NUS Elections: Pointless.

It’s the evening of the first of March 2012, and the Student’s Union at Teesside University is at fever pitch. A group of students, with steely glints in their eyes, slogans pasted on every part of their anatomy, and enough leaflets in their hands to run a recycling plant at full capacity, keep look out like hungry vultures eyeballing some prey. From a distance, they seem pleasant and without any agenda. Walk through the gauntlet they’ve set up, however, and they squawk like a gaggle of geese faced with a floundering fish.

“Have you voted yet!? Have you voted!? You really should vote! Democracy is great, you know,” they honk and plead, thrusting their torsos and leaflets in your face, giving you an eyeful of countless, yet ultimately futile slogans. These little soundbites are apparently the work of campaign teams, consisting of countless amounts of creative people, but you’d swear that they were haphazardly knocked up by a drunken man in a shed.

Of course, if you hadn’t guessed, these are NUS elections. Given the fact that campaign slogans have been hurriedly scrawled on different pieces of apparel using jumbo marker pens, and that campaign leaflets have been designed using the ever-primitive Microsoft Paint, it’s no secret that the people at the helm of these operations are poor, struggling students. One candidate, who seems to have forgotten that he’s only running for Education Officer, wants to improve relations with foreign countries –so you might want to expect a delivery of Chinese pandas to Middlesbrough in the very near future. The fervour that surrounds these votes and elections, however, surpasses that which accompanies the elections that decide who governs the UK.

It’s a rather strange phenomenon. These are the same people who, for eleven months out of the year, suffer from chronic voter apathy. “I don’t do politics,” they chime, with a smile that contains an abundance of ignorance. Shove the acronym ‘NUS’ in front of the term ‘president’, and they suddenly turn into democracy divas; willing to do almost anything [including take their clothes off on stage] for your vote. It would be adorable and admirable if ‘real-life’ MPs and party leaders took campaigning with such an exuberant attitude.

Just imagine the general election in 2015. David Cameron would be standing outside your local polling booth, scantily clad, in only a thin, white tank-top, and blue skinny jeans. “Don’t Be Gory, Vote Tory!” his placard would say, as he looks longingly at you. Ed Miliband, however, would attempt to take the talented approach. Not only would he torrent an illegal copy of PhotoShop to design a higher quality campaign leaflet, but he would plan to ride a unicycle round the polling station, whilst heckling passers- by to vote. Nick Clegg, in a bid to regain some popularity, would hang out in the local bar, offering to buy everyone drinks, and slipping patrons campaign leaflets designed using word-art, saying “David and Ed are rats, vote Liberal Democrat”. This is a very simple, and beautiful image, right?

Wrong. It’s disgusting, desperate, and just a little pathetic. But it’s what goes on every year at these elections. Polls are closing tonight, thankfully. Being a forward thinker, though, I can already see the candidates doing the same thing next year. There will be the same gaggle of geese, same gauntlet to run, but with different faces, and slightly worse slogans.

Read More

Clues of the World: Was the closure imminent?

After the intense rollercoaster ride of allegations into the News of the World's phone-hacking scandal, News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch have made the decision to pull the plug on one of Britain's best selling tabloids. A memo was only passed round to staff and press members today, but given the pasting that News of the World has received in the past week, one must wonder if the closure was imminent.
On several blogs and forums, word is buzzing that the domain name "www.thesunonsunday.co.uk" has been bought by News Corp, fuelling speculation that the News of the World will be replaced by a Sunday edition of its sister red-top, The Sun. Indulging in a quick examination of "thesunonsunday.co.uk"'s WHOIS file, being a helpless nerd, I found that the domain was registered two days ago, on the fifth of July. While it's feasible that this was merely purchased as a contingency plan by the ever-business-savy Rupert Murdoch, who must've been no stranger to the backlash towards his publication on social networking sites and the backlash of companies who buy advertising space in his paper, the whole plan seems to be almost directly comparable to that of a pilot who wishes to ditch his plane after the first signs of turbulence. In fact, it could even be likened to a criminal hurriedly fleeing the scene of a crime.
As this sorry affair drags on, with News Corp leaving the corpse and ghost of a popular publication behind, the phone-hacking scandal lives on within it, much like a set of worms devouring the body from the inside out. The closure of the News of the World will do nothing to muffle the scandal, and the disgusting conduct of the journalists and editors in question will continue to be scrutinised. All being well, this will also cause a shakeup to the profession, and will also push for some improvements to be made to the Press Complaints Commission, who are regarded by most papers and their editors as a toothless tiger in the wild world of journalism.
Of course, I feel sorry for everyone who has been hacked in these malicious events. When it was Hugh Grant and the Queen, it was bad enough. But to see that the News of the World hacked the telephones of abductees, bomb-victims, and even the relatives of people who died for our country, is simply sickening. However, a thought must also be spared for the workers at the red-topped rag who had absolutely nothing to do with this affair. Once again, Murdoch has managed to bite the hand that feeds him. The working class are the main target for the News of the World, but as the printing presses whirr to a stop on Sunday morning, several working class people will be stripped of their livelihoods; victim to a scandal that has been triggered by the big-wigs and the editors at News Corporation. Editors such as Rebekah Brooks [or Rebekah Wade as she was once known], who somehow have managed to escape from this incident scott-free, can continue to live lavish lifestyles, despite being at the centre of this scandal.
It'll be a sad day for journalism on Sunday. Although I've never had much of a fondness for the gutter press, red-tops, and tabloids, it's definitely a sad sight to see a publication draw to a sudden halt. But whichever way you look at it, it seems as though the News of the World's card was already sneakily marked.

