James O'Malley... Living Legend » Politics

Another new project: Skeptical Voter

James — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:34:11 +0000

I’ve started a new project with Richard Wilson, author of “Don’t Get Fooled Again” and Craig Lucas – it combines two of my favourite things: politics and skepticism. Basically we want to create a database of MPs and candidates for the 2010 election’s positions on issues that skeptics care about – that is to say, things like evidence-based policy, teaching creationism and that sort of thing. It’s called Skeptical Voter, and you should definitely take a look, and ideally sign up and support it.

Similar Posts:

The Pod Delusion

James — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:06:20 +0000

I’m terribly excited as the pilot episode of my new podcast has just gone live. The Pod Delusion is a bit like From Our Own Correspondent, but with a sceptical/liberal/lefty/Guardianista slant. Have a listen:

The best bit is that I’ve managed to involve both my friends and work: Simon, Duncan, Niki, Crispian, Will, Carmen, Charlotte, Arthur, Jim, Steffan, Tom and Pete are all involved – and I’m hosting it on (where else?) ipadio.

Hopefully as there’s loads of us working together this will take off rather than sink without a trace, like, er, Two Minute Hate.

Similar Posts:

© James for James O'Malley... Living Legend, 2009. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: podcast, skeptics

Musings on American healthcare

James — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:43:14 +0000

If you’re British, you’ve probably spent the last few weeks staring at the TV in something of a bewilderment as President Obama tries to push universal healthcare reforms through Congress. Bewildering because I was under the impression that universal healthcare was pretty much a settled issue – we’re all agreed that it’s a good idea. It is faintly amusing though that the argument American politicians are having we had in 1948. It’s almost as though America are 60 years behind us. Maybe this means in a few years time they’ll be an American fit enough to run a four minute mile?

The almost universal admiration of the NHS (Hannan excepted) that we’ve seen in response shouldn’t be much of a surprise though. It was created after a long, punishing war that hit the working classes the most. That may sound like there are parallels with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but it’d be most uncharitable – after all, World War II only lasted six years.

What amuses me about the whole debate going on in America though is how easily defeated the arguments of Republican and conservative opponents are. They question how the government can run something so big – but seem perfectly happy with the government running their untouchable sacred cow: the army. You’d think they’d get more worked up about the government run army – after all, it’s the army who are more likely to actually have “death panels”.

But alas, the American army is a lot like our NHS: those who criticise it are immediately the villains. Though to be fair, our army is a lot like the American healthcare system too: overworked, not really good enough, but pretty good at killing poor people.

Similar Posts:

Afghanistan Strategy: Look to Iraq, circa 1979

James — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:18:46 +0000

A subtle shift has been going on in the war with Afghanistan, apparently. The politicians in America and Britain are talking less about the need to turn the country into a vibrant multi-party democracy, like they’ve been trying to do with Iraq, and have been talking about “stability” instead. Obviously this is because they’ve realised that turning Afghanistan democratic is going to be really difficult, so have instead redefined the challenge. After all – a draw is a bit like a win, but with less people getting a bit upset.

How to achieve this then is the question now. Sir Mickey White over at The Guardian made an interesting suggestion to this end today:

Kabul needs a tough, tightfisted central ruler who can manage the warlords and promote such basics as trade, clean water, and – we’ve moved on since 1485 – education for girls

He’s arguing that Afghanistan needs a Henry VII. And whilst this is a good idea, is a bit impractical, what with Henry having been dead for about 500 years. Though this did make me think of another leader who could do this job, who has a proven track record, and will provide an authoritarian, yet stable government:

Saddam Hussein.

Unfortunately he too has been dead for a few years now, but just think what wonders he could have done for the original war on terror, if they’d had the foresight to keep him alive and given him a new country to play with. He’d have made the perfect President of Afghanistan.

When Saddam was in charge of Iraq he ruled with an iron fist, but managed to hold together a country made up of a patchwork of tribes, ethnicities and interests that’d been cookie-cuttered out of the map by a pencil drawing artificial borders. Sound familiar?

What’s more is that Saddam would have been the perfect consensus candidate. The west need someone they can work with, and they’ve a long history of working with Saddam throughout the 1980s, and Saddam would’ve never dreamed of working with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, having been mutual enemies whilst he was leader of Iraq. It’s not even as though he’d be a puppet of the west in the eyes of the Afghan people, as he’s got a well-known history of standing up to and opposing the Americans, and it’s fairly unlikely that he’d introduce western concepts like “democracy”.

