Rebel Yell

Can the right wing Tory internet nutters stop bullying Gordon Brown, please?

2009-11-14T13:33:00.000-08:00

I have never voted for Gordon Brown....

I am a member of a different party...

I agree with some policies and not with others...

I am concerned about the war and concerned about the economy...

I won't be voting Labour at the next election...

But mostly, I find the attitude of the vast majority of low level (mostly white, male and unattractive) Tory acolytes towards Gordon Brown little more than an assault on his personal character as opposed to his professional nor political attributes.

So let me state for the record as someone who was embroiled in the current conflict and has lost friends and colleagues there, I applaud his decision to send a handwritten personal letter to the closest family members of those lost in action. Prime Minister's usually don't do this, it is a duty that normally falls to the commanding officer of the soldier/airperson/sailor concerned, so good for him.

Last night I read an atrocious series of blogs and tweets taking the piss out of the handwriting of a man who only has 27% of his eyesight functioning when compared to an able bodies person. I read personal abuse about his family, wife and children and all of it was done by a series of people who are predominately useless individuals who have no right to make any comments about someone who conquered partial blindness to do a PhD, lost one child shortly after a premature birth (my wife and I lost a child in late pregnancy too) and now has another one who will die an almost certain early death. His has been through and has learnt a lot.

So good on Gordon Brown for having some humanity.

And before some quasi-aspergers internet Tory with no social skills acts pedantic and as someone who has come across him, I roughly feel the same way about David Cameron, ever though I despise his policies.

These internet Tory's scream blue murder when challenged on the web, particularly when you challenge their binary world view based on spurious evidence and a lack of brains (a good chunk of them are doing "PhDs" over the course of decade, funded by their parents after scraping a 2:2 or 3rd somewhere dull, living apart from the rest of humanity and solely contacting the world through the web) and always claim they are being bullied and entitled to their opinion.

Maybe they are entitled to their opinion, but as a former squaddie, working, published academic, parent, husband and cripple I challenge them to justify their narrow, warped, misantrophic, hateful, bigoted and fascist world view in the contest of the reality the majority of the population.

Anyone notice that I can walk?

2009-08-14T06:04:00.000-07:00

Hi Y'all,

As promised, here is a blog entry!

Just a quick one, but I want to state as someone who has used by the US and UK health care systems that I am pleased to use the National Health Service, have received fantastic care all my life and if it wasn't for the fantastic care by my local hospital, The Whittington Hospital in Highgate I would not have recovered from fracturing my spine six years ago.

Some of the bullshit being spread by the American conservative right are astounding: rationing (a lie), denial of treatment (a lie), bribery to get onto a waiting list (a lie), euthanasia (a complete lie) and lets not get onto the abortion debate! This is astonishing and whilst healthcare in America can be of a very high standard, the insurance payments are expensive, if you lose your job you could lose your employer provided healthcare and around 20% of the population have now insurance and depending on which state they live in, only a cursory safety net.

President Obama is someone who deserves a lot of respect for what he has done and for how he operates and he is not proposing a US version of the NHS, just better regulation, controlled costs, fair access and making sure no one is left behind. I find it ironic that it is the same idiots who said that we all should have supported Bush in 2003 regardless of what we thought of the invasion of Iraq (because to do so would be unpatriotic) who are spreading this nonsense.

So maybe that is the message of this post: there is a progressive President and a Democratic legislature but remember the forces of reaction, conservatism, hate, discrimination and selfishness are still out there and still have influence. We must be on our guard but we must also be prepared to open our mouths, write letters and confront backward ignorance wherever and whenever it shows its ugly head.

The Dude is back!

2008-12-10T09:43:00.000-08:00

Hello everyone,

Just a quick note to say that business as usual will commence shortly. In the past year or so I have been General Secretary of the National Postgraduate Committee, moved to Crouch End and am coming to the end of my PhD. There is still lots to do, so I won't be writing too much too soon, but I will be back to blogging in the New Year.

See you all soon,

Dunc.

Weird World - A response to the paranoid

2007-07-01T15:21:00.000-07:00

Hi all,

According some cowardly little custard that leaves comments on my blog without using his name, I am a closet member of the BNP and apparently write the Iznewmania site.

Paul Newman writes that enjoyable site and he is certainly not a member of the BNP.

Well, the reality is I am quite mixed ethnically and mainly of Scottish and Jewish extraction, am a proud member of the SNP, have a multitude of nationalities and for my final point, look at this picture of my wedding day:

I am married to a wonderful Hindu lady whose family originates from Mumbai, although she admittedly comes from Hampstead herself and is a lot more British than I am, she calls Z ‘zed’ for example and hates the American breakfast.

So much for your Google search Anonymous!

If you want even a modicum of respect from me, you would be open about you identity and whilst I would not agree with your views or indeed what you say at least it would show maturity and courage of conviction.

Anyone can make blind accusations behind a veil, but it takes the many people who openly write a blog in the public domain to demonstrate what true courage means. I am talking about people like Paul Newman (who is also in a mixed marriage, by the way) who I may not agree with all the time, but I certainly respect for having the guts to say what he does in public regardless of what the wider world thinks.

That is a skill you lack, dude!

Later skater!

Duncan
Islington
Sunday, 01 July 2007

Fortune Smiles on the Brave - A Toast to Quentin Davies

2007-06-26T10:19:00.000-07:00

The Conservative Party can call him a traitor, if they want and make snide comments about his performance to the camera that are oh so witty and whilst I am far from a fan of the Labour Party, I raise a glass to Quentin Davies for having the courage of his convictions and deciding to move across the floor of the House of Commons.

Here is the letter he wrote to David Cameron, sound familiar?

Duncan
Islington, 26th June 2007

"Dear David,

I have been a member of the Conservative Party for over 30 years, and have served for 20 years in the Parliamentary Party, in a variety of backbench and front bench roles. This has usually been a great pleasure, and always a great privilege. It is therefore with much sadness that I write you this letter. But you are entitled to know the truth.

Under your leadership the Conservative Party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything. It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda.

For the first 19 years of my time in the House, in common I imagine with the great majority of my colleagues, it never occurred to me to leave the Party, whatever its current vicissitudes. Ties of familiarity, of friendship, and above all of commitment to constituency supporters are for all of us very strong and incredibly difficult to break.

