This is my first Blog of the year and in fact my first blog for a long time.

A letter to Stephen Green - Head of the Christian Voice. (I wonder if I will get a reply? If I do I will blog it!)

Dear Mr Green,

I have been meaning to write to you for some time, concerning your idea of heaven.

But first I must ask you, what have you got against your fellow human? Was it some sort of childhood trauma, or are you just a repugnant individual?

I’m sorry I withdraw that comment; I promised a friend of mine that I wouldn’t go into a Dawkins-esq rant, but I must admit, I see why he gets so exasperated!

What I want to ask you is about your idea of heaven?

I would presume that there would not be any homosexuals. (Indecently why are you so obsessed with them?) Though you would probably accept the ones who have ‘redeemed’ themselves, seen the light and have repented their sins.   

But the ones who haven’t; no chance!

So who else won’t go to your heaven Mr Green, women and children who don’t know their place (and we all know your attitude to families don’t we Mr Green?), the BBC, the left, people of other religions, Coloureds and Blacks?

In essence anyone who isn’t a creationist Flat Earther, who still thinks that the aforementioned Flat Earth, is in the middle of the Universe, which is surrounded by a crystal sphere, with the stars stuck on.

Even if all of the above is wrong and it’s only homosexuals that won’t be allowed into heaven, how can you call yourself a Christian Mr Green?

What happened to the bible teachings of equality forgiveness and turning the other cheek? (Or is that only equality and forgiveness for the people that ‘deserve’ it? The ‘deserved’ obviously selected by the church)

I’m a Humanist, and ‘if’ (and that’s an infinitely small ‘if’ Mr Green), I am wrong, and there is a God and heaven, I expect I would be more likely to go there, than most of you hypocritical Christians. Because I am nice to my fellow man, I know that they are just as fucked up as me, with their own problems, however small or large, but what makes us the same, is our genes.

The human genome is stored on twenty-three chromosome pairs. Twenty-two of the twenty-three chromosomes belong to autosomal chromosome pairs, while the remaining pair is sex determinative. The haploid human genome occupies a total of just over three billion DNA base pairs.

So we are all the same Mr Green, black, white, straight or gay, we are all the same.

I am glad I will never go to your Apartheid Heaven, as it would be a sad and lonely place.

But I am not like you, and I do think that everyone is equal, whatever they believe or are, and I hope one day that you will realise how foolish you have been, and accept the same.

Yours in Non-Religious Humanity,

Michael Bater

On the 12th April 1981, the Space Transportation System (STS) 1 Columbia launched from pad LC39A at the Kennedy Space Centre Florida, the US’ first manned lunch since The Apollo–Soyuz Test Project of July 1975.

I was a Seven year old boy, in my first year at Primary School, our teacher at the time, Clive Jarvis loved science. He showed us the structure of a snowflake, under the schools most powerful microscope. While a lot of my classmates moaned about being out in the cold, I was amazed at the intricacy of its crystalline structure.

For a month before the launch, the class worked on a project, about space flight, I loved it, almost as much as the class project we did on the Dinosaurs a little latter, (I have still got both project books 30 odd years later!). The project culminated in watching the video launch of the Columbia Shuttle.

As you can probably tell, I was rapt by the whole thing, watching those three powerful Rocketdyne Block II SSMEs (Space Shuttle Main Engine), each with a sea level thrust of 393,800 lbf, blast 110,000 kg, into space at a speed of 27,870 km/h.

Why was I so engrossed, and why it gave me the ‘warm fuzzies’ I can’t properly remember, but it did have something to do with that whole ‘Space’ thing, even now, 1920 days (that’s 21039870.648hrs) later after STS-135, Atlantis the last shuttle mission, landed back at the Kennedy Space Centre, I still get them, but also a sense of sadness. It is an end of an era, and the end of US manned spaceflights, for quite some time. But when I look back and think of the twenty odd shuttle launches I watched, I will still get that warm fuzzie feeling, which is more than just it being ‘Space the Final Frontier.’ It is also a good example, of what mankind can do when it pulls its head out its arse, and co-operates with each other, instead of using all that know-how to better kill its self off.

All those probes to satellites, planets, asteroids, and comets, or telescopes, looking at the wonders of the Universe, all have been brought about, by co-operation between countries, and it gives a glimmer of hope, that we can get together and tackle, the world’s problems, such as poverty and global warming.

So I don’t agree with   Lawrence Krauss, the foundation professor and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, who stated in today’s Guardian Newspaper that:

‘The space shuttle programme has been a multi-billion-dollar failure. Atlantis and the other space shuttles have been a colossal waste of American resources, time and creative energy. The real science done by NASA has not involved humans...’

(Full article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/21/space-shuttle-programme)

True it wasn’t as cost effective reusable space craft that they hoped, but it is still cheaper, than burning up a normal manned spacecraft on every launch, therefore as it is cheaper it has increased manned missions. Without the shuttle, there wouldn’t be the HST (Hubble Space Telescope), the International Space Station, would have been neigh-on-impossible.

When Karl Benz patented the first automobile in 1885, it wasn’t decided that it was a useless mass transportation device; it was developed to find its full potential, and it still being developed now!  Unfortunately that did not happen to the Shuttle, until the early C21st.

There were many ideas, for the Space Shuttle replacement. The British HOTOL (Horizontal Take off and Landing) is a good example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL). The UK Government funding for this was stopped, so the design collapsed, and though the design, continue to develop on ‘paper’ using private money, into Skylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_Skylon) it’s evolution had been considerably slowed, by the lack of funding, Skylon’s hard experimental funding, has only just come online via the European Space Agency.

Space craft design is both an expensive and ‘inexpensive’ expensive business. Earth Orbital Rockets, manned or un-manned are only a ‘relatively’ expensive business, particularly non-manned rockets, the reason being that the principle hasn’t changed, since the V2. A flammable liquid propellant (usually LOX), ignited, and blasted through a nozzle creating lift. Like Benz’s Automobile, it has been refined. A Bugatti Veyron is principally the same as The Benz Patent-Motorwagen, the same with rockets a German V2 is principally not much different from a Atlas 5. A modern rocket utilises everyday modern technology, i.e. computer technology, composite alloys, etc, which of course keeps the price down.

 A manned trip to the moon, or the planets, is of course another thing. New systems, technology and spacecraft would need to be developed, which would take a lot of capital, which the private sector, though most likely able to provide (patents and technological applications, for space-tech, is very lucrative, Velcro, and solar panels are two good examples), will probably not provide, as modern shareholders, i.e. banks and hedge funds, prefer short term gains, rather than long term investment. Therefore the money has to come from the State, and increasing budgets in Space Administrations/Agencies, is frowned upon (it has been estimated, that if only half the world defence budget since WWII had been used for Space research, there would be three or more stable off world colonies by now!).

This is an argument for pushing money into manned-space research, Colonisation!

Homo sapiens, have the ability to adapt, the environment, for its own purposes, (Space travel is probably the ultimate example of this). It is not first species to do this. However what makes us unique, is the fact that we can easily communicate to one another how we did this, thus spreading the skills and technology, refining, and altering it where necessary, then passing on those changes.

For our own survival, we need to take the next step, and adapt ‘alien’ environments, because one day something is going to wipe the majority of life of the face of planet Earth, whether it be human made or natural, it will happen, and our survival as a species, will have better prospects, if we don’t have all our eggs in one basket.

Lastly and probably more profoundly, is human curiosity. We like to know things, we like to find what make things tick, so we research, whatever we want to know, to fill our 'satiable curiosity tank! However there is a difference between researching; say a Capybara on Wikipedia, or watching them on a David Attenborough programme, than seeing them in the wilds Venezuela. In the wild, you see them in their real habitat, smell them in their real habitat and touch them in their real habitat. And that is why we have will always have manned space missions. Seeing the beauty of the Solar System is one thing, but seeing them with your own eyes is another.   

Patriotism is defined by http://oxforddictionaries.com, as:

‘The quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one's country.’

But what does this mean?

Well to answer that, you must look at evaluation in general.

From roaming Herbivore Dinosaurs, to the Socio/economic groupings of hominids; animals in the majority live in a heard.

Individuals band together, through genes or other means, to become family units, and then a group of family units get together, to form a hierarchical herd. As a species evolve, the more this ‘genetic emotional mentality’ permeates the substrata of localised and non localised culture. In other words the emotional bonds, that hold these groups together, get stronger and more versatile.

It influences virtually everything we do. Peer groups, friends, sport, culture, religion, politics the list is virtually endless. We get together with similar people, because that is what is comfortable for us, and that group/s will help us defend our family and loved ones, violently if need be. Why Evolution does this, no-one knows, though the hypothesis that we are just walking bio-masses, for the propagation of DNA, is popular at the present, and gaining evidence, but this is another debate.

This, mentality whatever its origins, is a tool, developed by life to help it survive, but it’s a cursed tool, because humans, like virtually everything else have exploited it to their own ends, and this is what Patriotism is.

Patriotism is an artificial construct, used by the powerful to bend the herd/group mentality, into an agenda, that will keep the powerful in power, by constructing, other patriotic layers, that will act as ‘Beer and Circuses,’ religion, sport and politics are good examples.

If you read this blog you think I am against Patriotism.

I am not. It has its good points, but it has its terrifying points!

Some types of Patriotism (Religion is the worst of them), are so strict and inflexible that it can make people kill or kill themselves in its so called ‘honour’, or in dread.

 Take Catholicism for instance. It is so dogmatic, that it took five hundred years, to admit that Galileo was right and it was wrong. How can, one white aging European male, or in this case white aging Nazi European male have so much Social Control, over such a large percentage of the population?

Simple, fear!

You indoctrinate someone from cradle to death, in a fear that if you don’t do what God instructs you too, (given through his mouth piece, the Pope); horrible and torturous things will happen to you, in the bowls of hell!

Fear for your family, friends, way of life, and when afraid you look for the people that are stronger than you to protect you and you are more compliant, because you fear that you will lose that protection, allowing the controlling powers, well more power!

But it’s not all bad.

When not manipulated, adds diversity too the human race. There are certain things, that the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, may specialise in, that other people, say the French do, not, and there may be things that the French specialise in that, the Indians don’t and so-forth.

This has been one of the cornerstones of the development of Homo sapiens. Without this diversification and the realisation of ‘specialisation,’ it would be highly doubtful if the human race would have made it through to the end of the Pliocene era. Homo erectus and Neanderthal’s were faster and stronger than us, and in the case of Neanderthal’s more intelligent.

But luckily for us Homo sapiens, other hominid species did not learn to specialise, and then pass on this information and technology to others. We did, and with it stories, deepening and expanding the cultural base.

With no diversification, it would have been even harder to survive the dry/cold climate of the Pliocene era.  Agriculture wouldn’t of developed, nor an economic system or writing. And on top of that the modern Nation State.

It is not wrong to be patriotic about minor things, such as sport.

I myself support Surry County Cricket Club, Liverpool Football Club, and the Boston Red Sox, but I am not fanatical about them. I may get a tad upset if they lose, but I know they are just part of Beer and Circuses. I know that there are more important things in the world.

And that is what everyone needs to learn, that there are more important things in the world. We are members of the Human Race first, before our country, ethnic grouping or religion. We need to think outside the box, that we are so cleverly inserted into at birth. But I don’t see that happening the powerful don’t want to give up their power, so he/she will make sure that the rest of us is indoctrinated into our ‘station’ at birth, and the ‘majority’ are either too comfortable, or just about surviving to do anything about it! So I expect we shall keep bumbling on, until eventually we or something else wipes the majority of the human race out.

Fortunately/unfortunately, I didn’t watch Ed Miliband’s speech yesterday, but I did read it’s content, and it has left me confused.

It rightly lambasts higher earners, and big businesses, for not pulling together so to speak, he says:

‘The story of Southern Cross care homes – where millions were plundered over the years leaving the business vulnerable, the elderly people in their care at risk and their families feeling betrayed.

Those elderly people were treated simply as commodities.

This story shames our country.’

Good on you Ed, if Labour isn’t against this, then, there is no point of having the party!

But it is what he said at the beginning that makes me despair:

‘While out campaigning during the local elections, not for the first time, I met someone who had been on incapacity benefit for a decade.

He hadn’t been able to work since he was injured doing his job.

It was a real injury, and he was obviously a good man who cared for his children.

But I was convinced that there were other jobs he could do.

And that it’s just not right for the country to be supporting him not to work, when other families on his street are working all hours just to get by.’

What the hell does this mean?

Do you think this gentleman wants to be off work?

I expect not! After he was injured, not being able to work might have been devastating for him.

On the other hand, Miliband might be right, he may be work idle, but Ed Miliband doesn’t know, and neither do I.

Except I do know, what it’s like to be unemployed, and I am desperate for work, so I know what a lot of people in similar circumstances to myself is going through.

The first thing we want apart from a job, is no to be patronized, by politicians and especially the people who work at the Job Centre. We are not Second Class Citizens; we are just the same as you, except we have been made redundant. if we can’t get work, a lot of us would like to help in the community, or learn a new trade, so it would be nice to be able to expand our knowledge at a higher level, but not be able to, because ‘it exceeds the allotted hours you can spend on education!’ This is minimal to say the least!

When we volunteer, give us the damn paper work at the beginning, and not half way through, so that the volunteer work we have done actually counts!

Crack down on taxation fraud, as hard/harder as is currently done for benefit fraud. More money is defrauded by the non payment of tax, than through fraudulent befit claims.

Make Benefits more flexible. I know people on Incapacity Benefit, who can and want to work a few hours a week, but aren’t allowed to; as they will lose their benefits and be worse off. Allow them to work and claim other ‘top up’ benefits and stop moving people from one type to another, just to massage the figures.

Above all, enforce a statutory living wage, so that people can afford to come off benefits, and the state doesn’t have to pick up the tab, in other words ‘make work pay,’ both literary and as a sound bite.  Give proper support to the long term unemployed. For example I meet a woman, who had been unemployed for six years, and had lost all self confidence, because she hadn’t been given the support she needed whilst the employment staff, was condescending towards her.

Do all these Mr Miliband, and you will find that claimant numbers will decrease, and voluntary sector numbers will increase, without having to beat them over the head with a stick!  

Over the last three days, I have been in despair, over the various leaked documents, and the childish infighting within the Labour Party.           

I expect the documents were leaked, by the Tory-led Coalition patriarchy, but what angered me was the slagging off of Ed Milliband, by various members of the party (mostly from the right).

I was born in 1974, and as mentioned in earlier blogs, my family has deep roots, within the party, so I can vividly remember the civil war of the years in opposition during the 80’s and 90’s. I don’t want to go through that again. I don’t want to sit and watch the factional squabbling, whilst the Tories, rape and pillage their way across the country, and let’s be honest, it took us 10 years to rectify some of the damage that they did the last time and some of it we have actually made worse!

But that’s not the point of this blog, this blog is about loyalty, it’s about loyalty to the Leader of our party Ed Milliband, who almost got 30,000 more votes than his brother did in the leadership election, who has taken us from being behind in the polls, to being in front.

When Labour got elected in 1997, the majority of the left were loyal, we criticised, policy, particularly the war in Iraq, but we didn’t try and stab our leader in the back, we were still loyal to him. No the back stabbing came from the New Labour clique, whether it was from the Brown Faction or the Blair Faction, and this is happening now.

The New Labour oligarchy is like a petulant toddler, throwing it toys out of the pram. It’s embarrassing. It’s embarrassing for you, and upsetting for the party. So please grow up and act like adults. If you don’t like the direction the party is heading, then you try and change it from the inside, not by being disloyal, and if you can’t do that, then leave.  

There are many, mainly Euro-sceptics, arguing against the recent bailouts, and expected bailouts, of countries experiencing deficit/debt problems in the EU. Given that most Euro-sceptics are raving Capitalists calling for more cuts, faster and deeper; their critique is high on irony. Essentially, European structures are based upon and framed by Neo-Liberal conditions regarding how much countries can borrow and spend etc. Even Ed Miliband has been criticising Neo-Liberal structures recently; unsurprisingly, his comments went unreported, ignored and forgotten:

Bailouts - can't complain that bailing countries The Scotsman, 25th May:

A fortnight ago Ed Miliband was in Oslo for the Progressive Governance Summit. [...] On the response to the global financial crisis he said: “Our opponents are weak in one key respect – their response to a crisis of neo-liberalism is more neo-liberalism.” As for the UK, he observed that the “new inequality in Britain is not between the rich and the poor, but between the rich and everyone else” on top of which “intergenerational inequality is one of the issues of this century”. His aim for the economy? “More active and interventionist industrial policy can create middle skill, middle wage jobs” – the decent incomes that ordinary families in middle Britain need and expect [...]out when supporting neoliberal conditions. 

Of course, expecting Ed Miliband to state similar sentiments towards David Cameron during PMQs would be futile. But, it's important that he is voicing this discourse, regardless of its limited coverage. Neo-Liberalism has been central to constructing Europe’s problems; the current global political economy is based upon unsustainable debt, inequality and harsh conditions, especially when it inevitably fails.

But what is Neo-Liberalism?

Neo-Liberalism describes a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that stresses the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalised trade and open ‘free’ markets (this of course is impossible, as there has to be some type of market control for Capitalism to work), and therefore seeks to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state; in other words, to roll back the State as much as possible.

Neo-Liberalism is founded on the theory, of self-organising self balanced networks.

Just after WWI, an eminent British biologist, Arthur Townsley, became obsessed with Freudian Psychology, particularly the notion that the brain was an electrical machine in a system of networks. Townsley came up with a radical proposal. He believed that he could take this theory of the brain and apply it to the whole of living biology. Vast interconnected networks that linked every living thing, which he called ‘Eco-Systems’. These ‘Eco-Systems,’ through a series of complex feedback loops, are trying to achieve a sense balance and equilibrium. 

The theory became popular, as scientists, like Jay Wright Forrester - an early computer designer/programmer - believed it was possible to ‘map’ Echo-Systems using computer modelling. The leading example of this ‘Cybernetics’ Computer model was created by the biologists, Howard and Eugene Odum. It made Ecology one of the biggest research areas in the C20th, and Townsley’s theory its cornerstone.

Then during the ‘Counter Revolution’ of the late 1960’s, economic and political philosophers, such as Alan Greenspan, decided they could use this model to develop a devolved non-autocratic political-economic system.

The premise was simple.

The State is too controlling and authoritarian so why not minimize it as much as possible by formulating a set of economic-political networks, which can be self-managing, with the aid of computers?

This was rather ironic premise; because it was discovered, that to keep the network as simple as possible (which you can’t); the State becomes more controlling and authoritarian. 

Growth wouldn’t be hampered by human interaction, but continuous, governed by computer controlled markets, creating artificial business and credit, to keep it all moving. No more booms and busts, and thus the theory of ‘Neo-Liberalism’ was formed.

By the late 1970’s the closed equilibrioception of Townsley’s theory of Echo-Systems was shown to be wrong. Echo-Systems were actually chaotic set of complex ever evolving competing, but interlinked networks, and it was discovered the key model of the Townsely’s theory, was a fraud, as the only way that the two brothers (Howard and Eugene Odum) could get their network to work was to radically alter their data, by cutting vast portions of it out. Biologists and Ecologists quietly dropped the theory, for the modern evolving Echo-Systems theories, but economists, and practitioners of computer games of logic, have continued, to support it zealously, even though the theory has been established as mistaken.

When the European Community decided it could only stay competitive and stable, by more integration, the Neo-Liberals found good developed economies that were outside the United States, to test their theories. The Neo-Liberal technocrats developed the integration policy, and Political Class jumped in feet first believing it would lead to a better and brighter Europe...  

The Maastricht Treaty (1992) and the Stability and Growth Pact (1999) emphasised economic/monetary consensus, setting out specific requirements for the Euro Zone Countries to meet and follow. Essentially, countries have to maintain a deficit below 3% of GDP and a debt below 60% of GDP (all part of keeping the network simple); these conditions are being tightened after a brief suspension in 2003.

Before the economic crisis, countries frequently broke the requirements, with a degree of unfairness regarding the punishments given to certain countries like France who broke the rules - hence the Pact’s suspension and eventual relaxation. However, given the recent crisis, the European Union, through the European Central Bank, want to impose these conditions with more venom. In other words, a disproven model is being used to rectify the same disproven model.

It is obvious that the system doesn’t work.

Like nature, economics is chaotic. No one can predict the human element, which in reality still controls the system. A computer model cannot calculate for greed. Eventually the ‘imaginary’ market cannot be sustained, as the computers cannot predict the erratic, muddled, illogical human and environmental elements of the network, which become more pronounced as the network evolves;  bursting the bubble – which, of course, happened in 2008.

The current goals of Common Currency are therefore based largely on endless unsustainable growth and policed by conditions that pressurise countries like France into making historic cuts to get their deficit below 3% in record time by 2013/4.  The Neo-Liberal European and National policies are requisite, for creating the current set economic problems countries around the world are facing.

However; National Counties' debts are international concerns, as they are just one aspect of a larger political economic problem. Those wanting the UK to distance themselves from the debts of other countries ignore the interdependence that we have with countries over the world (globalization). To the point of importing more products to reduce our carbon footing, whilst developing countries exempt from carbon quotas take the rap, the global political system, as a whole, needs tackling. 

Common currency is a good idea, but currently it is framed by the unsustainable Neo-Liberal philosophy and conditions. The bailouts are just a by-product of an international governance system that is in dire need of a new type of political economic framing. Neo Liberalism isn't working, and will inevitably create fore-mentioned problems. Even Ed Miliband recognises this. What is needed is for the irony and hypocrisy of arguments to be highlighted alongside a substantial critique of the political system. 

So what will happen to European Union?

Three things might happen. First; complete political and economical integration, based on a new type of economic democracy.  

There is no question that International/European governance and a Common Currency is essential to aim for. Great theorists, such as Murray Bookchin and Karl Marx, recognised the need for Global Political Systems – this is especially true given the prominence of international inequalities regarding climate, economy, and trade regularities. However, instead of a Neo-Liberal framing (based on a theory, which has been disproven), where debt, excessive capital, profit, risk and competition, are promoted above co-operation, fairness and equality - imagine a primarily non-hierarchical driven, co-operative communal arrangement. Bookchin’s theory of communalism is relevant here; he talked about local assemblies in national political contexts being connected up to National and International Assemblies – to allow real people to have control over their decisions and so that we can “act locally, think globally”.

The second scenario is the most dangerous. Political and economic disintegration; exacerbated by the increase in chaos in the environmental networks, as a result of climate change, as country by country, country area by country area, say enough is enough.

There is nothing wrong with democratic revolution, but the outcome may be worse. Unfortunately, revolutions quite often have a bad conclusion, as the revolutionaries succumb to the same disease of power that the people who they replaced did.

And finally, the IMF/World bank and financial Neo-Keynesian ‘cosmetic,’ changes.

In many ways, the world was lucky. The bailouts, a Neo-Keynesian policy to prop up a Neo-Liberal one, put a break on the free-fall. Without it, the crash would have been catastrophically worse.

However the bailouts are now becoming the alleged problem, with countries political-economic systems using it as an excuse to trim back even more, so that they ‘economically,’ they fit the Townsley based model, as Howard and Eugene Odum did.

However this ‘debt’ problem is only applicable to the Neo-Liberal system, as system has tight logical controls, which of course doesn’t work. The Keynesian and Neo-Keynesian model - which is more dynamic, and allows for human intervention - debt level can be much higher, allowing more room to stimulate growth.

The World Bank and IMF would become more interventionist, stepping in quickly, to rescue failing banks. Money would be lent to the weakened banks to prop them up, then that money would be paid off by the banks and not buy the State. In fact, it has been muted that countries that have ‘bought’ failing banks like the UK; could sell the bank shares, for the same amount of money they bought them, to the World Bank - who would then sell them on later, once they have become profitable, and risk free.

Yet to fall back onto good old Keynes, is not the answer, as it will only paper over the cracks, but as we ‘creak’ along as normal, it may lead to a two tear Europe, with some countries integrating further, while others like the UK cut various ties, and become ‘associates,’ until the big crash undoubtedly happens.

Essentially, the philosophical question is whether we will take advantage of the real political and economic potential we have. To recognise that we don’t need to accept the reality we have, that the present reality isn’t fair, equal or non-oppressive; this would be the really hard admission and decision. To make an ethical pledge to construct governance and political economic structures that counteract the current illogical neoliberal relations would be the hard decision – to work towards recognising that national factors are facets of a wider global political economy would be the difficult but important progressive admission. Yes, there are always utopian ideals within political discourse and theory, but working with an ideal in mind alongside accepting practical realities is important. What the current European crisis shows is that the current Neo-Liberal system is not working, and just promoting more of the same will do nothing but make the problems more engrained than they already are. As Bookchin argues, we can work towards an ethical actualised reality, where political economic and social decisions are fulfilled in line with ethical judgements – currently, the global political system stinks of elitism, inequality and deprivation. This has to change. 

Blog: Why I voted yes.

Today, after along hard think I voted #Yes2AV.  

As people who read my blog and/or follow me on twitter will know, I have been #Meh2AV, for most of the campaign. In fact I was considering spoiling my ballot paper in protest at the gutter-politics of both campaigns.

In the UK; the electoral voting methods used for General elections, devolved Assembly/Parliamentary elections, Mayoral elections and council elections are, First Past the Post, (FPTP), Supplementary Vote (SV), Closed Party List System (CPLS), Additional Member System (AMS), and Proportional Representation–Single Transferable Vote (PR-STV)

(1)                       First Past the Post (FPTP), also known as the 'winner-take-all system,’ is a single winner, voting process, in which the candidate with the most votes gets elected. The Winning candidates simply need to gain more votes than any other candidate; this need not be an absolute majority of all the votes cast in a constituency. So for example, Candidate one got 18%, Candidate two 15% of the vote Candidate three got 35% and Candidate four got 20%. Candidate three will win. FPTP is also used for local elections in England and Wales, and national general elections. 

(2)           Supplementary Vote (SV) is similar to the Alternative Vote system, the key difference being that under SV voters are limited to indicating a first and second preference. There are two columns on the ballot paper and voters can mark an X in the first column for their first choice candidate and another X in the second column for their second choice. (Voters are not required to make a second choice if they do not wish to.) A candidate who receives more than 50% of the first preference votes on the first count is elected. If no candidate reaches 50% of the vote the two candidates with the highest number of votes are retained and the rest of the candidates are eliminated. The second preferences on the ballot papers of the eliminated candidates are examined and any cast for the remaining candidates are then distributed. The candidate with the most votes at the end of this process wins the election. The system is used to elect the Mayor of London and for all other elected Mayors in England and Wales where there are more than two candidates

(3)               Single Transferable Vote (STV), is a form of Proportional representation. Voters rank the candidates on the ballot paper by marking 1, 2, 3 etc against the candidates’ names. Voters can rank candidates both within parties and across different parties. Winning candidates must obtain a certain quota of votes in order to be elected. The surplus votes of candidates elected on the first count are then distributed on the basis of preferences to the remaining candidates. If no candidate reaches a quota the candidate with the fewest votes is then eliminated and a subsequent distribution of third preferences takes place. This continues until sufficient candidates reach the quota and are consequently elected. The system is used for local government elections in Northern Ireland and Scotland, European Parliament elections in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(4)                 Additional Member System allows voters cast two separate votes, the first for a constituency MP and the second for a party list. A proportion of the seats are therefore directly elected by the First Past the Post System and the rest are regional list Members elected for each region from closed party lists. The percentage of votes obtained by the parties in the party list vote determines their overall number of representatives after taking into account the seats gained in that region by each party in the first ballot. The system aims to compensate the lack of proportionality which usually arises from FPTP elections. AMS is used for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the London Assembly.

(5)                 Closed Party List System (CPLS) has been used for European Parliament elections in the UK since 1999 except in Northern Ireland where STV is used. Under the system electors vote for a party in a multi-member constituency; each party receives seats in the constituency in the same proportion as the votes it won in that constituency. The parties determine the ranking of their list of candidates; the elector has no say as to which candidates are elected as they simply vote for a party. 

The referendum which is happening today (5/5/11), is for the (Alternative Vote (AV), or instant run off voting, (IRV) system.

AV is another single winner voting system used to elect one winner from a pool of candidates using preferential voting. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and their votes are initially allocated to their first choice candidate. If after this initial count no candidate has a majority of votes cast, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and votes for that candidate are redistributed according to the voters' second preferences. This process continues until one candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, upon which they are declared the winner.)

Though this system is not proportional, it does stop a candidate from being elected, even though the majority of the constituents voted against them.

When the date for the AV referendum was announced, I was unsure which way to vote; Yes or spoil my ballot paper.

The reason for doing so was simple. How can an electoral system that elects a constituency M.P can, and through that at a general election, a government with the majority of the constituents voting against that M.P? It is quite obviously unfair.

The 1979 -1997 Conservative Governments won comfortable majorities in Parliament at each general election, however the national percentage of their vote never crossed 50% (43.9% 1979, 42.4% 1983, 42.42% 1987 and 41.9% 1992). The same happened from 1997-2010. Labour percentage in 1997 was 43.2%, in 2001 40.7%, in 35.2%. Over that period the majority of the populace disagreed with the two major parties manifestos, and yet one or the other won the right to govern on their own.

A proportional system wouldn’t allow this, as it attempts to ensure that the outcome of the election reflects the proportion of support gained by each competing party.

But we didn’t have the choice of PR or FPTP; we had the choice of AV or FPTP. Though AV is not proportional as PR, it does stop an MP being elected with fewer than 50% of the vote, by ‘topping up!’

It is actually quite simple, opposite to what the #No2AV campaign would like you to believe.

For example, supposing you had four candidates standing. You would write down a number for which candidate you would prefer, then who would be second choice, then you’re third and lastly you’re fourth.

At the end of the count, if the leading candidate hadn’t crossed the 50% threshold, then the seconded preferences, of the candidate with the lowest number of votes would be then added. If after all their second preferences had been counted, there still was not one candidate above the 505 threshold, then third place candidates ‘second preferences would be counted,’ and so on until someone breached the 50% threshold.

But that is not what I wanted.

At that time I thought PR was the best system, so I couldn’t vote yes, because  I thought AV was a cop-out, and I couldn’t vote no, because that would be a vote in support of FPTP, (ballot papers need to have a ‘none of the above box’).

Note: At this point I could talk about spoiling ballot papers, in protest at the gutter campaigning by both sides, but I won’t, as it will be done to death.

However there are two quick things I would like to say to both campaigns.

First; if the Tory led coalition do not like each other, why are you in government together? Dissolve, and be done with it. You shouldn’t have used the referendum debate to hash out your squalid little squabbles!

If you do like each other, but worried about your voters and members, don’t appease them by having a pretend slanging match and using the campaign as a tool, for the aforementioned slanging match.

Lastly because of the above, when the turn out results comes in, and you yet again wonder why it’s so low, look at yourselves – your behaviour has put people off voting not enhanced it.

I could also go into the fact, that some people supposed that the timing `of the referendum was bad, and it could have been used as a diversion from other things going on, like the privatisation of the NHS, but we had the Royal Wedding for that!

Lastly I could also the fact that the Tories added a section to the bill gerrymandering the constituencies. But like above, this has been covered by other people.

As the campaign progressed, I started to think about my preferred choice, and I actually did some research, and talked to people about the facts of AV, verses PR and FPTP. (Can you remember yes and no campaigns what facts are? It’s those truthful things (not lies) you couldn’t really be bothered to tell anyone about, and if you did it was drowned out in the vitriol!).

As I talked to people I began to realize that it wasn’t a ‘dirty little compromise,’ as the leader of the Liberal Democrats once said! But a more representative system, which works well within constancy, based Parliamentary System.

One of the greatest advantages, of the Parliamentary Democratic system, which operates in the UK, is its constituency based MP’s. A singular MP represents one constituency. He or she usually has lived in the constituency or in the surrounding area (I do believe the law needs to be changed so that MP’s cannot be parachuted in he/she should have live within or near the constituency they are standing for, for a few years before being nominated).

Unfortunately with some types of PR, this wouldn’t be the case, as they use a list system. (Please Blog readers politely correct me if I’m wrong!). This link between the constituency and its MP is vital for a healthy democracy, as they know the area and its people and in environs. It’s far from perfect and needs to be brought into the c21st century, but none-the-less is important.

So that is why I voted for AV, because it stops MP’s from being voted to the Palace of Westminster, with their voting percentage under fifty, but still allows the constituency link.

Whatever the outcome of today’s referendum vote, the big losers are going to be Proportional Representation and the populace.

PR, because whatever the outcome, I think it will, knock back any vote on PR for about 10 years, and lastly and most importantly the electoral populace. Yet again they have been treated like fools, by both sides, and have endured gutter politics at its extreme. If this isn’t a voter turn off, I don’t know what is! 

I haven’t written a blog post on the popular, mostly peaceful uprising in Egypt, yet, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there has been written a lot about the current situation, secondly the process is so fluid, that it changes from minuet to minuet, hour by hour, day by day.

However, after watching various current affairs programs, and watching on Thursday the excellent piece by Al Jazeera English’s  Rageh Omaar on BBC One’s political slot ‘This Week,’ and reading Sunny Hundal’s  article in Liberal Conspiracy, entitled ‘Mubarak may be gone, but democracy is unlikely to come to Egypt’ (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/02/03/mubarak-may-be-gone-but-democracy-is-unlikely-to-come-to-egypt/) , though it was time to write one.

The Society of the Muslim Brothers is an transnational movement. It is world's oldest and largest Islamic political group, in many Arab countries also the most influential Islamist movement. It was founded in 1928 in Egypt by the Islamic scholar and Sufi schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna.Islamist 

The Brotherhood's ideology is that of an Islamist democracy, a democratic state which offers more comprehensive inclusion of Islam into the affairs of the state, through Sharia law.

Since its inception in 1928 the movement has officially opposed violent means to achieve its goals, and has condemned terrorism, particularly the attacks of September the 11^th 2001, though with some exceptions such as in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or to overthrow secular Ba'athist dictators in Syria where they were routinely massacred.

 Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor, once said:

‘Unlike the jihadis, it does not believe it is at war with the West. It is conservative and non-violent,’ and "untested in government and poorly understood - especially in the West’

This position, however has been questioned, particularly by Mubarak’s NDP, it has accused the group of a campaign of killings in Egypt after World War II to oppose British rule, and banned the party.

It’s Influence on Egyptian Society is also debated. Though the Brotherhood now dominates the professional and student associations of Egypt and is famous for its network of social services in neighbourhoods and villages, which of course has been vital in the mobilisation of people in the anti-government demonstrations, its actual membership is diminutive; compared to the electorate of Egypt. So though the party at the present may be small, it does have a lot of local influence.

I don’t believe that the ‘West,’ in which I mean the economic-political vested interests, such as Israel, the United States and Opec, are overtly worried of Islamic implications of The Brotherhood, as I as have said they are, (though they are trying to convince us that they are); they are more concerned about idea of democracy it’s self (in fact Israel have basically said as much).

What if a democratised Middle East decides to increase the price of their oil, so that they can funnel the money into social reconstruction and development? This wouldn’t go down well with Middle America! A democratised Egypt most likely won’t back Israel, and worst still it might make the Palestinians realize how much the governments of West Bank and Gaza Strip have actually have betrayed them, and replaces them with a proper Liberal Democracy, even the U.S would be able to support their continued suppression.

What the vested interests would have liked is that there were cosmetic changes to Mubarak’s regime, and for it to carry on as normal. But that is not going to happen, so what they want now is a rump of the NDP to reorganize themselves, and get back in power, then propaganda, can be thrown out, saying ‘we know, it’s the same regime, but they are promising changes. Things will be much worse if Islamic fundamentalists were in power.’

What happens in Egypt, and consequently the Middle East, is still unknown.

Hopefully, it will be a Turkish style democracy; mildly Islamist, but broadly pluralist, or it might go down the Islamist route, or it could end up with a military dictatorship we do not know.

However whatever happens the West must realise that for long term stability of the Middle East, all short term interest must be ignored, and any fledgling democracy must be nurtured and encouraged. It must be shown that fundamentalism, of any form, is wrong, and they will be politically and economically stronger by choosing Liberal Democracy , because in the long run a democratic Middle East it will be better for everyone.

A few weeks ago on Twitter @poindersister asked me - Why would a Leftie join Labour when Labour is no longer of the Left?

I thought today would be a good day to answer this question. Today is my 36^th Birthday, and it is also the 20^th Anniversary of my membership of the Labour Party.

After I had already, expressed an interest in joining; my membership, for that year was paid for by my Grandfather, as a birthday present. He too had been a member most of his life.

Before I go on; I would like to quickly speak about my paternal side of the families political beliefs. The majority of that part of the family tree were/are left wing. From the general suffrage movement and the formation of the Labour Party itself; to the development of the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, my family has had a proud affiliation.

Then we come to my sister and me.

My sisters’ thinking has gone beyond left and right. She believes that human beings need to look beyond ‘territorial factionalism,’ beyond, my religion is better than your religion. My country is better than your country, etc, etc.

Some people may say, isn’t this a left wing position?

It isn’t; because by being left wing, you are falling in the trap ‘territorial factionalism,’ you need to look beyond that.

What about me?

Well who wouldn’t want a world where everyone loves each other?

I also don’t, want to, live in a world, as we do now, where people think that buying a brand new Plasma 3d TV (thus polluting the environment in the process) will bring them happiness, in other words a world where consumerism has replaces religion as the new  ‘Bread and Circuses.’ We are intelligent human beings should we be still thinking in the terms of shallow escapism? (And yes I include all forms of religion) Shouldn’t we be thinking about the deeper things in the world?