When Saddam became Iraqi Prime Minister, under President Bakr, before he became President and sort of ballsed up a few diplomatic matters, he did some relative good for thte Iraqi people too, nationalising the oil industry, creating a buoyant middle class. Maybe he could do the same for Afghanistan’s economy and boost trade just like Michael White says it needs – after all, he has some industry contacts: specifically the French arms industry and the Russian nuclear industry.

As Iraqi President, Saddam ruled Iraq as a secular government, perhaps because he was in the Sunni minority – not that this would be a problem in Afghanistan as it’s 85% Sunni. He also ran Iraq as a highly centralised state – another item on Michael White’s list, and another key component of holding the country together.

The best bit of this would have been that there’d be no chance of Saddam going a bit mental and starting wars like he did before – Afghanistan’s armed forces are – as is my understanding – a couple of guys with AK47s and some paper planes. So he’d pose no threat to international security, as was alleged during his first go at running a country.

I think the Pentagon missed a trick here.

Similar Posts:

© James for James O'Malley... Living Legend, 2009. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Afghanistan, Iraq, Military Strategy, Saddam Hussein

Interview with Shadow Defence Sec Liam Fox

James — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:23:31 +0000

I went down to Westminster today to see what was going on, and to check if Gordon Brown was still the Prime Minister or not. I bumped into Shadow Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox whilst down there – so seizing the moment I thought I better ask him something. I am now officially a citizen journalist:

Similar Posts:

© James for James O'Malley... Living Legend, 2009. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: conservatives, Liam Fox, london, tories, video

Repeal the Great Reform Act!

James — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:44:04 +0000

If you’re anything like me, chances are you’ve been full of righteous anger over the last week because of the whole MP’s expenses thing. Every day, the Telegraph has been giving us more and more reason to hate politicians, because it turns out that the clichéd complaint, previously only peddled by those not informed enough to follow politics as closely as obsessives, is literally true: They are all on the take and are only looking after themselves after all.

The ridiculous claims reached their pinnacle on Tuesday, when it was revealed that one Tory ponce was claiming for cleaning his moat. Obviously the sceptic might think that the word “moat” is probably describing a tiny pond or something, and is blowing it out of proportion, but no, look at the pictures – he literally does have a moat.

It’s perhaps not surprising that the public’s faith in politics and politicians is at an all time low, and there’s a lot of speculation that the next election will see the biggest kicking out of incumbents in ages (and not just because of the Prime Minister being shit at his job).

So obviously this is a concern for politicians, and they need to do something to turn it around, to try and reassure the public that they’re not all corrupt bastards – and I’ve an idea for what they can do. Previously I’ve advanced the theory that we’re reliving 1979 – the Tories are doing well, we’re in a recession, The Specials are touring again – but I’ve changed my mind, and I think that politicians need to go further back in time to find a solution: Back to the 19th century. If they want to save Parliamentary democracy, they need to repeal the Great Reform Act.

The Great Reform Act was the change in law that enfranchised millions of more people, for the first time gave most men the vote, and gave everyone proper representation for the first time. Politics is no longer seen as a noble profession – so what better way is there to change this perception than to return to a time when politics was constituted entirely of nobles?

Things wouldn’t be terribly different – the Tories would still be there and doing well, and given the polls it’s entirely plausible that the long-dead Whig party stand a better chance of being elected than the Labour party at the next election.

Repealing the Great Reform Act would put the expenses scandal to bed once and for all. MPs owning second homes (to have one in London and one in their constituency) is one of the major points of controversy – if we went back to having rotten boroughs, and changed it so that all of the constituencies were inside the M25, no MP (except for maybe Keith Vaz) would need to have a second home. Sure, this may lead to some of the same issues as used to happen before the Great Reform Act, such as major population centres like Manchester and Birmingham not being represented, but without representation… who are they going to complain to?

What’s more – if we go back to a situation where only land-owners have the vote, then it won’t be possible to complain about millionaire Tories having moats – as moats will not be the exception, but will pretty much become the norm.

Does anyone want to join me in a peasants revolt, in calling for a less transparent and democratic Parliament?

Similar Posts:

Why Nadine Dorries MP doesn’t understand Twitter, and why she is an idiot

James — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:16:45 +0000

I’ve just read a blog post by Bedfordshire Tory MP Nadine Dorries (affectionately known as ‘Mad Nad’ by detractors) where she goes and slags off Twitter in quite possibly the most uninformed way possible.

