After a delightful interview with political cartoonist Martin Rowson, I've had a surge of energy towards my love of satire. he'll be the star of my second issue of my political magazine. Check out the first issue if you haven't already, you've severely missed out!
http://issuu.com/jessicaeee1989/docs/pdfinnnniittt
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
7 Jun 2011
14 Apr 2011
The first hopeful look into the future?
Tomorrow is a very special day. It's the anniversary of the first televised leaders' debate, and subsequent launch of Clegg-mania. It's also the anniversary of the sad realisation that we can be fooled.
Just because Clegg managed to smile without looking like a serial killer, and managed to talk without looking like he had descended from pure evil, we loved him. Public discourse and Clegg had a short-lived, lovely marriage, unlike the two parties soon to unite as a coalition.
The coalition formed whilst we sat at home and speculated. It happened behind closed doors, away from news cameras and journalists, and resulted in something we didn't want nor vote for. Since then, we've had a coalition where, due to initial compromises, we've had broken promises and the Government have proceeded to cut spending in a way we don't all agree with. 'Coalition' has been given only negative connotations over the past year.
We, as a nation, have lost hope. Job cuts to front-line services, MPs being jailed for their expenses... we've lost trust in those that control almost every aspect of our lives. This is why we desperately need reform. Not the kind of 'NHS reform' that's basically bad news nicely wrapped in the idea of improvement. We need electoral reform, where the power can be redistributed to us. We need real reform that betters our relationship with our MPs, which in turn means we are better represented in Parliament.
I'm not suggesting that the Alternative Vote will magically solve all that is wrong with our 'democracy', but by voting 'yes', you can look back on a time when we had a corrupt voting system where our MPs made it into Parliament with 3/10 votes, and breathe a sigh of relief that your vote now counts.
Just because Clegg managed to smile without looking like a serial killer, and managed to talk without looking like he had descended from pure evil, we loved him. Public discourse and Clegg had a short-lived, lovely marriage, unlike the two parties soon to unite as a coalition.
The coalition formed whilst we sat at home and speculated. It happened behind closed doors, away from news cameras and journalists, and resulted in something we didn't want nor vote for. Since then, we've had a coalition where, due to initial compromises, we've had broken promises and the Government have proceeded to cut spending in a way we don't all agree with. 'Coalition' has been given only negative connotations over the past year.
We, as a nation, have lost hope. Job cuts to front-line services, MPs being jailed for their expenses... we've lost trust in those that control almost every aspect of our lives. This is why we desperately need reform. Not the kind of 'NHS reform' that's basically bad news nicely wrapped in the idea of improvement. We need electoral reform, where the power can be redistributed to us. We need real reform that betters our relationship with our MPs, which in turn means we are better represented in Parliament.
I'm not suggesting that the Alternative Vote will magically solve all that is wrong with our 'democracy', but by voting 'yes', you can look back on a time when we had a corrupt voting system where our MPs made it into Parliament with 3/10 votes, and breathe a sigh of relief that your vote now counts.
28 Mar 2011
Face for radio
As a campaigner for Yes to AV, the alternative vote, you sometimes have to put stupidity over sense. I did this recently as I went on live, BBC local radio to argue with an MP. A student, against an MP. You can see where this is going can’t you? A few days before the dreaded day, I had a phone call from BBC Radio Cumbria, to give me a short briefing. I was told I would get a few seconds to lay out the reasons why we should vote ‘yes; and then would be given the chance to reply to the MP, John Stevenson’s arguments.
I turned up on the morning of the show with my notes, one page of writing, one condensed version in case I wasn’t allowed notes and would need to hide it in my bra, and I was off. I was thrust straight into the radio studio and told that after a short explanation of what AV is, I would begin.
As I sat in the studio in front of a mic the size of my face, I watched longingly as the radio presenter talked with such ease, fluidity and effortlessness. The political reporter, to the side of me, started off her explanation of AV. However, the pessimist inside me believes that she thought about the worst way possible to make me lose the little focus that I had left in me. I started going through my argument in my head, it was interrupted by what sounded like a suicidal, drunk bull in a china shop. She had recorded a group of 20 children with musical instruments in order to demonstrate how AV works. Some might say innovative, I say unnecessarily distracting.
Before I knew it, it was my time to shine, and all I could think to do was to bang my fists on the table and whack my pen on the mic. How else do you follow on from 20 kids with percussion? Fear is a funny thing.