Read More

AV Explained

THE POLITICAL BIT

As most people know, the people United Kingdom went to the polls yesterday, both to vote on the parties that controlled their councils, and to choose a voting system to be used in future elections where MPs are selected to represent their constituencies in the House of Commons.

Being someone who has yearned for a true democratic voting system for a while now, AV is a change that I would welcome with open arms. Even though it's just a small step in the direction of true Proportional Representation voting system, it's still the right way to go.

However, it seems that the "No to AV"/ "I Can't Believe It's Not Tory" campaign's constant streams of fear-mongering, and blatant lying [something that was admitted by David Blunkett], seem to have resounded into the hearts and mind of the electorate, and it looks as though AV won't be implemented for a while. Many people, too, have chosen just to vote no in order to deal a scathing blow to Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who, I feel, has become a scapegoat, and is being blamed for items of legislation that are simply out of his control. In fact, many Labour supporters have come out to say that Nick Clegg's association with the YES campaign meant that they'd be a loser from the start. What an incredibly funny comment from the same people who promised that they'd install some form of proportional representation all those years ago. That, as we can see, never happened, and Britain didn't even have a referendum on voting systems- another Blair lie that was fed to the masses in this country, just to be a votewinner.

However, the status of the parties and how I feel about the public treatment of Nick Clegg is another matter for another blog post- so here's the bit I planned to come onto in the first place.

THE 'EVERYONE' BIT

As I said above, the "No to AV" campaign has spread dozens of lies and smears, using the same Tory tactics that allowed David Cameron to become Prime Minister in the first place. These lies seem to have got to several people, and I fear that these lies, as well as some other misconceptions, have damaged the YES campaign altogether. Although there are tonnes of videos on youtube, by the electoral commission, by several pressure groups, and one even involving "Reform Cat" [for those who are really into their memes], I thought I'd do my bit, both as a Lib Dem member and a supporter of fairer votes [even though it's a tad late] to clarify some of these thoughts about AV.

AV is the most complicated system that's ever been heard of in the world. Ever.

False. Quoting from my twitter, "AV is just the right amount of complicated- where normal people can understand it, but Tories can't." There isn't really any mind-bending statistics or procedures that anyone needs to get their head around, even though the "No to AV" campaign wants you to think so.

You, on polling day, would go to your polling station and pick up your ballot paper as normal. Instead of writing an "X" in the box of the one candidate that you want to represent you, you use numbers to mark the candidates in order of preference. So you mark a "1" for the candidate you want as first preference, a "2" for your second

preference, and so on until you get to your fifth preference.

Obviously, you can stop when YOU want to, and you don't need to mark all five choices. If you want, you can even just mark your first choice, and leave the polling station.

After this, your job is done.

When the votes are counted, counters will see if any candidate has at least 50% of the first preference vote in order to win. If no candidate has 50%, then counting continues, and the second preference votes are counted. If a candidate still hasn't got 50% of the vote, counting continues on the third preference votes, and so on and so forth until someone gets over 50%.

This means that the majority get fairly represented, and we don't get typical FPTP drawbacks, including tyranny of the minority.

AV will be extremely expensive to implement

False. Ballots will still be counted by hand, and will use the same method as First Past The Post. There is no expensive equipment needed, or specialist people who can somehow read numbers instead of Xs.

AV wouldn't be helpful to me because I haven't got more than one choice

False. If you haven't got more than one choice, or you don't want to mark more than one choice, you don't have to. You can feel free to mark a number "1" next to your chosen candidate, fold your paper, and place it in the ballot box, if you wish.

AV would result in a coalition government every time.

False. Despite that dim-witted quote from Tory MP and chick-lit author Louise Bagshawe on "Have I Got News For You" the other week, this simply isn't true. Although there may be a slightly higher chance of coalition governments, it certainly won't happen every time, and the chance isn't raised by much.

No-one cares about the voting system, anyway, duh.