She starts off by making possibly the most banal observation about Twitter that’s it’s possible to make:

A friend showed me his twitter ‘feed’ this weekend. A cure for insomnia if I ever saw one. Did I really want to know what three hundred followers made of the film ‘In The Loop’. One opinion would do. I have absolutely no interest in knowing that someone had to take a roast dinner around to her grandmother’s house on behalf of her parents whilst visiting on Sunday.

Yeah, and what about people in cinemas who talk and rustle their food? Or kids on buses with loud music playing ringtones? You’re commentary is inspired, Nadine. Or it would be if you didn’t miss the point is such stunning fashion. The “why care?” can only be made if you fail to understand what Twitter is about. Twitter is a a meritocracy, where the most interesting people rise to the top – something you’d think a Tory would support. If you’re boring, no one will listen to you – that’s why people who only post Facebook-esque updates about what they’re eating or that they’re “happy!!!!!” only have four followers and people who try to be interesting and funny have thousands. If you’re bored by the people you see on your Twitter feed, you’re following the wrong people.

Obviously, there is a lot of seemingly trivial one-liner things on there. But to judge Twitter by individual updates is like judging a book by individual pages – the returns or “payback” are largely from the cumulative experience of following someone, and it’s exactly the same in real life. If someone you didn’t know told you what they had for lunch, you might not care – but if a friend did – say, in Nadine’s case, if it were that crazy creationist woman from the Dispatches documentary – you might be interested.

I also find Nadine saying she only wants one opinion rather than three hundred interesting. I realise she represents a Tory safe-seat but surely she must pay at least lipservice to the democratic process. You know the democratic process, right? The one where the opinions of many people are aggregated to make a judgement on something. Would it be childish to suggest that maybe she’s referring to the Bible as her “one opinion”, as she has got quite a history of Bible-bashing? Perhaps, but it isn’t going to stop me. God’s already on Twitter, anyway.

Nadine continues on:

Twittering has to be a symptom of a dysfunctional society. You know the one I’m talking about; when people don’t talk to, care about, help, consider or even interact with each other anymore.

Yeah, Twitter isn’t social media at all – look at all of it’s other functionality that isn’t designed for interacting with other people. Did Nadine’s friend actually show her Twitter, or just a rock on the ground and say that it was called Twitter? She does later refer in her post to a “lap top” with a space in there, so maybe this tech-no-lo-gy thing is all new to her?

What’s brilliant about Mad Nad’s blog post though is the last bit, where she seems to – whilst completely unaware – demolish any point she was trying to make in the first place:

At my daughters birthday party this week 60 good and close friends turned up. People she has known since nappies, playgroup, school and university. She doesn’t twitter to any of them. She may spend hours running up her phone bill, but at least she and her friends still know how to talk to, care for and laugh with each other.

Kids today! Spending so much time on the “telephone” talking to each other and interacting despite a lack of geographic proximity! This is what’s causing society to dysfunction – it’s not the disparity in the distribution of wealth, or lack of social mobility disenfranchising people causing “broken Britain” – it’s all of these new passed-buck-holding technologies.

I don’t talk to, care about, or laugh at anything on my Twitter feed. It’s a completely joyless experience. That’s why it has so many millions of users and has taken off so spectacularly recently.

Nadine ends by explaining that:

Whilst psycho analysing twitter over lunch, we came up with some things you just wouldn’t dare twitter, ever, ever. Especially if you were an MP.

Yeah, you have to be careful. You wouldn’t get many kind replies on Twitter if you were to post that you’d just voted to restrict abortion rights, for example.

I think Alan Johnson was right about the best way to campaign for the next election: David Cameron might seem tolerable but just look at the crackpots sitting behind him.

Similar Posts:

New strategy for Brown: Hope Thatcher dies soon

James — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:32:52 +0000

Last night I wrote a rather exasperated post about what looks like Gordon Brown’s desire to lose the next election in as spectacular fashion as possible. Unfortunately, it looks as though there would need to be an Act of God or something to stop the Tories winning. Which is thoroughly depressing.

This got me thinking though – what act of God could turn things around for the Labour party, short of a hurricane wiping out most of rural England? Then it hit me: Thatcher can’t have long left, can she?