But they cannot be the basis for living a lie - for continuing in an organisation when one no longer has respect for its leadership or understanding of its aims. I have come to that appreciation slowly and painfully and as a result of many things, some of which are set out below.

The first horrible realisation that I might not be able to continue came last year. My initial reaction was to suppress it.

You had come to office as leader of the party committed to break a solemn agreement we had with the European People's Party to sit with them in the EPP-ED group during the currency of this European Parliament. For seven months you vacillated, and during that time we had several conversations. It was quite clear to me that you had no qualms in principle about tearing up this agreement, and that it was only the balance of prevailing political pressures which led you ultimately to stop short of doing so (though since then you have hardly acted in good faith in continuing with the agreement, for example you never attend the EPP-ED summits claiming that you are "too busy" - even though half a dozen or more prime ministers are always present.)

Of course I knew that you had put yourself in a position such that if you did not leave the EPP-ED group you would be breaking other promises you had given to colleagues, and on which many of them had counted in voting for you at the leadership election. But that I fear only made the position worse. The trouble with trying to face both ways is that you are likely to lose everybody's confidence.

Aside from the rather significant issues of principle involved, you have of course paid a practical price for your easy promises. You are the first leader of the Conservative Party who (for different reasons) will not be received either by the President of the United States or by the Chancellor of Germany (up to, and very much including, Iain Duncan Smith every one of your predecessors was most welcome both in the White House and in all the chancelleries of Europe).

It is fair to say that you have so far made a shambles of your foreign policy, and that would be a great handicap to you - and, more seriously, to the country - if you ever came to power.

I have never done business with people who deliberately break contracts, and I knew last year that if you left the EPP-ED group I could no longer remain in a party under your leadership.

In fact, you held back and I tried to put this ugly incident out of my mind and carry on. But the last year has been a series of shocks and disappointments. You have displayed to the full both the vacuity and the cynicism of your favourite slogan 'change to win'.

One day in January, I think a Wednesday or Thursday, you and George Osborne discovered that Gordon Brown was to make a speech on the environment the following Monday. You wished to pre-empt him. So without any consultation with anyone - experts, think-tanks, the industry, even the Shadow Cabinet - you announced an airline or flight tax which, as you have subsequently heard from me in a long paper (which has never been refuted) and I am sure from many others, is certainly defective and contradictory - and in my view complete nonsense. The PR pressures had overridden any considerations of economic rationality or national interest, or even what would have been to others normal businesslike prudence.

Equally it seems that your hasty rejection of nuclear energy as a 'last resort' was also driven by your PR imperatives rather than by other considerations. Many colleagues hope that will be the subject of your next U-turn.

You regularly (I think on a pre-arranged PR grid or timetable) make apparent policy statements which are then revealed to have no intended content at all. They appear to be made merely to strike a pose, to contribute to an image.

You thus sometimes treat important subjects with the utmost frivolity. Examples are 'inequality' (the 'Polly Toynbee' moment - again you had a paper from me!), marriage and the tax system (even your own party chairman was unable to explain on the BBC what you really meant) and, most recently, mass consultation of the public on policy decisions. (In view of your complete failure to consult with anyone, within the party or outside it, on many of the matters I have touched on, or on many others, the latter was perhaps intended as a joke).

Of course I could go on - up to three weeks ago when you were prepared to stoop to putting forward a resolution on Iraq (demanding an inquiry while our military involvement continues) which it was admitted at a party meeting the following Monday (by George Osborne in your presence) was motivated by party political considerations. That was a particularly bad moment.

Believe it or not, I have no personal animus against you. You have always been perfectly courteous in our dealings. You are intelligent and charming. As you know, however, I never supported you for the leadership of the party - even when, after my preferred candidate Ken Clarke had been defeated in the first round, it was blindingly obvious that you were going to win.

Nor, for the same reasons, have I ever sought office in your shadow administration. Although you have many positive qualities you have three - superficiality, unreliability and an apparent lack of any clear convictions - which in my view ought to exclude you from the position of national leadership to which you aspire and which it is the presumed purpose of the Conservative Party to achieve.

Believing that as I do, I clearly cannot honestly remain in the party. I do not intend to leave public life. On the contrary I am looking forward to joining another party with which I have found increasingly I am naturally in agreement and which has just acquired a leader I have always greatly admired, who I believe is entirely straightforward, and who has a towering record, and a clear vision for the future of our country which I fully share.

Because my constituents, to whose interests of course I remain devoted, are entitled to know the full background, I am releasing this letter to the press.

Yours,

Quentin"

The Mercy Seat

2007-06-15T06:31:00.000-07:00

Well,

I’ve been busy recently, so updating my blog has been somewhat far from my mind. However, as you all know, from my time living in the US I have been a rather vocal opponent of the death penalty on moral and ethical grounds. Now, I am not naive enough to say that there is no such thing as a bad person, nor do I believe that many people should be sent to prison, but as someone who has seen an execution (that was the first time I’ve stated that in public) and had lived with the psychological scars for almost a decade now and even though I used to be in the armed forces, I am against the killing of another human being, in any form and by any person.

Now, there is always a time to kill and a time to die, wars happen, we have to defend ourselves and that is a fact of life. Nevertheless, if we as a society hold ourselves up as a moral people, then we who claim to be civilized should practice what we preach and therefore try not to perform the acts we hold so abhorrent. Justice, from the earliest principals of the Common Law and Henry the Second in 1154 AD is blind and restorative, and therefore once someone has been put away, (in the many instances for the rest of their life) then the interests of society has been served.

But this is a morally and ethically ambiguous area and the cold light of reason is only ever reflected in shades of gray upon the subject matter, particularly in this post ‘moral-majority’ victim culture and vilification of the other. So, I will leave you, with some lyrics from that great poet of modern moral ambiguity, Nick Cave and let you mull upon the subject.

Duncan
Islington, Friday, June 15, 2007

PS: If you are feeling voyeuristic and want to discuss the details of executions, please don’t even ask to do so.

The Mercy Seat, by Nick Cave

It all began when they took me from my home
And put me on Death Row,
A crime for which I am totally innocent, you know.

I began to warm and chill
To objects and their fields,
A ragged cup, a twisted mop
The face of Jesus in my soup
Those sinister dinner deals
The meal trolley's wicked wheels
A hooked bone rising from my food
And all things either good or ungood.

And the mercy seat is waiting
And I think my head is burning
And in a way I'm yearning
To be done with all this weighing of the truth.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
And anyway I told the truth
And I'm not afraid to die.

I hear stories from the chamber
Christ was born into a manger
And like some ragged stranger
He died upon the cross
Might I say it seems so fitting in its way
He was a carpenter by trade
Or at least that's what I'm told

My kill hand's tatooed E.V.I.L.
Across it's brother's fist
That filthy five!
They did nothing to challenge or resist.

In Heaven His throne is made of gold
The ark of his Testament is stowed
A throne from which I'm told
All history does unfold.
It's made of wood and wire
And my body is on fire
And God is never far away.

Into the mercy seat I climb
My head is shaved, my head is wired
And like a moth that tries
To enter the bright eye
I go shuffling out of life
Just to hide in death awhile
And anyway I never lied.

And the mercy seat is waiting
And I think my head is burning
And in a way I'm yearning
To be done with all this weighing of the truth.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth
And anyway I told the truth
And I'm not afraid to die.

And the mercy seat is burning
And I think my head is glowing
And in a way I'm hoping
To be done with all this twisting of the truth.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
And anyway there was no proof
And I'm not afraid to die.

And the mercy seat is glowing
And I think my head is smoking
And in a way I'm hoping
To be done with all these looks of disbelief.
A life for a life and a truth for a truth
And I've got nothing left to lose
And I'm not afraid to die.

And the mercy seat is smoking
And I think my head is melting
And in a way that's helping
To be done with all this twisting of the truth.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
And anyway I told the truth
But I'm afraid I told a lie.

Electoral Reform - Another trick the Conservatives are missing

2007-05-21T04:30:00.000-07:00

Did you know, in the UK the average population in a predominately Conservative constituency based in the South East of England is around 100,000 - 120,000 whereas in a predominately Labour constituency in the North East for example, the average number of people is around 65 - 80,000. As a result, under the current system fewer votes are required to return a Labour MP than a Conservative one. Moreover, in many seats the winning politician was returned to Parliament with only a third of the votes cast in his favour. This is a situation easily remedied and indeed Australia has successful done so and it would be to the advantage of not only many political parties but the nation as whole to shift over to a more equitable system.

You don’t even need Proportional Representation or a mixed system to do so, either!!!

Three simple points to restore democracy:

Point one: All constituencies should be based on electoral districts of 100,000 population, the boundaries of which are decided by law in the 6th year of every decade, 5 years after a census has been taken by an independent commission. This would remove the innate bias towards particular parties and would allow for an ‘evening up’ of party strengths in Parliament that reflects the genuine demographic reality on the ground

Argument against: I always find some stereotypical floppy haired ‘Tory-boy’ will argue about the significance of historical constituency boundaries, stating it would be a crime if his historical constituency of Bumblefuck upon the Wold was subsumed into the 123rd electoral district of the UK. Utter crap and guys like that should have a reality check, it is about winning elections fairly and squarely, something which doesn’t happen right now.

Point Two: Get rid of a single vote and have an Alternative Vote (AV) system. We all know how this works, instead of putting a single X against a name, you write 1,2,3,4,5,6 et cetera instead. This is not Single Transferable Vote , (which is a bullshit system par excellence) , but rather an ‘instant run-off’ and was invented by the Australians in the early part of the twentieth century because of a high number of candidates splitting the vote. By doing this, you keep the link between your local MP and the electorate, you can still have strong independent candidates and finally parties can pick up votes from similar parties, for example the Conservatives would benefit from UKIP votes (which cost them at least 15 seats in 2005) and Labour with votes from Respect.

Argument against. Floppy haired Tory-boy will say that he is a Conservative and will only want to vote for the Conservatives. Okay, cool, but the simple reality check is that UKIP and the vile BNP are costing your party seats and these are votes that in a preferential AV system would go your way on the 2nd or 3rd count. Again, it is about winning elections.

Point Three. Have a 4 year fixed term parliament, with elections set out as being on the first Thursday of every May, every leap year. Additionally, no more quick changes of Prime Minister and the Executive, but a fixed changeover date of the first Monday of June in every election year. This allow an element of predictability into the system, will give the electorate a guaranteed chance to bring politicians to account and will remove the long-term problems of an incumbent that cannot be removed because it is he/she that decides when the election will be.

Argument against. Sorry, I’ve just kicked floppy haired Tory-Boy’s head in and thus he is unavailable for comment, so I will say that this works in the US, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands et cetera and I, plus the populations of these countries cannot find any fault with such a system.

So there, fixed size constituencies, preferential voting and fixed term Parliaments, easy and simple. Also, this isn’t PR, so you would more than likely still have a firm winner and therefore stable government but on the one hand you will have a fairly split of the available seats amongst political parties and on the other you will have shades of political opinion represented better in the allocation of votes to the eventual winner.

However, Labour prefers party machines and the Conservatives appears to have an inverse relationship with reality when it comes to their cause celebres and lets face it, first past the post is one of them! However, David Cameron might win an election, but his term of office will be short, painful and unrewarding because of his lack of vision and reactive way of dealing with policy and the public. By adopted a sensible programme of electoral reform, however, he could capture the imagination of many and show that rather than being an establishment reactionary pretending to be a moderniser, he is the real deal and capable of doing something creative and worthwhile.

Diarrhoea, here I go again!

2007-05-11T02:59:00.000-07:00

A non-intellectual or even political post today.

Some of you have been wondering why I have had so much time to spending blogging recently.

Well, I went to the US on a business trip a couple of weeks ago, I presented a paper at the Economic and Business History Society Conference in Providence, Rhode Island and had to meet a couple of people about a number of dogs in Santa Cruz and Boston. Whilst in Santa Cruz, I met up with a buddy from when I was at Penn State in 1998 and 1999, Chris Ryan, who whilst growing up in the US, is actually American, Irish and British as well.

Chris and I went on a weekend camping trip to Death Valley and he cooked this wonderful fondue made out of a can of Budweiser, Corn Starch, Cheese and crushed garlic:

That put me to bed for about a week with a dodgy tummy!! Tasted bloody nice, though...

Then we went surfing, which was quite hard actually. Since damaging my spine four years ago, I haven’t been able to stand on a normal board, so I used the famous Boogie Board, which is harder to control being shorter:

I was wiped out by the heavy crush and buggered my ears, which were already suffering from a perforation that happened about three months ago.

However, despite all that, this was the best damn weekend off I have had in a while and I would happily, injuries and all, do it all again. Besides, I do have a reputation for injuring myself, fractures in my spine, finger sown on, broken ribs, broken nose and seven (count it!) broken ankles, 4 on the right, 3 on the left...by the way, did I mention my black eye from walking into a door, jetlagged and drunk at 3 in the morning, on arrival in Santa Cruz?

A recovered (with a heavy catch up workload) Duncan.
Islington
May 11, 2007

A bigger victory for the SNP than we realise, a smaller one for the Tories than they can understand!

2007-05-05T07:11:00.000-07:00

What an interesting election night!!

Let’s face it, that was a nice result for the SNP on all levels, not only in the Holyrood elections but locally as well. Indeed, the SNP, whilst not having an overall landslide nor a comprehensive victory has successfully integrated itself as the de facto party representing the views of the largest group of Scottish public opinion. I wasn’t always a ‘large n’ nationalist, although I am very vocal about my Scottish heritage, (indeed it is one of the few places on Earth that I genuinely feel at home) but the withdrawal of the British (particularly English) middle classes into an intellectual and spiritual fort built upon the foundations of a pointless office based career and house prices has forced me to ask for more and question why. Well, the SNP offers more and they explain why and I appreciate that, so let’s hope that Alex Salmond can deal with the Liberal Democrats and the Greens to form a government that will reap a whirlwind of change in a nation that has been subjugated since the early 1800s (notice how I did not write 1707, there was the Scottish Enlightenment in the 1730s onwards, after all!).

As for the Tories, well whilst they may have done quite well in local elections in England, they did poorly elsewhere. Moreover, I wonder about the intellectual abilities of those Etonians at Central Office doing the number crunching (in preference to better candidates with more training and experience, no doubt) for David Cameron. Whilst winning over 40 percent of the vote in local elections is an achievement, as is having an opinion poll lead over the incumbent government, this is never the full story, as statistics and history show us. Indeed, I would look at the opinion polls for Neil Kinnock in the late 1980s, early 1990s, as well as Labour local election performance to show that in the face of public doubt over regime change an opinion poll lead can evaporate in a relatively short period of time. Consequently, whilst there is an aggregate lead in the polls for the Conservatives, the figures breaks down poorly when specific questions are asked. Indeed, crow all you like about the figures on which party the electorate prefers to run the NHS, but when it comes to a multitude of areas, there is a slim lead or none at all, particular when dealing with individuals and certainly the economy.

Well, it is the economy stupid, something which perhaps a member of central office should say to George Osbourne. You see, whilst I do not agree with Gordon Brown’s form of ‘Neo Keynesianism’, we are right now, in the words of Pink Floyd, comfortably numb and many voters rely on the influx of government money into the economy since 2000 for employment. The economy is growing slowly, unemployment is down, house prices are rising and all appears good with the world. This cannot last because it is built on inflationary sand, but it will last long enough to make the next election and that will be Labour’s trump card, because whether you like it or not George Osbourne and David Cameron do not have the intellectual abilities nor fiscal capabilities to match Gordon Brown’s arguments, And that, is the Conservatives biggest problem, because David Cameron might be the Conservative’s Neil Kinnock, but I can say this, if he wins the next election he will certainly be Ted Heath Mark Two, a man of few abilities and little courage who will deal with every situation by a compromise to appease many and please none.

As the Chinese proverb states, be very careful what you wish for...

Duncan.
Islington
May 5th, 2007

On debate: A busy dude writes...

2007-05-01T07:16:00.000-07:00

Well,

This post is as a return favour to Bec, who (via my buddy Niall) helped me out when I was stuck on an Amtrak express between Providence, Rhode Island and Boston. I had an important meeting to attend in that city and without a little help from my friends, I would never have been able to call the person I was meeting and explain that, yet again in my many years visiting and living in the United States (I should have remembered how bad it can be) Amtrak had let me down. Despite a shorter than expected meeting, all went well, the chap understood perfectly what had happened and even brought a beer and a curry to calm me down!

Interestingly and as an aside, another more challenged member of the blogosphere once accused me of being an idle student. My view is this, if you can prove you have the mental and professional faculties to cope with completing a PhD, presenting your work at conference and trying to get that all important first position as an Assistant Professor/Lecturer, then I will drive my Nissan off Beachy Head and willingly so. However, right now I envy those who have a 9-5 existence, get by on a single daily task and despite my rather generous war pension and retired officer pay, earn more than me at the moment. Damn it, in such circumstances I might even being able to write on this blog more often!!

Nevertheless, it was these ideas and events that inspired this entry, a quick one with a personal view. The Hindu's have a saying: 'The man who lives his life in an empty room is the wisest man in the world', which means that those who do not experience life to the full and have a closeted closed view of life, are usually those who pass judgement the quickest and the most often. Contrary to this, I have found that those who go out into the world, learn and engage are those who rarely make a pronouncement, but when they do, it is usually quite wise and considered. My view would be that David Owen, Chris Patten, Paddy Ashdown, the late J.K Galbraith, Gabriel Garcia Marquez and even Bob Geldoff are good examples of such people and we should learn from them every day. When I actually have the time to read a few blogs, however, I find a multitude of views and opinions, with the majority being quite middle of the road and rational, but many are extreme and concern themselves with issues that frankly might be important today, but will not be tomorrow or were important yesterday, but are not so today. 100 years ago in the UK, adultery, homosexual behaviour and republicanism were punishable under the law and racism, class exceptionalism and disenfranchisement were the law. Times change, issues change, places change and, in my view, we should adapt accordingly.

Therefore, my question is this. In your view, what are the core fundamental issues that society should be based upon? Consequently, what of today’s sacred cows and supposed pillars of modern society should be dropped in favour of a better future for humankind? I invite all to debate, but I discovered over the last few months that many do not have the courage to do so, it is easy to make controversial pronouncements but it is difficult to have the guts to defend them under the glaring spotlight of rational debate. Frankly, and in a rare public admission of pessimism, I have decided that courage these days is a rare commodity in many people.

Duncan.
Islington, May 1st, 2007.

Patrick Mercer is certainly not a Martyr

2007-03-13T08:02:00.000-07:00

I am always faintly amused by the efforts of the Conservative Party to live with the inherent contradictions found within it’s membership, certainly under the aegis of David Cameron as he attempts to impose a soft, environmentally friendly ‘New Man’ veneer to the party. However, the recent pronouncements by Patrick Mercer strips the underlying hypocrisy of this approach bare and is, (I would say based on my own experiences), representative of much of the thinking found if not in the majority of members, then in a stubborn and influential core of unreconstructed bigots.

It is always annoying when someone starts a sentence either by stating, ‘I am not racist, but...’ or more annoyingly, ‘I cannot be racist because my wife, best mate, cousins et cetera are from...’ and personally, I have found the pronouncement of such viewpoints inherently defensive in nature and in general believe those who make them have something to hide. As a retired serviceman, I know full well that there is an awful lot of racist invective and unreconstructed attitudes found in the armed forces and many soldiers from ethnic minority backgrounds do not object and take such comments in their stride. Soto voce, however, many complained me during my time that they dare not object as to do so would have a detrimental effect on their career. Indeed, the most ridiculous situation I encountered was a 19 year old junior officer on the RAF Regiment Junior officers course, who could not accept that two Omani officers attending the same course were anything else but inferior and the treated them with patronising distain. The reality was rather different, as the two Omani officers were actually exceptional soldiers of a high standard, but the teenage former Air Cadet from the suburbs did not have the abstract reasoning to appreciate this and therefore treated the two men as inferiors.

Where does this leave the Conservatives? For the main, the majority of people I met were decent, hardworking individual who generally wanted to make a difference and provided an alternative to the Blair administration. However, the Conservatives attract two more unpleasant groups, the ‘True Blue’ white middle class stalwart and the cranks that believe they, and only they have the answers. Well, in the case of the latter we all laugh at and cringe internally when reading exteme blogs and people such as those are of little consequence, but in the case of the former, many of these people are either in high positions within the party or found within the social circles of those who are. I know these people well and have been on the sharp end of their attitudes. Indeed, despite being a published academic, holder of the Queens Commission and someone who worked very hard to improve oneself, I have an Irish surname, am of mixed extraction and, (quite rightly) do not have a well developed sense of deference. Consequently, I have been treated at the best with patronising distain and at the worse outright hostility by a small minded but prevalent group of Tory Grandees and mostly Grand Dames. Those of you who have read the articles in the local news in Islington and are familiar not only with my blog but also with me in person, know exactly what I am writing about here.

To conclude, if the Conservative Party is genuine about change, it needs to break not only the cycle of unfortunate public pronouncement followed by resignation, but also the vice like grip of a small cohort of small minded white middle class individuals with small horizons and open up the decision making process to the entire membership, that it to make the membership sovereign. To do so, will allow working class and minority members to become central to the party rather than mere tokens to be appeased and will widen the party’s appeal to the wider populace. However, being brutally honest, I sincerely doubt this will happen any time soon.

How would you react (II) - Scottish Independence?

2007-02-13T05:15:00.000-08:00

Hi All,

Thank you for quite an enlightened series of discussions in the past few weeks, they have all been illuminating and quite enjoyable. It goes to show how wonderful the internet is and how it encourages so many intelligent and erudite people to come together and discuss the issues of the day.

So here is another one for you.

Imagine, come this May, that the SNP and other parties (such as the Greens and the Scottish Socialists) who have a manifesto commitment to a referendum on Scottish independence form a majority in the Holyrood parliament. A few months later, a referendum is held and with an acceptable turnout a few percentage points over 50% of the electorate have voted for an independent Scotland.

However, Holyrood has no mandate to hold such a referendum under the current system of government and a sizeable percentage of the population of Scotland, around 40% voted 'No'. Under International Law, the Government of the United Kingdom is recognised as the government of Scotland and regardless of what has happened in Scotland over the referendum, legally it has every right to remain as such.

So, what I ask of you is the following. Imagine you are a politician, be it Whitehall and Conservative, Holyrood and Labour or even an American senator, the choice is yours. From that perspective then, what would be your reaction to this situation and how would you proceed?

You never know, this might (and I mean might) become a reality one day. If that is the case, perhaps we should all engage in a little 'Blue Sky Thinking' to use a cliché and analyse possible outcomes.

Tommy - A Poem

2007-02-03T11:31:00.000-08:00

Dudes,

After having a chat over a coffee today in SW1 with an old buddy discussing recent blogging events and I was told a really interesting, hilarious and at the same time rather unpleasant anecdote concerning perceptions of people who are currently serving or have served in Her Majesty's armed forces amongst certain elements of our society.

We are not all dumb squaddies, you know. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with war, current or otherwise, it is a hard job and most that do it do so after leaving school at 16 with no qualifications. Indeed, I was told that 1/4 of those who leave the forces spend a period of time homeless. That is shocking, and even my experiences as an officer were less than exemplary, I was no longer of use and that, was that. In America, veterans are treated with respect, particularly those who were injured (such as myself) and many never have to worry about healthcare or employment ever again.

We should have attitudes more like that.

So here is a poem, which demonstrates that public perceptions amongst the middle classes haven't changed much in over a century.

"Hurrah! For The Life Of A Soldier"
Tommy, By Rudyard Kipling, 1892

I went into a public- 'ouse to get a pint o' beer,

The publican 'e up an sez, "We serve no red-coats here."

The girls behind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,

I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy go away";

But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play-

The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,

O it's "Thank you Mr Atkins," when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,

They gave a drunk civilian roo, but 'adn't none for me;

They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,

But when it comes to fighting', Lord! They'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy wait outside";

But it's "Special train for Atkins," when the trooper's on the tide-

The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,

O it's "Special train for Atkins," when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep

Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;

An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit

Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy 'ow's yer soul?"

But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll-

The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,

O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes," when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,

But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;

An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,

Why single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy fall be'ind,"

But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind-

There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,

O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:

We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.

Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face

The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck 'im out, the brute!"

But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;

An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;

An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

The Weird and Sinister World of Iznewmania and it's Obsession with James Kempton

2007-02-02T07:02:00.000-08:00

I used to believe that Paul Newman’s blog, ‘Iznewmania’ was a flippant and jokey look at politics in Islington and London. However, recent events have cast a more sinister light on Paul’s worldview, indeed one might say that rather than being the jovial blogger from North London, Paul wrongly considers himself a member of the bone fide ‘Tory Taliban’ and has some worryingly paranoid and delusional tendencies.