False. While I'm a bit of a politics geek, and have adored looking into this sort of thing from the age of 10, it's not just me. Louise Bagshawe, who, again, must be some sort of spiritual guide for village idiots everywhere, seemed to show a notion of no-one caring on her TV appearance. 50% of Scottish people turned out for the referendum- I hardly think that shows apathy...

The AV system will allow the BNP, and several other right-wing, weirdo-parties to come into power.

False. AV does not automatically allow the BNP party to get into power and use their malicious ways to change the country. Don't forget that a candidate needs a MAJORITY to get elected. The BNP currently have no MPs, and has been losing council seats, judging by the figures from yesterday's vote. So it seems as though the BNP would lack the necessary support that it would need under the AV system.

AV is a fairer system that reflects the majority's interests

True. As I said above, a candidate needs over 50% of the vote to win.

So there we have it. I hope I've dispelled a few myths and taught a lesson. At the time of writing, it seems as though the YES campaign hasn't done the trick, and once again the Tories have managed to lie their way to victory, rendering this 1000+ word blog post useless. So once again Britain can kiss goodbye to rose-tinted dreams of steps towards Proportional Representation. If anyone knows how I'd be able to autopost this again when Britain has another referendum on AV in the year 3067, drop me a line.

Read More

Libyan Activists Protest in Middlesbrough

Activists hoping to raise awareness of the crisis and massacres in Libya gathered at Teesside University, Middlesbrough today in order to protest outside the Student Union.

Unprecedented protests in the Libya's capital, Tripoli, have been countered by extreme force used by the country's army, with gunfire being heard into the early hours of morning, and with several buildings being set ablaze by both opposers and supporters of Colonel Gaddafi's regime. The use of live amunition and tear gas has been condemned by several human rights organisations, with the death toll already above 233. Protests within the North East, however, have been peaceful- mounted police did attend the protest, but no there has been no report of violence. [EDIT- Reports have come in that there were incidents of bricks being thrown]

The protests in Libya echo the sentiment of those that were held in Egypt, as well as the protests that are ongoing in Bahrain, as part of a wave of action throughout the Middle-East. However, whilst protests in Egypt were covered meticulously by the BBC, and and protests in Bahrain gain publicity by the threat that they pose to next month's Grand Prix in the region, it is felt that the situation in Libya has been left to fester, despite the mortality rate, and the iron-fist strategy that has been used by the army and Colonel Gaddafi, who has been the de facto leader of the country after his military coup on the first of September 1969.

Some, however, ask the question of whether Britain is at all involved in this situation- not as a help, as many would like, but as a hindrance. Many of these questions carry the haunting reminder of former Prime Minister Tony Blair's alleged desert deal with Colonel Gaddafi in 2004, where a gas contract with Shell was [allegedly] signed on the spot, as a prerequisite for Britain giving training and equipment to Libyan troops. Training and equipment, it seems, that may have even been used against peaceful protesters in Green Square yesterday.

Many people who form the audience for these protests at Teesside Unversity do not seem to understand the cause for the protests, with one student stating: "No-one cares", and that "[the protesters] should go to Downing Street or go and tell the Libyan government". From those quotes alone, it is plain to see that the situation really hasn't been given enough air-time by the media in this country. It seems that Downing Street can't really listen- why would they? There might not be as much oil in Libya as there is in, say, Iraq or Afganistan, and this conflict comes at a time where resources are money are already scarce for the military. Any attempts by the Libyans to peacefully coax Gaddafi out of power have just been met with violent and malicious resistance by the Colonel and his followers. And while protests are slowly beginning to put pressure on Gaddafi, it truly speaks volumes about a leader who once said that "the people lead the country".

Read More

Brown Borrows Blair Bounce

As we all know, election day is almost upon us. Listening to the grapevine, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Gordon Brown is almost certainly going to be receiving the political beating-of-all-beatings. Backed by "Chancellor Boring", and his very own "Merry Band of Backstabbers", our current Prime Minister needs all the help he can get in order to claw back every ounce of public support that has mysteriously vanished during his tenure as top-dog. But who thought that Labour would have resorted to the predecessor, the enemy, the partner-in-crime?

I'm sure that, while jetting off round the world; combining duties of middle-east envoy with after-dinner speeches and lectures, even Blair had no idea that he would be called on to steady the slow, sinking ship that's become the Labour party. Although some could say that he's responsible for this slow downturn, it could also be said that he should not have to play the back-up role; appearing to be the 'Bill Clinton' behind Gordon Brown's 'Hilary' on his charge for approval.