My mind had went blank. Words came out of my mouth, but nothing that my brain had control over. I couldn’t tell you what I said. Well, I can as it’s on iPlayer, but there’s to many ‘erms’ to fit it on the page. I was given the advice to ‘have three main points.’ So off I babbled incoherently, and then I could’ve eaten my microphone when John replied with ‘Well there are three main arguments against AV.’ Damn it.
The presenter demonstrated all that I hate and admire about journalists, which could probably be summed up in three points, you could say. He asked me the most horrible questions you could think of, which I guess is his job. But when you’re a quivering, stuttering radio virgin, he could have been kinder.
My highlight came when I tried to make the point that some MPs have 3/10 votes, and that in any other job, you would never be employed if you only impressed 3/10 people. However, instead of saying ‘any other job’, I said ‘a real job.’ You can’t make this stuff up. As a (probably quite offended) John continued, I started bouncing in my chair as I had the perfect comeback. He was saying how unpopular AV was and how it’s hardly used anywhere. I was about to shout ‘well your own party uses AV to elect its leaders!’ when the presenter beat me to it and ended the debate.
Well, even if I didn’t manage to persuade any listeners to vote ‘yes’ at least I accidentally insulted a politician. All in a day's work.
4 Mar 2011
Nothing is as it first appears
We all know that things usually aren't as they first seem. Whether that's down to actual misinterpretation or the tendency of things to change over time. Despite our general love for phrases, first impressions don't always count.
Friends, colleagues and places are just a few examples of things we can often initially misinterpret. It's easily done. However, are there some things that we never get right? Getting to know someone or something over time usually means we gain an understanding. For instance, let's take my best friend. We've been friends for over a decade, and I see her as more of a sister, really. There's a point you can come to, when you know someone so well, that you can not only recognise their thoughts and understand their actions, but you can see motives behind this, you can see fears and passions that they themselves might not have even realised. However, I think that there are some things that can never become that transparent.
I've known for a while that journalism isn't a career I'm overly fond of pursuing. However, one area of journalism I would love to delve into is health journalism. Specifically, mental health. I've learnt over the past three years of studying journalism that I'm not a great fan of the ideas and morals that drive a lot of it. Hidden agendas, PR, political spin and unreliable sources are a cocktail we're all too familiar with. Not to mention phone hacking.
However, mental health is one area in which I believe the power of journalism could be an opportunity to relieve sufferers and anyone else affected by mental health problems. I believe a lot more could be done to alleviate the myths, stigmas and stereotypes attached to mental health.
If you're wondering how these two trains of thought correlate... then I guess I'm an annoying writer.
Recently I have noticed that there seems to be a belief held whereby people suffering from mental health issues cannot be happy on the outside. This is by no means a reflection on anyone I've talked to recently, as I too would have once thought the same.
It seems, and I don't want to talk too generally, that some of us hold the belief that no one can have a mental health problem and appear to be happy. However, I believe that someone who's going through hell on the inside will try extra hard to make their smile be known, in the hope that it will seep through and sparkle on the inside. Someone with say, anxiety or depression, will not generally be unhappy. Depression is an unhappiness from much deeper within, and I don't believe that it would be something to necessarily show on someone's face. Neither would it be any more likely to hit an unhappy person in the first place. Admittedly, if I found out someone I know suffered from a mental illness, if it was otherwise unclear, I'd be a bit surprised. But I hope that over time, the media can help to reverse the views we have on mental health, that they have helped to make.
If I did end up in a journalism career, to make one person realise that a person has as much control over a mental illness as they would do a physical one, would make it worth the effort. So for now, I'll keep on smiling.
Friends, colleagues and places are just a few examples of things we can often initially misinterpret. It's easily done. However, are there some things that we never get right? Getting to know someone or something over time usually means we gain an understanding. For instance, let's take my best friend. We've been friends for over a decade, and I see her as more of a sister, really. There's a point you can come to, when you know someone so well, that you can not only recognise their thoughts and understand their actions, but you can see motives behind this, you can see fears and passions that they themselves might not have even realised. However, I think that there are some things that can never become that transparent.
I've known for a while that journalism isn't a career I'm overly fond of pursuing. However, one area of journalism I would love to delve into is health journalism. Specifically, mental health. I've learnt over the past three years of studying journalism that I'm not a great fan of the ideas and morals that drive a lot of it. Hidden agendas, PR, political spin and unreliable sources are a cocktail we're all too familiar with. Not to mention phone hacking.
However, mental health is one area in which I believe the power of journalism could be an opportunity to relieve sufferers and anyone else affected by mental health problems. I believe a lot more could be done to alleviate the myths, stigmas and stereotypes attached to mental health.
If you're wondering how these two trains of thought correlate... then I guess I'm an annoying writer.
Recently I have noticed that there seems to be a belief held whereby people suffering from mental health issues cannot be happy on the outside. This is by no means a reflection on anyone I've talked to recently, as I too would have once thought the same.
It seems, and I don't want to talk too generally, that some of us hold the belief that no one can have a mental health problem and appear to be happy. However, I believe that someone who's going through hell on the inside will try extra hard to make their smile be known, in the hope that it will seep through and sparkle on the inside. Someone with say, anxiety or depression, will not generally be unhappy. Depression is an unhappiness from much deeper within, and I don't believe that it would be something to necessarily show on someone's face. Neither would it be any more likely to hit an unhappy person in the first place. Admittedly, if I found out someone I know suffered from a mental illness, if it was otherwise unclear, I'd be a bit surprised. But I hope that over time, the media can help to reverse the views we have on mental health, that they have helped to make.
If I did end up in a journalism career, to make one person realise that a person has as much control over a mental illness as they would do a physical one, would make it worth the effort. So for now, I'll keep on smiling.
17 Feb 2011
I think we need an Alternative PM....
Am I the only person who thinks David Cameron has recently shown that he's about as consistent as Katie Price's love life?
Cameron indulged in getting off his usual high horse to climb onto an even bigger one as he voiced his outrage yesterday. This was over the Supreme Court's decision to allow registered sex offenders the right to appeal for removal from the register of sex offenders. He said it "seems to fly completely in the face of common sense", which is about as rich as the rest of his cabinet.
Obviously, the issue raises many areas of debate. Many sex offenders have been shown to have a pattern of behavior that is very ingrained, and easily disguised, which means those up for appeal may be difficult to analyse. However, even for the Tories, it should have crossed their minds that the highest court in the land may have a point, and that individual cases of human rights should be dealt with on an individual level.
It could almost be admirable to have a Prime Minister who stands up to the rights of victims of sex offenders. However, Cameron has, this week alone, demonstrated that he is, in fact, still a twat. On Prime Minister's Questions yesterday he was questioned over his government's spending cuts, which have meant for one daycare centre, a rise from £6 to £58 a week in fees.
It was also decided yesterday that the AV referendum will go ahead on May 5th, as it secured royal assent today. The beautiful thing about this campaign is that it is not party specific, far from it. Even Ed Miliband shows his enthusiasm for the bill, even though some journalists have speculated that it could be bad for Labour to show support as it may look like a validation for Nick Clegg's decision to go into coalition. However, that hasn't stopped Ed from wanting electoral reform (sorry BBC).
However, David Cameron has spoken out about how he will be voting 'no'. His reasons shall hopefully be made clear over the next few weeks, but I don't hold much hope for any persuasive arguments. Apart from the cost of the implementation of AV, there are no strong arguments for the 'NO to AV' campaign. I may be biased, but I'm campaigning yes for a reason. Well, actually, several reasons. However, one assumption that I have made is that the main reason for Cameron's decision to oppose the referendum must be due to selfish reason. Is he trying to withhold the public from a fairer democracy and more proportional voting system? He has been quoted saying that the Alternative Vote is 'a recipe for letting parties who come in last place hold power'... can anyone explain how this would be the case?
I think if Cameron wants to make the wrong decisions, look like a pompus idiot during Prime Minister's Questions and make cuts in the wrong places - that's fine. Well, it's not. But to pick and choose his moral high ground and have such a reaction to the Sex Offenders register is tiring.
Cameron indulged in getting off his usual high horse to climb onto an even bigger one as he voiced his outrage yesterday. This was over the Supreme Court's decision to allow registered sex offenders the right to appeal for removal from the register of sex offenders. He said it "seems to fly completely in the face of common sense", which is about as rich as the rest of his cabinet.
Obviously, the issue raises many areas of debate. Many sex offenders have been shown to have a pattern of behavior that is very ingrained, and easily disguised, which means those up for appeal may be difficult to analyse. However, even for the Tories, it should have crossed their minds that the highest court in the land may have a point, and that individual cases of human rights should be dealt with on an individual level.
It could almost be admirable to have a Prime Minister who stands up to the rights of victims of sex offenders. However, Cameron has, this week alone, demonstrated that he is, in fact, still a twat. On Prime Minister's Questions yesterday he was questioned over his government's spending cuts, which have meant for one daycare centre, a rise from £6 to £58 a week in fees.
It was also decided yesterday that the AV referendum will go ahead on May 5th, as it secured royal assent today. The beautiful thing about this campaign is that it is not party specific, far from it. Even Ed Miliband shows his enthusiasm for the bill, even though some journalists have speculated that it could be bad for Labour to show support as it may look like a validation for Nick Clegg's decision to go into coalition. However, that hasn't stopped Ed from wanting electoral reform (sorry BBC).
However, David Cameron has spoken out about how he will be voting 'no'. His reasons shall hopefully be made clear over the next few weeks, but I don't hold much hope for any persuasive arguments. Apart from the cost of the implementation of AV, there are no strong arguments for the 'NO to AV' campaign. I may be biased, but I'm campaigning yes for a reason. Well, actually, several reasons. However, one assumption that I have made is that the main reason for Cameron's decision to oppose the referendum must be due to selfish reason. Is he trying to withhold the public from a fairer democracy and more proportional voting system? He has been quoted saying that the Alternative Vote is 'a recipe for letting parties who come in last place hold power'... can anyone explain how this would be the case?
I think if Cameron wants to make the wrong decisions, look like a pompus idiot during Prime Minister's Questions and make cuts in the wrong places - that's fine. Well, it's not. But to pick and choose his moral high ground and have such a reaction to the Sex Offenders register is tiring.
7 May 2010
Elective perspective.
Unless you've been stuck under your bed since last night, you'll be aware of our political mess situation. After watching Cameron on the news earlier today, I've become slightly worried. Although the economy, according to Brown, is the most important matter to be dealt with, I have to disagree.
Having a coalition, especially if it becomes the Tories and Lib Dems, in my eyes, could be dangerous. Surely this is the most conflicting combination? And, although the economy may need to be dealt with soon, surely we should be a bit more worried about national security.
Brown, no matter how adorable he can sometimes come off on TV, had his chance. And David Cameron makes me very nervous with his darting eyes, and his expression, which comes across as if he's constantly lying, and hiding some secret agenda. And the Lib Dems, the only thing that concerns me about them, is their lack of address to our defence.
However, this hung parliament has me worried. We usually live in a stable, civilised country. But it's quite scary to think that government, who you would (kind of) have faith in to be a together unit, really isn't.
I've read in several places that the voting has shown that the public definitely want a change, they're just unsure of in what party that change lies.
The public's right to vote on who to run our country kind of backfired, it seems. Either combination of three flawed parties isn't what the public wanted, I'm sure.
Even Lincoln, the constituency I'm currently living in, has turned out to be a Tory-based disappointment.
There he is on the right (how ironic), the new Tory MP for Lincoln. He even bears some similar resemblance to Cameron with his 'I'm thinking something a lot darker than what I'm saying' face.
My personal highlight so far of the elections, was earlier today on television. The news cut to the votes being read out in a constituency, it was all so serious, Labour's results were read out... and then the commentator read out, as seriously as possible, "and the monster raving loony party...' TV gold.
Defence aside, it's Clegg that seems to still, despite such an anti-climatic result, to be the better leader. The Times Online have said: '...the decision by Nick Clegg, that Mr Cameron should get the first tilt at government because his party won the most votes and the most seats'. The article then went on to say 'he said that he had a "constitutional duty" to ensure that a parliamentary majority is found that reflects the will of the people'. Whereas Cameron was broadcast, desperately and seedily as always, on television, pleading to the public.
Although, I don't how much you can trust from an article that has a typo. And now I'm secretly praying that my blog doesn't have any...
Having a coalition, especially if it becomes the Tories and Lib Dems, in my eyes, could be dangerous. Surely this is the most conflicting combination? And, although the economy may need to be dealt with soon, surely we should be a bit more worried about national security.
Brown, no matter how adorable he can sometimes come off on TV, had his chance. And David Cameron makes me very nervous with his darting eyes, and his expression, which comes across as if he's constantly lying, and hiding some secret agenda. And the Lib Dems, the only thing that concerns me about them, is their lack of address to our defence.
However, this hung parliament has me worried. We usually live in a stable, civilised country. But it's quite scary to think that government, who you would (kind of) have faith in to be a together unit, really isn't.
I've read in several places that the voting has shown that the public definitely want a change, they're just unsure of in what party that change lies.
The public's right to vote on who to run our country kind of backfired, it seems. Either combination of three flawed parties isn't what the public wanted, I'm sure.
There he is on the right (how ironic), the new Tory MP for Lincoln. He even bears some similar resemblance to Cameron with his 'I'm thinking something a lot darker than what I'm saying' face.
My personal highlight so far of the elections, was earlier today on television. The news cut to the votes being read out in a constituency, it was all so serious, Labour's results were read out... and then the commentator read out, as seriously as possible, "and the monster raving loony party...' TV gold.
Defence aside, it's Clegg that seems to still, despite such an anti-climatic result, to be the better leader. The Times Online have said: '...the decision by Nick Clegg, that Mr Cameron should get the first tilt at government because his party won the most votes and the most seats'. The article then went on to say 'he said that he had a "constitutional duty" to ensure that a parliamentary majority is found that reflects the will of the people'. Whereas Cameron was broadcast, desperately and seedily as always, on television, pleading to the public.
Although, I don't how much you can trust from an article that has a typo. And now I'm secretly praying that my blog doesn't have any...
16 Apr 2010
Cameron crash TV.
I thought I'd be a sheep today, and join the rest of the UK in putting across my views on the upcoming election. I think that the general consensus following last night's live debate with the leaders is that Clegg stole the show. However, I find it quite ironic that he has the least political potential, realistically speaking.
Three (some quite similar) angles on how the world we live in can change for the better, did make for happy television watching. Wouldn't it be nice if everything that was said could be put in place? No recession... better education... no illegal immigration... they do paint a good picture, collectively.
As the leaders talked about how it's important for the public to regain trust in politics - it made me wonder. How did it get to this? Three men: one of which no one's really heard about, another who won't actually answer a question directly or give a real insight into his policies, and one who is campaining for change...but has been in power for years, already.
It's like having to decide whether to be burnt, froze, or eaten to death.
Newspapers, news channels, and people in general are already emitting a buzz about the election - asking who people are voting for is second to 'how are you?' for most of the population. However, can we really get excited when there's so much holding it back?
Brown's responsible for the reappearance of Blair - but surely bringing back a man who has been branded a murder isn't the best tactic ever used. Labour and the Tories have both faced so much criticism, obviously. And Lib Dems, well, they're just not really written about.
My favourite moment, though, was when Clegg started a sentence with 'no matter who comes into power after the election...'. He portrayed himself as a politician, more than Brown or Cameron. He came across as a man who has a passion for change and the wellbeing of the public. He came across as caring about the improvement of the UK, despite who comes into power. He must know that he has little chance of coming into power - yet that doesn't quash his passionate efforts.
Until yesterday, my vote was for conservative. I thought 'there's no point voting for Lib Dems'. But despite that, it's voting for what you believe in. And for the first time, Clegg caught my eye, which is more than I can say about many other men.
Three (some quite similar) angles on how the world we live in can change for the better, did make for happy television watching. Wouldn't it be nice if everything that was said could be put in place? No recession... better education... no illegal immigration... they do paint a good picture, collectively.
As the leaders talked about how it's important for the public to regain trust in politics - it made me wonder. How did it get to this? Three men: one of which no one's really heard about, another who won't actually answer a question directly or give a real insight into his policies, and one who is campaining for change...but has been in power for years, already.
It's like having to decide whether to be burnt, froze, or eaten to death.
Newspapers, news channels, and people in general are already emitting a buzz about the election - asking who people are voting for is second to 'how are you?' for most of the population. However, can we really get excited when there's so much holding it back?
Brown's responsible for the reappearance of Blair - but surely bringing back a man who has been branded a murder isn't the best tactic ever used. Labour and the Tories have both faced so much criticism, obviously. And Lib Dems, well, they're just not really written about.
My favourite moment, though, was when Clegg started a sentence with 'no matter who comes into power after the election...'. He portrayed himself as a politician, more than Brown or Cameron. He came across as a man who has a passion for change and the wellbeing of the public. He came across as caring about the improvement of the UK, despite who comes into power. He must know that he has little chance of coming into power - yet that doesn't quash his passionate efforts.
Until yesterday, my vote was for conservative. I thought 'there's no point voting for Lib Dems'. But despite that, it's voting for what you believe in. And for the first time, Clegg caught my eye, which is more than I can say about many other men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)