The only difference between suicide and martyrdom really is the
amount of press coverage- Chuck Palahniuk

Labour-1983 all over again?

It was only around a month ago when I got the pleasure of talking to a Baroness of the House of Lords, and we talked, strangely enough, over the need for reform in the House of Lords. We agreed on the need for change in terms of age, with the average currently at 70 and all but ruled out the possibility of a 2nd elected Chamber over the contradicting function of it and the House of Commons. According to me and the rest of the room, this made sense, because whilst we admitted it wasn't perfect, nothing was and alternatives looked scarce. Reform was unanimously and silently preferred in a room of around 50 along a Baroness, strong opposition against, a very weak and reactionary Ed Miliband...  There will be riots...

The USA has many things that the UK doesn't, for example: bad cars, fake bacon and the fact that I can't walk in an alcoholic shop without getting decapitated under suspicion of age drinking. But whilst, unfortunately, some of these ideas are filtering over to the UK, there's one I'm well and truly against, and it just happens to be Labour's next big proposal... What a surprise...

In 1983, Labour infamously made the "Longest suicide note in history" with their manifesto for that years election favoring extremely left wing policies and ideologies, which frankly bewildered many Labour supporters to voting Conservative in a landslide victory for the right wing party. This has been argued as a reason for the rebirth of Labour under Blair in 1997, and whilst this is in the past, events seem to be re-occurring. One of the proposals in the infamous 1983 "suicide" manifesto was to abolish the House of Lords, and it has striking similarities with the proposal by Miliband today to replace the House of Lords with a Senate. Cue the canned laughter.

Recently resigned  Scottish Labour Leader, Johann Lamont, accused several Labour MP's of being dinosaurs over the treatment of a Scotland wanting to devolve. It has been very clear that the conviction of the promises made by Miliband to Scotland have been poor, and that her resignation left a scar in his Scottish reputation (it's hard to believe he had one anyway). So in clear retaliation, much like the one made by the "Big Three" in the Scottish Referendum, Miliband has proposed a senate which would elect Senators from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. But as far as I see, it's just glorified false hope with no more potential of his hopes of being Prime Minister next year. Miliband has clearly just seen warning signs from Lamont's resignation, realized he was in a hole, made a very shoddy glorified proposal and stuck a sticker on it. Admittedly, there is a problem in the ratio of members of Lords from constituencies, especially in London, but how does this solve the issue? Not the ratio issue, the wider picture, the one that shows the UK's falling turnouts. This would have no affect on turnouts, and because it's only a glorified House of Lords, people would perhaps have less faith in politics, after all, no one wants an expensive change in politics only for it to have no impact. In conclusion: Miliband, actually have some creativity and come up with clever proposals that will work, not retaliate like a 5 year old on the naughty step.

Jordan Ifield (or should Miliband just step down?...)

By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail- Benjamin Franklin

Labour- Act your Age

I'm sure to many of you, that with the General Election only 191 days away (I was sad enough to look it up) Labour look like they're in shambles. The Scottish Independence Referendum seemed to expose their lack of structure or form, and more importantly, how little faith they have in Ed Miliband. And we can see why. 

On Friday, rather unexpectedly, Johann Lamont resigned from her post as Leader of the Scottish Labour Party. This may not surprise you or me at any other time of the year, but right here, right now, it exposes Labour's weaknesses and it is clearly not a coincidence. Here resignation is after the Scottish Independence and the annual Labour Party Conference, with the General Election looming round the corner. So what significance does this have? Firstly, Miliband publicly embarrassed himself in the Scottish Independence Referendum, according to Labour MP's, by joining forces with Cameron and Clegg (he still exists?) and promising further Scottish Devolution, and now that they are still part of the UK, these promises aren't exactly taking 5 minutes. And with Labour having strong support in Scotland, its likely they may lose constituencies because of it. This is crucial, considering the General Election next year now has the potential for Labour to look like a laughing stock.