Sure, you could argue that it’s in poor taste to speculate about someone’s death before they’re actually dead, but I think it’s generally agreed amongst people of a lefty persuasion that Thatcher is a special exception. Just imagine if she were to die before the next election…

David Cameron will be forced to go on TV and look really sad, and talk about how excellent she was. All of the old Tories who we assumed were also dead will be wheeled out on TV to give gushing tributes about how she sold out the poor and concentrated wealth and power in the hands of the few, and all of the nasty stuff like that. TV will be filled with documentaries and debates, full of old footage of the Tories fucking things up. The abandonment of Keynesianism and the relaxing of exchange controls that led to the current financial crisis will be explained again and again. The general public will be reminded that behind Cameron’s seemingly affable, posho face lurks the nasty party that were voted out in 1997.

Would this be enough to give Gordon Brown the boost he needs? Possibly, but judging by his track-record he’d probably fuck it up somehow anyway.

I can’t be the first person to have considered this possibility… does anyone know of anyone who has done before?

Similar Posts:

Political Suicide

James — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:45:54 +0000

Don’t do it, Gordon! I can see you’re on the edge, but don’t jump! Your career has too much to live for!

So picture the scene: you’re a stunningly unpopular Prime Minister, heading towards spectacular defeat at the next election. People hate you for your role in fucking up the economy, you’re perceived as an emotionally retarded bureacra… how can you make it any worse?

Oh, I know, why not stick to a bunch of retired soldiers?

As repellent as I find the concept of armed forces, going to war and all that, it’s stunningly difficult not to sympathise with the Gurkhas – its pretty obvious that soldiers fighting for a country should be able to live there, so I’m really unsure what planet Brown was on today when at PMQs he continually argued against letting the Gurkhas stay.

It’s almost as if he wants to lose the next election in the most spectacular way possible. Maybe the thinking is that sure, Blair did everything bigger and better than him – Blair was more popular and lasted longer, but Brown can still achieve biggest defeat.

Coincidentally, I had a walk down to Parliament today (dispelling absolutely no clichés about Parliament being in the background of all London activities in the process), and stumbled upon a big gerkha demonstration. When we got to a pub, we saw Sky News broadcasting David Cameron speaking live from where we just were – so we dashed back to see if we could spot him. If you’re a fan of grainy, unedited videos of political speeches, you’re in for a treat:

It was quite exciting – not only was Cameron there, but so was Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne, and… Joanna Lumley. I didn’t get close enough to shout any questions or whatever, but at least now I can say that I’ve seen the leaders of all three major political parties in the flesh (I saw Brown ages ago).

Afterwards we went to the Westminster Arms, where I made a video explaining the above mess of a video, and also tried to start some political rumours:

I got to see all of this exciting stuff by skiving off of a lecture too. So there’s a lesson here, kids: Why not truant? It’s great fun.

Similar Posts:

Why politics is shit (part of a continuing series)

James — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:06:31 +0000

Despite being a relatively well informed person, who keeps up with the news and politics and takes an interest and all that, I’m stunningly apathetic when it comes to actual participation myself, such as with political parties or protesting or whatever. I like to think this is because my opinions are slightly more nuanced than what a placard can accurately portray – but it is also because of how stunningly depressing a lot of it is.

Obviously it’s pretty much the done thing to slag off all politicians, “they’re only looking after themselves”, blah blah blah. But this is only a cliché because of the regularity with which political figures re-demonstrate this tired argument for defeatism.

For instance, I was stunned to see that a bigger fuss hasn’t been made of Lord Bell, one of the key figures behind the Tories 1979 election campaign, is now running a public relations campaign for Alyaksandr Lukashenka, the President and dictator of Belarus (“The last dictatorship in Europe”). Who, my understanding is, a thoroughly nasty man – political opponents in Belarus tend to “disappear”, that sort of thing.

I could – maybe – understand, say, operating a business in a dodgy country – on the basis that globalisation can sometimes democratise, or that some money coming in is better than none or whatever – but to be employed by the Belrussian President to make him look good… I’m struggling to see the difference between Lord Bell and Lord Haw-Haw.

Having a look at Bell’s Wikipedia entry too, it tells me that he was also involved in the controversy over the shutting down of bribery and fraud inquiry into the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia… arguing on the side of the Saudis, that the bribery claims shouldn’t be looked into. Amazingly, he was also apparently put on an Iraqi advisory board for the “promotion of democracy” – which I guess is equally as ludicrous as making, say, Tony Blair, a Middle East peace envoy.

And what the hell was he knighted and made a peer for? Services to Bastards?

Apparently Lord Bell used to have scruples, but then realised he could sell them off for a stack of cash instead.

Sigh.

Similar Posts: