, we end up turning to them time and again.

So, this power. What is it? Weber (him again) defined power as "the ability for one actor to make another do something that they would not have otherwise have done." Beyond this definition, the debate rages unabated. Some say we can only really measure power in terms of military force - and so states, who hold the vast majority of military power - and a few armed rebels, are all that really matters in IR. Others are more broad, arguing power comes from social and economic sources as well - and so more actors have power - though these theorists agree that states remain central.

But we can all agree - power is everywhere, all the time, and we cannot simply ignore it, nor get rid of it. Everything in IR involves power - let's look at an example. A company in country A wants to open an office in country B. Well, country B may not want that company there, because they think it will damage their domestic industries. So they appeal to the government of A to stop the company opening its' office. But A, which is more powerful than B, wants the company to do well and prosper, so it can ignore the pressure, and may indeed apply return pressure to get the less powerful country B to accept the company. Power has been used, exerted, in both directions.

Greater power, therefore, can be seen as desirable, and states will try to accumulate it. Why they do so, though, it one of the big questions. Let me give you a brief window into some deeper theory, before we go back to some terms. Some theorists - the classical realists, they're called - argue that we accumulate power to be the greatest power. One of the first classical realists, Hans Morgenthau, wrote that man accumulates power because he wishes to be like God - with none above or beside him.

Later, there came Kenneth Waltz and the defensive realists. They said states accumulated power because they wished to be secure - a security which, once attained, they would then settle at and stop accumulating power. Later still came John Mearsheimer and the offensive realists, who revisted the classical realists and said that states accumulate power to become the hegemon - the greatest actor in the system, and dominant over all others.

That's a snap shot of some thinking. Thus far, though, we have defined actors, states, power and international relations itself. Let's think some more about the international element.

The most important theory in international relations about the world we live in is that it is anarchical. Anarchy, for IR thinkers, doesn't mean chaos or panic. Anarchy means a lack of an authority above you - in this case, the lack of a power over states. Inside those states, we live in hierarchy - we accept that legitimate monopoly of power, because we understand everyone inside the state exists in the same condition. The hierarchy means that if you're harmed in any way, then there is a higher authority to come and protect you, and deal with whoever harmed you.

States do not have this - they have anarchy. There is no power above them, so they are the highest authority. The anarchy is distinct from the states themselves. This is the "structure/agency" debate, which argues whether it is states themselves or the condition they live in that defines the actions of the state.

So, there you go. We have a system of states, within whom there is hierarchy, but who themselves exist in anarchy with each other. There are other actors, as well, but their share of the power that binds the whole system together is generally (not always) regarded as smaller than that of states, who dominate.

Wake up, now. It's over. You can go back to picking your nose, you on the front row.

Jan Moir (Or, a tale of sheer blinding stupidity)

2009-10-17T10:59:45Z

After the sudden and untimely death of Stephen Gately, there was a rush, as ever, of celebrity journalists to their laptops to run out articles of ebullient praise for him. Among the many pieces penned in the aftermath, was this sparkling little gem by a writer for the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html

Behold, oh ye of little faith, why the Daily Mail is a bastion of all that is so very, very wrong with journalism. I can't do, however, nearly as good as job as Charlie Brooker did: "It has been 20 minutes since I've read her now-notorious column, and I'm still struggling to absorb the sheer scope of its hateful idiocy. It's like gazing through a horrid little window into an awesome universe of pure blockheaded spite. Spiralling galaxies of ignorance roll majestically against a backdrop of what looks like dark prejudice, dotted hither and thither with winking stars of snide innuendo."

Go on, treat yourself: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir

Now, as 'celebrity news' goes, I'm never a fan. But this, this one incident, has made my blood boil. If you want to do something, go and complain to the PCC, as Mr Brooker suggests.

Not been here in a while

2009-10-09T23:56:34Z

Truth be told, I've been too busy for much of an e-life, only dipping in and out when I can and trying not to spend all my time online.

This year is going to be a very busy one. As many of you know, I'm gunning for a First Class degree, which would mean that it would be much easier for me to get onto an MA course here at Hull. This would not only enable me to get further qualifications, but would also allow me to keep studying the subject I've come to love (the MA I'm looking at is in International Politics) and keep me out of the frankly shocking UK graduate job market another year, until they economy (hopefully) looks more rosy.

Now, this year is very important - it counts as 60% of my final mark. The modules - two each semester - are weighted 60% essay, 40% exam, which is good for me, as I tend to do better on the essays than the exams. In one module this semester, though, I have no exam, 'only' a 6,000 word essay. Coupled with a 3,000 word essay for my other module and the 3,000 word proposal I have to write for my dissertation, I'm already grinding my nose into fine powder to try and keep on top of it. Then, in the second semester, I have two more 3,000 word essays to complete, as well as the dissertation of a mere 12,000 words, followed by two exams.

Needless to say, this is going to be a hard year, but I'm determined to plough through and get this First. But, in the meantime, I am going to be probably extremely stressed, extremely busy and extremely unavailable a lot of the time. I mean none of you any harm - unless I make it clear to your face that I do, and even then be aware that I'm probably tired, poor and stressing out :P I just ask that you all bear with me in this year, which I feel will be like pregnancy - months of horrid moods swings, bad sleeping patterns, money down the pan, hormones everywhere and all the rest of it to finally, in one hideous final act, get what I've been brewing up for - a First. He says.

I'm sure you'll all be supportive, in your own ways, and patient and tolerant of my foibles and failings this year, as you are. I'll be grateful, and probably relieved as well, but don't worry if I don't always say thanks, or pay you back right away. I will get around to it, but you'll have to wait while I get my socks pulled up.

So, that's what's happening this year, academically. Fun times, eh?

Blog Entry (5)

2009-09-09T19:40:46Z

This entry looks at the need for fiscal sense among British politicians.

As ever, comments on the blog, please :)

http://armouredcentrist.blogspot.com/2009/09/poundland-politics.html

Blog Entry (4)

2009-09-04T21:02:55Z

Today, on drugs policies, and why we may have the short end of the stick with the 'War on Drugs'.

All comments on the blog, plz :3

http://armouredcentrist.blogspot.com/2009/09/high-on-love.html

Blog Entry (3)

2009-08-13T14:52:57Z

#welovetheNHS

I say no more :3

Blog Entry (2)

2009-08-13T12:37:42Z

http://armouredcentrist.blogspot.com/2009/08/alan-duncan-is-right.html

Today, on the 'controversy' surrounding Alan Duncan's secretly filmed remarks.

New Blog Post

2009-08-04T19:55:30Z

Today, on religion and tolerance:

http://armouredcentrist.blogspot.com/2009/08/religious-tolerance.html

Bloggage

2009-08-03T17:39:15Z

From now on, all thoughts on Politics, Economics, the Railways, International Affairs and the like will be going here:

http://armouredcentrist.blogspot.com/

Every time a new post goes up there, though, I'll try and put up a quick link here for you all. Going to pare down my LJ to personal things =3

Aremay~ <3

Quoth the Bunny

2009-07-23T23:58:50Z

"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means as De Tocqueville describes it, 'a new form of servitude.'"

- Friedrich Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order

Cathedral

2009-07-10T03:11:12Z

Inspired by avon_deer 's LJ on the service commemorating 25 years since a major fire at York Minster.

Cathedrals have long been probably my favourite architectural features of our landscape. Their mighty stone edifices tower above ancient cities from York to Seville, from Santiago de Compostela to Moscow, defining not only the skylines of these cities, but also the character and history of these cities. Their stones are steeped in the blood and fire of wars, in the incense of sacred ceremony and the golden ermine of royalty.

But more than that - they stand, colossal and unmoved by the ages, as monuments to every last soul who toiled for decades, centuries at a time to raise up their stones, bricks, mortar, timbers, glass and lead to the dizzying heights far above the heads of their builders. They were often longer in the building than their builders or planners lived for, and fuse together many threads of architecture and religion as they changed over time into enormous palaces dedicated, not to the service of a noble or king, but to providing what was, at the time they were built, a very important public service.

Each cathedral seeks to raise man up to the level of the heavens, yet at the same time bring the experience of heaven closer to man. They were filled with precious art made of gold, wood, glass and stone, painted in brilliant colours and flooded with light. The stout Gothic walls of York, the towering cliff of finery of Cologne, the airy brilliance of Chatres or the stalwart Romanesque prescene of Trier, each Cathedral tells of a different tale and vision of how to create these conditions. To the eyes of medieval man, they were like mighty ships, full of souls, carrying they upwards into Gods' grace. To the eyes of ourselves, however, it is all too easy to dismiss both the mindset that raised them up, and any reason to hold them there.

Let us make no mistake, these buildings are not merely piles of rock. They are imbibed with tales and signs of not just mighty bishops and archbishops long dead, but the masons and builders who toiled on these buildings. They carry in them the imagery of an age, the expressions of hope and fear, iconography of what life and death meant for millions of people across Europe. Because this way of thinking has gone, however, does not mean we should sneer at it, or let these arks of memories from that time rot away.

Simplistic and fearful as it may seem to us, this way of thinking nevertheless informed debates that gave rise to Magna Carta, Parliament and common law - the very beginnings of how we run our country today. We must remind ourselves of this as often as we must remind ourselves of the failings of that time. And because this way of thinking found expression in so many ways in its' buildings - and no more potently than its' cathedrals - preservation of them, to serve as memorials to the past, remains critically important.

More than that, we now understand, and so few have in the past, that preserving the past is vital to ensuring a brighter future. These palaces to God remind us of not only a long gone way of thinking, but also inspire and lift us up. They are reminders that, even under what we would call terrible conditions, humanity's potential to achieve astoundingly defiant and powerful statements of faith, accomplishments of equal strength and beauty remains undimmed. These are poetic structures to our eyes, and their reason for being any longer is poetic - a reminder to those of all faiths and none at all that religion can drive man to work good as well as the ill that so many point to.

We should preserve these buildings to preserve the vital link to the past they give us, to preserve the art and architecture that they bring to us and to preserve their economic worth to the communities they live. Beyond their role as places of worship, they fulfil roles to the wider community as a whole. It is therefore right that the wider community help pay to keep them intact - tales of columns being held together by sellotape at Canterbury are the first, but not the last, thing that comes to my mind. This is not a subsidy to the Church of England - this is paying to preserve a nations' cultural heritage and historical fabric - and so it must be carefully dispensed. With falling congregations, the CoE cannot be expected to shoulder the rising bills of maintaining such a vast share of the country's heritage - and the sooner we give the help, the cheaper it will be.

Our Cathedrals have been with us and taught us for so long, it would be a shame for that tale to end in squalor and ruin because we could not bring ourselves to see what a role they played for us in so many ways.

My Department in the News

2009-07-09T01:44:25Z

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8141396.stm

Lord Norton of Louth? Yeah, he's my former head of department, I see him walking around Hull in his t-shirt and khaki trousers on weekends. It's nice to know he's trying to help and prevent rushed reforms - to give Parliament time to think. Much of what is in the Standards Bill is good, but it would be better to give it more time for debate and consolation.

But yeah, good to know he's working hard :D

Here I stand

2009-07-02T01:25:30Z

Where do I stand?

Economic Left/Right: 3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

That is where I stand according to the www.politicalcompass.org test, which I take whenever I'm bored. I've not moved from that rough area on the graph for almost 2 years, and to be honest I'm very happy here. As so much of what I do on here is political, I'm forever putting forwards positions that are related, seemingly distantly, to those two sets of numbers.

Most people prefer a name to just numbers, especially when they do not have a graph before them to quantify where they stand. I used to call myself 'conservative', but that was a long, long time ago and my positions have shifted and settled since then. I call myself any number of things now - 'radical centrist', 'centrist', 'liberal', 'small-stater' - the list can go on. Radical Centre is the one I use most - I like it, because so many people presume that the centre represents a distinct lack of ideas, rather than a specific political ideology.

I take large tranches of the way I think from similar lines to many of the Nordic Agrarian/Centrist parties - support for small businesses, concern for environmental issues and support for free movement of labour. I fall out with them over the issue of Europe, with which I feel a much stronger affinity, but I feel ready to listen over their ideas about decentralisation - it is my passionate belief that one of the reasons politics seems so broken in the UK is that we don't have people coming from local councils with real power into Parliament any more, so they do not have the understanding of deal-building and power management that comes from bodies often in NOC.

From liberalism, I draw ideas on individual rights and the role of the state in other areas. To me, the freedom of the individual - in matters of expression, in particular - is a vital front of debate, and needs to be carefully tended to, lest it be pinned back and the democracy that tends to come with such freedoms is allowed to atrophy because the debate that keeps it vibrant has been stifled. This carries over into my economic philosophy - that the role of the state is as regulator, and that the market should be respected as a potent force for good, in the right hands and conditions. The government should not avail itself of being there for every problem in the market, simply because the cost and level of ineffeciency that would be created in such a huge bureaucracy would lead to the government throttling off the private sector and running up a huge bill. Rather, it should work to build a framework of modern, light regulation which can be deployed to deal with emerging crises and prevent the worst excesses of markets from taking roots, but promote the free and open operation of the market as widely as possible.

I have tended towards libertarianism, conservatism and even hints of social democracy at times. Yet to me, libertarianism is to cut too close to the bone in terms of stripping back the state, whilst the traditional right and left are inherently contradictory. The left wishes to drive the state from the bedroom, yet roll it through every boardroom, whilst the right wishes the opposite. Neither approach is intellectually consistent in my eyes for these reasons. Though it smacks of Blairism - an ideology that leaves me uncomfortable with its' vagueness, spin and plasticity of its' political and media operations - I say that these two approaches have both failed in the past, and will fail again.

But where does this leave me on the political issues? It is all well and good to pontificate about ideology, but here's where the real meat lies - what I believe in:

Immigration: Should be free to economic migrants and political refugees. We should work with countries from where migrants come to remove the reasons for their migration, whilst integrating with the Schenegen Agreement to produce a common European solution to a common European issue. Economic migrants in particular should not be stopped from entering the UK, as they not only bring fresh skills and labour, but they espouse a dream that so many native inhabitants seem to lack - a drive to go far and wide to better the lives of themselves and their families back home through hard work.

EU: The EU Constitution was, in fact, an excellent document containing much important work to make the EU more democratic, more effective and more efficient, and the Lisbon Treaty has become a sad parody of that. We need to work to make the next treaty (and there doubtless will be) a real Constitution for Europe. We need to work to integrate socially with Europe and to bring the UK into more European institutions as an active partner.

Trident: A nuclear deterent is like an insurance policy - you buy one now because you might need it. You don't buy car insurance because you know that you'll crash, you buy it because you can never tell what will happen when you're out there. But we need not spend so much - we could work to make the Astute Class capable of carrying nuclear warheads for their cruise missiles, for example. Trident needs to be replaced with a submarine-based system such as this that won't break the bank, but getting rid of the deterent is not a wise idea.

Devolution: We need to redress much of the balance between Westminster and the devolved assemblies. A recent independent inquiry into the Scottish Parliament outlined that some powers need to go outwards, and others need to move back to the centre. The assemblies should gain more revenue raising powers - perhaps through road tolls or 'sin taxes' - and more control over how they spend the money they get. At the same time, England needs to gain her own devolved assembly, to put an end to the West Lothian Question, and it needs to be based away from London.

Environment: Nuclear power is a good thing, and we should promote it as a vital part of Britain's future energy system. We should work to prevent new coal plants being approved and instead to work to reduce the stock of coal plants and replace them with new nuclear stations. Car tax needs to go up - and so does fuel duty, new road construction frozen or even rolled back and the money assigned to helping green up Britain's cities.

Transport: Some more of that lovely car and fuel duty money needs to go into investment in high-speed rail, into widening tolling on Britain's motorways and making the canal and rail systems more effective alternatives for goods transport. Beeching cuts need to be rolled back and the rail network expanded. The rail franchise system needs to be turned from a cash-cow for the government into a system where private companies can run the railways without fear of being leeched dry by Whitehall. Arguably, with a larger network, more franchises will be needed. The third runway at Heathrow must be cancelled - most of the flights that would use it merely transit passengers through the airport, at a net cost to the UK.

Just a few of my positions there. I believe passionately, passionately, that we need to change tack in this country - we need to trust people more, we need to open up more and we need to green up, shape up and wise up faster than we currently are. We can do all this, we have the tools within our reach to do it, but we seem to be choosing to tinker rather than change. Time is wasting - but isn't it always - but the present is eternal and so is the chance to start.

A Question of Finance

2009-06-29T18:39:39Z

The growing row of the state of the public expenses in the coming years has begun to consume the political debate in Britain. Today, we had the Community Secretary on Radio 4, and was asked where the cuts would fall. He talked about "restructuring" and "reshaping" budgets, about "changing priorities" but he wouldn't admit what we all know - cuts are now virtually inevitable, barring unforeseen and dramatic foreseen dramatic improvements in the economy in the future.

There are going to be cuts - likely across the board - to a wide range of services. 10% cuts in some sectors are very likely, I would say, despite attempts by the Tories to play down that mention on the radio by a member of the Shadow Cabinet. NHS, Education, Social Security, Transport and every other form of government spending is more than likely to shrink. What we need to clear direction and admittance from both major parties that this is what is going to happen, and that it is going to be very painful.

Public sector pay will probably be frozen, and workers laid off - Labour are more likely to choose to reduce payrolls through non-replacement of retiring staff and earlier retirement ages, whilst the Tories - who do not depend on the unions for a steady cash flow - will probably put a harder axe down. Each approach has its' own benefits, though with the state of public finances, the latter option may well be the one that ultimately keeps the UK solvent. Services may very well be cut as well - expect to see wards closed, waiting lists growing, class sizes going up and so on. What we need is honesty about these cuts now, so we can brace for them when they occur.

Internet FAIL

2009-06-22T11:10:20Z

Hey guys

A quick note - my parents' wireless router is dying very slowly, so my home internet is appalingly weak at the moment. Don't expect much until Thursday night :3

Hope you're all groovy <3

Aremay

Literature

2009-06-18T00:55:41Z

So, got an Amazon package today. In it were:

A Very Short Introduction to: British Politics
A Very Short Introduction to: International Relations
A Very Short Introduction to: Law
A Very Short Introduction to: The United Nations
The Declaration of Independence (And Other Great Documents of American History 1775-1865)
The Economist World in Figures 2009
Europe: A History - Norman Davies
Why I Am So Wise - F. Nietzsche

See under the cut for musings~

I must say, I'm pleased I got the 4 A Very Short Introduction books. It's a great series by the Oxford Uni Press, and I really enjoy reading them. It's a series I'd quite like to collect entirely one day, maybe, purely to have something to hand on lots of topics, to be able to keep my knowledge and interests broad. I'm already reading the British Politics one - enjoying it, despite it having a strong left-wing tilt.

The Declaration of Independence and other documents is part of my ongoing quest to have important historical texts to hand, even when I can't get on the web. I've found myself in sore need of a printed copy in recent months, facing the roving buffoons of the wide Forum plains of the internet. I'd quite liked to have gotten a copy of the KJV Bible - I have a Bible, but it's the Good News one, and doesn't have the same potent ring to it as the KJV version, I think.

Norman Davies book has long been on my wanted list, I'm really pleased I got it. It's very authoritative and will hopefully prove extremely useful in my coming studies and work. It's printed on really thin paper, like a Bible, and I almost want to get a lectern to rest it on, such is its' authoritative tone and weight! Always good when a history book weighs that much, you get the feeling its' going to be as thorough as you need.

The Nietzsche book is part of my ongoing interest in the man and his work. Like all philosophers, he takes a long time to read, with the text falling somewhere between genius and illegibility, but I'm determined to plough through it during the summer. I've become interested in his philosophy during my earlier downer phase in the year, it seems to express a kind of empowerment and strength that I feel I sorely lack, and I hope to learn much more from this. Fingers crossed!

Celebrity Collage by MyHeritage

2009-06-16T23:46:52Z

MyHeritage: Celebrity Collage - Family photo sharing - Geneology

On Democracy

2009-06-08T21:26:55Z

This post may well make you feel angry. If so, then take that anger and use it to fuel a drive to build something better.

Second of three planned posts.

All that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing, wrote Edmund Burke. These words ring in my ears today as I, and my fellow subjects in the United Kingdom, stew on the election results that has seen the far-right British National Party (BNP) win its' first ever seats in a national election - 2 MEPs, one from Yorkshire and the Humber, and another from the North West. Many people have expressed outrage, dismay or resignation at these results. I myself am concerned by them, though I acknowledge that the BNP has an inherent right to exist in a free and democratic state, and these people are entitled to believe what they believe without facing duress for not conforming to our social or political norms.

Nevertheless, we have much to learn from these results. The result that sticks out in my mind is the one in the North West, where BNP leader Nick Griffin won a seat. Here, the BNP took fewer votes than last time, in 2004, but won a seat because so few people turned out to vote for the other parties. Whilst calling the BNP evil is a subjective thing, and one which strikes the author as alarmist, Burke's quote sticks up here more than anything else. The good people of the North West did nothing, and now they have this man as their representative, despite fewer of them choosing his party than last time.

During the course of the campaign for these elections I tried, in my own little way, to get people out to vote. I was not always successful, I did not always go about it in the right way. But, as I tried to get my friends and associates to vote, I heard a litany of excuses, day after day for not voting. I have to say, none of them make any sense to me, and even fewer illicit anything other than contempt.

The first excuse is that of "not knowing who to vote for", possibly the easiest to remedy. There are books, pamphlets, manifestos, websites, leaflets and many other forms of literature from which to learn what each party stands for. They hold radio debates and launch TV adverts, as well, ensuring that all forms of media do contain loud and clear examples of what each party stands for. Some people during this campaign that I know took the wise step of going out, reading up and reaching an informed decision.

The second excuse is "no-one represents me". No-one ever perfectly represents your political views, it's one of the issues in a representative democracy. You must choose whoever comes closest to your political opinion, and then engage with them on points where you disagree. I side with the Conservatives, because they have economic policies, foreign and defence policies with which I find myself strongly in agreement. I do not agree with them on a number of issues, especially Europe, but I know that the party is broad enough to have a debate within itself on these issues, and that I can join in that debate.

The third excuse is "a right not to vote". Simply put, there is no such thing. You have a right to vote, which then entails a responsibility to vote. As a citizen in a democracy, it is your duty to go and vote on polling day, to input into the elected government of your peers that governs over your country. It is sad that turnout has dropped below even 50%, and sadder still that many people who don't vote whinge about whoever gets in. Every vote does count, and everyone should vote in every election. The idea that you can actually do any good by sitting at home complaining is beyond me.

Finally, we have the "they're all corrupt" line of thought, one which makes me furious. Yes, over the last few weeks a significant number of MPs have been found to have engaged in nefarious expenses claims. But if political parties were mere groups of MPs, then they'd have died out long ago. They have MPs, MSPs, MEPs, AMs and councillors, operating at all levels of government from Westminster through the devolved assemblies and shires down to town halls across the land. They have peers, party officials and think tank members, unelected senior members who provide ideas, support, votes in the House of Lords, administration and a co-ordinated platform on which to stand. But they have something even richer than that - members.

People who give up evenings and weekends, who spend on petrol and mini buses and fast food, who get blisters and earache and bad backs. The members who go from door to door, and listen to moaning voters and get abuse hurled at them. Who trudge through rain and baking heat to leaflet homes and businesses. Who stand outside polling stations and ask voters for names and addresses and try and get them to get their neighbours to vote. Who work tirelessly to help with selection processes and offer themselves up as candidates, devoting valuable time and resources to a cause they believe passionately in. Who stand in community centres and school halls and goodness knows where else on election night, for better or worse, for hours on end, as votes are counted by equally driven and civically responsible people.

These are party members. These aren't corrupt, nefarious villians, they are hard-working, intelligent people who give much to the democracy that nurtured and raised them. It is their example, their hard-working, dutiful example that we should look to if we are to see how to overturn the BNP's wins. It is to these people that we must look if we are to preserve our democracy. Our indolence, laziness and down right stupidity has allowed democracy to rot in this country, at all levels. Democracy is one of those things that is hard-won, and easily lost. We are letting it slip through our fingers.

This is a country where turnout has been falling steadily at elections for years, where barely 60% of us can even bother with a general election, and where it dips to the 30s for local and European elections. There are more members of the RSPB than of the three largest political parties combined. Do we really think that the democracy we rely on for our prosperity, freedom and strength will flourish even as we dismiss its' needs with a wave of a hand and a "I'm too busy to vote" or "Why should I do anything?" or "Someone else will do it". No. We must act to preserve this democracy, it is on all our heads, it always has been, and it always will be.

This attitude - the Not My Problem (NMP) attitude - must change. We must start sitting up and paying attention, or more people who do not represent the majority of us will win office. We must start saying It's My Problem As Well (IMPAW). NMP will get us to a weaker democracy and civil society that may well cost us more than we can claim back without shedding blood. IMPAW will get us a healthy, vibrant country with plenty of civic life and plenty of people willing to do their bit.

I study politics because I want to make the world a better place. But I alone can do little, democracy needs lots of interested, hard-working people. So, in future, I will brook no excuses and I will hear no pleas of ignorance or disdain. You have a duty - to yourselves, to your country and to generations as yet untold to support this democracy that raised and nurtured you. If you do not, and it fails, then you have only your indolent selves to blame for it. It is time for a change in attitude. It is time for good men to do much, and for evil to fall back in disarray.

Macbeth Act II Scene I

2009-06-05T00:28:34Z

"Is this the dagger I see before me?"