So where does this leave Labour? Quite frankly, a sitting duck. It's bad enough for one of your most popular leaders to stand down, in one of your most popular areas. But to leave on the grounds that Scotland didn't get enough power in the UK through Labour, really shows that the Scottish people have been betrayed. 45% of the turnout in Scotlan'ds Independence Referendum voted yes, and those people will be absolutely fuming, not only over those that voted no, but also Labour. Who's not going to vote for Labour, them. And so many more from those who voted no, and realize that they have been betrayed by Labour and the other parties. I wouldn't be half surprised if the Monster Raving Loony Party got an MP in Scotland now, because if you don't vote SNP in Scotland, who else do you vote for? If you choose Conservative, Labour or Lib Dems (they've still not imploded?) you're going to be betraying Scotland's democratic future. If you vote SNP, you're just voting for a party who are regretting not winning the referendum and won't make many changes because of it. And that leaves UKIP.... Just no. I think even Scotland know that leaving the EU is not the answer to everything. Anyone for the Monster Raving Loony Party? Free owl on membership!

Jordan Ifield

It's one thing to shoot yourself in the foot. Just don't reload the gun- Lindsey Graham

Recall- Combatting a Corrupt Parliament

It's very rarely the case where you justify the option to sack yourself. But, at least theoretically, that's what MP's backed in the House of Commons on Tuesday. This had been a demanding issue for some time, often seen as a more democratic role of the MP, with the option to get rid of them before the next by-election every 5 years. And whilst, on paper, this looks promising, it's not black and white...

Greg Clark: The man begind the recall debate and the
smoking gun

The principle with a recall is that if an MP has done wrongdoing, such as criminal intent. They can then be removed through another by-election,  forced by a petition from their constituency (at least 10% have to sign it). This would therefore combat the old system of an MP getting a prison sentence smaller than 12 months, and still holding their position. Like many, I hold the opinion that this is wrong, as it is hard to justify anyone keeping their job after such offences. Politicians should have the same right as anyone in these situations, and be sacked, or at least petitioned against. 

However, whilst there is an overwhelming majority of MP's that support recall, there are 2 rival methods of recall being proposed. The first and simpler of the 2 is being proposed by MP of Tunbridge Wells, Greg Clark. His system would be to get by-election through a petition in the constituency which needed 10% of the turnout. But surely, ten percent is a small amount, and it still leaves the loop hole of the MP switching parties and not attend Parliament or go on holiday. This is an opinion hel by Zac Goldsmith, who has devised the rival plan, and the proposal is that a petition with 5% of their constituency signing, with an intent to recall and then 20% to recall their MP. In terms of comparison, I can only see one major difference, democracy.

Zac Goldsmith: The man behind the rival recall
and wins my vote

Constituents need to feel a sense of security that their MP will represent them at all costs, that he would fight tooth and claw for their cause. So if you were voting right now, you would be concerned if your MP was to not turn up at Parliament, or disappear to Egypt on a 5 month vacation. This would, undoubtedly leave you with less faith in the electoral system, and may even put more voters off voting all together! And we don't need another cover up of the turnout crisis in Britain... So why close a loop hole in Clark's proposal, and then create another through changing parties. I for this reason believe, with 68 other MP's, that Goldsmith's proposal is better, as it aims to progress Britain democratically.

Jordan Ifield (Goldsmith has an amazing haircut)



Don’t talk, just act. Don’t say, just show. Don’t promise, just prove- Unknown

Back to normalities-Fighting

Can't we all just get along? Nearly a month on from the Scottish Independence Referendum, and the last minute promises made by the "big three" (Cameron, Miliband and Clegg)  have only lead to them all going at each others necks and allowed Gordon Brown back into mainstream politics... I know which one I'd rather not.....




Quickly thought out policies don't usually end well, especially when they're made for a country who are quite impatient. However the devolution of Scotland seems to have hit a snag over, England of all things. Just this Wednesday, William Hague argued that if Scotland devolves, then English MPs should vote for England, closing a loop hope that Scottish MP's can still vote on English policies, that don't affect them. Weirdly, Labour and Gordon Brown (oh god) believe that this policy was enforced by David Cameron after the Referendum, and that doing so would undermine the union.... Pardon?




Gordon Brown specifically said in the debate that Scottish MPs should sit on equal terms with English MPs... So how come Scottish MPs can vote on English exclusive legislations and English MPs can't do this in return? To me at least it sounds that Brown has no argument to justify, and he's quite possibly lost his marbles (again). But Hague summarised the situation of limbo both Scotland and England are in with "The United Kingdom is in greater making danger if the legitimate arguments, and expectations of English decision making, on decisions only affecting England, are not responded to". And I'm afraid Mr.Brown, he's right. This flaw has been around too far, and is now starting to damage our relationship with Scotland over devolution, and England needs its own rights too. So if you only want to annoy Scotland, carry on. But if Labour does have some common sense, then maybe they'll help fulfil promises they actually made.


Jordan Ifield

Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything- George Bernard Shaw

Baroness Wheatcroft

Isn't it a pleasure to meet someone who's on Wikipedia? Well, on friday, I got this wish granted, and when the Baroness came at 2 o'clock, I was very keen to what she had to say...

The first thing that she mentioned was the difference in the House of Commons and her position in the House of Lords, and was very keen to mention that the Lords (supposedly) had a greater variation in professions and races than in the Commons. Whilst this bewildered me for a second, simply by the sheer innocence (or more "we're better than them") comment, I listened on and wasn't surprised to hear her say about the average age of the House of Lords. Whilst many have this aged image of the House of Lords, and many believe it wrong, it can be perceived as true, with the average age of a Lord being 70. Now whilst this doesn't surprise me, I did agree with her that this does perhaps need to be changed. Whilst it is stereotypical to think that older people have more conservative views than younger people, in a case such as this, maybe something needs to happen, just to help a new generation get involved and make a difference in British politics.

Another thing that she mentioned, and I agreed on, was the constant legislation passed into the House of Lords. The Conservatives have been accused of making policies too much around public opinion, instead of their ideologies, making them too weak to support their arguments. This reflects in the case of legislation, anything big in the news, and by the time you can say "we don't need another legislation", there's another legislation proposal sitting at your doorstep. What significance does this have? It becomes a nuisance, with unnecessary and flawed legislation that wouldn't stand up to stop a burglar stealing a packet of crisps.

Whilst I would've listened to her story all day, it was pressing to hear a Lord's view on many of the pressing subjects in the news. For example, a subject which I have a strong (biased) opinion on, allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote. I feel very strongly that they should be given the vote, because I believe that if you had the knowledge to vote, your being denied a human right. However it was clear that she didn't share the same views, and used the example of the Scottish Independence Referendum as evidence to support that they shouldn't, as 70% said Yes. However, because they have a different opinion doesn't mean they can't vote, and whilst this is only an interpretation, they still had a strong opinion and knowledge to vote, and I think that if you have those two things, there shouldn't be anything stopping you from voting.

By the end of the Q&A, I'd felt enlightened on the workings of the House of Lords and Parliament, as well as pessimism on the situation in Israel and scandals. But by the end, one question I was keen to get an answer to, took an unexpected twist... "What is your opinion on the House of Commons being able to, in a very rare case, overrule any decision made in the House of Lords? E.g. Fox Hunting". Her response, was interesting... She said that it was the House of Lords job to advise and "educate" the House of Commons, and it was always their decision, the Lords weren't there to overturn anything. This surprised me in many ways, but the sheer innocence of saying that it was their job to "educate" the House of Commons seemed to me, a bit offensive. Admittedly I did point this out to her, but it did make me thinks afterwards. Do Lords feel like they're untouchable, they can't get "sacked" after all, and do they feel more worthy of status than those in the Commons. Maybe that's a step too far, but I do think that some reforms need to be installed in the House of Lords, perhaps a way in which Lords can be sacked, or an elected chamber, which may be rather difficult. But I still agree with her that something needs to change in the House of Lords, or the consequences maybe fatal to a British "democracy".

Jordan Ifield

It's always a wake-up call to get beaten- Usain Bolt

Avengers Assemble, Again...

Isn't it ironic I wrote my first blog with the same headline, and I now sit here writing this against another common enemy. It's hard to find any political news or headlines that don't revolve around UKIP, their recent rise to power over the past few weeks, in a year that has been huge for them, is incredible. But then again, I can say they are growing well in popularity, but it's safe to say, I'm not one of them. And neither are any other political parties for that matter.