For Brown, this must be a kick in the teeth. Although he worked with Blair (albeit sanctimoneously) throughout his three terms, we know that the two most powerful men in government (at the time) were at the heads of roaring factions within the party, with several MPs backing their favourites in this political horserace. For Brown to see the man who held this top job from him, swoop in and save the day once again, must hurt more than all the stabbing in the back that he's received over the past few months. What's even worse, though, is the fact that the return of "SuperBlair" will be used as war-fodder in the commons by David Cameron, whose Conservatives are suddenly beginning to finish the pinch.

We all know that this election may be hard-fought, vicious, and mucky- but we may just see that Tony Blair emerges as a top dog...

Read More

Healthcare Hypocrisy

"You dirty thieves! You dirty thieves! You dirty thieves!"

How things have changed since Obama's election over a year ago. A public, which, then, could never be more together, has slowly turned into a public that could never be more apart. An electorate which, then, voted Obama in for healthcare reform, has silently been wishing to impeach him on the same issue. A country, which, then, was proud to be making history, has become a country of regret.

Obama, to Americans, was an inspiration, a whirlwind, and a star. But recently, views have changed. Rather unfairly, in my opinion, Americans are turning their back on the president, and- even more importantly- the health care reform that was a key point in the election. Even in Texas, where many children are unprotected by the existing health insurance scheme, as well as the rest of the country, where insurance companies are well renowned for turning down claims, there is high opposition for a universal healthcare system, which could, potentially, save the lives of millions.

There are various points that those in denial of the proposal are using to back up their staunch opposition. One of these, is the fact that they see the NHS (which has been used as a big example) as a shambolic excuse for a healthcare system. Although we Brits do complain about the National Health Service, I think we can all admit that we are extremely lucky to have it; instead of being in a position of having to pay extra, and letting capitalism decide our health. I'll admit that it's not perfect- but what is? Even those with private healthcare have a lot to complain about, and there are various NHS sucess stories.

Americans (as you may see from the quote at the start of the post) do not want to have their money taken from their wages. Although this is extremely understandable in the current economic climate, I'm going to end this post with one question to you:

If you're so opposed to paying for a service that'd help millions; why are you not so concerned about paying for an illegal war that kills millions?

Read More

Pat Robertson? Spouts more BULLCRAP than Robert Pattinson.

Now, you're probably sitting there going: "Hmm, Ravi, didn't you talk about Pat Robertson yesterday?"

And the answer to that, of course, is yes I did.

"So why are you talking about him again, Ravi?"

Well I will tell you.

THE BASTARD INFURIATES ME.

Now, I'm not one to bear a grudge, and I hate hating those who are undeserving of it. But this man [who in my eyes, really isn't much of a man at all] is a complete and utter DOUCHE. Now, those of you who know me well, know that I call myself a douche on a regular basis out of truth. But for crying out loud, this man is something else! Who else has the dimwittedness to go on a social networking site, and call himself "God's Best Friend™"!? That's right, you read that completely correctly. WITH a trademark. And not only that, he nominated HIMSELF for a "shortyaward" [see printscreen].

He then preceded to followfriday HIMSELF. I don't think that I've ever seen someone so narcissistic, egocentric, and CRAZY in my entire life.

And if that [along with yesterday's rant] is not enough, he seems to take extreme glory in being a racist, a sexist, and a staunch republican. Didn't the bible say that man was made in gods image, and that everyone is made equal? Either "God's best friend" can't read; or he won't be the "best friend" any more. Instead of me rabitting on about how much I hate this rank douchebag, here are a selection of his tweets [Plus a retort of mine that I thought wasn't too bad]. I hope you feel as insulted and infuriated as I did.

Read More

Blasphemy Laws!? Christ on a bike!

Last Friday, as we all know, beckoned in the new year for us all. A new year, a new decade- but more importantly, in Ireland- a new law.
Of course, laws are made all the time, and a government can never please everyone. However, this law has caused substantial unrest, and I for one, feel that opposition is justified.
It has now been made illegal to blaspheme in Ireland. Illegal to the tone of a €23,562 fine, in fact.
As a fan of comedy, it's impossible to not see the irony in this case. If I'm frank, even someone with the sense of humour of a boiled gnat would see the funny side of this. Atheist Ireland, who (rightfully, in my opinion) challenged the law, decided to publish 25 quotes, that would contravene the new law. One of the quotes was from that oh-so-racially-intolerant, god-hating SWINE...


... Jesus Christ. Yes, you read that correctly. Apparently Jesus Christ (who may or may not have featured a tiny bit in the bible- I forget), was a blasphemous figure. Surely, the Irish Government must have realised that SOMETHING was going wrong when they (potentially) had to arrest someone for a BLASPHEMY law for quoting JESUS.

Obviously, though, the largest ironic part of this, is the fact that the Irish government wants to control what the public say, when their own MP's have recently become internationally infamous for using "unparliamentary language" while parliament's in session.

Blasphemy laws? To hell with 'em!

Read More