The Liberal Democrats have been far from perfect in Islington and I do not agree with a lot of what they have done, but overall I have found them to be an improvement on the Labour regime they replaced. Certainly, I feel that they have some very decent follows working for them, not least the leader of the council, James Kempton, who I have spoken and met personally on a number of occasions and I can certainly say he is a decent and professional chap that tries his best. However, if you read the world according to Iznewmania, he is the following (spelling and grammar corrections my own):

‘“ I do not on the one hand want a five year plan like a Communist State on the other hand I don’t want to go back to the eighties and Laissez Faire.”

To decode, he sees himself as midway between Stalin and Margaret Thatcher. Two points. Firstly Margaret Thatcher was popular PM in the word oldest democracy and Stalin was an opportunist Gangster who slaughtered 20,000,000..so I don’t quite accept the implied equivalency. Secondly , it means nothing . Fib Dums all over .

He was most unimpressive, and he is frightened. He is in situ only because in 1992 the Libs had to take any idiot around and then when they lost half the wards, he was the only one left standing.’

Which cannot be farther from the truth and indeed some of Paul’s commentary, in my view, in legally actionable and Mr Kempton could quite successfully sue for libel. As could I, because whilst I have written some items about the local Conservatives, I have made sure that from a legal point of view, everything I have stated can be backed up by a third party or is public knowledge and anything that is conjectural, I have plainly made sure it is seen as such. Somehow, I very much doubt Paul has a comprehension of such nuance and consequently, he does not exercise standard practices of self criticism that perhaps most of us would use in such a situation.

For example, on Suzy’s excellent blog, I have done or am (spelling and grammar corrections my own):

‘No Suz Duncan is a bit unstable and lives quite close to me I didn’t want to become the focus of his obsessive behaviour. Who knows what he is capable of .Also I don’t like to pursue an individual cruelly. Duncan is probably quite upset and needs to have a think about himself. He is very, very odd’

And in response to an email inviting to take part in a rational discussion on my blog, the response was:

‘The Neo Con population of London have not the slightest idea who you are , you loon. You are not Neo Con I doubt you have the faintest idea what such a thing might mean . You sound like a student and you should have outgrown it by no Please remove this number and do not contact me , for one, again.
What a lot of bollocks , Jesus Duncan I `m at work trying to pay , no doubt , for a scrounger like you to take a pointless degree’

To which I responded:

‘Paul,

I am employed by the University of Glasgow and the Economic as and Social Research Council as a research fellow and pay a lot of my income in taxes, too.
Scrounger? I was injured very badly serving my country in the RAF during 2003, defending people like you to have the freedom and safety to say and do what you want. When you have done the same and been in the places and done the things I have done, then you can judge me and rightfully so.
Do you begrudge my war, pension by the way? Is that scrounging?
I used to think you were a cool, articulate and reasonable person, a really nice and decent chap, but instead you come across as a poorly informed and quite nasty, judgemental little man. Somehow, I very much doubt this is the case so perhaps you should really think about how you perceive people and the world around you, because if that was the best value judgement you can come up with, you are very wide of the mark.
So, you will remain on my mailing list by way of personal improvement, as I think you need it.
Later,
Dunc.’

When it comes to war (in which I have known too many people killed), my injury and the rôle of Neo Conservatism in that, I might be a little peeved.

Although I am not qualified in any field relating to the subject of an individual’s personality, it appears that Paul considers himself part of a Neo Conservative elite (which, as someone with my background, read below, is something I am really rather aware of!) exclusive from the rest of society and that he alone is qualified to pass judgement upon others because of his perception of being more worthy than others. Somehow, it is more than possible he has deluded himself into believe I present a clear and present danger to his personal safety and believes he is a more central character to events than he actually is, which I, my family and my friends find rather amusing, grrrr!

However, could it be that all this is driven by a desire to belong to a group created by some form of exclusion from more mainstream society that is a source of personal sadness? Could it be that the rabid self aggrandisement, for example the boasting about his position within the Neo-Conservative community in London or the signing of letters with ‘Vice Chairman’ et cetera, be a reflection of low self worth creating a need to be seen with some for of status within society? Again, this is purely conjecture and I leave you to make you own conclusions about this from the links and correspondence included in this posting.

All this, reminds one of the actions of Quisling and his collaborators under the Nazi occupation of Norway. As a nation, Norway has a very close and informal society, with few boundaries and a flat social strata, even the King uses the Oslo metro. However, Quisling and his associates were actually not part of this society, whilst not being outcasts, they never could engage with the socially informal atmosphere of the country. Which made them collaborate with the occupation forces, whilst not being evil people to the same degree their attitude to their native society made them perfect collaborators with the regime and society shunned them, they even needed a personal restaurant because none would serve them in Oslo! It is a sign of the peaceful nature of the country that when Quisling was sentenced to death, there were no gallows in Norway, an exasperated Supreme Court judge had to visit a hardware store and build them himself to get the sentence executed within the 24 hour time frame of the death warrant, after which capital punishment was to be abolished, anyway.

So, to conclude, who would you rather have running Islington? Someone who has a demonstrated track record, has made improvements in the borough and whilst being part of a regime that has made mistakes, has learnt from them. Someone who is also a decent person and deserves respect, not for any title he has or has been given, but for the achievements of a lifetime, which are something he should be proud.

That person is JAMES KEMPTON.

Or, would you want a wannabe member of the Tory Taliban, who has a tendency to see things which clearly are not there, appears unable to operate self control and censorship, and place themselves more central to the debate than they are? I hardly ever saw Paul at a meeting and he was never central to either Islington North Conservatives or the merged association. I find it quite endearing how he attacks my record, if he went on the computer in the office and looked under ‘membership’ he would see work on renewals, membership cards and lapsed members (They have a lot) that ended in October, a few weeks before my child was born (Duh!) when my wife needed support and all my aims, failures and successes are on public record in numerous written reports. His record, is not what he states and that is independently verifiable by third parties, et cetera.

Paul is someone I have great sympathy for, he is not a bad person and I would not want to live with the demons he possesses. Nevertheless, the last email to me requested is an exasperated voice for me to, ‘leave him alone’. Sorry, but I suspect that London and Islington should keep vigilant and attempt (despite his reluctance) to engage Iznewmania in debate, to expose some of the more morally and ethically questionable pronouncements on that rather overhyped site.

How would you act?

2007-01-30T10:01:00.000-08:00

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Welcome to the world of debate, here's one for you.

My family, on the Scottish, Jewish and Colonial sides, has been the victim of oppression over the past few centuries. Be it the denial of the vote for religious reasons, ethnic reasons or some other procedural reasons such as a Poll Tax, or ethnic cleansing such as the highland clearances or indeed, being wiped off the planet in some mass genocidal urge in the 1940's, we've had a rum old time of it, really.

Therefore, my question to you is quite simple. How would you have behaved when confronted with such an situation, not as the oppressed nor as the oppressor, but as an average day-to-day member of society? What I would like you to do is transplant yourself, or those you know (whether you like them or not) mentally to another point in history and evaluate how you would have got on.

I hope that we can have a much more informed debate about this one.

Later,

Dunc.

Moderation - Just don't like it, but...

2007-01-30T05:11:00.000-08:00

Hi All,

Those of you who have turned in recently will notice that Fergy and I have been having a round about conversation with someone who calls him/her/itself N5 Guy/Hot Air.

We are all for the spirt of debate, and indeed we have tried to engage the dude to no avail. He seems that he/she/it cannot comprehend our debating style or sense of humour and takes offense where none is give. Indeed, whilst accusing us of having a go, he/she/it prefers to himself constantly have a go at our being academics by trade.

Really quite weird.

So N5 Guy/Hot Air, I will now be rude. You can say what you want about my family, friends and god, because I believe in free speech but you should a) learn to comprehend what people are writing, and b) have the courage of your convictions and be open about your identity.

You make comments and refuse to debate but to not have the bravery to do so in public, is gutless and cowardly.

But for now, until you can show a little decency and stop acting like a moron, you are moderated. Say something smart and incisive, and the moderate ends, but continue the way you are going, c'est fin, dude!

Later,

Dunc.

Bonza! And now for my Gerald Ratner moment!

2007-01-29T14:31:00.000-08:00

Well aren't we all having a lovely debate, then?

Time to get serious, one point though and I think all those who are Scottish or perhaps from someone else on the planet other than the South East of England reading this will appreciate the sentiment.

If someone is a wank or even if I think they are a wank, I will say so.

Right then, down to business. I hope that that was the final cliché in this evenings piece, so let me tell you all something about campaigning and spin. I know a bit about this, I was on Erasmus exchange in Amsterdam in 1996/7 and worked in the campaigning office of the CDU once a week as part of a politics course and I did rather well, being responsible for much of their English and French language communication. This was noticed by an American professor by the name of Anthony Williams who taught at the Pennsylvania State University, who arranged for my to join him there in 1998. I studied under a political geographer called Colin Flint and worked in my spare time and during a 4 week sabbatical for a liberal (possibly to the left of Labour) Republican (I shit ye not) senator by the name of Arlen Spector, he won despite a very strong challenge because of a system of canvassing called profiling in marginal electoral districts. From there I went into private work, as an analyst advising companies on the effect of political systems on the bottom line, effectively an accountant with a political bent.

Then I turned my reserve RAF status into full time and was injured badly. How badly wasn't known for a while and once I had an MRI scan it was show that my back was riddled with stress fractures and the sciatic nerve had been damages. Opps a daisy as they say, so what did I do for the rest of my RAF career tied to a desk before discharge? I wrote press releases!!!!! You guys get the picture, I've done this for the National Postgraduate Committee, Glasgow SRC, RAFVR(T) and so on. I also had a fair bit of campaigning experience in London, the South East and Scotland under Michael Howard, but since the party became a suburb of Windsor, this has obviously dried up.

So, what is the fundamental principal of campaigning and getting a message across (N5 Guy, you might want to take some notes here, could come in useful)? That there is an Actus Reus and a Mens Rea, or put another way this is an act and the intention behind an act. Put simple, the main assumption is that during a time of relative peace with no great social upheavals, people are not interested in politics and being happy with their lot, get interested in or upset about the most silly items. For example, let's take speed cameras. Well, some are useful, some are not and some are unjust, but all these objects do is take a picture when you break the speed limit, which in itself is legally fully justifiable. Of course, the majority of those who drive all break the speed limit and we all think we are justified in doing so. So a opinion poll comes along stating that people are pissed off with speed cameras, you are opposition leader, what do you do?

Let's play a game of pick and choose:

a) Make a pledge to withdraw all speed cameras after winning a general election.
b) Do the same, but pledge to reduce the number of speed cameras.
c) Blame the government for the situation.
d) Release a bland noncommittal press release, saying how lamentable the situation and emphasis (be subtle) that the government is saying nothing and then do nothing yourself.

The answer, is d)

Why? Well let me explain through an example. I taught a training seminar with future parliamentary candidates, in which I gave four people each a scenario. Two were pretending to be sitting MP's, one in a marginal seat, one in a safe seat, two were pretending to be candidates, one would win, one would not, some seat were rural and some were urban, so on and so forth. The goal was to write a four-sentence press release concerning a new motorway being built through each of their constituencies. This is a bad example:

'We support the new M45 motorway being built. We believe that it will bring many benefits to local business and residents and will improve local transport links to the rest of the UK.'

Well, these Conservative candidates have just pissed off Farmers, Nimbies, Greenies et cetera, cutting votes and creating controversy that they do not need. Maybe what they have said is perfectly true and reasonable, but by using language such as support, believes and welcome, they have opened themselves wide open.

Rather, my example was:

'The construction of the new M45 motorway in our area, can bring many benefits to the local community. Whilst it has been noted that many employment opportunities will be created by the construction of this road, any damage to the environment must be taken into account before a decision is made.'

Word such as Community, Environment, Local, Employment, Opportunities are all really useful. Bland, non-committal, so what is the point? Well, this is a huge story in the local community and you want to be tied to it, you get free press coverage, but you don't want to be controversial, because maybe the government you want to replace is behind the damn scheme, remember building the motorway is the Actus Reus, the act, but the Mens Rea, the intention behind the act has to be the governments, because any negative feeling towards the road can be channelled your way into votes. In addition, as the Community, Environment, Local candidate concerned about employment and opportunities, you might be a safer pair of hands in the voters mind.

Now, a great majority of those I met in the Conservatives believed that policies get you somewhere in electoral life. They do in a time of upheaval or at a time of change, Atlee 1945, Wilson 1964, Thatcher 1979, but when people have full stomachs and when they are content, voter turnout goes down, the majority of people vote on established party lines anyway and therefore, it is only important to get under the skin of an average floating voter and make them believe in you. The 1997, 2001 and 2005 Labour election victories are very, very good examples of those. Problem with you average English Conservative politician, they just don't get this and hammer on as if it is 1979 all over again and propose scheme after scheme after scheme if the vain hope of winning the 800,000 or so votes in swing seats to gain a majority and at local election time it is dogshit, after parking after refuse which is mentioned time and time again, splitting hairs ad infinitum.

Therefore, all theories are proven, or disproved by experiments and that is your homework. Look at how the Liberal Democrats became the opposition and then governing parties in a number of cities and boroughs in the 1990s and you will see the exactly the same process at work, which they themselves copies from the 1994 Republican mid term victories in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Let's conclude. To campaign and sell yourself in peacetime you need to find an object of peoples affection or loathing and then you attach perceived (The Nature of Truth Next Week) positive aspects of your party to that object whilst at the same time attaching perceived negative aspects associated with your opponent. Speed cameras are one example, but then look at crime, immigration, Europe et cetera and you will see how parties do, or at least try to, this every day

Any questions?

If you tolerate this...a final word!

2007-01-29T08:35:00.000-08:00

It is amazing how things progress in life.

So here is my final word on the Islington Conservative Association before I start posting on some more serious and interesting issues.

In the past few days, there have been a rather larger number of emails and comments coming my way concerning my resignation from the Conservative Party and my decision to in effect be honest and undergo a lifestyle change. Well, let’s deal with the personal mudslinging first, shall we?

My political change of heart, of at least decision to be honest aside, I was bored of Margaret Reese, of the phone calls, letters, and interference and bullying. Whatever you may think, she has a tendency to pick on people and has been attempted to get me to resign since the organisations merged, for what I am not sure why. Indeed, she invented an ever increasing workload to trip me up, membership is a twice a month job and everyone knows that! That she did the same to a predecessor of mine as a deputy chair in Islington South and Finsbury who was also of the same decent as myself suggests that perhaps this background caused offence to Margaret, although I would sincerely hope this is not the case. However, one member has stated to me that since she found out he was gay; she has been treating him differently. Past chairpeople, past donors, current members of the executive have been singled out; she is bully and a nasty one at that.

That is unacceptable behaviour.

Another example of these actions can be seen in her attitude towards those involved from the lowest to the highest level in Islington South and Finsbury, which was draconian and authoritarian, regardless of a person's circumstances.

That is unacceptable behaviour.

My wife gave birth to our son early and we were in hospital, needless to say I could not attend another of those damned meetings. However, on telling this to Margaret, 18 hours after my son was born, I was told that if I did not attend a management meeting that night, everyone in the association would be upset with me. I put the phone down and if people were genuinely upset with that, well you know what I think they should do with themselves, painfully. I was in Japan and sent apologies, Margaret lied and said she never recieved them, in the executive meeting in which it was decided to ask me to resign, did she even mention my wife was ill and that most of the tasks she asked me to do were a waste of time? No she did not and the fact that a small minority, as not that many people were there, vote with her shows an utter disregard for the facts in the face of authority.

That is unacceptable behaviour.

Members of the executive that have allowed this to happen, despite full knowledge of what is going on, more than likely because they require Margaret's reference to get onto the candidates list, should be equally ashamed at their compliance and they represent an unacceptable side of group social dynamics. People who write in the press that I am a liar and a cad should not only get their facts right, but realise that through their fawning submission to this atrocious woman they are defending the indefensible. This is not a vain glorious act of unchivalrous behaviour; this is a person who has had enough getting the story across. Therefore, for those who defend and act indignant in local papers and blogs, Nosce te ipsum is my advice.

Their behaviour, your behaviour, being brutally frank, is unacceptable.

If anyone disagrees vermently, you are quite invited to sue me, or at least threaten to. However, everything on this site can be backed up by the parties involved.

My dislike of the national party aside, the majority of people in the Islington Conservatives have quite a high level of decency, that I know from the last week more than I ever did for the last six years and I thank them for helping me realise it. However, whilst such a situation continues, whilst such a person holds sway in such a nasty and unpleasant way, I do not think the local Conservative party deserves to gain a single seat, because it demonstrates that a genuine INSTITUTIONAL adherence to common decency and doing the right thing is missing, even if these are core beliefs held by the majority of members.

So from now on, I am going to write my views, belief and ideals on this site and leave the whole sorry mess alone. You have every right to disagree with me; you have every right to argue with me, for that is what I believe in most, freedom of speech and universality of understanding.

Come and join me on this ride and leave the past behind!!!

With this in mind, I will conclude with the words of L.P Hartley and state:

"The past is another country; they do things differently there."

Rebel Yell

2007-01-27T07:48:00.000-08:00

Hello,

And now for something normal.

The last few weeks, I have been on the receiving end of quite a lot of crap from a number of wet 'Tory Boys' who are more interested in their own political careers (which will never happen), than being honest.

Well, I've had enough and have decided to write what opinionated trash enters my mind from my perspective, and what a perspective it is! I am mixed Catholic-Jewish extraction, have worked very hard for everything I have achieved and consider myself very lucky for what I have in life.

But that is not enough, I get pissed off with certain people, groups and ideas. I hate dogmatism and those doctrinal slaves who cannot look past their own rhetoric. For example, I do not condone terrorism, but I wonder what it is like to be Ulster-Catholic and have people marching outside your house informing you that you are lower than human and have no rights? I wonder what it is like to be British-Asian in Bradford or the East End of London and have to deal with the BNP and other day to day bigots? We condone the evil act of terrorism, but does that mean we condone the causes as well?

My view is we should condemn less and listen more, we are all victims of the current system, of the worse US President in history and his lapdog British partner. We are all victims of an authoritarian government and political parties willing to jump in and follow its lead if it means electoral success. We are all victims of an urge to keep our head down to get ahead, but are we really true to ourselves and what believe in?

With this in mind, I shall leave you with the following poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

As for me, I've decided to speak out for what I believe in.

Duncan.
27th January 2007