For instance, is reality in fact a four dimensional representation of a multidimensional metaphysical data-Poincaré Sphere that surrounds the Multiverse! (A Poincaré  sphere, also known as Poincaré dodecahedral space is a particular example of a homology (trans-dimensional) sphere)

But not everyone on the planet can go around thinking about quantum philosophy, and quantum reality, not that I am saying we all should, but at the present we don’t even think ‘beyond the box.’

At the current, time, the fundamental social structure of apes including Homo-sapiens), hasn’t changed at all.

For Example, if you look at a flange (pack) of gorillas, their social system is pretty similar to our own, nevertheless, changes do occur. They are ether from external forces, or from within.

And that’s why I am in the Labour Party, because I want to make changes from within.

I am a realist. I am a Middle Class Consumerist, there I have said it! (You should try and confess that to yourself! That first step will always make you feel better!) I love to have things when I want it, and how I want them. I know it’s selfish and it’s wrong, but I’m not a hypocrite.

I admit to what I am. I would love change. I would love to see a way of humans to outgrow their base emotions and fulfil their potential, and realise that there is more to life, television, celebrity, religion, and the latest kitchen appliances, but I am absolutely terrified of that change, because I don’t want to lose what I’ve got!

However whilst we are waiting for society to evolve into something healthier, when we realise as a collective species, that  we don’t need all this puerile shallow escapism, wouldn’t it be a good idea to make people’s lives better?

The answer to that is of course yes, and the Labour Party has helped to do just that.

The NHS, a decent Welfare System, and a Further Education system for all, not just for the rich and privileged (all; if we are not careful, will be deliberately decimated by this Tory Government and its sycophantic Lib Dem partners), to name but a few, were all created by a Labour Government.

They have also done things that have dismayed me. The Attlee governments GEN.75 cabinet sub-committee; which supervised the design and building of the UK’s first atomic weapons. The war and occupation of Iraq are two good examples, but the Party has done more good than bad, and it is people like me, grass roots activists. That pushes and persuades the party to make the right changes, and to admit, and modify, the wrong ones.

Some people who read this blog may say that I am not a real leftie, but the next time you hypocritically talking about the sins of Multinationals whilst sitting in Starbucks ask yourselves this question; would you be able to sacrifice your consumerist nature?

The answer to that question, if you look deeply enough inside yourself, will probably be; ‘no,’ but you want people to have a decent wage, people to pay a fair tax rate, have a decent education and health system, take a look at the people still in the Labour Party, we too want the same things.

I am not saying join the Labour Party, but don’t give up on it, it’s not a lost cause yet. The Progressive left are the external pressure that brings about change. The Labour Party needs you, as much as you need the Labour Party.

The idea for this blog came from an email, I received about Science Fiction.

 The email read:

 ‘Hey have you read this Doctor Who 'had anti-Thatcher agenda.’

(For the actual article, go to: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/doctor-who/7235547/Doctor-Who-had-anti-Thatcher-agenda.html).

            You bloody lefties, you poison good quality programmes with your communist bollocks!’(No he wasn’t being sarcastic). I’m sick of you lot running Sci-Fi. It is not the last bastion of the left, and you should stop making it so!’

 All I have to say to the person who emailed me is this:

(1)   The article is almost a year old, (it was published 14/2/2010), and you have only just noticed it! 

And: 

(2)   You are meant to be a sci-fi fan; surely you must realize that there are many writers in the genre, both of the ‘left’ and the ‘right?’

 Ok Ben Aaronovitch’s father was Marxist intellectual Sam Aaronovitch, and Rona Munro is also a bit of a ‘leftie,’ but the e-mailer was deliberately missing the point, and so is the Torygraph, and also to, roughly the same article in the Fail.

 There is no left wing bias in science fiction. Robert Ferrigno, Mike Mackey, Joel C. Rosenberg, Donny Lin, and Tom Kratman, are all good examples of right wing sci-fi/fantasy writers, and there are many; many more.

 However there is social commentary and social mirrorization in Science Fiction, in various forms.

 For example; books written by Ferrigno, Mackey and Lin; portray a dystopian future, where the United States  is ruled by Shari Law, brought on by the ‘Liberal Elite,’ cow-towing to Bin Laden.

 Whilst on the other side Doctor Who, shows a dystopian future, in which mega corporations, Earth military and political power bases control a large swath of the galaxy, using invasion and population repression as their main tools.

 Social mirrorization is more subtle.

Star Trek for instance is a good example.  The Next Generation was optimistic, at its start, echoing the end of the cold war, and a better sense of ‘hopefulness for the future.’ However as tensions and problems in the world escalated again, the programme darkened to reflect this change of mood. This became more prevalent in its sister programmes, of Deep Space Nine and Voyager, and the Star Trek prequel, Enterprise.

The social commentary and social mirrorization, is not always broad strokes of world affairs, it can concentrate on more personal issues.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a good illustration of this. Interwoven quite brilliantly within the premises of vampire beating super hero, is the trials and tribulations of a teenager. As well as female empowerment; the comradeship, betrayal and death, of friends, family and lovers, is an integral part of the story. Its uniqueness, however comes from the fact that this is not done in a ‘soap opera,’ way, but in a way that balances and highlights the main thread of the programmes concept, which is of course a vampire slaying super hero, or as Faith would put it, “Hot chicks with Superpowers!”

So to sum up this short blog, no there is not a left wing bias in Science Fiction, as there isn’t a right wing one ether. What there is is a great deal of social commentary and social mirrorization. Done well it can add layers to the story, done badly. It ruins the whole genre.