Cameron, Miliband and (Clegg is supposed to be here, but he's too busy trying to stop his party from imploding) are all gathering again, not against the SNP and Alex Salmond, but an even worse threat. Nigel Farage and attempt to stop him laughing in the face of the EU. One problem. They have the wrong end of the stick. Ed Miliband, for example, accused UKIP members of not thinking "the parties listened to them, or that the country represented them". The flaw in this, that he is right. But he hasn't changed that. And neither are the Tories, or the Lib Dems (who are losing voter left, right and centre anyway). In reality, UKIP have gained voters by the thousands over the course of this year, and the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems have almost sat back and relaxed in awe of this spectacle. No political party has made such a change in British politics in such a small space of time, but it's not for the better.

The current political climate is so unpredictable at the minute, that it's hard to make a firm judgement at where I see any political parties by the end of the General Election. But with the recent by-elections, I can safely (and gladly) say, that UKIP be in office next year. Whilst the Clacton by-election may say different judging by the huge win for Clacton, but Labour still won the Haywood and Middleton by-election, showing that by no means UKIP are walking over everyone. And whilst they did slash Labours majority by just over 600, this still shows that UKIP still aren't appealing to everyone. This is where my conclusion comes in, I believe UKIP are many peoples second party. These people would vote any of the Big Three parties (as a generalization), but when most of these parties are bickering amongst themselves and don't keep promises (e.g. LIBERAL DEMOCRATS) they fall out of favour with these parties... Step in UKIP. They have the ideal policies for everyone, at the minute, centered on tightening immigration, which is undeniably a big problem now, and blaming the EU for all of our problems, which each and every Briatain can admit to do every now and then!


Jordan Ifield

It is easier to forgive an enemy than to forgive a friend- William Blake

UKIP Manual #754- How to annoy the Tories

It's not very often that a silver plate comes along with the chance to gain a substantial amount of voters, but on that very rare occasion, UKIP seems to have taken them all. It's safe to say that none of the big 3 parties capitalized on their last party conferences before the General Election. David Cameron "resenting the poor", Miliband forgetting the deficit and Clegg getting egg on his face by not supporting expanding runways at airports, which all show the world, how not to gain voters. The tide then can only go one way... UKIP.... Unfortunately.

With the gain of two former Conservative MP's, it is clear to see that they have capitilaized well with the complacency of the Tories, but one key element of their speech bugged me from the word go, "choose change". Change is a broad and vague term, and is exactly what UKIP have been "supposedly" wanting for years, and now this seems like the ideal time to take it, whilst the big 3 are still recovering. But there is only 1 thing UKIP have had a strong ideology and policy about, immigration. As far as I can see, the rest of their policies are just reactionary and not exactly realistic. 

Good joke Nigel- All your policies our based on leaving
the EU

For example, how would UKIP save tax payers money? Leave the EU, and save £55 million a day (in their 2014 manifesto). Sorry?  Do UKIP understand economic policy? Their answer to everything is to leave the EU! It's like a child reaction to losing it's candy, "but I want to!" And I may not be a mathematician, but that sounds like a Utopian dream, and even if it were true how much of that money would get filtered back into society? And what about the long term? That £55 million may not be a one off payment, but with a population of around 64 million, what major difference is it going to make?

But back to the recent by-elections, and again, "vote UKIP, get UKIP". Sure, you can do that, but either way, you're still not a big threat. Yes, the Conservatives were keen to outly that UKIP were getting stronger and emphasised how the traitorship of their MP's was "disgraceful" but the hole UKIP dug themselves in the build up to this, is too deep. The claims of racism and lack of political depth (it's all based on leaving the EU! And we'll have a referendum on that if we stay with the Conservatives anyway) before the EU Parliamentary Election gave UKIP a lot of bad publicity, and its swayed people (like me) to believe that UKIP don't have any sense of direction and can be ideologically racist. 

Jordan Ifield (I'm clearly anti-UKIP)