For James Purnell, it was indeed the dagger. After days of speculation and sharp whispers, the knives are now out in the open, and the vultures are circling the Prime Minister and Labour leadership as a whole. The fall of Jacqui Smith, the withdrawal of Hazel Blears and now the stormy exit of James Purnell have all tossed up the waters around the government into a fearsome political tempest.

We've been here before, of course. For the Labour Party and for governments generally. Major's government went through a twisted, hellish life after 1992, getting worse every day it seemed. The Labour Party of the 1980's was a partisan place of vicious spats over ideology and direction, which barely survived in one piece, according to some historians. This time is no different.

Now, we wait for the next move. The cabinet will be reshuffled either today or over the weekend, in an effort to bring up fresh blood, clear out old faces - and maybe placate a few wavering allies or even enemies. Perhaps a few potential challengers will be foisted onto ministerial posts, to try and quell their upset? Left-wingers like John McDonnell and Michael Meacher are unlikely to win a leadership election, even with the current level of dischord, but they might prove to be useful allies in quietening those on the backbenches who would turn leftwards to try and regain lost votes.

The results of the council elections will give us an initial idea of how the land lies - but the really big prize lies in Brussels. If the Tories don't loose seats to UKIP or even the BNP and even manage to expand their holdings, then they're on track for a strong campaign at the next election. If Labour loose more than two or three seats, then they're in hot water.

That's not to say the council results won't matter. The Tories should probably pick up Cumbria without too much problem, and Staffordshire looks likely to fall to them as well with the current polling data the way it is. If they make gains in the South West - Devon and Somerset are maybes if the Liberal Democrats have weakened, and Bristol if the Tories are getting carried away - then they are on track to sweep back seats from both major parties next general election. If they win Nottinghamshire, it's a good night. If they win Derbyshire, David Cameron will probably be doing a jig around the Cabinet Table sooner than he might think. That would be a real blow to Labour - and to Brown himself.

But we shall wait to see. Right now, the drama of Westminster is in full swing, and we're all enthralled by the forces we have helped release ourselves. What a way to run a railroad.

Grateful

2009-05-26T00:25:51Z

I am extremely grateful n.n

This is a dirty cop-out, but I've gotten so many lovely texts and messages today wishing me happy birthday, and several LJ entries. I don't have the credit to reply to all the texts, or the time to make meaningful replies to all the messages. But I want you all to know that I'm truly thankful for each and every one of them, thank you so much for sending them! ^^ I'm sorry I've not replied to you all individually, though, and I hope to be able to talk to you all as soon as possible :)

I'm grateful to have so many lovely friends all over the world, who all give so much and to whom I seemingly have given so little. They've been immensely supportive these last few months, and I'm extremely happy to have known each and every one of them.

I've had a great evening out with my closest friends in Hull, drank a bit (okay, quite a bit) too much for me. But I feel I had a good time, and I really, sincerely hope everyone else enjoyed it as well :) Thanks for coming out, even if the weather closed in!

Once again, thank you so much :)

All the very best, and here's to many, many more birthdays like this ahead!

~ Aremay

TV

2009-05-24T01:18:01Z

I was going to post a journal about the suspension of Eritrea from the African Union, but I can't think for one reason - TV.

Not any TV, but -reality- TV. A TV I reserve a special hatred for, more than I hate any other TV, even the bad adverts in between programmes on Five. Britain's Got Talent, Big Brother, I'm A Celebrity. Many of them hosted by either a very, very, very, very, very faded entertainer or those ever-present and disturbingly close Geordie ... personalities. All of them a pantheon of boredom, mediocrity and terrible TV.

How do people watch this? I'm here with it on and I frankly can't bring myself to stick around, despite the good company. How have we got to the stage where we will sit for hours to gawp at the misery of the people of this country broadcast on national TV? I can't see the appeal of it, in all honesty.

I'm bored. Beyond Bored (tm). Maybe it's because I'm a private person at heart, easily embaressed by public displays of emotion. But maybe it's because I wish that we had more time on the TV for programmes that were actually funny, or informative, or entertaining. Maybe it's time we stopped spending money on feeding Simon Cowell's ego and start feeding the mind of this nation. We don't need panels of judges to uncover talent, we need talent scouts and money spent on supporting small theatres and community radio, libraries and book clubs. TV can convey talent, but it cannot really find it, and it doesn't happen in the time we have on the airwaves.

Reality TV took the talent seeking-process and tried to make it high-speed. It doesn't work.